The Role of Harold Dobbs (Hal)
in David Auburn’s Proof
A Monograph Submitted to
Dr. Anne Fliotsos, Chair
Kristine Holtvedt
Richard Stockton Rand
Department of Visual and Performing Arts
Division of Theatre
by
James Alan Harris
March 28, 2004
Harris 2
Graduate Committee
Dr. Anne Fliotsos, Chair
Kristine Holtvedt
Richard Stockton Rand
Harris 3
Harris 4
Table of Contents
Monograph Introduction........................................................................................ 5
Formalist Analysis ................................................................................................ 7
Character Analysis ............................................................................................. 34
The Character From the Text ............................................................................. 50
What the Playwright Says About Hal .............................................................. 51
What Hal Says About Himself ......................................................................... 51
What Other Characters Say About Hal ........................................................... 52
Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 60
Essence Sheet................................................................................................ 61
Word or Phrase Associations.......................................................................... 61
Time, Weight, Space, Flow ............................................................................. 62
Appendix B ......................................................................................................... 71
Scene Breakdown........................................................................................... 72
Appendix C ....................................................................................................... 102
Audition Journal ............................................................................................ 103
Rehearsal Journal......................................................................................... 107
Appendix D ....................................................................................................... 136
Image Collage............................................................................................... 137
Appendix E ....................................................................................................... 139
Selected Research........................................................................................ 139
Works Consulted .............................................................................................. 165
Harris 5
Monograph Introduction
What is the most effective way to create a role for the stage? Indeed,
there are many schools of thought on this subject and each has its own virtues.
An acting technique that works well for one may not work at all for another.
Throughout my studies at Purdue University I have been exposed to numerous
techniques for character creation. Providing the core for this creation is the
Meisner Technique. While I have been fortunate to experience a wide variety of
techniques, it is the technique developed by Sanford Meisner that has proven to
be the most effective for me. While living truthfully under the imaginary
circumstances of the play is what all good actors are striving for, successfully
accomplishing this task requires much research and intensive study. The
Meisner Technique’s mantra is “really listen and answer.” This seems simple
enough, but after two years of hard work in Kristine Holtvedt’s class, it is a skill
that still requires conscious and methodical application of this technique. I am
told that it will take several more years of using this technique before it begins to
feel completely natural. There are many other techniques and elements to
consider while creating a character aside from “really listening and answering.”
Professor Rand’s classes have proven highly beneficial to me as an actor.
Before enrolling at Purdue, I must admit that I rarely considered the physical and
psychological aspects of a character as deeply as I should. I think back on some
of my more successful roles and wonder what they could have been if I had
applied what I have learned here. The failure to fully explore every component of
a character occurs all too frequently by many actors working as professionals; I
Harris 6
was one of these actors. I realize now that I was only faking it, and I am able to
recognize when other actors are faking it too. While many actors have great
talent and greater potential, they fail time and time again to bring the inner life of
the character alive. What is this true “inner life” that Professor Holtvedt and
Professor Rand have continually guided us toward? After working toward this
goal during my three years of training, I feel that it cannot be defined, only
experienced. Once the training from all the classes becomes second nature,
even if only for a short moment, this is living truthfully in the imaginary
circumstances of the play. The actor is thinking, moving, and speaking like the
character. The inner life is revealed, and it is easy for the spectator to see the
difference between an actor who is living this inner life and one who is merely
pretending.
The following monograph documents the creation of the character of Hal
in David Auburn’s Proof. It includes an in-depth character and script analysis as
well as many supplemental sections. It is a culmination of my three years of
intensive training at Purdue University and is representative of the incredibly hard
work required to attain a Master of Fine Arts degree.
Harris 7
Formalist Analysis
The Role of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof
Proof production poster
Harris 8
Formalist Analysis Introduction
On May 23, 2000, David Auburn’s play Proof premiered at the Manhattan
Theatre Club and subsequently became a smash hit. As with any popular play, a
new theater space was readily provided on New York City’s prestigious
Broadway at the Walter Kerr Theatre. Opening on October 24, 2000, Auburn’s
play enjoyed a 27-month run that included 917 performances before closing on
January 5, 2002. Hailed as one of the best dramas to hit the stage in the past
two decades, Proof is the recipient of many awards and honors, none more
esteemed than the Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the Tony Award for Best Play of
2001. The success of Auburn’s play seems to know no boundaries as it
continues to be produced by regional theatres and universities in virtually all
English speaking countries.
As a relatively young and inexperienced playwright, Auburn’s first offBroadway debut began with his play entitled Skyscraper in 1997. Although it was
unsuccessful, his style of writing caught the attention of Back Stage magazine’s
Victor Gluck who predicted great things from Auburn. Gluck stated in his review,
“As playwright Auburn can write believable dialogue and director [Michael] Rego
can move people around theatrically, expect better things from them in the
future” (Gluck). His prediction would prove to be extremely accurate.
David Auburn spent his college career at the University of Chicago
studying political philosophy. Shortly after his graduation, he received a
screenwriting fellowship in Los Angeles, which he happily accepted. Upon the
completion of his fellowship, Auburn decided to attend the prestigious Julliard
Harris 9
School of Drama and further his playwriting skills. Julliard would eventually
propel him to create Proof.
The awards and honors that Auburn’s play have received are well
deserved. Aside from the play’s popularity, reviewers hail Auburn’s skill at
creating complex characters and relationships. A full year after the opening of
Proof on Broadway, Bruce Weber of the New York Times wrote a second review
of the play stating:
It remains an astonishment that the playwright, still just 32, has
joined an admiration and sympathy for his characters and a careful
delineation of their different strains of intelligence to a structure that
is as astutely crafted as an artisan cabinetmaker's. (Weber)
It is this type of complexity of character and relationship that makes Proof a
daunting challenge for even the most experienced of actors.
The following monograph will trace the creation of a complex role, Hal, in
David Auburn’s Pulitzer Prize winning play, Proof. All four characters in Auburn’s
play are deeply interesting and complex. Hal presents some particularly difficult
challenges regarding his relationships. A hopeless romantic, a mentor
worshipper, and a genius in his own right, Hal must demonstrate his relationships
with all of the characters distinctly.
The guidelines of employing this analysis will be derived from James
Thomas’ Script Analysis for Actors, Directors, and Designers, which in turn relies
on Aristotelian play analysis. Following the formalist analysis of the play itself, I
will include a complete character breakdown of the role of Hal. While the subject
Harris 10
of character is part of Thomas’ analysis of a play, this section will be created as a
separate document drawing from my study of acting at Purdue University.
Harris 11
A Formalist Analysis of David Auburn’s Proof
In The Poetics, Aristotle effectively identified the basic elements of drama
and placed them in a hierarchy of importance. These elements are as follows:
plot, character, thought or idea, diction, music, and spectacle. Examining a play
and its structure provides the reader with a deeper understanding of its
significance. David Auburn’s Proof provides a worthy challenge for deeper
analysis. Using Thomas’ book as a guide for this analysis will create a greater
appreciation for Auburn’s work. Thomas uses Aristotle's hierarchy of play
elements, starting his examination with plot, considered the most important
element.
I. The Plot
The given circumstances of a play are concisely defined by Thomas as,
“[t]he overall situation in which the action of the play occurs” (1). These “givens”
consist of many elements, some of which include the time of the action of the
play, the setting, and various social and political constructs. These elements
provide a wealth of information to the reader.
David Auburn wrote Proof in 2000, though his play is set in the present. In
order to find the exact time of action, Auburn requires the reader to investigate
the script more closely. Near the end of Act I, Scene 1, Hal reads Catherine a
note from one of Robert’s journals. He says that it is, “Dated September fourth.
Tomorrow” (Auburn 20). Catherine corrects him by saying that it is already the
4th due to the fact that it is past midnight. It is not until that moment that the
reader knows that the time of action is September 4th of the present year.
Within the script, Auburn has incorporated two flashback scenes. These
Harris 12
scenes could prove highly effective as they blend information from the present
and the past. For example, in one scene Catherine reminds Hal that they have
met before when he brought his thesis draft to her father. In a later flashback
scene, the audience sees their first meeting. It is Auburn’s use of the changing
time of action that adds a wonderful element of complexity to his script.
Thomas defines “dramatic time” as “The total of the time that passes
during the on-stage action plus the time during intervals between acts and
scenes” (3). It is necessary to investigate the script very closely to determine the
total dramatic time of the play. The bulk of the play takes place over a three day
period, September 4th through September 6th. The first of two flashback scenes
takes place four years earlier. The second occurs in the month of December,
three and a half years earlier. The final scene of the play takes place a week
after the events of Scene 3, making the date September 11th, of the present year.
By examining all of the scenes closely, the total dramatic time of Proof can be
established as four years and one week.
Auburn sets his play in Chicago, Illinois. Unfortunately, the specific locale
of the setting is more difficult to pinpoint. All the reader know is that it takes
place on the back porch of a house in Chicago. Chicago is comprised of many
neighborhoods, each with their own unique social and economic influences.
Identifying the neighborhood in which the house is located can provide greater
insight into their surroundings. The reader can assume that the house is located
on the south side of downtown Chicago, because Hal offers a hint in one of his
lines in Scene 1. While trying to convince Catherine to go see a band with him
Harris 13
he says, “[…] Some friends of mine are in this band. They’re playing at a bar up
on Diversey” (Auburn 14). Any reader with knowledge of Chicago would know
that Diversey is a major street considered to be “downtown.” When Hal uses the
phrase “up on Diversey,” it indicates that they are located to the south of that
street. In the downtown area of Chicago, there are no houses available,
especially houses with porches. This can lead the reader to safely assume that
the house is located just south of the downtown area, where many residential
streets are located. Later, in Scene 4, the reader can target in on the exact
locale even more closely. Claire informs her sister that she is selling the house
to “the University” and that “[The University] has wanted the block for years” (37).
With this information, the reader confirms that the home is located on a street in
the east 50’s near the University of Chicago, south of The Loop. The most
specific locale information that Auburn gives the reader occurs when Catherine
calls the police on Hal to report his “robbery.” She says on the phone, “Yes, I’m
at 5724 South –” (19). Although the reader never learns the exact street, the
partial address can narrow it down even further. The house number “5724”
indicates that the home is on East 57th Street. The only unknown fact remaining
is the cross-street, which must run north and south. Using all of the above clues,
the address could be either 5724 S. Woodlawn Avenue, or 5724 S. Kimbark
Avenue, both of which exist. Knowing this location leads the reader to assume
many other social and economic factors concerning the family that lives there, to
be examined more closely later in this analysis.
Examining the society in which the play takes place is the next step to
Harris 14
understanding the plot more completely. Part of this examination includes
families, friendships, occupational group, and social standards that surround the
characters.
The plot of Proof centers around a family consisting of a single father,
Robert, and two daughters, Catherine and Claire. Hal, a former student of
Robert’s and a romantic interest of Catherine’s, completes the four-person cast.
The complex relationships between all four of these individuals are what makes
Proof a truly compelling play and worthy of its accolades. Since Catherine is the
main character, Auburn applies most of the emphasis on her relationship with the
other three characters. Catherine was very close with her father and has also
inherited his genius in the field of mathematics. Whether Catherine has inherited
his mental illness is a recurring issue in the play. At the play’s beginning,
Catherine is speaking with her father, but later the reader realizes that he is a
figment of her imagination, having just passed away due to heart failure. During
his mental illness, Catherine was the only person living with him in the house.
She dropped out of school to take care of him so that a mental institution would
not have to be an option. As a result, Catherine’s sacrifices created a very
tangible resentment toward her sister, Claire. Claire is only four years older than
Catherine but treats her much like her own child. Claire believes that Catherine
has “some of his talent and some of his tendency toward … instability” (39).
Although it is never stated, Claire apparently owns the house since their father
passed. Claire tells Catherine that she is going to sell the house and wants her
to move to New York City. It is this event that triggers an argument in which
Harris 15
much of their relationship is revealed. Catherine is enraged after hearing Claire’s
plan to sell, and her resentment is evident. The argument clearly becomes more
about their father, and Catherine screams at Claire saying, “He’s dead. Now that
he’s dead you fly in for the weekend and decide you want to help? YOU’RE
LATE. Where have you been” (38)? Claire simply wants to take care of
Catherine and thinks that she is doing the right thing. A week after their big
argument, Catherine has clearly not forgiven Claire and her resentment
continues. Their conflict remains unresolved with the play’s ending.
Catherine’s relationship with Hal may be the most dynamic of the three.
The first impression the reader gets is that Catherine is completely indifferent
toward Hal, even dismissive. During the course of the play, the relationship
changes into one of a romantic nature. She confesses to him that from the
moment she first met him, she liked him. Hal certainly likes Catherine a great
deal, yet he breaks her trust when he expresses his disbelief that she wrote the
incredible proof that is discovered at the end of Act I. Hal returns in the final
scene to apologize and tell Catherine that he believes she wrote the proof.
Catherine is certainly holding a grudge toward Hal because of his initial reaction
to her claim. In the end, her attitude toward Hal softens, and she begins to
discuss the proof with him. The reader is left with the hope that they will rekindle
their romantic relationship, though it is far from clear if they will.
Another unique aspect of Auburn’s play is the intellect and culture
involving the characters. All of the characters are well educated. Robert and
Catherine are undoubtedly geniuses. Because all four characters are highly
Harris 16
educated people, the humor present in Proof is high comedy with witty banter.
Auburn also exposes a culture surrounding mathematicians that most readers
would not expect. The stereotypical idea of a mathematician generates images
of a nerdy, glasses-wearing, heavy-set or scrawny male with a pocket protector
in his short-sleeved shirt. The characters in Proof certainly go against this
stereotype. What the reader may find interesting is that these people are not so
stereotyped. They have complex emotional relationships and carry on
conversations with each other in a way in which most people can identify. A
particularly enlightening character element of the mathematicians that Auburn
exposes is their ability to “party” to excess, including the use of drugs, such as
amphetamines. Hal explains to Catherine, “They think math’s a young man’s
game. Speed keeps them racing, makes them feel sharp” (30). This insight into
the culture of mathematicians exposes the pressures that only they can feel.
A number of economic factors can be determined by examining the given
circumstances. The location of the home indicates that the owner must have
sufficient wealth. Homes in the south side of Chicago near the university sit on
prime real estate and the cost of those homes is substantial. Through a recent
online search of homes for sale in this neighborhood, the average price for a
single family home was $750,000 (dreamtown.com). This is a very wealthy
neighborhood, and virtually all homes in this area fall into the $400,000 to $2.3
million range. A second factor that determines economic status is the profession
of the homeowner. As a famous mathematician at a reputable university, the
reader can safely estimate Robert’s annual income to be over $100,000. This
Harris 17
estimation is based on current salary statistics at public universities. With these
two factors alone, the reader can determine that the characters in the play are
financially stable, perhaps even wealthy by current social standards. Money is
never an issue in the play. The only time money is mentioned is when Claire
says that the house “costs a fortune to heat” (37). This is only an excuse that
Claire is giving to Catherine so that she can sell the house; it is hardly a real
issue.
Thomas defines “the world of the play” as “The cumulative effect of all the
given circumstances plus the social standards they embody […]” (19). This
definition leads the reader to draw several conclusions. Firstly, the recent death
and future funeral of Catherine’s father creates a somber and somewhat
depressing mood. The reader can instantly see that this play has funny
moments, but the underlying theme is serious in nature. Secondly, the
characters of this world are genuinely good, mostly friendly people. They
possess qualities that force them to act in a manner true to their moral standards.
At the heart of the drama, an unbalance in family values appears to cause the
most conflict. The simple fact that Catherine physically cared for her dying father
and Claire did not creates a large conflict between the two. Catherine emerges
as one who values the personal, hands-on relationship, while Claire provides for
the family in a practical, financial way. Both value their own method of providing
for the good of the family, although Catherine has difficulty validating the manner
in which Claire does so. All of these given circumstances and social implications
create a drama that is warm, intellectual, and real.
Harris 18
Thomas states that, “The lives of the characters actually begin long before
they first appear on stage, and understanding their pasts is necessary for
understanding their lives on stage” (23) The events that have occurred prior to
the action of the play is called the background story. Throughout the history of
drama, playwrights have experimented with the way in which the background
story is delivered to the reader. Proof uses what Thomas describes as an early
modern technique of conveying the background story, meaning the characters
reveal the background story through conversations with each other, rather than
delivering long speeches. Auburn utilizes a unique style to convey background
story. For example, the first scene of the play shows Catherine having a
conversation with her father, Robert. Half way through the scene, the reader
learns that he is really dead and that the entire conversation is taking place in her
imagination. The past event of Robert’s death is an extremely important piece of
information as well as the driving force for conflict throughout the play.
Throughout several flashbacks, Auburn reveals more past events. The reader
learns that Catherine enrolled at Northwestern University in the graduate
program for mathematics near the end of a seriously difficult period of her
father’s illness. When her father became ill, she felt obligated to drop out and
move back in with her father to take care of him. This event was extremely
difficult and it is the source of a great deal of resentment for Catherine. There
are several other minor past events that are revealed, but none are as important
as the two that have been identified.
Character descriptions are another important part of the background story
Harris 19
and much can be learned from these passages. Since Auburn uses several
flashback scenes to convey past events to the reader, there are very few
character descriptions given by the characters; only one can be said to have
some significance. This particular description is given by Catherine about her
father. She says,
I spent my life with him. I fed him. Talked to him. Tried to listen
when he talked. Talked to people who weren’t there … Watched
him shuffling around like a ghost. A very smelly ghost. He was
filthy. I had to make sure the bathed. My own father. (Auburn 16)
Catherine continues to expound on her father’s mental illness with descriptions of
other events. Through these descriptions the reader can paint a clear picture of
the disarray that Robert was in, as well as the pain his illness caused his
daughter.
According to Thomas, “The first responsibility of the plot is to provide the
physical action needed to carry out the story practically” (Thomas 39). One of
the ways that physical action can be examined is by identifying entrances and
exits. While examining the entrances of the characters in Proof, it becomes
apparent that Auburn favors a specific style of character entry. Many scenes
begin with a character, usually Catherine, sitting alone while some other
character enters. This entry sometimes startles Catherine and leads to some
interesting dialogue. The entrances of Hal are particularly interesting. He says
on more than one occasion that he has terrible timing and Auburn certainly
emphasizes this trait. In all but two of the scenes involving Hal, his entrance
Harris 20
occurs during an argument between either Catherine and Clair, or Catherine and
her father. Forcing Hal to enter a scene under these circumstance creates some
obvious anxiety and embarrassment for him. Exits are relatively rare throughout
the script; most scenes end with a blackout. When exits do occur, however, they
are designed to create tension in the play. Many of the exits come after a major
argument, leaving the conflict unresolved.
Several other physical actions occur that further the plot. For example, in
Act I, Scene 1, Hal is caught trying to sneak one of Robert’s notebooks out of the
house. He contends that he was going to give it to Catherine as a birthday
present, but Catherine refuses to believe him. His thoughtful gesture certainly
sets up the idea of a future romance between the two, at least from his
standpoint. This romantic interest comes to fruition with another physical action
taken by Hal. In Act I, Scene 3, he suddenly kisses Catherine and she
reciprocates. A final important physical action occurs when Catherine gives Hal
a key to a desk drawer. She tells him to open it and examine the contents. This
ultimately leads Hal to discover the proof that provides the basis of much of the
plot.
Coupled with the examination of the physical actions of a play are the
psychological actions. Thomas states, “Plot is more than a collection of inventive
physical activities; for besides its external features, it also occurs inside the
characters, changing their inner states as well as their outer conditions” (49).
These psychological actions enrich Auburn’s play, however, identifying all of
them would be overwhelming and impractical for the purpose of this analysis.
Harris 21
Consequently, only the most important examples will be offered. Psychological
action can be identified by recognizing the assertions, plans, and commands
made by the characters throughout the play.
Assertions are “a plain statement of fact,” and are the most common form
of psychological action (50). Thomas claims that almost every page of dialogue
has an assertion. They provide the reader with the most basic idea of the plot.
Proof contains some assertions that warrant mention. For example, Hal makes
an important assertion when he states that Catherine would not be able to
recognize valuable math in her father’s notebooks. She asks him if he thinks she
could recognize it and he says, “I’m sorry: I know that you couldn’t” (Auburn 18).
With this simple statement of fact, true in Hal’s opinion, Auburn skillfully sets up
the future bombshell of the discovery of Catherine’s proof. Not only can she
recognize valuable math, she creates a historical mathematical document of her
own. The reader learns through other assertions that Robert was a genius as
well as mentally unstable, Catherine has always liked Hal, and Claire wants
Catherine to move to New York City.
Plans made by characters are another form of psychological action. They
offer insight into the character’s state of mind and intentions. Very few plans are
exposed in the play. The primary reason for this is that the lead character,
Catherine, truly does not know what she wants in her life. She is confused and is
struggling to conquer her emotional turmoil. In fact, the only plan that Catherine
has is made for her by Claire. Claire has decided to sell the house, and she
wants Catherine to move to New York City. Hal has a plan to go through all of
Harris 22
Robert’s notebooks to see if there are any valuable mathematical discoveries to
be made. If so, he plans to publish the material on Robert’s behalf.
Commands made by characters offer plenty of insight into their attitudes
and feelings regarding various subjects. In Proof, no character gives more
commands than Catherine. What makes this particularly interesting is that these
commands seem to arise from the her feeling that she is losing control of
everything. She throws her commands at the other characters in a vain attempt
to demonstrate control. Ironically, the will of her sister prevails as Catherine
intends to follow Claire’s command to move to New York.
According to Thomas, a close examination of the progressions and
structure of the play is an important part of the process of analyzing a script. By
progressions, Thomas means to break the play down into smaller, more
manageable pieces. These pieces are called acts, scenes, units, and beats.
With the exception of the flashback sequences, Auburn has made the
progression of his drama very straightforward. Proof is divided into two acts,
with each act divided into a series of scenes. Generally, the play is written in a
linear fashion. The scenes are well constructed, each having its own miniclimax. The flashback scenes are woven seamlessly into the present day
scenes; both of them depict events that were discussed at an earlier moment in
the play. This allows the reader to actually witness these important events rather
than relying only on his or her imagination.
Thomas defines the term “beat” as “The smallest dramatic progression
[…]. Its purpose is […] to introduce, develop, and conclude a single small topic
Harris 23
that adds to the progress of the whole story” (62). A “unit” can be described as
“a collection of related beats” (65). All of these beats and units complete the
“scene.” The beats in each scene arrive at a very quick pace. The primary
reason for this seems to be rather simple: Auburn’s scenes are short, leaving
little room for many different topics. Primarily, he presents one or two topics and
stays with them throughout the scene. Not only are his scenes short, but the
topics they discuss are rarely resolved and the same topic may be discussed in a
later scene.
Understanding the structure of a play is one of the most important parts of
the analysis. By examining the structure, the reader can recognize the play’s
most significant events: the point of attack, climax, and resolution.
Where the action of the play begins in relation to the background story is
called the point of attack. The action of Proof occurs after many important
events, the most important of which is the death of Catherine’s father. The four
years leading up to his death create most of the tension between Catherine and
her sister, as well as the mood of the entire play. With so much important
information in the background story, it becomes apparent that the play has a late
point of attack.
The climax of the play is not easily recognizable. In order to determine the
moment of climax, the reader must identify the central conflict in the play. Upon
examination, it is clear that there is no climax in the second to last scene since it
is a flashback sequence between Robert and Catherine that occurs three and a
half years earlier. It must occur in the final scene. Two events transpire In the
Harris 24
final scene. Firstly, the reader learns that Catherine and Claire are still not
seeing eye to eye, but that Catherine has agreed to move to New York City.
However, whether or not Catherine intends to move to New York City is not the
major conflict of the play. Clearly, the relationship between Hal and Catherine is
highly significant because of the second and final event in the last scene. Hal
returns to talk to Catherine to tell her that he made a mistake when he did not
believe that she wrote the proof. He is now convinced that she did write the
proof and wants to apologize to her as well as get more information from her.
Catherine clearly harbors some resentment for Hal’s actions and, in no uncertain
terms, displays her feelings about his distrust. Taking this event into account, the
climax must deal with a resolution regarding the relationship between Hal and
Catherine. Hal clearly wants her to stay in Chicago and appears interested in
continuing their romance, although he says that he only wants her to speak to
him about her proof. The climax occurs on the last line in the play when
Catherine begins to speak to Hal about her proof. Because the climax occurs on
the last line, the resolution of the play remains unwritten. The reader is left to
assume that this relationship will continue and that Catherine has forgiven Hal for
his distrust. Whether or not she will stay in Chicago is uncertain.
II. Idea
Thomas defines the idea of the play as, “[…] the thought pattern
expressed by the whole of the play” (101). In essence, it is the meaning of the
play. In order to determine the main idea, several elements should be examined,
beginning with the most basic building block of a play, the words. The title of the
play unquestionably holds great importance. Proof obviously refers to the
Harris 25
document that all great mathematicians try to create. More specifically, the title
refers to the proof created by Catherine that ultimately causes her blossoming,
romantic relationship with Hal to falter. Further analysis of mathematical proofs
will be performed in the character analysis.
Aside from the play title’s obvious meaning, there are more subtle
connotations within the script. The fact that Catherine has no way of proving that
she wrote the proof creates a significant conflict between her and Hal. Catherine
assumed that he would believe that she wrote the proof, but he does not. He has
failed Catherine’s test to prove his trust in her. Only after Hal and his colleagues
thoroughly examine the proof does he realize that Catherine is honest in her
claim to be the author. The fact that the proof uses new techniques that Robert
could not have mastered in his ill state is the convincing factor for Hal. The irony
is clear; the proof is in the proof.
Set speeches and imagery can be used as a vehicle to deliver the main
idea of the play to the reader. There is only one set speech in the play, and it is
delivered by Robert. In it, he expresses that he enjoys watching the students in
the bookstore at the beginning of the school year. He also agrees with the
stereotype that a mathematician does his best work when he is young. It is clear
to the reader that Robert is reminiscing about his past accomplishments and
longs to be able to create mathematical theory once again. His mood throughout
the speech is that of defeat. He appears to be resolved to the fact that his best
work is finished and that he has little to offer the mathematical world. This set
speech can be juxtaposed with Catherine’s current position in her life. Robert’s
Harris 26
death is now in the past and she must move forward with her life. She must
resolve to make some decisions and carry on.
Auburn’s use of imagery is quite effective throughout his play. This
imagery helps to create a picture of mathematics that non-mathematicians would
find surprising. Hal described the way that Robert created and wrote a proof this
way: “Plus, the work was beautiful. It’s streamlined: no wasted moves, like a
ninety-five-mile-an-hour fastball. It’s just … elegant” (Auburn 33). This is a
wonderful example of how imagery can describe something in a unique way.
Catherine’s description of her father as a smelly ghost provides another example
of Auburn’s powerful use of imagery.
Identifying specific character types can also help identify the main idea of
the play. Catherine is the protagonist, a character that has to overcome an
obstacle. She is also the raisonneur, or character that knows more than the
other characters. She knows more, not only in an intellectual sense, but also
through her life experience. She has a special knowledge of how it was to live
with and take care of her father. Claire is what Thomas calls the “norm
character.” She has, “[…] successfully adjusted to the dominant social standards
in the world of the play” (111). She appears to be the emotionally stable, clearthinking, supportive figure in the play. Her attempts to guide Catherine to make
what she feels are the right choices lead to a falling out of their relationship. Hal
is the romantic interest and confidant. Catherine’s choice to confide in him
ultimately backfires on her and creates the central conflict in the play. As a
confidant, Hal fails miserably.
Harris 27
The most important element that crystallizes the main idea of the play is
the climax. Having previously identified the climax as the moment that Catherine
begins to explain her proof to Hal guides the reader toward a conclusion. The
main idea of Proof appears to be this: in order to carry on living a productive life,
we must learn to live with the past. This play is about Catherine and her struggle
to put her life back on track. While she wallows in the memory of her dead father
and wonders if she has inherited his mental illness, her life is falling apart. She
will not be productive until all is reconciled.
III. Dialogue
Thomas feels that while the dialogue is the primary source for
understanding the play, it also possesses special qualities that deserve to be
examined. Recognizing the way in which the dialogue is written offers the reader
a greater insight into the play. Identifying certain components of dialogue, such
as the words, sentences, and their theatricality, helps to deepen the
comprehension of the play.
The words the playwright chooses can be either abstract or concrete,
formal or informal. They can contain jargon and slang or carry special
connotations that are cleverly hidden or overtly recognizable. The playwright’s
use of words creates a specific style and overall feel of the play. David Auburn
uses words that are very concrete. This is ironic when compared to the abstract
ideas of mathematical proofs. In fact, pure mathematics is entirely abstract. In
Proof, the idea of the abstract is always present while the dialogue is concrete.
Little discussion of mathematics ever takes place. His dialogue deals with the
conflict of human relationships, not mathematics. However, when the topic of
Harris 28
mathematics is mentioned, jargon is frequently used. Elliptic curves, modular
forms, Germain Primes, and Eberhart’s Conjecture mean very little to the
average person, but in Auburn’s play they can be used without explanation, due
to the fact most of the characters are advanced mathematicians. Even with
these few instances of jargon, the dialogue is easily understandable.
Three of the characters are members of the same family, Hal being the
only exception. As a result, much of the dialogue is very informal. The reader
witnesses conversations that appear very natural in a family. As a family
outsider, Hal’s dialogue is much more formal. Because Robert is Hal’s mentor
and idol, his formal speech represents his relationship of student to teacher. He
is also a polite man, especially when conversing with Catherine and Claire,
neither of whom he knows very well. Although Hal is formal near the beginning,
he is much more informal as the play develops and he becomes more
comfortable with his surroundings. Overall, the play is written in a very informal
way, which gives the reader the impression that the characters may say anything
that comes to mind.
Sentence length and complexity contribute to the style and feel of a play.
Thomas recommends counting the number of words in each sentence to find an
average. For the purposes of this analysis, the sentences on a random page
were counted and an average number of words per sentence were counted.
Examining page 23 of the script reveals that there is a total of 48 sentences
containing only 198 words, with an average of 4.125 words per sentence. This
average is indicative of most of the sentences in Proof. Auburn’s dialogue is
Harris 29
written in the form of natural conversation, allowing a quick give and take
between characters. Most sentences are only one line in length and are not very
complex. Much of the dialogue occurs during an emotionally charged argument,
which forces the characters to make their points quickly and concisely.
Finally, the theatricality of the words is another quality of the dialogue that
requires further study. Thomas states that theatricality of the dialogue “[…] refers
to those effects that are achieved only through the actors and the production
values” (138). Much of the dialogue throughout Proof is emotionally charged.
Simply reading the dialogue of these scenes cannot completely convey its
intensity. The argument between Catherine and Claire in Act I, Scene 4 provides
a good example of high emotion:
CATHERINE. He didn’t belong in the nuthouse.
CLAIRE. He might have been better off.
CATHERINE. How can you say that?
CLAIRE. This is where I’m meant to feel guilty, right?
CATHERINE. Sure, go for it.
CLAIRE. I’m heartless. My own father.
CATHERINE. He needed to be here. In his own house, near the
University, near his students, near everything that made
him happy.
CLAIRE. Maybe. Or maybe some real, professional care would
have done him more good than rattling around in a filthy
house with YOU looking after him. I’m sorry, Catherine, it’s
Harris 30
not your fault. It’s my fault for letting you do it.
CATHERINE. I was right to keep him here.
CLAIRE. No.
CATHERINE. What about his remission? Four years ago. He was
healthy for almost a year.
CLAIRE. And then he went right downhill again.
CATHERINE. He might have been worse in a hospital.
CLAIRE. And he MIGHT have been BETTER. Did he ever work
again?
CATHERINE. No.
CLAIRE. NO. (Auburn 38-39)
Auburn helps the reader understand emphasis on certain words and moments by
capitalizing them. While a certain level of intensity is apparent in the argument,
only the actors can make the scene achieve the emotional intent of the
playwright. Auburn cleverly exposes both sides of this touchy subject through
their argument. Both sisters make valid points and their banter is sharp. Not
only is the argument full of emotion, but subtext as well. Claire’s subtext
throughout the scene is that Catherine may have meant well, but it was a mistake
for her to drop out of school and stay with their father at home. Depending on
the actor’s interpretation, there may be a deeper subtext: Catherine is
responsible for their father’s early death. This subtext is not clear, but could be a
logical choice made by the actor when considering all the given circumstances
that are involved.
Harris 31
IV. Tempo, Rhythm, and Mood
Thomas uses the terms tempo, rhythm, and mood to describe what
Aristotle called “music.” Tempo refers to how often information about the plot,
characters, and idea occurs in the dialogue. The rhythm of dialogue consists of
changing tensions that lead to a build up and release. Thomas defines the mood
of the play as, “[…] a particular state of persistent emotion that includes the
whole range of possible human feelings” (160). These three elements of a play
often go unnoticed when reading the play. While these parts can be identified in
the text, it is the director who has an integral part in how these elements are
implemented.
The tempo of Proof varies greatly when comparing the plot, characters,
and idea. The plot tempo of the play is slow. Much of the first act focuses on
character relationships and information. In fact, the inciting incident of the play
does not occur until the last line of Act I, when Catherine claims to have written
the proof. The character tempo is quite fast-paced. The reader quickly learns
that Catherine is a math wiz and that she is depressed for some reason. In a
particularly clever moment in the middle of the first scene, Auburn reveals that
her father, with whom she is having a conversation, is actually dead. From this
moment onward, character information moves at a blistering pace and Auburn
wastes little time distinguishing the relationships between Catherine, Claire, Hal,
and Robert. The tempo of the idea of the play is prevalent from the first line to
the last. If the previously stated main idea is, “in order to carry on living a
productive life, we must learn to live with the past,” then the tempo of this idea is
very fast. Nearly every scene depicts Catherine struggling with her past and
Harris 32
trying to move on with her life.
Auburn uses the classic style of rhythm in his play. That is, each scene
starts at a low, normal level of emotion and escalates to a moment of extremely
high emotion. He continues to build the intensity of the entire play by withholding
a resolution of the conflict in each scene. Instead, he carries the conflict over to
a later scene. Several of the conflicts are never resolved, adding to the intrigue
and leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions.
The mood in Proof is quickly established as slow at the top of the first
scene. The time is shortly past midnight and Catherine begins depressively
drinking on the porch of her house. Her father has died a week earlier and the
funeral is tomorrow. Catherine’s mood will remain somewhat constant
throughout play. There are scenes in which she is happy, especially Act 1,
Scene 4, the morning after sleeping with Hal, but her depression returns. The
primary issues in Proof deal with the death of Robert, Catherine’s struggle to
cope and move on, Claire’s persuasion to have Catherine move to New York,
and Catherine’s faltering relationship with Hal. While there are moments of
lightheartedness, these issues are serious in nature, and that is the overall mood
of the play. The reader witnesses a series of life-altering events and Catherine’s
life will never be the same. The loss of her father and her historic mathematical
proof will certainly force her to change the way in which she lives. No longer
hearing her father’s supportive words and her future fame in the mathematical
world will affect her dramatically.
V. The Style of the Play
Only after examining all of the previous elements can the style of the play
Harris 33
be determined. The unique combination of these elements creates the style.
The given circumstances in Proof are revealed primarily in the first two scenes.
Time is interrupted by two flashback scenes, one in each act. The background
story consists mainly of character descriptions and feelings with a few events.
The issue of whether the plot is simple or complex is debatable. While the main
character of Catherine has a specific journey, it is unclear whether she comes to
any new understanding or has a serious reversal of fortune. She does appear to
accept Hal’s apology and accept him as a trustworthy person, but this is all the
reader sees as far as a change in her emotional personality.
Character seems to be the single most important dramatic element in the
play. The relationships between all four characters almost makes the plot seem
secondary. The main idea of the play centers around Catherine and her
relationships. Through the use of clever conversation, Auburn has created a
realistic drama about characters and events to which nearly every reader can
relate to.
By examining the elements of plot, idea, dialogue, tempo, rhythm, mood,
and style, the reader develops an understanding of Proof that would otherwise
never be attained. Each of these elements perform a crucial part in the written
play. Although some plays may focus more on one element than another, it is
the unique combination of all of these elements which fosters the creation of
great drama.
Harris 34
Character Analysis
The Role of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof
Act I, Scene 3
Harris 35
All of the characters in David Auburn’s Proof are extremely complex,
although they appear deceptively simple on the surface. Upon closer
examination and analysis, it becomes clear that the relationships between them
are intricately woven. The characters have powerful wills, creating conflicts that
tantalize the reader and audience member alike. Ultimately, the decisions that
the characters are forced to make throughout the play are based on past
experiences and their belief systems. It is important for the actor to understand
why a character responds to circumstances in a particular way. In order to attain
this understanding, an intensive study and analysis is required.
One of the acting tools employed by Sanford Meisner is the creation of a
character idea. This is a concise, playable phrase that encompasses the
essence of a character. The character idea for Hal could be comprised of any
number of words or phrases, but it must fit into the actor’s interpretation of the
character, as well as adhere to the director’s concept of the play. After careful
analysis, the character idea for Hal appears to be this: Hal is a hopeless romantic
who is constantly striving to make a historic contribution to the field of
mathematics. While the character idea is the creation of the actor, it must not be
unfounded. It is a concept that can and must be supported by the text. The
following in-depth character analysis of Hal in Proof will not only provide
credibility to the character idea, but develop the actor’s understanding of this
complex character.
Harris 36
The Aristotelian method of character analysis focuses on four main
elements: the physical, social, psychological, and moral traits. The bulk of this
character analysis will use James Thomas’ Script Analysis for Actors, Directors,
and Designers as a guide. His book provides an ample platform to complete the
social and psychological elements of character analysis. However, where
Thomas’ book falls short is in its examination of the physical and social traits of a
character. During the analysis of these two elements, the Aristotelian method will
be used.
Oscar Brockett interprets Aristotle’s first level of characterization in this
way: “The first level of characterization is physical and is concerned only with
such basic facts as sex, age, size, and color” (Brockett 39-40). David Auburn
does not provide a great deal of detail about the physical traits of Hal. In fact, the
only physical description of Hal that Auburn provides occurs with Hal’s first
entrance. Auburn writes, “Hal enters, twenty-eight, semi-hip clothes. He carries
a backpack and a jacket, folded” (Auburn 12). While this is the only description
provided by Auburn as playwright, other physical traits can be discovered from
the characters themselves.
Hal is a twenty-eight year old male that is apparently in good health and
physical shape. This assumption is formed as a result of Hal’s recommendation
to Catherine that exercise would make her feel better. He says, “Also exercise is
great. I run along the lake a couple of mornings a week” (18). His concern for a
healthy diet is revealed in the first scene with Catherine when she empties the
contents of his backpack. Auburn writes, “Catherine removes items one by one.
Harris 37
A water bottle. Some workout clothes. An orange. Drumsticks. Nothing else”
(18). All of these items reveal a character who is leading a healthy lifestyle. The
fact that drumsticks are in his possession confirms that Hal is a drummer in a
band. Among musical instruments, drums are the most physically demanding to
play. Only someone who is in good physical condition can play them effectively
for a long period of time. This would also suggest that Hal is not a klutz, realizing
the hand-eye coordination required to play the drums. It is a skill that only one
who is in control of his body can acquire.
The second level of characterization is social. It includes a character’s
level of education, social class, profession or trade, religion, and family
relationships; all of these factors that place him in his environment.
Having spent his entire life in academia, Hal is an extremely smart
individual. He has a PhD in some form of mathematical discipline. Hal is also a
professor at the University of Chicago in the math department. Ironically, while
he is extremely smart, one of Hal’s lifelong struggles is his lack of genius. His
admiration for his mentor, Robert, and his own efforts to make a significant
contribution the field of mathematics reveal this struggle. In Act I, Scene 3, Hal
discusses the quality of Robert’s work compared to his own. He says to
Catherine:
Plus the work was beautiful. It’s streamlined: no wasted moves,
like a ninety-five-mile-an-hour fastball. It’s just … elegant. […] And
that’s what you can never duplicate. At least I can’t. It’s okay. At a
Harris 38
certain point you realize that it’s not going to happen, you readjust
your expectations. I enjoy teaching. (33)
Hal’s lack of genius will add a great deal of complexity to the plot, particularly in
regards to his relationship with Catherine. When Hal refuses to believe
Catherine’s assertion that she wrote the proof, Catherine accuses Hal of being
jealous of her because he could never have the ability to create such a
document.
Many factors lead the reader to conclude that Hal is an average, middle
class citizen. The most important factor concerns itself with Hal’s profession. As
a respected professor at an esteemed university in Chicago, Hal should be
making a moderate living wage. Coupling this idea with the fact that he is single
may make Hal wealthy by social standards. Hal never mentions having financial
difficulty of any kind.
Religion and family relationships are never revealed, nor are they an issue
throughout the play. There is only one moment in the entire play that offers any
insight into Hal’s family relationship. In Act I, Scene 1, Hal says to Catherine,
“My Mom died a couple years ago and I was pretty broken up” (18). From this
single sentence, the reader could assume that Hal had a loving relationship with
his mother. This assumption would lead to the conclusion that Hal had no
childhood difficulties and probably enjoyed a normal, nuclear family. However,
an argument could be made that Hal may be lamenting the fact that he was not
very close with his mother and was feeling guilty for not reconciling his
Harris 39
differences with her before her death. There is simply not enough information
offered by Auburn to reach an indisputable conclusion.
James Thomas arranges his analysis of character into eight sections:
objectives, dramatic actions, conflicts, willpower, values, personality traits,
complexity, and relationships. By closely examining each of theses sections, the
actor can gain an extremely deep understanding of a character’s psychological
and moral traits.
One of the first elements that an actor recognizes when reading a script
are the character’s desires or objectives. A character can have many objectives
throughout a play, but one main objective can usually be identified. Stanislavski
called this one overriding desire the superobjective. This objective is the driving
force of the character. It is the one need or desire that compels all of the
character’s actions throughout the play. This main objective can be difficult to
nail down. In Proof, Hal could have two main objectives, and it may be the
interpretation of the director that ultimately guides the actor to a final choice.
While Hal is passionate in his desire to contribute to and advance the field of
mathematics in any way he can, it is also clear that he wants to develop and
nurture a romantic relationship with Catherine. Both of these objectives are very
important and either could be considered the main objective, however a decision
must be made. After closely examining the text, a strong case can be made for
the first objective. The fact that his desire to advance the field of mathematics
overrides his romantic interest in Catherine is confirmed in Act II, Scene 3. In his
confrontation with Claire, Hal is denied permission to speak with or even see
Harris 40
Catherine. Although he argues with Claire to let him speak with her, Claire
ultimately wins this clash of wills. Hal then asks Claire for the proof and she
gives it to him. This act appeases Hal and he leaves with the historic
mathematical document. Because he gives in to Claire’s denial to see Catherine
rather easily, his desire to study and publish the proof appears to supercede his
romantic interest. More confirmation occurs in the final scene. Hal says to
Catherine, “I was hoping to discuss some of this with you before you left. Purely
professional. I don’t expect anything else” (Auburn 69). Hal still cares for
Catherine in a romantic way, but learning about the proof remains a higher
priority.
Thomas defines dramatic action as, “the behavioral tactics characters use
to achieve their objectives” (Thomas 85). The number of tactics or actions that a
character uses can be virtually limitless. Characters can intimidate, threaten,
plead, bribe, beg, and charm to name only a few. The way a character goes
about achieving his objective relays a vast amount of information to the
spectator. As a mathematician, and not surprisingly, Hal uses plenty of logic in
the pursuit of his objective. His primary form of dramatic action is to convince
those people around him of the importance of his intentions. While Hal employs
this action, he is not above begging or negotiating with Catherine to allow him to
come back to the house to further his examination of Robert’s notebooks. Hal is
a person of high moral standards and does not choose any actions that could be
considered evil or malicious. This particular quality of morality that Hal
possesses will be discussed in detail later in this analysis.
Harris 41
When looking at the specific conflicts in which a character is involved, it is
helpful to determine the type of conflict. Thomas identifies two types: role
conflicts and conflicts of objectives. He writes, “Role conflicts arise specifically
from characters’ opposing views of each other” (86). The only role conflict in
which Hal might be engaged involves the perceived stereotype of a
mathematician. In the first scene with Catherine, he tries to dispel this stereotype
and present himself as a “normal” person. However, this event does not seem to
be a serious conflict. Instead, a conflict of objectives is the principal form that Hal
experiences. Catherine’s primary objective seems to be to gain Hal’s love and
he appears to reciprocate. The conflict occurs when Hal’s allegiance to the field
of mathematics forces him to place their relationship in an inferior position.
Catherine is crushed to see that she has not won Hal’s trust, and he certainly
does not want to hurt her. Unfortunately for Catherine, giving the proof its rightful
place in history is of greater importance to Hal.
Hal has no conflicts with Robert, but he does with Claire. In Act II, Scene
3, Hal enters and wishes to speak with a depressed, and perhaps ill, Catherine.
Her sister refuses to allow him to speak with her, fearing Catherine will become
even more depressed and upset.
Hal: Catherine? (Claire enters.) I thought you were leaving.
Claire: I had to delay my flight. (Beat)
Hal: Is Catherine here?
Claire: I don’t think this is a good time, Hal.
Hal: Could I see her?
Harris 42
Claire: Not now.
Hal: What’s the matter?
Claire: She’s sleeping.
Hal: Can I wait here until she gets up?
Claire: She’s been sleeping since yesterday. She won’t get up.
She won’t eat, won’t talk to me. I couldn’t go home. I’m going
to wait until she seems okay to travel.
Hal: Jesus, I’m sorry.
Claire: Yes.
Hal: I’d like to talk to her.
Claire: I don’t think that’s a good idea. (56)
This scene offers a very clear conflict of objectives between the two. Hal wishes
to make amends with Catherine and Claire wants to protect and help heal
Catherine.
The willpower of a character offers a clear demonstration of strength or
weakness. Willpower is defined by Webster’s Dictionary in an extremely concise
two words, “energetic determination” (“Willpower”). It is precisely the strength of
the character’s willpower that creates conflict in drama. The strength in Hal’s
willpower comes in the form of persistence. After Catherine tells Hal that he
cannot come back to further inspect the notebooks, he spends a great deal of
time persuading her to let him continue, and Catherine concedes. Later in the
play when Claire refuses to let Hal see Catherine, he asks Claire for the proof,
which requires a great deal of courage after the arguments that he has had with
Harris 43
both of them. In the final scene, Hal’s demonstrates his persistence once more
when he asks Catherine to discuss her proof with him. This is a very
unpredictable moment between the two. His persistence pays off when
Catherine appears to forgive Hal’s mistrust and begins to discuss her proof with
him. What makes Proof interesting is the fact that the lead character of
Catherine has very weak willpower. Her indecisiveness creates many obstacles
for the other characters in the play. It is difficult to pinpoint what Catherine’s
main objective is because of her uncertainty. Ironically, though her willpower is
weak, she poses a formidable obstacle for Hal.
As previously stated, Hal is a person of high moral standards and his
sense of right and wrong guides his every action. What distinguishes a “good”
character from a “bad” one can be found by answering a simple question: do the
character’s values change only to get what he wants, or do they remain
constant? Hal can be considered “good” because his values are deeply seated
and do not change to suit his needs. One of his most endearing values is his
profound respect for his deceased mentor. This respect is never more evident
than in the first scene of the play. Hal is trying to convince Catherine to let him
continue examining Robert’s notebooks:
Hal. I don’t have time for this but I’m going to. If you’ll let me.
(Beat) I loved your dad. I don’t believe a mind like his can just
shut down. He had lucid moments. He had a lucid year, a
whole year four years ago.
Catherine: It wasn’t a year. It was more like nine months.
Harris 44
Hal. A school year. He was advising students … I was stalled on
my PhD. I was this close to quitting. I met with your dad and he
put me on the right track with my research. I owe him. (Auburn
14-15)
Moments later, Catherine doubts Hal’s motives for wanting to examine the
notebooks:
Catherine. You’re not taking anything out of this house.
Hal. I wouldn’t do that.
Catherine. You’re hoping to find something upstairs that you can
publish.
Hal. Sure.
Catherine. Then you can write your own ticket.
Hal. What? No! It would be under your dad’s name. It would be
for your dad. (15)
Hal clearly worships and respects Robert and feels that he must do anything he
can to bring further esteem to his name. He is shocked when Catherine accuses
him of wanting to claim her father’s work as his own. Because of his strong
sense of morality, this is something that Hal could never conceive of doing.
Other characters believe in Hal’s outstanding moral values as well. When Claire
hands over the notebook to Hal for him to study, a witty exchange takes place:
Claire. Don’t worry, I understand. It’s very sweet that you want to
see Catherine but of course you want the notebook too.
Harris 45
Hal. (Huffy) It’s – No, it’s my responsibility – as a professional I
can’t turn my back on the necessity of the –
Claire. Relax. I don’t care. Take it. What would I do with it?
Hal. You sure?
Claire. Yes, of course.
Hal. You trust me with this?
Claire. Yes.
Hal. You just said I don’t know what I’m doing.
Claire. I think you’re a little bit of an idiot but you’re not dishonest.
(58)
This scene typifies Hal’s sense of duty and his respect for mathematics. He truly
believes that the pursuit of his objective is a noble one and he should do anything
he can to expose this proof to the mathematical world. His values and ideas of
morality never change throughout the play. This is not to say that Hal never
questions right or wrong; the choices he makes reflect what he truly believes is
best for everyone involved.
The next element to consider is a character’s personality traits. These
traits can be recognized by identifying certain actions and statements made by
the character. For example a personality trait that Hal possesses is loyalty. His
devotion to his mentor is evident as he studies the remaining notebooks. Hal can
also be described as hardworking and honest. Hal’s consideration for others is a
particularly charming trait that he possesses. This trait is revealed as he tries to
sneak a notebook out of the house so that he can give it to Catherine as a
Harris 46
birthday gift. Although his attempt backfires as Catherine accuses him of
stealing it, his thoughtfulness is obvious. If Hal has any negative personality
traits, it might be that he is simply too logical at times. The moment that
Catherine is trying to convince him that she wrote the proof, the “logical”
evidence is too great for Hal to believe in her. It may be best for Hal to consider
the human elements as concrete evidence as well.
How aware a character is of his surroundings, circumstances, and inner
impulses and conflicts determine his level of complexity. Characters who know
little about their circumstances and reveal little about themselves are considered
types. Thomas writes, “The most complex characters are those who are capable
of being fully aware of what happens to them and who allow us to share in their
awareness” (97). He also states that there is normally only one character that
has this much awareness, the lead character. Catherine is clearly the lead
character in the play and has this degree of awareness. There is another type of
complexity that exists between a type and a complex character called an
intermediate character. While Hal appears at first glance to be a complex
character, he is not fully aware of the entire situation. He can sympathize with
Catherine’s depression over the death of her father having lost his own mother
two years earlier, but he has no idea what it was like to live with Robert during his
illness. He is aware that there is a conflict between Catherine and Claire, but he
does not know to what extent or why they are quarreling. He fully understands
his own situation and reveals his awareness of it, but he does not see the entire
picture.
Harris 47
As revealed in the script analysis, the relationships between the four
characters in Proof provide the backbone for the entire premise of the play.
These relationships are extremely complex and not easy for an actor to
accurately convey. Hal’s relationships are no exception. A complete
examination of his relationship to the other three characters creates a deeper
understanding of the overall situation in which he exists.
It is Hal’s relationship with Robert that provides the vehicle for his
existence in the play. Hal was a student of Robert’s in the math department at
the University of Chicago. The student and teacher relationship is explored in a
flashback scene. Hal has come by to drop off a draft of his dissertation to Robert
and is extremely nervous. Robert has great confidence in Hal and tries to ease
his tension with lighthearted remarks and support. Hal’s behavior could be
described as star-struck. It is obvious that Hal completely idolizes him. The
scene is full of awkward moments for Hal and a strong desire to please Robert.
Hal is careful with his choice of words and conversation, although there is a
mutual respect among the two.
The spectator is able to witness the full extent of the relationship between
Hal and Claire. Their first meeting occurs at the end of Act I, Scene 2, in which
they are simply introduced before Hal exits to continue working on the
notebooks. The scene that demonstrates their relationship most clearly is Act II,
Scene 3. In this scene, both characters engage in a clash of wills. Hal wishes to
speak with Catherine and Claire refuses to allow him to do so. Claire clearly
doubts that Hal is truly interested in Catherine. She accuses him of taking
Harris 48
advantage of her in a weak state, an accusation Hal vehemently denies. It
becomes apparent near the end of the scene that Claire actually believes Hal is a
good person and that she was only lashing out at him due to her frustration with
Catherine’s depression. Claire is in complete control of this relationship as she
holds all of the power. Hal is left with no choice but to hope Claire will allow him
to take the proof for further study, which she does without hesitation. This is a
clear demonstration of her trust in him.
The relationship between Catherine and Hal is by far the most complex of
the three. At the heart of this complexity is a romantic interest. Even though
Hal’s main objective is dedicated to mathematics, his interest in Catherine as a
possible companion is almost as great. Their romance begins clumsily while
both of them are somewhat inebriated and tired. Hal suddenly leans over and
kisses Catherine, and an awkward moment follows. She reciprocates to his
advances at the end of the scene, claiming to have liked him since the first
moment she saw him, four years earlier. In the “morning after” scene, Hal is
trying to detect how Catherine feels about their sexual encounter. He certainly
wants her to feel good about what happened between them and breaks the
uncomfortable banter with a witty and charming comment. This scene is very
important as both characters appear to be smitten, if not falling in love with each
other. The fact that Hal is falling in love with Catherine makes the end of the
scene even more difficult for them. When Catherine gives Hal the key to the
drawer containing her proof, Hal cannot believe that she is the author. This is a
devastating event for Catherine who could not foresee that Hal would not trust
Harris 49
her word. It propels her into an week-long depression in which she sleeps
almost continuously and refuses to speak. In the final scene of the play, Hal
returns with the proof and finally gets to speak to Catherine. He explains to her
that he believes she wrote the proof and apologizes for not believing in her to
begin with. She is full of spite toward Hal, not accepting his apology until the end
of the play. This forgiveness is a clear sign that they have a chemistry that
cannot be negated nor controlled. They are drawn to each other in this way, yet
their relationship has changed on a fundamental level. Hal realizes that
Catherine is as gifted as her father, if not more so. He has become the student
of Catherine as well as her potential mate.
Only after examining all of these essentials can an actor begin to create a
character portrayal that rings true to the audience. These factors are crafted by
the playwright in a very careful manner. Perhaps Thomas summarizes it best
when he writes, “Dramatists create characters that only exist in the script. Actors
create living characterizations from the written characters” (99). Without a
thorough investigation of all of these elements, the actor only has a few pieces of
the entire puzzle. As a result, their performance cannot possibly possess the
depth that is present in a real person. It is the actor’s thorough understanding of
these elements that allows him to capture and expose a character’s inner life.
Harris 50
The Character From the Text
Act I, Scene 3
Harris 51
The Character From the Text
What the Playwright Says About Hal
Act I, Scene 1
Hal enters, twenty-eight, semi-hip clothes. He carries a backpack and a jacket,
folded. He lets the door bang shut.
Act I, Scene 3
After a moment, Hal comes out. He wears a dark suit. He has taken off his tie.
He is sweaty and revved up from playing [the drums]. He holds two bottles of
beer.
Hal stares at her. He suddenly kisses her, then stops, embarrassed. He moves
away.
Beat. Catherine goes to him. She kisses him. A longer kiss. It ends. Hal is
surprised and pleased.
Act I, Scene 4
Hal enters, half-dressed. He walks up behind her quietly. She hears him and
turns.
Hal enters, holding a notebook. He is nearly speechless. He stares at
Catherine.
Act II, Scene 1
Catherine goes inside to answer the door. She returns with Hal. He carries a
manila envelope. He is nervous.
Act II, Scene 5
Hal enters – not through the house, from the side. He is badly dressed and looks
very tired. He is breathless from running.
What Hal Says About Himself
Act I, Scene 1
To Catherine: My Mom died a couple of years ago and I was pretty broken up.
Also my work wasn’t going that well … I went over and talked to this doctor. I
saw her for a couple of months and it really helped. […] Also exercise is great. I
run along the lake a couple of mornings a week.
Act I, Scene 3
To Catherine: Mathematicians are insane. I went to this conference in Toronto
last fall. I’m young, right? I’m in shape, I thought I could hang with the big boys.
Harris 52
Wrong. I’ve never been so exhausted in my life. Forty-eight straight hours of
partying, drinking, drugs, papers, lectures …
To Catherine: Yeah. Amphetamines, mostly. I mean I don’t. Some of the older
guys are really hooked.
To Catherine: [My mathematical work] is not exactly setting the world on fire.
To Catherine: My papers get turned down. For the right reasons – my stuff is
trivial. The big ideas aren’t there.
Act I, Scene 4
To Catherine: I want to spend the day with you if possible. I’d like to spend as
much time with you as I can unless of course I’m coming on way too strong right
now and scaring you in which case I’ll begin backpedaling immediately …
Act II, Scene 3 (In reference to he and Catherine’s broken love affair)
To Claire: I wasn’t jerking her around. It just happened.
To Claire: No. It’s what we both wanted. I didn’t mean to hurt her.
What Other Characters Say About Hal
Robert
Act I, Scene 1
He’s not my student anymore. He’s teaching now. Bright kid.
Act II, Scene 1
Hal is a grad student. He’s doing his PhD, very promising stuff.
Catherine
Act I, Scene 1
HE’s dead; I don’t need any protégés around.
Act I, Scene 2
Claire: Is Harold Dobbs your boyfriend?
Catherine: What? Euughh! No! He’s a math geek!
Act I, Scene 2
Claire: That’s Harold Dobbs?
Catherine: Yes.
Harris 53
Claire: He’s cute.
Catherine: (Disgusted) Eugh.
Claire
Act II, Scene 3
You’re the reason she’s up there right now! You have no idea what she needs.
You don’t know her! She’s my sister. Jesus, you fucking mathematicians: You
don’t think. You don’t know what you’re doing. You stagger around creating
these catastrophes and it’s people like me who end up flying in to clean them up.
Act II, Scene 3
I think you’re a little bit of an idiot but you’re not dishonest.
Harris 54
Conclusion
Act I, Scene 3
Harris 55
After all of the hard work and analysis that went into the production of
Proof, I must conclude that all of the roles are deceptively difficult to create.
What appears to be a straight forward character with clear-cut objectives and
actions, is really an incredibly complex human being with a variety of needs and
desires. A range of methods were used to create the role of Hal and all of them
proved helpful in one way or another.
The first thing I did to prepare for this role was to read the play many
times. I am proud to say that I had read the play at least three times before the
first rehearsal. One of those readings was entirely aloud, stage directions
included. Kristine Holtvedt was absolutely correct when she says that reading
the play aloud can lead to many discoveries. By reading the stage directions
aloud, it somehow seems to solidify exactly what is happening. They are no
longer just words on the page, but they come alive. This allowed me to
understand the given circumstances on a much deeper level.
Without a doubt, the best tool utilized in the creation of Hal was the indepth script analysis using the Aristotelian method along with James Thomas’
book Script Analysis for Actors, Directors, and Designers. Only by examining
and understanding each of the elements that make up a complex character can
an actor begin to understand the inner life of that character. Without knowledge
of the most intricate details, the character cannot be fully realized. There will
always be something missing, and the audience will be able to see that fact.
The character analysis itself also helped me in ways I can’t describe.
Focusing on the physical, social, psychological, and moral traits is a wonderful
Harris 56
and efficient way to break down a character. When the actor understands all of
the elements that encompass these traits, it makes the actual performance much
easier. The actor can then work strictly on the moment to moment work with
their partner because all of the analysis has lead to a firm understanding of the
circumstances. The actor knows what he is striving for and can do that, rather
than have all of the thoughts present when the research has not been done
properly.
Before entering Purdue University, I was familiar with other methods used
to analyze scripts and characters. However, one of the areas in which I had very
little knowledge was stage movement. This was the first time that I had used all
of the methods that Rich Rand had taught us in his movement classes. I must
also say that until I used the application of this knowledge for Hal, it had failed to
be a method that worked for me. The idea of time, weight, space, flow was very
beneficial in creating this character. The moment that this method became the
most useful was in the examination of Hal as a nervous student as compared to
Hal as the confident professor. The moment in which the play goes back in time
to give the audience a glimpse of the past was very important. It also needed to
be clear that it was a different time, and that these were different people. Just as
we change over a four year period, Hal did too. By examining how his body
movement would have changed over that time, I feel that I was successful in
portraying the younger Hal. Without saying a word, the audience was able to see
that he was a much different person than they had seen up to that point. It is this
Harris 57
analysis that helped me achieve this success. It proved to be invaluable to me
during the entire process.
The research for this character was rather interesting. The first thing that I
decided to do was to brush up on my math skills. I felt it was necessary that I
understand what I was talking about when I used mathematical jargon. I began
my research by reading many books on number theory, proof creation and
reading, non-linear operator theory, etc (see page 143). What I found after
examining these books was one thing: I’ll never understand these concepts. I
am a theatre person, and, as a result, I am hardly mathematically inclined. I did
complete trigonometry, physics, geometry and algebra in high school, but that is
the extent of my mathematical prowess. The scores of my undergraduate level
math courses can verify that I am not a mathematical thinker. As rehearsal
carried on, the more I began to realize that it truly did not matter if I understood
what the math was about. This is a relationship play; perhaps it would be more
important to understand the way a mathematician thinks rather than his trade.
Before I left for the summer, I spoke briefly with Jeff Casazza and he told
me of a book that might be helpful to me, A Mathematician’s Apology, by G.H.
Hardy. It is written by a genius mathematician near the end of his life. It is a
rather sad book, as his desire to continue doing math is incredibly strong, but the
mental capacity to do so no longer exists for him. However, this book would
prove to be one of the most helpful items of research in the creation of this
character. Aside from the many memorable quotes, the most important
discovery I made was that mathematicians see their field as an art form. It is not
Harris 58
simply about making new discoveries, it is how they arrive at those discoveries
and how they are documented. A great proof will indeed be “[…] streamlined: no
wasted moves, like a ninety-five-mile-an-hour fastball. It’s just … elegant”
(Auburn 33). A mathematician can only think in mathematical ways. The
mathematicians of genius have difficulty communicating to the average person.
It has been said that having a non-mathematical conversation with Albert
Einstein was an exercise in futility. It was this idea that lead me to the conclusion
that Hal would have the same difficulty, not that he was in any way a genius, but
that logic ruled his thinking and his life. The best example of this in the play
occurs when Hal refuses to believe that Catherine wrote the proof. He should
have listened to his heart and emotions, rather than allowing logic to be the
decision maker. He is logical to a fault.
Shortly after the second week of rehearsal, my wife Carla and I drove up
to Chicago to visit the Hyde Park neighborhood. Having lived in Chicago for two
years, I was familiar with the architecture and layout of the neighborhoods,
however, I had never visited Hyde Park nor the University of Chicago. I was
impressed by the old houses. One of the discoveries that I made on my tour was
just how far away the residential areas are from the university. To sprint from the
math building to the area in which Catherine lived would leave the runner
gasping for breath. They are quite a distance away from each other. I was able
to use this for the final scene when Hal enters the porch after sprinting from the
school. It seems simple enough, but actually driving the distance allowed me to
Harris 59
playback those images in my mind before the scene. It simply allowed me to
enter into the world of the play more completely.
While the Meisner Technique can be used with any acting endeavor, I
think that Proof is especially receptive of its methods. The deeply involved
relationships and the many two-person scenes provide a wonderful opportunity
for moment to moment work. This technique, along with the other methods of
analysis I have learned during my time at Purdue University will, without a doubt,
help me to create more complex and complete characters in the future. I cannot
thank the performance faculty enough for all that I have learned.
Harris 60
Appendix A
Essence Sheet
Word or Phrase Associations
Time, Weight, Space, Flow Analysis
Act II, Scene 1 – Flashback scene, four years earlier
Harris 61
Essence Sheet
The Character of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof
Questions:
1. The world is a place where – everything is ordered. Mathematics are the key
to answering what we think is unanswerable.
2. The reason I have survived is – because I have a mathematical mind that
could potentially discover something great. I am respected in my field and
that allows me to continue teaching at the University, but most people know
that I will never create something meaningful.
3. The one thing I can never lose is – the hope that I can make a brilliant
discovery. Although it is becoming more and more evident that this discovery
will never take place, I must never lose the idea that it could still happen.
4. If I could have lived in another time – I would have loved to actually witness
Einstein write his Theory of Relativity. To be in the same room with a mind
like that would leave me awestruck.
5. I always wished that – I could be truly great at something. I am good at
mathematics, but not great. As G.H. Hardy said in his book, A
Mathematician’s Apology, very few people are “great” at what they do. I wish
I was.
6. If I could change one thing about my appearance – I wouldn’t change
anything. If there is one thing in my life that I have always been satisfied with
it is my appearance. I am who I am.
7. The thing that I regret most in life is – not being gifted.
8. If I had my life to do over – I would try to live my life with my heart more than
my head. I often think too much and don’t rely on my instincts.
Word or Phrase Associations
Verb: Wandering – While he still possess an incredible mathematical mind, he is
lost in his field. He knows that he may never make the breakthrough that he
desires, but he continues to stumble through, aimlessly hoping to find the way.
Adjective: Tangential – He thinks and acts impulsively at times. His mind races
from one thought to the next, sometimes having no relation with each other.
Harris 62
Noun: Geyser. While reliable and magnificent at times, it always tumbles back
to earth. It can only go so high.
Color: Blue – Hal is a calm person for the most part and reason permeates his
every pore.
Object: Park Fountain – While the fountain is beautiful, it is scattered and can
only reach a limited height before falling back to earth.
Mode of Transportation: The El – It is constantly starting and stopping. It also
changes track rapidly at times, taking the occupants in different directions in a
jarring way.
Type of Weather: The eye of the storm. While the world around him is chaotic
and hectic at times, he almost always maintains a sense of calm.
Favorite part of the body: The head. It contains the answers to everything.
Least favorite part of the body: The heart. It gets in the way of logical thought.
Time, Weight, Space, Flow
Act I, Scene 1
Time: Sustained at the beginning of the scene, quicker toward the end.
Weight: Strong.
Space: Direct.
Flow: Free.
The time is shortly after midnight. Hal has been working on Robert’s
notebooks for many hours and he is on his way to play the drums in his band.
He must be tired from the tedious examination of the notebooks, yet not so tired
that he can’t play at the club. His band is “Way down the bill, they’re probably
going on around two, two-thirty” (14). His time is sustained for the first half of the
scene, especially because he is tired from the tedious work he has just
completed. Once the notebook falls out of his jacket and is revealed to Catherine,
time becomes very quick. She is calling the police to inform them that he is
Harris 63
robbing her house. He needs to explain quickly to have her hang up the phone.
Time is, quite literally, running out for him.
His weight is strong throughout the scene. Many reasons exist for his
strength. Firstly, he is trying to convince her to allow him to come back to her
house to further examine Robert’s notebooks. Any moment that he becomes
light in his movements will be perceived as weakness from Catherine. Hal
realizes this and must remain confident yet not too demanding to try to get his
way. Secondly, Hal is interested in Catherine in a romantic way, at least, he
finds her attractive. His weight must remain strong to dispel the stereotype that
mathematicians are geeks.
Hal’s movement through space is direct. Hal seems interested in
Catherine in a romantic way almost immediately. What appears to be idol chat is
really Hal’s way of flirting with Catherine. She offers him some champagne and
he accepts at first. When he realizes that she will not be drinking some with him,
he then declines. Hal clearly knows what he wants in this scene and goes
directly after it, never faltering.
The flow of the character is either bound or free. This choice is an
important one which may make the character appear comfortable or
uncomfortable, strict or relaxed, or in control or being controlled, to name a few.
Hal’s movement is more bound in this scene, creating a feeling of tension in him.
He is fighting to return to the house so that he may continue to study the
potentially important documents. Catherine’s thwarts his persuasiveness
repeatedly, making him feel uncomfortable and controlled.
Harris 64
Act I, Scene 3
Time: Sustained.
Weight: Light.
Space: Direct.
Flow: Free.
This scene presents the actor with some of the more difficult physical
decisions in the play. Hal confesses after kissing Catherine that he is a little
drunk, and indeed the moment seems awkward. Because of this slight
drunkenness, Hal’s normal physical attributes will be altered and impaired. This
is particularly tricky because Hal must appear inebriated, yet truthful in his
attraction to Catherine.
Time is sustained throughout the entire scene. Neither character is in a
hurry to do anything. It has been a very long funeral reception/party and Hal has
been playing drums with his band for the occasion. Time gives the impression
that it moves very slowly and moments tend to linger between the two.
Hal’s weight is light due to his inebriation. His balance is shifted from its
normal center and he only appears grounded after he sits with Catherine on the
porch. His reason for appearing on the porch adds to his lightness. His mood is
hopeful as he anticipates speaking with her, perhaps flirting with her some more.
Hal moves directly through space. He enters the scene with two beers,
one for Catherine and one for himself. He has obviously arrived on the porch
only to see her. His actions are deliberate, especially the moment in which he
kisses Catherine. Auburn describes the moment in this way: “Hal stares at her.
He suddenly kisses her, then stops, embarrassed. He moves away” (31). His
kiss is quick and direct, catching Catherine off her guard. This direct movement
Harris 65
through space pays off for Hal at the end as Catherine reciprocates to his
romantic advance.
At the top of the scene, Auburn writes that Hal enters “sweaty and revvedup from playing” (29). This energy allows Hal to move in a free flowing manner.
The alcohol also adds to his courageous attempt to kiss Catherine. Virtually all
of his inhibitions are gone in this scene, freeing him from his normal movement
pattern.
Act I, Scene 4
Time: Begins with sustained, ends with quick.
Weight: Begins with strong, ends with light.
Space: Begins with indirect, ends with direct.
Flow: Begins with bound, ends with free.
This scene takes place the morning after Catherine and Hal have slept
together. It contains some of the awkwardness that one might expect after
having such an encounter. There is no evidence that Hal is experiencing a
hangover from the previous night’s festivities. Although Hal is involved in this
scene for only a short time at the beginning and end, his movement changes the
most drastically.
Hal’s movement begins with a sustained relationship to time. That is, it is
the lazy morning after a long party and no character is moving quickly. Near the
end however, he is moving quite quickly as he tries to uncover more information
about the proof he has found.
His weight near the beginning is heavy. He just woke up and is not fully
alert. Near the end, however, his weight is light as a feather. He is on cloud nine
due to the incredible discovery he has made.
Harris 66
His relationship to space is indirect at the top of the scene. He is very
unsure of how Catherine will respond to him after their night of passion. The
morning after awkwardness is scattering Hal’s movement. When Hal returns to
the scene with the proof, he is extremely direct. He makes a bee-line straight for
Catherine to talk to her about the historical proof.
The flow is bound at the top of the scene. Hal doesn’t know what to make
of the morning after. He moves in an uncertain, methodical manner, not wanting
to cause any discomfort to Catherine. Upon his return with the proof, however,
his flow is free. He is ecstatic about the discovery of this document. In a way,
Hal himself has been liberated by this proof. He will be a part of history.
Act II, Scene 1
Time: Quick.
Weight: Light.
Space: Indirect.
Flow: Bound.
The top of Act II is a flashback to a scene that occurred four years earlier.
Hal is extremely nervous about giving his mentor, Robert, the first draft of his
thesis. Every time that Hal is around Robert, he is awestruck. Hal worships
Robert and as a result, he is willing to become too comfortable in the unfamiliar
environment of Robert’s home.
Time moves very quickly to Hal at this point in his life. As a graduate
student working on his thesis, he has very little time for recreational activities and
his life is run by the watch on his wrist.
Hal’s weight is light throughout the scene. He moves rather quickly and
nervously, often impulsively. He follows Robert around as if he is a lost puppy,
Harris 67
but he does not want Robert to witness his nervousness, so he tries to create the
façade of casualness.
Hal moves very indirectly throughout the scene. He is in unfamiliar
territory and is uncertain as to whether he made the right decision to drop by
unannounced. His nervousness forces him to move uncertainly. His
indirectness is compounded by his poor timing of entering the scene in the
middle of an argument.
His flow is bound because he is not free to move or do as he chooses.
There is a very rigid code of relationship that he must follow while in the
presence of Robert. While Hal would like this moment to be one of casual
friendship, he cannot allow himself to appear disrespectful of Robert; indeed, this
may be his biggest fear. As a result, he appears bound and uncomfortable in this
setting.
Act II, Scene 2
Time: Quick.
Weight: Strong.
Space: Direct.
Flow: Bound.
This scene is the most pivotal for Hal and his relationship with Catherine.
It begins an instant after the end of Act I, Scene 4. Ultimately, Hal refuses to
believe Catherine’s claim that she is the author of the proof, a moment that
devastates Catherine. Hal has betrayed her trust and he realizes this.
The moments come very quickly in this scene. Time is flying by at an
incredible rate of speed. This gives Hal very little time to think about what he
Harris 68
should say and do. As a result, Hal may act impulsively, creating a damaging rift
in his relationship with Catherine.
Although Hal is uncomfortable and tries to be gentle with Catherine’s
feelings, his weight is very strong. He is firm in his belief that Robert wrote the
proof and he is unsure why Catherine is claiming authorship. He must convince
her to drop her claim and let the rightful creator of the proof receive the credit.
He stands his ground and refuses to back down.
Hal does not mix words or intention in this scene. Once he knows what he
should do with the proof, he is extremely direct, driving toward his goal both
verbally and physically. There is no doubt in his mind that his idea to let other
math professors determine the authorship is the best thing to do.
Several factors force Hal’s flow to be bound in this scene, the most
significant of which are his feelings for Catherine. He does not want the previous
night to be a one-night stand, but he is troubled by her claim. Catherine must be
doing this for selfish reasons, or, maybe she really did write the proof. If the later
is the case, he must handle the situation with the utmost ease, as a bomb squad
handles a mysteriously wrapped package in a parking lot. This task requires that
Hal’s flow be bound, and deliberate.
Act II, Scene 3
Time: Sustained.
Weight: Light.
Space: Begins with direct, ends with indirect.
Flow: Bound.
This scene takes place the day after Hal’s terrible argument with
Catherine. He has come back to apologize and try to work things out with her,
Harris 69
but Claire informs him that she is too depressed and will not speak to anyone.
Hal tries to get Claire to allow him to speak to Catherine, but she refuses. Claire
then confronts Hal about his intentions toward Catherine and an argument
erupts.
Time moves slowly throughout the scene. Unlike most of his other
scenes, he is not concerned with time. He only wants to make things right with
Catherine. The moments between Claire and him are slow and sustained.
Claire surprises Hal by attacking him, keeping him off-balance. As a
result, his weight is quick. He is forced to dance around Claire’s questions in a
verbal sense and this translates into his physicality. He must be able to move
quickly in order to avoid Claire’s arrows.
Hal has no idea what to do in this scene. At the beginning of the scene,
he moves through space in a very direct manner. He is seeking to talk to
Catherine, regardless of any circumstances. Even after Claire comes out of the
house and tells him that she had to delay her flight, Hal continues to pursue his
objective in a very direct manner, moving in the same way. After Claire verbally
attacks him for sleeping with Catherine, Hal is shaken, unbalanced, and
uncertain. His movement reflects these aspects and becomes very indirect.
When Hal learns of Catherine’s depression, he feels responsible. His flow
becomes very bound, almost paralyzing. He knows that he hurt Catherine, but it
is only now that he realizes just how much.
Act II, Scene 5
Time: Begins with quick, ends with sustained.
Weight: Strong.
Harris 70
Space: Direct.
Flow: Free.
The scene begins moments before Catherine’s departure for New York.
Hal enters the scene after running to her house from the University. He is
ecstatic about the confirmation that the proof works. He is rushing over to
Catherine’s house to tell her the good news as well as try to smooth things over
with her.
His relationship to time upon his entrance is quick. He is afraid that
Catherine has already left and time is of the essence. He must speak to her
before she leaves for New York. The fact that he sees Claire leaving through the
front only adds to his fear that Catherine has already left.
Hal’s weight is strong throughout the scene. He is determined to make
things right with Catherine as well as talk to her about the proof. Several times
during the scene, Catherine dismisses him, yet he refuses to back down. His will
is strong and that is reflected in his weight.
Hal is very direct in this scene. He knows what he must do and moves
directly toward Catherine with no hesitation. In fact, this is the only scene where
Hal literally states his objective when he says, “Come on, Catherine. I’m trying to
correct things.” There is no veiling of words or actions.
Although the stakes are very high for Hal, his flow is quite free. The
knowledge that the proof works has placed him in a moment of historical
significance. He is liberated by this fact and his movements are free.
Harris 71
Appendix B
Scene Breakdown
Proof Set, Evening Shot
Harris 72
Scene Breakdown
The Role of Hal in David Auburn’s Proof
A. Act I
I. Scene 1
a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance. Ends with Catherine’s “Good.”
1. Objective – To get to know an acquaintance.
2. Actions used:
i.
To befriend.
ii. To prod.
iii. To persist.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s depressed state.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “When should I come back?” Ends with
Catherine: “No. I’M not crazy.”
1. Objective – To get Catherine to allow him to continue his
examination of her father’s notebooks.
2. Actions used:
i.
To convince.
ii. To justify.
iii. To persuade.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s assumption that none of the notebooks
contain any mathematical significance.
c. Beat 3 – Starts with Hal: “Well, I’m going to be late.” Ends with
Catherine: “No thanks.”
1. Objective – To get Catherine to accompany him to the nightclub.
2. Actions used:
i.
To impress.
ii. To joke.
iii. To negate.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s depressed state.
d. Beat 4 – Starts with Hal: “All right. Look, Catherine, Monday: What do
you say?” Ends with Hal: “I’m not. I’m telling you if I came up with
Harris 73
one-tenth of the shit your dad produced, I could write my own ticket to
any math department in the country.”
1. Objective – To get Catherine to allow him to continue his
examination of her father’s notebooks.
2. Actions used:
i.
To flatter.
ii. To convince.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s belief that Hal is wasting his time.
e. Beat 5 – Starts with Catherine: “Give me your backpack.” Ends with
Catherine: “So you don’t need to come back.”
1. Objective – To convince Catherine of his honesty.
2. Actions used:
i.
To dismiss.
ii. To dispute.
iii. To assure.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s continued demand to look into his
backpack.
f. Beat 6 – Starts with Hal: “Please. Someone should know for sure
whether …” Ends with Catherine: “You can come tomorrow.”
1. Objective – To convince Catherine to allow him to continue his
examination of her father’s notebooks.
2. Actions used:
i.
To console.
ii. To comfort.
iii. To doubt.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s insistence that she would be able to discern
valuable mathematical information.
g. Beat 7 – Starts with Hal: “The University health service is, uh, very
good.” Ends with Catherine: “Wait, your coat.”
1. Objective – To ensure Catherine’s emotional stability.
2. Actions used:
Harris 74
i. To advise.
ii. To offer.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s insistence that she doesn’t need help.
h. Beat 8 – Starts with Catherine: “I’m PARANOID?” Ends with Hal:
“There’s more.”
1. Objective – To get Catherine to stop calling the police and listen to
him.
2. Actions used:
i.
To calm.
ii. To demand.
iii. To plead.
iv. To reveal.
v. To apologize.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s intent to call the police on Hal.
i. Beat 9 – Starts with Hal: “Machinery not working yet but I am patient.”
Ends with Hal’s exit.
1. Objective – To prove to Catherine that his intentions were good and
honest.
2. Actions used:
i.
To read.
ii. To confess.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s mistrust of Hal.
II. Scene 2
a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal: “Catherine?” Ends with Hal’s exit.
1. Objective – To receive permission to continue his examination of
Robert’s notebooks.
2. Actions used:
i.
To defuse.
3. Obstacle – The current argument between Catherine and Claire.
III. Scene 3
Harris 75
a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance. Ends with the transitional moment
into Hal kissing her.
1. Objective – To pursue his romantic interest in Catherine.
2. Actions used:
i. To comfort.
ii. To compliment.
iii. To impress.
iv. To flirt.
3. Obstacle – Internal: His fear that Catherine may not reciprocate.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “Sorry. I’m a little drunk.” Ends with Hal’s
“Yeah” after Catherine’s “Back to the drums.”
1. Objective – To cover up his possible mistake.
2. Actions used:
i.
To apologize.
ii. To agree.
3. Obstacle – Internal: His fear that his mistake may be irreparable.
c. Beat 3 – Starts with Catherine: “And your own research.” Ends with
Catherine: “Have you tried speed? I’ve heard it helps.”
1. Objective – To gain sympathy from Catherine.
2. Actions used:
i. To confide.
ii. To resign.
3. Obstacle – Internal: His own fear that Catherine will not sympathize
with him.
d. Beat 4 – Starts with Catherine: “So Hal.” Ends with the scene.
1. Objective – To explore the romantic possibilities with Catherine.
2. Actions Used:
i.
To charm.
ii. To flatter.
iii. To kiss.
3. Obstacle – None.
Harris 76
IV. Scene 4
a. Beat 1 – Starts at top of scene. Ends with Hal: “[…] unless of course
I’m coming on way to strong right now and scaring you in which case
I’ll begin backpedaling immediately …”
1. Objective – To ensure that Catherine feels the same way about him
as he does for her.
2. Actions used:
i.
To invite.
ii. To test.
iii. To confess.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s seemingly standoffish behavior.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “What’s this?” Ends with Hal’s exit.
1. Objective – To determine what the key is about.
2. Actions used:
i. To inquire.
ii. To kiss.
3. Obstacle – None.
c. Beat 3 – Starts with Hal’s re-entrance. Ends with the scene.
1. Objective – To celebrate a historical discovery.
2. Actions used:
i.
To thank.
ii. To claim.
iii. To explain.
iv. To acclaim.
3. Obstacle – Claire’s failure to recognize the significance of the
moment.
B. Act II
I. Scene 1
a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance. Ends with the transitional moment
into Robert’s “Happy Birthday.”
1. Objective – To deliver his thesis draft and impress his mentor.
Harris 77
2. Actions used:
i.
To apologize.
ii. To make conversation.
iii. To encourage.
iv. To inquire.
3. Obstacle – His inability to understand Catherine and Robert’s
relationship.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Robert: “Happy Birthday.” Ends with Hal’s exit.
1. Objective – To politely leave Catherine and Robert to themselves.
2. Actions used:
i. To hide.
ii. To make an excuse.
iii. To avoid.
3. Obstacle – Robert and Catherine’s request that he join them for
dinner.
II. Scene 2
a. Beat 1 – Starts at top of scene. Ends with Catherine: “You’re
supposed to be a scientist.”
1. Objective – To determine the validity of Catherine’s claim of
authorship.
2. Actions used:
i. To avoid.
ii. To pacify.
iii. To justify.
iv. To nullify.
3. Obstacle – His fear of hurting Catherine’s feelings.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “You’re right.” Ends with Hal: “It’s your
father’s handwriting.”
1. Objective – To get Catherine to agree to allow him to take the proof
to the University of Chicago for examination.
2. Actions used:
Harris 78
i.
To compel.
ii. To assure.
iii. To advocate.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s refusal to allow him to take the proof.
c. Beat 3 – Starts with Hal: “At least it looks an awful lot like the writing in
the other books.” Ends with Hal’s exit.
1. Objective – To convince Catherine that the evidence shows she
didn’t write the proof.
2. Actions used:
i.
To present.
ii. To explain.
iii. To convince.
iv. To glorify.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s insistence of authorship.
III. Scene 3
a. Beat 1 – Begins at top of scene. Ends with Claire: “That’s the deal.”
1. Objective – To see and talk to Catherine.
2. Actions used:
i.
To ask.
ii. To compel.
iii. To defend.
iv. To repel.
3. Obstacle – Claire’s refusal to allow him to see her.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “Okay.” Ends with the scene.
1. Objective – To take the proof to the University of Chicago.
2. Actions used:
i.
To explain.
ii. To assure.
3. Obstacle – Claire’s obvious disapproval of Hal.
IV. Scene 5
a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance
Harris 79
1. Objective – To get forgiveness from Catherine for doubting her
word.
2. Actions used:
i.
To praise.
ii. To apologize.
iii. To convince.
iv. To encourage.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s grudge against him for doubting her.
b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “So Claire sold the house?” Ends with the
curtain.
1. Objective – To get Catherine to stay in Chicago
2. Actions used:
i.
To compliment.
ii. To agree.
iii. To reassure.
iv. To praise.
v. To uplift.
vi. To encourage.
3. Obstacle – Catherine’s decision to move to NYC.
Harris 80
Harris 81
Harris 82
Harris 83
Harris 84
Harris 85
Harris 86
Harris 87
Harris 88
Harris 89
Harris 90
Harris 91
Harris 92
Harris 93
Harris 94
Harris 95
Harris 96
Harris 97
Harris 98
Harris 99
Harris 100
Harris 101
Harris 102
Appendix C
Audition Journal
Rehearsal Journal
Act II, Scene 5
Harris 103
Audition Journal
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
It sure has been nice having a relaxing break before I depart to
Tecumseh! for the summer. It has provided me with some time to digest all that I
have learned in the previous year and reflect on my audition. I have to say that I
was thrilled with all of the roles that I received. I told Carla that I felt like the
general audition was one of the best auditions I have ever given, including
professionally. I chose to perform Richard of Gloucester from King Henry VI –
Part III and a monologue that I have had in my rep for over 10 years, “Sylvio’s
Monologue” from Pvt. Wars. This was the first time that I had used the Richard
monologue in an audition. Originally, it was given to me as a class project by
Rick Lee and I had only worked the language of it with him. Performing it was a
lot different. I am really passionate about it and enjoy performing it immensely
and I think that it shows. Auditors love to see people enjoy performing a piece as
well as nail the character. As far as Sylvio went, I found a lot more humor in the
piece than I ever have before. I think that the humor was always there, I just
tended to play the laugh before coming here. Having Sylvio pursue an objective
and focus on that solely made the comedy jump out even more. I had learned
that about comedy long ago, especially after my dinner theatre experiences, but I
think I had performed the monologue so many times that I forgot about the
basics. It was nice to see that the monologue still works and I feel that it has a
new life in my repertoire. There was a strange feeling among all of the graduate
actors during the callbacks. Tensions were high as everyone hoped they would
Harris 104
receive a great thesis role. Unfortunately, there were several episodes by a
particular graduate actor that can only be considered less than professional. As
a result of the dramas created by that individual, I spent most of my time by
myself in a corner of the basement, preparing for my reading. I liked having that
privacy. I felt extremely focused and I’m sure that several people thought I was
being rude by not speaking to them or joking around with them. The following
are my feelings on each callback.
Proof
I wanted the part of Hal very much, unfortunately, I wasn’t called back for
it. I have to admit that I was very surprised that I wasn’t. Many people
expressed their surprise to me as well. I was called back for the father, which we
all thought wasn’t available to us; there had been rumors of bringing someone in
for that role. Anyway, I prepared during the day for this callback and I was
determined to get the part of the father. I thought I read very well for this part,
although I still felt that Jeff wasn’t taking us (all who were called for that role)
seriously. I mean that we all had a sense that an older man would play the role,
somehow, someway. After my reading of the father, Jeff said that he would like
me to read for Hal and that, “I know that you weren’t called back for that, but I
really would like to see you read for him.” I was glad that he asked me to read
for Hal without me requesting it of him. I prepared the reading in the hallway and
was foaming at the mouth to win this role. After the reading, I was proud of what
I had done and thought that Jeff responded well to my performance. All of us
knew that there was simply no way to know what would happen. The truth be
Harris 105
told, I really felt like there was no way for me to get the role of Hal, especially
since I wasn’t called back for it originally. I wrote it off in my mind. I was stunned
when I read my name beside Hal on the cast list. I cannot wait to play this role. I
will choose this part to be my thesis role.
The Cherry Orchard
I really don’t like this play and I have to confess my disappointment when
it was announced as part of next year’s season. We had studied the play in
THTR 671 and I expressed my dislike for it in that class. In fact, there were only
two or three graduate actors that liked the show and looked forward to doing it. I
thought that I would have been called back for Lopakhin and I was surprised to
see that I was the only graduate male not called for that role. After reading for
the student, Rich Rand said to me, “Yeah … out of all the roles that I called you
back for, I thought this one would be the one that you would least likely play.” My
first thought was well, “you only called me back for two parts so that pretty much
narrows it down for me.” I knew from that moment that I would be playing
Yepichodov. I knew that I still had to win the part and I didn’t take it for granted –
I just knew that I would win the part. I understood the comedy of Yepichodov, but
Rich forced me to examine the other side of him as well. I was pretty confident
that I had the part. In fact, I was surprised to find that I had figured out the
casting for that show for the most part.
King Lear
I had pushed for the casting of King Lear before the summer because I felt
like this show was the most likely to provide my thesis role and I wasn’t alone.
Harris 106
My thinking was this: I knew I wouldn’t be in Proof and I didn’t want my thesis
role to be in The Cherry Orchard, so it was vital to me that casting occur. I
wanted the summer to write the bulk of my monograph so I had to know my role.
I, along with many others were relieved to hear that casting would take place for
this show. I went into this callback with reckless abandon. I wanted Edmond or
Kent I was determined to win one of them. These callbacks were rather
interesting and had other possible repercussions. The fact that Peter Forster is a
professional director in Chicago definitely raised the bar. Don’t get me wrong, we
work hard in callbacks for our professors as well, but after two years of classes,
we know that they can’t help but weigh our previous work as a factor in casting.
We met with the director for an hour before the actual callback to work on text
and do some exercises. He seemed very personable yet too soft-spoken. We
did a warm-up exercise that relaxed us all because of its familiarity. Moving
through the space, he would call out different effort actions that we would adopt.
After the warm-up, things became a lot more difficult. He had us perform an
exercise that forced us to focus on anything but the meaning of the
Shakespearean text. Lined up onstage, we would have to say certain words in
unison, move around the stage only on the verbs, stomp our feet with any
punctuation and many, many more complications. It was very difficult to
concentrate on all of the things he wanted us to do. The point was that the
meaning of the line will come through if we understand how the line works,
structurally. He really demonstrated his knowledge of Shakespeare. After a
short break, the actual callbacks began. Peter ran his callbacks in an extremely
Harris 107
efficient manner. After performing my Richard monologue for him, he asked me
to read Edmond. I thought that I read for that role pretty well and then he asked
me to read Kent. I was delighted to be asked to read the two parts that I wanted.
I really thought that I would get Edmond, but in the end, Kent was the role for me.
I look forward to the challenge of playing this role.
Rehearsal Journal
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Wow. I can’t believe that I just had my first rehearsal for Proof. I am still
working at Tecumseh! and I had to drive all the way to Lafayette for an eight hour
rehearsal. I am so glad to be working on a show other than Tecumseh!. I didn’t
mind the drive. I was quite tired during the second four-hour session, but I am
more than willing to deal with the tiredness if it means keeping the role. I can’t
believe that Jeff was willing to work with me on the rehearsal schedule. I made a
huge mistake by not putting Tecumseh down on the conflict sheet and I was very
afraid that I would lose the role. I wasn’t trying to deceive anyone, I simply
missed the fact that Tecumseh and Proof would overlap. Anyway, the rehearsal
was great. We spent the first four hour session reading through the play as well
as table work with the entire cast. I must say that I was impressed at Jeff’s
thoroughness. He had all of his bases covered. It is apparent that even with all
of the time that I have spent on researching the play and the role, Jeff is still
functioning at a deeper level than I. He has done his homework. We spent a
great deal of time looking at pictures of the neighborhood of Hyde Park in
Harris 108
Chicago. He took pictures of the same neighborhood at different times of the
year. He was incredibly prepared. The assignment for the next time we meet is
to determine what Hal’s happiest and saddest time in his life was . We have to
create a short scene when we meet again as a full company next Monday. I
really am very glad that I was able to come to this rehearsal. I am upset that I
can’t stay here and continue rehearsal on Proof. I can’t wait for Tecumseh to
close.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
What a long, strange trip it’s been. I feel like I have hardly had any time
to do anything productive since my return. It’s like getting a drink from a fire
hydrant. So much has happened in the past 3 days, it feels like I haven’t slept. I
was very tired at tonight’s rehearsal, but it was a good one, nonetheless. Jeff
continues to impress me with his directing skills. Our 30 second scenes
depicting the happiest and saddest times of character’s lives went very well. I
chose to make Hal’s happiest moment the instant he and his colleagues
discovered that the proof actually works. It was like being present at one of the
world’s most historic events. Chills literally fell over my body. The saddest
moment was a week after my mother’s death. Hal was working on a proof of his
own when he simply breaks down and can’t deal with anything. He is so
confused, lost, and in grief that he can’t cope with life. He must get help. I really
cried during the exercise. All of us did, except for Dale. He handled his saddest
time a little differently than us. I could really sense the inner life of the characters
Harris 109
in front of me. It was enlightening. I feel that I have come full circle. I
understand things now.
The staging was nice. I wish that I had known my lines a little better than I
did. It was okay, but the scenes we staged were the ones that I had spent the
least amount of time with. I hope that Jeff wasn’t disappointed; I’m sure he
wasn’t. He works very, for the lack of a better word, organically. He wants us to
feel our impulses and act on them. If you want to move, he encourages it and
works to make the picture look the best it can. He is very easy to work with and I
trust him implicitly. I look forward to rehearsing again with him.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
This week is really catching up to me. I am feeling very tired by the time
that rehearsals begin. I am managing to keep the energy up throughout the
scenes though. Tonight, we staged what could be the most difficult scene
between Catherine and I, the kissing scene. It was actually quite easy and
professional. I think that there is a chemistry between us that is developing
throughout this process. We are very comfortable with each other. I imagine
that fact that we are all in our third and final year has a great deal to do with it.
We know each other very well and there is no giddiness or awkwardness when
we did the scene. I think that it will play very well. Jeff continues to be terrific.
He has a wonderful way with all of us. While it is obvious that he has his own
ideas about how a scene should go, he is extremely generous and is willing to let
the actors bring their own thoughts about the play. He virtually eliminates any
Harris 110
hesitation at trying something new because you know that he is always going to
be there to catch you if you fall. Sometimes it feels like we are walking a
tightrope when doing certain scenes, but he is always there, keeping you on
balance. He is simply awesome. People continue to ask me how the rehearsals
are going and I can’t help but smile because they are going so well. I’ll tell them
that and they say, “Thanks, rub it in!” ☺ Erin and I have discussed just how
lucky we are to be in this show with Jeff at the helm. I am having the best time.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
This was a difficult rehearsal. We spent the first 2 hours doing some more
scene work, which was really nice. As usual, Jeff was great. We are all very
close to being off book and we do most of our scenes with very little calling for
line. The run-through was a different story. I hate the run-throughs that occur at
this point in a rehearsal for many reasons. The main reason is that it feels that
all of the great scene work that has been done goes out the window and it
becomes about getting through the lines. Wonderful moments that occurred in
earlier rehearsals get glossed over in a run-through. I understand the necessity
for it, but it is very frustrating. I think that the worst part of it all is when you are
doing the scene, getting the lines, and then you remember the way you did a
particular moment in a previous rehearsal, but you just missed it now. You can’t
go back and get that moment again. Ahhh, the actor’s craft. Living in the
moment, making the very rehearsed seem spontaneous. We’ll get there. It’s
going to be a great show.
Harris 111
Friday, September 05, 2003
Tonight we rehearsed only the scenes between Catherine and me. While
I loved the special attention, I was enjoying getting a break for 30 minutes or so
during the previous rehearsals. It was tiring getting through the entire thing. We
looked at each scene intensely. The image I get in my head when I think about
how the rehearsal process is going is that of a screw going into a piece of wood.
It starts off very wobbly and unbalanced. Every turn of the screwdriver stabilizes
the screw as it becomes tighter and tighter. That is what Jeff is doing with each
play. He is focusing in on each moment, more and more closely. It was at the
point where we were working beat by beat. Sometimes we spent 5 or 10 minutes
on 5 lines of dialogue. Several moments during the rehearsal I felt like I was
stupid for not thinking about the moment in a certain way. Jeff is so good at
guiding us along and making us think about the moments in different ways that
sometimes I feel like I haven’t done the work I should have. I know that I have
done my work, and I know that Jeff sees that I have done my work, but I still feel
unprepared and off-balance sometimes. I think Jeff likes to do that too. We can’t
get too comfortable by thinking that we know what this moment should be. We
must always be open to where it could go. A particular moment of interest dealt
with making a point of view that I created much stronger. He wanted to know
what Hal and the mathematicians did at those conferences. He made me
vocalize and visualize what kind of partying they would do. It turns out that I
made a deeper discovery that these guys are absolutely nuts. They get jacked
Harris 112
up on speed and talk about Pythagoras like most guys talk about sports. While I
had only placed the POV on them that they were crazy partiers, Jeff made me
realize that I was not specific enough. Forcing me to truly visualize them made
me zero in on who they really are. Stanislavski once said that “generality is the
enemy of all art.” I think that was never more true for me than tonight. I must go
back through the script and refine my POV for everything. Am I specific enough?
We’ll see.
Monday, September 08, 2003
Rehearsal continues to go very well. We ran Act II tonight and it felt great to
do the whole thing off-book. It also opened my eyes up to just how quickly some
of my costume changes will be. It was the first night that we have received notes
after the run as well. My notes are as follows:
I.1 -
Add another knock before entrance into II.1.
I.1 -
There is something going on between Hal and Catherine with her
invitation to dinner.
II.2 -
Remember the moment just before this scene occurs. We’ll work on it.
II.2 -
Cheat more SL before the beginning of the scene (which must actually
occur at the end of Act I).
III.5 - At Hal’s entrance, what stops him from rushing to Catherine and sweeping
her off of her feet? We need to see more of the resistance and what it
may be.
III.5 - The “nice house” sequence went very well.
Harris 113
III.5 - We’ll work the X to the steps at the end of the scene.
Overall, I am very pleased with the way that the run of Act II went. I could tell
that Erin was rather frustrated with the dropping of her lines, but she has many
more than we do. I thought that it went very well and I can’t wait to see what
develops in the next 2 ½ weeks. Something did happen that made me feel very
good. Jeff commented that the moment that I look at the proof at the end of Act
II, Scene 3 was very nice. I couldn’t believe that he noticed that. It makes an
actor feel very good when you make a choice, even if it is incredibly subtle, like
that moment, and he notices. What an incredibly keen eye he has. I feel like he
is watching everything I do at every moment.
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Tonight I wasn’t called until 8:00 pm. It always feels strange being called
so late because the rehearsal is over before you know it. We worked two scenes
with Hal tonight, Act I, Scene 1 and Act II, Scene 1. Both of them included
working with Dale. We have a great time in our flashback scene in Act II, Scene
1. I feel like my point of view about him is really working well; Robert is God. He
certainly gives me plenty to play with out there too. We all like that scene very
much. I think it presents a great challenge to me. It is not very often that you get
to play a role where the audience sees what a character was like 4 years earlier.
There are many questions to answer, the largest of which is how much has he
changed? I must say that being a TA for the directing class today made me go
back and scrutinize my choices. Maybe the beats that I had worked out and their
Harris 114
objectives weren’t correct. I asked Jeff if I could try the first moments between
Catherine and Hal in Act I, Scene 1 with a different objective and to see what he
thought. I had viewed the scene as Hal flirting with Catherine. Now I think that
he may be investigating to see if she is alright (physically and emotionally). His
“Drinking alone?” doesn’t have to be flirting or striking up conversation. Drinking
alone is indicative of a much bigger problem and anyone who does so could be
seriously depressed. I think that Hal is concerned for her health. Well, I tried it
and it felt much better. Besides, there is plenty of room throughout our scene for
Hal to “put the moves” on Catherine, although, I must say that it is very fun to
play suave Hal. He could be the biggest dork on the planet. Let the discoveries
continue.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
I wasn't called for rehearsal tonight until 7:30. I am absolutely exhausted.
Mondays and Wednesdays are grueling. I got to school at 9:30 am and I haven't
been able to go home at all. These days usually last 13 hours. I hate my
schedule. It really was hard to focus through this rehearsal. I made it though.
Jeff doesn't seem to be able to see my exhaustion, so I guess I am faking the
energy well enough. Just like a long run, sometimes you have to rely on
technique to pull you through. I am still having a wonderful time. Thank God I
love this play and this part, otherwise I would certainly have a difficult time
making it through this ordeal. Erin and I developing some great chemistry out
there. I really feel at ease with her. I think that this is certainly her best work. I
Harris 115
just hope that it becomes mine. I think that I had a mini breakthrough tonight. I
feel that I am really into Hal's body. I know how he moves now. He is much
more of a dork than I thought. He's not clumsy, just uncertain throughout much
of the play. This results in a hesitant movement style. He often enters the scene
in the middle of an argument and this creates a feeling in him to become
invisible. He wants to make himself as small as he can. I have been trying to
place myself in a place that draws very little attention during these moments.
Behind the columns, upstage by the window, behind furniture, it all lends itself to
his desire to disappear. Jeff really seems to like these choices.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Tonight was the first run-through from beginning to end off book. To make
it a little more intimidating, tonight was crew watch too. It was nice having an
audience out in the house, but we knew that it was going to be a bumpy ride.
The pacing was deadly. Overall, you begin to wonder many things about what
you are doing as an actor on nights like these. Every character has a journey to
make. How am I creating this character. How has he changed from the
beginning of the play to the end. Polar attitude? Well, I think that I can answer
that one. At the beginning of the play, Hal sees Catherine as someone who is
mathematically inferior to him. At the end of the play, he realizes that she is a
greater genius than her father, Hal's mentor and god. Their relationship
changes from romantic partners to student/teacher. Robert has been knocked
off of Hal's pedestal and Catherine know sits there quite firmly. To complicate
Harris 116
matters, I think that Hal has fallen in love with her. He has to have. It is more
than just sex - there is a connection between them that is unexplainable. The
relate to each other in many ways. Anyway, Jeff gave us tons of notes
afterwards. They are as follows:
I.1 - Close the wooden door after my entrance.
I.1 - Don't play down to Catherine's level. Try to pull her out of the mire.
I.1 - Call me Hal - have more fun. More personal or hate Harold.
I.3 - Still need more hope for Hal during the date scene. He is not done with
math yet. He can still produce some type of major work of mathematics.
I.3 - Great entrance - the door bit.
I.3 - Don't see her say "yeah" after the "just elegant" line.
I.3 - Don't make the move on her. After she kisses you. It looked like I knew that
she was going to kiss.
I.4 - Don't anticipate the kiss.
I.4 - How embarrassing would it be ... wonky.
II.1 - Oh, who are you working with? We'll work that moment to fix the blocking.
II.2 - Move more SL at top of scene.
II.2 - Take out all pauses.
II.2 - must build to It's your father's handwriting.
II.5 - We'll work the end of the play tomorrow.
II.5 - Great entrance.
II.5 - There are no dates in this. Good.
II.5 - The proof pass was great. Not too much time.
Harris 117
II.5 - Getting too tentative with "talk me through it." More cause I want to know
what's in there.
General Notes:
•
Overall rhythm tonight felt slow. Pick it up. Think of sifting through
these books like sifting through gold. This is great work.
•
Don't draw out a word or phrase. It makes the sentence lose its
meaning.
•
Tentative - going balls to the wall. Let your impulses go. Free
yourself.
•
Don't X behind the scrim anymore - you will be seen too much because
of the lighting.
•
We need to work the argument and phone call.
•
Start to eliminate pauses. Every pause is the same. The rhythm of the
show became the same. Get rid of the pauses. Drive through the plot.
Get to the point. Don't let the period land. If we don't, it negates the
meaning of the beat when it is a choice.
Although he had tons of notes, he was still very encouraging. RSL said
something nice to me today too. I told him that the show's tempo was deadly and
he said that he could tell that it is going to be a great show. That is quite
encouraging. We have 2 weeks left. We're going to be great.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Dale wasn’t called tonight so we were able to spend the evening fixing
Harris 118
many things that occur between Erin, Anita, and myself. We dove right into Act I,
Scene 4, our toughest, most emotionally difficult sequence. I wish that I could
see a video of a before and after rehearsal shot because we grew enormously in
this scene. It truly has gone to a different level. What used to be a slow,
painstakingly difficult scene has become a full blown argument and firestorm.
What a difference. Erin and I were finally able to get some stage time with our
last scene. It really needed to be worked. We hadn’t worked on it at all really,
only staged it. There are some great moments in that scene too. The patterns
now feel more natural. Overall, I’d give this rehearsal an A+. Really great things
happening out there now.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
We did another run through tonight and it took us right up to 10:30. We
weren't able to receive any notes afterward, but we all felt a lot better about this
one. All of the blocking patterns are beginning to iron themselves out. The only
scene that really feels like it still could use some work is the last scene with
Catherine. Jeff is certainly aware of this fact because he has scheduled time for
it tomorrow night. I am interested in what notes I will get. I experimented with
some new ways of doing things and I want to know what Jeff saw. We will
receive our notes via email before tomorrow's rehearsal.
Update: Jeff has emailed the notes as follows:
Harris 119
Whenever you enter from the study, let's try making them all from the up left
area. I don't think we're going to be able to do anything with the cross behind the
back scrim, and I think in front of it is too close. See me if this doesn't make
sense to you.
I.1 -
Nice with "They're all in the math department"
I.1-
Nice in the "Your dad..." leading to her "Don't lecture me"
I.1-
This is a total technical thing to open you up a little. When you are getting
ready to read the diary entry, could you work your way up a touch - near
the upstage edge of the glider. That will open you up more when you
read. We can work this tonight or tomorrow if you'd like.
I.1-
On Tuesday's run, let's try not reading along with Robert. So you just fade
out, and then come back in.
I.2 -
Close the door when you exit out of this scene.
I.3 -
Fun entrance. You just came from a great set with all the math geeks
screaming. Let some of that carry into more of the scene - parts of the
scene are seeming a little somber - for instance, “Can you believe how
many people came?” and, “Math's a young man's game.”
I.3 -
Try not starting as close to Catherine when you sit down on the steps and
using "Did he ever find out who she was" to move in a little bit.
I.3 -
The notebook section right after the first kiss was nice.
I.3 -
A little more open for "...95 MPH fastball / elegant"
Harris 120
I.3 -
As you are in the second glider kiss "again" try putting your arm around
her.
II.1 -
The knocking sounded a little more like pounding tonight.
II.5 -
Great into "nice house"
II.5 -
"That's just Chicago" - a little to somber there - maybe think about selling
Chicago the way Claire sells NYC.
II.5 - "Maybe. Maybe you'll be better" got a little breathy-dramatic.
II.5 -
Great having your feet on the lower steps while Catherine had hers on the
higher one. It was a great look and should look great under all the lights.
Monday, September 15, 2003
Tonight I wasn't called until 9:15. Although I appreciate having some time
off before the rehearsal, it always seems more difficult to bring energy that late in
the evening. Fortunately, we only worked the last scene for an hour. It really
feels a lot better. The blocking has changed a bit and it feels great. Now that
Catherine is picking up her luggage and starting to exit, it really gives me a lot to
play against. It is easy to try many different actions to get her to stay, both there
on the porch as well as Chicago. I really have a tremendous impulse to touch
Catherine in that scene, especially when Hal agrees with her that she is like her
father. I wanted to touch her face, but the impulse cannot be pursued. I think
that it is obvious to Jeff that I want to touch her but I can't and it looks great. I
hope, anyway. Tomorrow we will do another run. I am really anxious to see how
it goes as we approach tech.
Harris 121
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
We were able to work many things tonight that really needed some
attention. Once again, we hit the last scene between Erin and me, but not before
Anita and I did our scene. That one needed more work than I had anticipated. It
is much more intense now. Anita really comes after me and forces me to take a
stand and defend myself. I didn’t see the scene going quite like this, but it feels
really good. It is easy to play against that type of anger and accusations. We
were supposed to get through a run tonight, but we weren’t able to complete it. I
was disappointed with Jeff’s comments after the partial run because I had hoped
to hear him say we had come leaps and bounds. Instead, we got the dreaded
“Hot out of the gates, but then took a nosedive.” Ugh. I thought that the
moments were there and the tempo felt good. We’ll get there. I am not afraid of
failing anymore. I know that this is going to be a great show and I look forward to
tech rehearsals where we have costumes and lights to see what it is going to
look like. Notes are as follows:
I.1 -
The scene was great. Good moments. After this scene, it took a nose
dive.
I.1 -
Must really listen, listen, listen and respond.
I.1 -
Call me Hal impulse was not as strong.
I.1 -
Try selling instead of qualifying with “some friends of mine are in this
band.”
Harris 122
I.1 -
Okay, yes, I play drums - pick it up.
I.1 -
Find the physical life when the characters are still. Maybe use the lake
when I say "I run along the lake."
I.3 -
Maybe the drumsticks for the scene.
II.1 -
Great moment with the "I wasn't sure if I should wait until the quarter
started or ..." Reactions are great.
II.1 -
More response on "It's a stereotype that happens to be true ..." Think
about the creativity after 23 line in 1.3.
II.1 -
Claire will move her "good" to after "and we'll figure out exactly what we've
got..."
II.1 -
Things to think about - Up the stakes.
II.1 -
Cheat it out.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
We did a run-through tonight at the top of the evening so that we were
assured of getting through the entire thing. Act I went very well I thought, but Act
II was shaky at best. I must say that I am a little disappointed with Anita. Over
the last couple of nights, she seemed very unfocused and it really made our
scenes suffer. Not that I was the greatest or anything, but it is very un-Anita like
for her to be that way. Our scene together in Act II, Scene 3 was terrible. She
seemed to be all over the place. I was literally willing her to stay with me.
Overall, I feel that we are doing well, but that we haven't grown with this
rehearsal. Many of the scenes tonight were forced, both emotionally and
Harris 123
physically. Maybe I need to step back and see what I can do to make it better.
Notes After Run:
General:
•
More choppy moments in Act II than Act I.
I.1 -
Play with this: Physicalization into Call me Hal.
I.1 -
I don't have time for this - More intensity.
I.1 -
Build the astrophysicist speech. It's one note.
I.3 -
Lose the drumsticks.
I.3 -
Hold kiss longer before exit.
I.4 -
We'll cue the entrance.
I.4 -
No sound on her decision to give me the key.
I.4 -
We'll work my re-entrance into the scene.
II.1 -
Entrance will be quicker.
II.1 -
Good sequence with the thesis handoff to Robert.
II.1 -
Don't worry about sitting after "thanks" before "Oh, who are you working
with?"
II.1 - The exit worked nicely.
II.2 -
The "good" moment with Claire worked well.
II.2 -
The big argument didn't seem as connected.
II.5 - That was this week, I spent this week reading the proof.
II.5 -
There are not dates in this - physical and vocal seemed forced.
II.5 - Playing off of her nicely.
Harris 124
II.5 -
I think you are too - don't get locked in - maybe try that a little more
positive.
II.5 -
Nice understanding of the radiator.
II.5 - Connect the "elegant" with her Dad's stuff - i.e. hit the "you'll."
II.5 -
Nice "talk me through it" moments.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Tonight was the first tech. As techs go, it wasn't too bad. I have been
through some absolutely terrible ones. We actually made it through every cue.
At 10:25, we started the last one. The set looks incredibly stunning under the
lights. I looked at Anita while we were sitting in the house and said to her that
our designers and artists are very, very talented people. It was difficult finding
our way off the set in the darkness, but they are going to remedy that problem. I
was concerned that the audience would see people exiting offstage when they
were supposed to be entering the house. Fortunately, they are going to create
some more masking that will take care of that. I'm getting very excited about
opening. I think that it is an incredible show. I hope the audience likes it as
much as we do.
Friday, September 19, 2003
Tonight we had our 2nd tech rehearsal. We attempted to get through an
entire run of the show without stopping but we had to hold a couple of times. Not
bad at all though. Everything is starting to feel a lot better. We are all becoming
Harris 125
much more comfortable out there. The only problem that I had was getting
offstage in the blackout. It is very difficult to get through the curtains SL. The
curtains overlap each other by about 3 feet, so it becomes quite a hassle to find
the split and get through. I think that they are going to do something about that.
Overall, some nice work going on out there. The notes are as follows:
I.1 -
Dilbert speech - cheat open - too profile.
I.2 -
Good reaction to their fight.
I.3 -
More teacher-like with the Germaine primes.
I.3 -
Good move into the first kiss.
I.3 -
May work the except for the book I stole - what gets you into that.
I.3 -
95 mile an hour fastball - good.
I.4 -
Work transition into 1.4
I.4 -
Make entrance a little later.
I.4 -
What's in there? - Nice moment.
I.4 -
Kiss before leaving seemed Jim awkward, not Hal excited.
II.1 -
Good who are you working with?
II.1 -
Wonder where to get rid of the glass?
II.1 - I have plans - do I?
II.5 - Nice moment before into "So Claire sold the house"
II.5 -
The moment before "Nice House" seemed a little rushed
II.5 - The end of this scene is still a touch too romantic. I think he has a great
hope for the future, but think of the way into that possibility as being
through the math. Get her talking about what you know she loves. You
Harris 126
hope she loves you, but you know she loves math. You learned that in 1-3
and it is beyond all doubt that she loves math after you read the proof
during that week before this scene.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
I was called today at 1:30 for only an hour and a half. We did some
cleaning up of some moments. One moment in particular really feels a lot better.
I felt like I was standing beside Catherine for a very long time and we were able
to motivate some movement for me. The evening run consisted of our first dress.
Overall, it went very well. All of my quick changes went well, except for the
super-quick one. It will get better, I'm sure. It already went well last night, but
Jeff wants it a little quicker. We'll make some adjustments and try it again
tomorrow. Notes are as follows:
I.1 -
I could see the proof in the jacket. Fix that.
I.1 -
Beginning seemed low energy. Pick it up - go after what you want.
I.1 -
Nice backpack section.
I.1 -
Nice run along the lake - whole section went very well.
I.1 -
Nice picking up of your coat and bag at the end of the scene.
I.3 -
Much more fun and playful - this was a great scene.
I.4 -
Ended up too close to Catherine at the end of the scene.
II.1 -
Take the hat off somewhere in the scene.
II.2 - Nice - "disinterested guys."
Harris 127
Monday September 22, 2003
We completed our 2nd dress tonight. We are all very pleased with how
the show went. Our focus is getting better and better out there. I only had one
problem throughout the run, that damned quick-change. I call it the brown
change. I really think that we have solved the problems and ironed out the kinks.
I'll make a few more adjustments that will really save time. I thought that Erin
and I were very connected to each other and that 1.3 went better than it ever
had. I really feel quite giddy (for lack of a better term). I am already getting
those feelings of nervousness and anxiousness. I think about this show and I
have to smile. It has been one of the best rehearsal experiences of my life. We
haven't even opened yet and I miss it already! Notes are as follows:
I.1 -
Drinking alone. Nice - seemed a little angry at "Sorry, I was planning to
attend."
I.1 -
Nice with "2:00, 2:30"
I.1 -
Nice connection with her through the "pretty high order."
I.1 -
Think about changing the folding of the jacket.
I.3 -
Great entrance.
I.3 -
Nice enjoy teaching.
I.3 -
Sunday morning I usually go out not as strong.
I.3 -
Play with the pause before "Uh so."
II.1 -
Nice - with "getting out of the house."
II.2 -
First 1/3rd of 2.2 was dragging.
II.2 - Raise the stakes.
Harris 128
II.3 -
Fix the quick change.
II.3 - Nice on "Call her once she's settled."
II.5 -
Nice top of scene!!!
II.5 - Nice into "I think you are too."
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
My god, I can’t believe that the run went so poorly. They say bad dress,
great opening, but I don’t buy that crap. Everything was strange. The tempo
was terrible. I wonder what went wrong. I think that we just need an audience
and that would really fix the problems. We are tired of performing it for Jeff. We
did add a backpack to 2.1 after the run. We rehearsed it briefly and it doesn’t
seem to be a problem. Now I can wear my hat and have some place to put it
after I take it off. We’ll see how that goes tomorrow. I have to get some sleep
and try not to think about it.
General Notes:
•
We need an audience. They will help fuel you for the scene.
•
This is such a delicate play that you can push it over the edge if you start
to push it.
•
There are so few marks that are necessary to hit - feel free to play,
engage, listen to each other.
I.2 -
Nice entrance and awkwardness.
II.3 - This scene was good. We were connected.
II.1 - The drinking moment was pushed.
Harris 129
II.1 -
"No, I shouldn't" was great.
II.1 - Can we add a backpack to you?
II.2 - Didn't get there.
II.3 -
Too long at the door.
II.3 -
Response to "That's the deal" was in a different place - it worked.
II.5 - "Hip" didn't work tonight.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Preview Performance
Well that felt much better than last night. Everything seemed to go very
well. We had a house of 96 people and they were pretty responsive as preview
crowds go. I think that 2.2 was still very slow. Jeff wants us to run the end of 1.4
into 2.2 to get the feeling of that once again. It is an incredibly demanding
transition and we never seem to have the necessary stakes at the top of the
scene. Coming out of 2.1 into this scene doesn’t make anything easier. We are
happy-go-lucky in one moment and intense as can be in the next. It was nice to
have an audience. There were a few technical glitches, but I’m sure they will get
ironed out for tomorrow. Notes are as follows:
General Notes:
•
Volume was the only problem throughout the show. Take it up a notch.
Wasn't bad, just needs a little push.
I.3 -
Play with the kisses. Length of time. Test the one on the glider.
I.4 -
Lost some of the awkwardness.
Harris 130
II.2 -
Earn the pauses. If there aren't many pauses along the way, the big one
will pay off even more so.
II.5 -
There will be a card in the proof. It will be actor proof.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Performance #1 – Opening Night
I can’t believe that the show is now open. Everything went wonderfully
well. The audience was great! They were so quick, it was difficult to stay ahead
of them. What I mean by that is that they were getting the jokes before we even
said them. I was very nervous at the start of the show, but I warmed up to it
about midway through 1.1. It was a great night. The feeling that we had
immediately afterwards is a constant reminder of why I have chosen acting as a
career. I am on cloud nine!
Friday, September 26, 2003
Performance #2
The 2nd show letdown is an enigma. I can’t understand why it happens,
but it does. I have never experienced a show that didn’t have that feeling. The
audience was great again, but we were dragging through the show. Our tempo
felt slow and the moments seemed more forced than usual. Dale had some
difficulty with lines in 2.1. Instead of saying “Yes, it is a bad time, you couldn’t
have picked worse,” he said, “What are you doing here?” It was alright though
because I was in the moment and started to respond to him as Hal would have.
Harris 131
He finally caught his mistake and recovered, but he seemed rattled throughout
the entire scene. We made it through the show, however, and it was still a good
one. Just not as good as last night.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
Performance #3
Tonight was much better than last night. 1.1 went better than it ever has,
until I dropped a line. I struggled with “Riding buses.” I floundered and had that
deer in headlights stare going. I mumbled out “Writing to people” and continued
on but it was obvious that I dropped a line. Of course, those moments always
seem worse to the actor than to the audience. Overall, an excellent show. Dave
and Vanessa were there, we could hear them laughing quite a bit. They really
seemed to enjoy the show. Tomorrow is a matinee and we get adjudicated. I
hope that everyone will be on their game.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Performance #4
Today is my birthday! It also adjudication for ACTF day. I must say that
the performance that we all gave today reminded me of the reason I have chosen
acting as a career. Today was a rare experience on the stage. I truly felt like this
was one of my best performances that I have ever given. I felt like I was involved
completely in every moment. There was a connection out there that we all felt.
The show is in a different place, both emotionally and tempo-wise. It simply felt
Harris 132
great. I cannot control that feeling; I can only hope to experience it again
sometime. It was awesome. We finally get a night off tomorrow. That will
certainly be nice.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Performance #5
A typical Tuesday night crowd was in store for us tonight. They really
weren't very responsive and the show seemed to drag a little. It always feels that
way after a night off. it was nice, but it really wasn't a night off. I had tons of stuff
to do and read on Monday night. I can't wait for this weekend to get here so that
we can have a good crowd again.
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
Performance #6
Tonight's crowd was much like last night's. They are never really awake
out there early in the week. The show seemed to go well though. Poor Anita
had an incredible coughing fit out there. Something got in her throat and the
more she tried to push through, the more her voice closed off. She made it
through though. I read the review and was a little disappointed with Kathy
Matter's review. I was the only person she criticized. I'm really not upset about it
though; I've been stabbed by much bigger pens than hers. I'll continue to read
reviews while I'm in performance. It doesn't affect what I do out there.
Harris 133
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Performance #7
Finally, a big house again. I thought that the show went very well tonight.
Dale thought that it could have been better, but I think he was not so pleased
with his performance. From my end, it seemed very good. I felt like I was in the
moment out there for the most part. I had to suppress an impulse tonight,
directly going against what I was taught in Meisner class. I honestly had the urge
to cry with Catherine as she said her line at the end of the play, “We’d talk … not
about math, he couldn’t.” For some reason it hit me very hard tonight. I was
caught in an conundrum. I didn’t know if I should go with it and let it happen or
suppress it. I chose to suppress it, not because I had a fear of letting it go, but
because I didn’t think that this type of moment is what Jeff had in mind. It was a
strange moment. Dual consciousness kicked in big time. Looking back, I don’t
think that it would have been a bad thing to have let go and cried with her. Not
sobs, but tears. Hal can allow himself to do that. He truly loved Robert too. He
certainly feels terrible for hurting Catherine. He is definitely emotionally charged
enough for some tears to be an honest response. Anyway, if I felt it and I was in
the moment, shouldn’t it be correct? If it happens again, I’ll let them fall.
Friday, October 03, 2003
Performance #8
My mother, brother, and sister-in-law came to see the show tonight. It
was a good house and the show really seemed to clip along at a nice pace.
Harris 134
Overall, it was a very good show. No major problems or snafus to report. I still
love doing this show. I don’t want to see it end. As far as suppressing moments
during the show, I wasn’t compelled to cry like I was last night. That’s okay, it still
was nice. My family loved the show. My mother is very proud of me. I think
everyone in the theatre knew that I was her son at the end of the show! She has
a habit of telling everyone that fact. I’m glad she’s proud. I am proud of this
show too.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Performance #9
Things went very well again. Dale had a little difficulty in II.4, grasping for
lines and dying a thousand deaths, but he pulled out of it. I didn’t know if Erin
was going to make it through it. She had nothing to say or do to pull him out of
his line problem. Dale has had a habit of dropping lines throughout the run and
rehearsals. He forces us to stay on our toes out there. Unfortunately, it’s not the
good kind of focus. We have to be Jim and Erin waiting on Dale, not Hal and
Catherine listening to Robert. I know that he is struggling with his problem too.
He came into the dressing room and said, “What the hell is going on with me? It
must be a sign of age.” He wasn’t tongue-in-cheek about it either. I could tell
that he was really concerned about what was happening out there. I tried to
ease it by telling him that it wasn’t as bad as he thought, but it didn’t do much
good. It was a real Life in the Theatre moment in the dressing room. He just
might be slipping a bit. I still think that he’s a great actor.
Harris 135
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Performance #10 – The Closing
It’s over. It’s over. It’s over. I don’t want it to be over. It was a very
emotional moment backstage at the end of the show. Erin, Anita, and I had a
group hug and the tears came. This has been the best experience on the stage
that I have ever had. I love this show and cast so much, it is going to be very
difficult letting go of it. After so much incredibly hard work and effort, it is finally
over. I’m going to have to leave all of it alone for a while and let it soak in. I look
forward to completing my monograph, but I want to play this role again and
again. This is the type of play in which every actor dreams about originating a
role. I owe Jeff Casazza so much. He is the best.
Harris 136
Appendix D
Image Collage
Act I, Scene 4 – The morning after
Harris 137
Image Collage
The following images are representative of how Hal sees the world. He is
incredibly smart and mathematically oriented. Unfortunately, Hal cannot
complete the pictures that he sees. He understands how math works and
comprehend the inner workings of it, but his connections are not quite complete.
One thought leads to another and then scatters into confusion. While the works
are beautiful, they do not make logical sense. Just like Hal’s mathematical
accomplishments, the “big ideas” fall short of completion. All of these images are
the work of M. C. Escher.
Titles, clockwise from upper left: Eye, Relativity, Reptiles, Bond of Union.
Harris 138
Titles, clockwise from upper left: Ascending and Descending, Waterfall, Sky and
Water, Print Gallery.
Harris 139
Appendix E
Selected Research
Act II, Scene 5
Harris 140
Selected Research
Letter from Jeff Casazza, August 16, 2003
Hello everyone,
I can't tell you all how much I am looking forward to beginning our work together. I
think we have a wonderful cast and the makings of what will be an exciting and
engaging production.
As you know, we will have everyone together for Sunday's rehearsal and then not
again until the following Sunday. So, in order to include everyone in our early
discussions, I would like you to think about a few things in preparation for
Sunday's rehearsal.
I hope you will spend a little time during the next week thinking about the following
items. While we will be doing a good deal of character and relationship work
during the first week, I would like you to think about the items on this list from your
own point of view and not from that of the character you are playing.
An important note-please don't think of the following in terms of the play, but in
terms of what they mean to you personally. I'm not looking for any deep
philosophical meanings here, but those first impressions, thoughts and feelings
inspired by these words and ideas. We'll use them as a jumping off point for
discussion. This also doesn't mean that you have to go out and research anything.
Let your reactions be personal and honest.
Feel free to be creative with any of these words. For example, if the word Chicago
reminds you of the Cubs and you have a Cubs hat or a picture of you at Wrigley
Field bring that as well as your written impressions and thoughts. Or if Family
reminds you of Thanksgiving Dinner and your favorite dish is applesauce, feel free
to bring some to sample. Basically feel free to bring in pictures, objects, music, etc.
along with any written work. This should be a fun discussion as we begin our work
together and mix in all of our various views, thoughts and ideas.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at home or work by phone
or email. As Karin and I are in the process of building a home, we may not be
reachable every moment during the next week. If I am not there when you call or
email, I will respond as soon as I can.
Work (317) 916-4801 Home (317) 871-2790
Thank you in advance for all of your work, and I look forward to seeing you all on the
24th.
Harris 141
Jeff
Here is the list of things to think about for our first rehearsal
Chicago
Father
Family
Brother/Sister
Proof
Faith
What is the difference between proof and faith
What is the difference between a house and a home
University of Chicago vs. Northwestern University
Mathematics
Music
Machinery
Ghosts
Hallucinations
Dreams
Patterns
Freedom
Prison
Prison yard
Claire's Chicago friends
Claire's New York friends
Claire's Stupid friends
Mitch
New York doctors
New York people are the best
Hal's friends
Hal's band
The guys that Hal knows - to read proof
Hal's mom
Mathematicians
Robert's Students
Woman Mathematician at Stanford
Chicago Police
The officers that come by at night/morning
University Officials - Northwestern that Catherine dealt with
University Officials - U of C that Claire is dealing with
Northwestern - Kaminsky
Northwestern - O'Donohue
Catherine's mom
Funeral guests Party guests
Chicago Cubs Northwestern Football
Neighbors Neighborhood
Harris 142
Harris 143
A Brief History of the Department
The University of Chicago, and with it the Department of Mathematics,
opened its doors in October of 1892. The first chair of the department was
Eliakim Hastings Moore, who had been an associate professor at Northwestern.
He immediately appointed Oskar Bolza and Heinrich Maschke, and the three of
them became the core of the department during the period 1892-1908. R.C.
Archibald has described this group as follows:
Harris 144
These three men supplemented one another remarkably. Moore was a
fiery enthusiast, brilliant, and keenly interested in the popular mathematical
research movements of the day; Bolza, a product of the meticulous German
school of analysis led by Weierstrass, was an able, and widely read research
scholar; Maschke was more deliberate than the other two, sagacious, brilliant in
research, and a most delightful lecturer in geometry. During the period 18921908 the University of Chicago was unsurpassed in America as an institution for
the study of higher mathematics.
One of the first projects undertaken by the newly formed department was
the organization of an international congress of mathematicians in association
with the World Fair held in Chicago in 1893. The success of this venture is
indicated by the fact that it has inspired the organization of International
Congresses of Mathematicians on a regular basis. The publication of the
proceedings of this congress was undertaken with the help of the New York
Mathematical Society, and shortly thereafter, with Moore's strong
encouragement, it was concluded that the Society should be reorganized as the
American Mathematical Society.
From 1892 to 1910, 39 students graduated from Chicago with doctoral
degrees in mathematics. This group included such mathematicians as Leonard
Dickson (Chicago's first Ph.D. in mathematics), Gilbert Bliss, Oswald Veblen,
R.L. Moore, George D. Birkhoff and T.H. Hildebrandt. There was a shift in the
character of the department beginning in 1908, when Maschke died, and this was
accentuated in 1910 when Bolza returned to Germany. Along with Moore, the
most influential members of the department became L.E. Dickson, G.A. Bliss and
Ernst Wilczynski. The pace at which doctorates were granted accelerated: in
1910-1927, 115 Ph.D.s were granted. By the end of this period, Chicago had
become a dominant source of mathematical Ph.D.s in the United States: in 1928,
45 Ph.D.s in mathematics were granted in the United States, and either 12
(according to the Bulletin of the AMS) or 14 (according to department records) of
these were from Chicago. The nearest competitors in that year were Minnesota
(with four) and Cornell and Johns Hopkins (three each). By virtue of sheer
numbers, Chicago became a dominant force on the American mathematical
scene, providing faculty for many departments in the nation. On the other hand, it
is generally agreed that none of the graduate students in this period reached the
same level of mathematical profundity as the best students in the earlier one.
Saunders Mac Lane's sober assessment: "Chicago had become in part a Ph.D
mill in mathematics."
In 1927, Gilbert Bliss succeeded Moore as chair of the department. He
and Dickson were the dominant mathematical influences on the department
during Bliss' chairmanship, which lasted until 1941. Together, they directed
nearly 70 of the 117 theses written during this period. There was somewhat more
success in producing mathematicians of depth in this period: Adrian Albert
graduated in 1928, W.L. Duren in 1929, E.J MacShane in 1930 and Leon Alaoglu
Harris 145
in 1938. Mac Lane (who was a student at Chicago during this period, though he
soon left for Göttingen, with E.H. Moore's encouragement) makes this
assessment: "In this period the department at Chicago trained a few outstanding
research mathematicians and a number of effective members of this community plus produced a large number of essentially routine theses."
Up until this point, it had been a pattern at Chicago to appoint Chicago
Ph.D.s to the faculty. This predictably led to a certain narrowness of
mathematical focus: the calculus of variations, projective differential geometry,
algebra and number theory were the main topics of interest. During the latter part
of Bliss' chairmanship, there were some efforts to appoint mathematicians in new
fields and not from Chicago. Two of these included Saunders Mac Lane and
Norman Steenrod, though both left after a few years.
Bliss retired in 1941, and was succeeded as chair by E.P. Lane. Lane's
attempts to revive the department were largely unsuccessful, due primarily to the
onset of World War II. President Robert Hutchins brought the Manhattan Project
to the University of Chicago, and was housed in Eckhart Hall, while the
mathematicians were moved into one of the towers of Harper Library. There were
no new appointments until after the war; Irving Kaplansky was the first in 1945.
There were however, some notable graduate students during the war, including
George Whitehead in 1941.
At the conclusion of the war, Hutchins made an effort to retain some of the
scientists who had come to campus as part of the Manhattan Project; a
consequence of this was a need to strengthen the mathematics department. A
professor at Harvard, Marshall Stone, was approached and asked if he would
come to Chicago as chair. There were at the time five vacant senior positions
which had accumulated during the war, which meant that the department had to
be rebuilt almost completely, and there was a wish to match the level of
appointments in the physical sciences which the university had been able to
make through its involvement in the Manhattan Project.
Stone brought a considerable degree of ambition and vision to the project
of rebuilding the department. The list of mathematicians appointed at Chicago
through Stone's efforts is remarkable: André Weil, Antoni Zygmund, Saunders
Mac Lane and Shiing-Shen Chern as professors, and Paul Halmos, Irving Segal
and Edwin Spanier as assistant professors. Other appointments were attempted,
but unsuccessful. The first offer Stone made was to Hassler Whitney. Stone's
recommendation to appoint Whitney was initially rejected by the administration,
and it required considerable effort to reverse this decision. When the offer was
finally made, Whitney turned it down, and shortly later moved to the Institute for
Advanced Study. In another case, an attempt was made to appoint Freeman
Dyson; this failed when the Dean of the Division (a physicist) asked "Who is
Dyson?"
Harris 146
Stone grew weary of the struggle with the administration for new resources,
and stepped down as chair in 1952. He was succeeded by Mac Lane as chair
from 1952-1958, and Adrian Albert from 1958-1962. This period presented new
challenges, as Weil left in 1958, Chern and Spanier in 1959, Segal in 1960, and
Halmos in 1961. But this account will end here, as the writing of recent history is
too dangerous an occupation.
Notes: The material on this page has been stitched together from the following
sources:
•
In A Century of Mathematics in America, Part II, Peter Duren, ed.
(assisted by Richard A. Askey and Uta C. Merzbach), American
Mathematical Society, 1988:
o Saunders Mac Lane, Mathematics at the University of Chicago: A
Brief History.
o Karen Hunger Parshall, Eliakim Hastings Moore and the Founding
of a Mathematical Community in America, 1892-1902, reprinted
from the Annals of Science, vol. 41, 1984, pp. 313-333.
o Marshall Stone, Reminiscences of Mathematics at Chicago,
reprinted from The University of Chicago Magazine.
o Felix E. Browder, The Stone Age of Mathematics on the Midway,
reprinted from The University of Chicago Magazine.
Harris 147
Senior Faculty, June 2001
Harris 148
Guidelines for the Topic
During the second year of graduate study, students are required to give a
topic presentation in some field of mathematics. The goal of the topic is to help
students bridge the gap between the material covered in the first year courses
and some of the frontiers of research. It is, in addition, an opportunity for students
to begin to engage with mathematics in a more sophisticated and active manner.
Often, until this point, students have seen mathematics presented in highly
refined and complete form, and their task has been to absorb it as thoroughly as
possible. By and large, the path has been laid out quite clearly, and the student's
task has simply been to follow it. In the topic, the student is expected to begin to
take a more active role; the task is not simply to master a body of material
(although it includes that), but also to understand the problems, questions and
examples which have led to the development of the theory, and to begin to be
able to formulate questions which might lead to productive future developments.
In other words, he or she must learn not only answers to questions, but also what
makes the questions interesting.
The student should have two advisors during the course of the topic, one
of whom generally takes a primary role. At least one of the advisors should be a
senior faculty member in the mathematics department. At the beginning of the
topic, the student and advisor(s) should reach a preliminary agreement about the
area to be addressed in the topic, and the kind of work to be undertaken in
connection with it. Often, there will be a list of books and papers to be read and
discussed with the advisor; in other cases, the advisor may run a seminar in
which the student is expected to take an active role. The agreement about the
scope and direction of the topic may change over the course of time, but both
student and advisor(s) should be clear in their understanding of this. There are
two requirements for the successful conclusion of a topic: a topic proposal and
an oral presentation.
Topic proposal
The first requirement is that the student write a brief topic proposal,
generally 3 to 5 pages in length. The goal in the proposal is to give an overview
of the area in question which is accessible to a reader who is mathematically
literate, but not a specialist in the area. The proposal should attempt not only to
describe a set of results, but also to explain the source of interest in the subject,
and what fertile areas for further development there might be. While the topic is
intended to help the student reach the point of doing research, it is not desirable
that the focus of the topic be narrowed excessively so as to ensure that the
student is able to work on a problem at its conclusion. It is more important to gain
a firm and broad foundation in a significant area of mathematical inquiry at this
stage, even if this means that additional work may be necessary after the topic
before the student can begin to engage seriously with a problem. The proposal
Harris 149
should aim to convince the reader that such a foundation has been put in place.
Obviously, there may be disagreements as to whether a topic is broad enough;
there should be enough communication between the student, the advisor(s) and
the graduate committee over the course of the year to ensure that these
disagreements are resolved early rather than late. Proposals are to be turned in
to Laurie Wail by Friday of the second week of the spring quarter at the latest. It
is, however, advisable to turn in the proposal earlier if at all possible, and to
begin work on the proposal well before the deadline. The proposal will be
reviewed by the graduate committee and, if the committee is satisfied, distributed
to the faculty. The faculty as a whole then has two weeks in which to raise
questions or objections. If no objections arise, the proposal is considered
approved.
Oral presentation
The second and major requirement is an oral presentation to the advisors
(and perhaps others), which may be scheduled after the proposal has been
approved. The presentation itself is generally expected to last about an hour, but
questions from the advisors may expand the time required to as much as two
hours. Questions may be asked by the examiners either during or after the
presentation; the energy and depth of the questioning will vary according to the
inclinations of the examiners. Under certain circumstances, the student may be
asked to do some follow-up work in order to pass. The topic should be passed by
the end of the last week of classes in the spring quarter, though exceptions may
be made in unusual circumstances, if the advisors and graduate committee
agree.
The Math Building at U of C
Harris 150
An Actual Mathematical Thesis
First Five Pages
Harris 151
Harris 152
Harris 153
Harris 154
Harris 155
Proof: An Admirable Approximation of Mathematical Culture
By Sara Robinson
After seeing the nationally touring production of Proof in San Francisco, I couldn't
figure out what all the critics were raving about. The play was entertaining, but for
the winner of both a Pulitzer and a Tony award, I expected more depth. Then I
read the script, and realized that the problems were with the production--particularly the interpretation of Catherine, the protagonist, by actress Chelsea
Altman. David Auburn is no Tom Stoppard, but his play is a gem. I only wish I
had seen the original Broadway production in New York.
Proof is about the tension between the intensely creative but emotionally limited
world of mathematics and the world of ordinary human relationships. This clash
plays out through 25-year-old Catherine's relationships with her father, Robert
(Robert Foxworth), a brilliant but mentally unstable mathematician, Robert's
former student Hal, and her sister, Claire, a determinedly ordinary young woman.
Catherine appears to have inherited some of her father's talent for mathematics,
and perhaps, as Claire believes and Catherine fears, some of his mental
instability.
The play begins just after Robert's death from a heart attack. Catherine has
sacrificed her own development and education to take sole responsibility for the
care of her father through an incapacitating mental illness. The action takes place
in flashbacks to Catherine's interactions with her father, as well as in scenes in
the present with Claire (played brilliantly by Tasha Lawrence) and Hal (Stephen
Kunken), a worshipful disciple of Robert's who is romantically interested in
Catherine.
The title of the play refers both to the proof of an important theorem in number
theory, found in Robert's desk, and to the "proof" of its authorship. Auburn
suggests that the second "proof" is only a leap of faith. Of Catherine's honesty
and, more important, her sanity, there can be no proof.
David Auburn spoke about the role of mathematics in his play in an opening-night
"conversation" hosted by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in
Berkeley. Modeling the event on an earlier program about Tom Stoppard's play
Arcadia, MSRI special projects director Bob Osserman questioned David Auburn
about several elements of the play, particularly the implied connection between
mathematical talent and insanity. Auburn, a young and witty graduate of the
University of Chicago, the setting for the play, replied that the stereotype of the
insane mathematician provided the dramatic elements he needed.
Harris 156
In Catherine, a brilliant, young woman unsure of her own sanity but mature and
stable enough to take care of her crazy father, Auburn created an interesting and
challenging role. Unfortunately, Chelsea Altman's Catherine is one-dimensional.
Her Catherine is perpetually angry; all her lines are delivered as emotional
outbursts, spoken in a whiny, sarcastic tone. It was only after reading her lines
that I could appreciate their content.
The other three actors, thankfully, are far better. I particularly liked Lawrence's
portrayal of Claire, the intellectually ordinary, socially able character, who doesn't
share the emotional and intellectual intensity of the other three. Yet she, too, has
sacrificed, paying all the bills for her father and Catherine and providing their only
link to normalcy. Auburn gives her a priceless line that says it all:
"You [expletive deleted] mathematicians, you don't think," she cries to Hal. "You
don't know what you're doing. You stagger around creating these catastrophes
and it's people like me who end up flying in to clean them up!"
The premise of Proof requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of
mathematicians. Not being a mathematician, Auburn has created a plot centered
around a world he doesn't know. The result is elements of plot and dialog that are
a little off.
For instance, Hal describes a math conference where the older mathematicians
all take amphetamines to ensure that they can compete with the younger crowd.
Tossed off as the norm, this is, perhaps, an impression Auburn gained from his
readings about Paul Erdös. Elsewhere, descriptions of the proof found in the
drawer are in terms unlikely to have been uttered by a mathematician--Catherine, for example, describes the proof as "lumpy."
Most problematic, the central question of the authorship of the proof just isn't
plausible: The most important evidence, a deep understanding of the proof, is not
pursued.
But aside from details such as these, which might trouble only a mathematician,
the play does a remarkable job of approximating some of the elements of
mathematical culture. Auburn understands that mathematical research is highly
creative and imaginative, and that mathematicians are, in many ways, akin more
to poets and artists than to engineers.
The dialog captures poignant aspects of the mathematical ego, both the pride
and the insecurity. Robert and Catherine both fear mediocrity and struggle to
grasp an elusive genius. In the conversation with Osserman, Auburn said that the
idea for the play had grown out of an imagined conversation between a girl and
her father. He chose to set the play within the world of mathematics, he said,
because it's a field where people tend to do their best work when young.
Harris 157
He also captures cultural details, such as mathematicians' tendency to have
incongruous outside hobbies (Hal plays drums in an all-mathematician rock
band), and Auburn even manages a slightly awkward rendition of mathspeak--the use of mathematical metaphors and attention to precision in ordinary
conversation.
Robert remarks to Catherine, for instance, that Hal is in the "infinite" program:
"As he approaches completion of his dissertation, time approaches infinity."
Catherine, irritated with Claire, argues that it's not possible to make hair healthier
since it's dead tissue.
The play is by no means a perfect portrait of the world of mathematics, but it's not
a bad approximation and it's worth seeing. I suggest that you read it first,
however, so you can hear the nuances of the dialog through Altman's
temperamental acting.
Proof's national tour will visit Sacramento, Houston, Boston, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles,
following its opening in San Francisco. See http://www.proof-mtc.com/tour.htm
for details. In New York, Proof continues at the Walter Kerr Theatre, with a new
cast that includes Jennifer Jason Leigh as Catherine
(http://www.proofonbroadway.com/).
Sara Robinson is a freelance writer and part-time journalist-in-residence at the
Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley.
©2002, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Harris 158
Harris 159
Harris 160
Harris 161
Osserman Interviews David Auburn, author of Proof
By Gerald L. Alexanderson
The play Proof, as everyone associated with mathematics must know by now,
has been an enormous success on Broadway. Now it has begun a national tour
at the Curran Theatre in San Francisco. To mark the occasion the Mathematical
Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) at Berkeley arranged to have the playwright,
David Auburn, interviewed by Robert Osserman on stage at the theatre two days
after the play opened its month-long San Francisco run, on November 29. The
San Francisco Chronicle reported a $2 million advance ticket sale. Not bad for a
play about mathematics and mental illness!
MSRI has arranged events of this kind before, an interview with George V.
Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory, and the actor Michael Winters,
on the occasion of a Bay Area production of Brecht's Galileo, and an interview
with Tom Stoppard about his play Arcadia. Previous settings for these interviews
have been the Berkeley Repertory Theatre and Hertz Hall on the UC Berkeley
campus. The Curran is quite another matter, a large and elegant house, built in
the 1920's, and home traditionally to traveling companies of Broadway musicals.
Never before has there been so much mathematical talk heard in the lobby and
in the auditorium.
Auburn is not a well-known name in the theatre like Brecht or Stoppard, at least
not until Proof, which was his second full-length play. From an initial offBroadway run at the Manhattan Theatre Club it moved up Broadway to the
Walter Kerr Theatre and now to a national tour, after picking up the Joseph
Kesselring Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, the Drama Desk Award, and the Tony Award
for Best Play of 2001. The New York run continues.
One of Osserman's opening questions concerned Auburn's background. He
attended the University of Chicago where he studied political philosophy and
where his formal mathematical education ended with calculus. But he had an
interest in theatre and wrote sketches in the tradition of Second City and a oneact play while still in college. After graduating he went to New York and worked
for a chemical company writing copy for labels for a carpet shampoo! And then
he attended Juilliard, acting and writing until he decided to give up acting.
Proof is a play about a young woman who had taken care of her mathematicianfather for several years prior to his death that came after a long bout with mental
illness. Auburn was asked whether he had planned from the beginning to write
about a mathematician. He did not. He started out by being interested in the
question of whether mental illness, as well as talent, can be inherited — the
mathematical connections came later.
Harris 162
As part of the interview Osserman and Auburn read two provocative and very
amusing passages from the play (Osserman played Catherine, the young
woman, and Auburn played Hal, a young protégé of Catherine's father). The
passages touched on various misconceptions (or are they?) about
mathematicians — (1) that it is a young man's profession (and here we
emphasize the word "man"), (2) that there is something that predisposes
mathematicians to mental instability, and (3) that only brilliant results count in
mathematics and that less exalted research and teaching (high school teaching
is referred to as a sign of failure) are lesser activities, to be eschewed by those in
the lofty realms of the highest level of mathematical research.
Catherine in the play has been trained (up to a certain point) as a mathematician,
so a question is raised and tackled in the play — can a woman really do highly
original work? The lack of a woman on the list of Fields Medalists and the
appearance only a few years ago of the first woman to place among the top five
in the Putnam Competition — both of these were cited in the discussion. Clearly,
in this area at least, perceptions have changed in the last decade or two. Then
the question arose: whether the mathematical life is really all over at the age of
40 (as is implied by the tradition in awarding Fields Medals). Osserman pointed
out that though great original breakthroughs might be seen more often in the
young, mathematicians continue to carry on productive lives into their 50s, 60s
and 70s. The idea that what really matters in mathematics is the highest level
research probably still dominates the thinking in many circles.
Auburn touched on all of these questions. He described mathematics as a
remarkable subculture. But how did he find out so much about the culture without
having seriously studied mathematics? It became clear that he has read a lot and
has considerable familiarity with the biographies of Erdos, Nash, Ramanujan,
and others. He was asked why the principal character is a woman and he
responded that a man would not be expected to stay home to take care of an
ailing father.
There are a few claims made in the play that one might question — the level of
drug use among mathematicians, for example, obviously something suggested
by one of the Erdos biographies. Occasionally there are bits of mathematics. At
the mention of Sophie Germain, Hal recalls, after a slight hesitation, Germain
primes and Catherine blurts out "92,305 x 216,998 + 1". Hal is startled that she
seems to know this, but then Catherine claims that it is the largest one known —
not so, though it may have been at the time of the action of the play, which is left
ambiguous in the printed version. (According to the web page,
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/lists/top20/SophieGermain.html, the largest
Germain prime is 109433307 x 266452 – 1.)
Osserman raised the question of whether Auburn was consciously aware of the
parallel between Arcadia and Proof. In both plays there is a very clever young
woman who has remarkable insights into mathematics and is "mentored," in a
Harris 163
way, by a slightly older man who is well-trained in mathematics but much less
original in his thinking. Auburn appeared unaware of the parallel but admitted to
being an admirer of Stoppard and his plays. But when asked whether he was
strongly influenced by Stoppard, he said that he was more influenced by the
people who wrote sketches years ago, like Mike Nichols and Elaine May, and by
John Guare and David Mamet.
A much discussed aspect of Proof has been made even more interesting of late
with the imminent appearance of the film, A Beautiful Mind, based, we
understand, quite loosely on the biography of John Forbes Nash by Sylvia Nasar.
What about this connection between insanity and mathematics? Is it really true
that a special kind of person is drawn to mathematics? Auburn had said earlier
that he was fascinated by the "romantic quality of mathematical work," the
solitary worker in an attic somewhere (obviously an idea inspired by Andrew
Wiles) working on a problem and coming up with something entirely original. He
also said that mathematicians have rather edgy personalities and they make
leaps of the mind that most people just cannot make. So he thinks there may be
some kind of causal relationship between being a mathematician and suffering
from a mental breakdown. Osserman cited four people whom he considers to be
"romantic" figures in mathematics: Hypatia, Galois, Turing and van Heijenoort.
Their stories are well-known to a mathematical audience — but others could be
added to this short list: Abel and Ramanujan (if Hardy was a good judge) come to
mind. But not one of these could be viewed as being insane — eccentric in one
or two cases, maybe, but not insane.
Osserman cited a study that ranked various professions by the numbers of
adherents to the field who have also suffered from mental illness. Poets ranked
at the top of the list. People in the creative arts are two or three times as likely to
suffer from psychosis as scientists (mathematicians were not cited separately),
according to K. R. Jamison in Touched with Fire. Auburn said he had read of
enough cases to justify writing his play about mathematicians. Besides, people
are used to hearing about mad scientists. Who would want to read about a
perfectly sane scientist? Osserman responded by saying they might want to read
about mad poets.
Those who have seen the excerpts of Proof on the Tony Awards or the interview
on the Charlie Rose Show with the Tony Award winning star, Mary-Louise
Parker, from the New York cast, may not realize how funny this play is. The
excerpts at the Curran were read to a very receptive audience. They picked up
every joke.
So what will the author do next? He said he has decided not to follow Proof with
another mathematical play. He's working on two projects, one on the Spanish
Civil War and the other on twentieth-century spiritualism, including Houdini!
Harris 164
Meanwhile, until he produces another mathematical play, watch the MSRI
website for the next event in this series, an interview with Michael Frayn, author
of Copenhagen, the play about Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg which won
the Tony Award for Best Play the previous year. That play opens at the Curran in
San Francisco in January.
Copyright &copy2003 The Mathematical Association of America
Please send comments, suggestions, or corrections about this page to
webmaster@maa.org.
Harris 165
Works Consulted
Alexanderson, Gerald L. “Osserman Interviews David Auburn, author of Proof.”
7 April 2003 <http://www.maa.org/features/proof.html>.
Andrews, P. B. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To
Truth Through Proof. Orlando: Academic Press, 1986.
Auburn, David. Proof. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 2001.
Barnes, Clive. Rev. of Proof, by David Auburn. Walter Kerr Theatre. New York.
The New York Post 19 July 2002: 45.
Brockett, Oscar G. The Theatre: An Introduction, 3rd ed. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1974.
Congdon, Constance. “God is in the Numbers.” American Theatre Sept. 2000:
72.
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences NYU. “Proof: A Symposium.” 2003.
The Courant Institute. 16 Oct. 2003
<http://www.cs.nyu.edu/faculty/berger/proof/>.
Dragalin, Al’bert Grigor’evich. Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof
Theory. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1988.
Dreamtown.com. Dream Town Realty. 7 July 2003
<http://www.dreamtown.com>.
Gluck, Victor. Rev. of Skyscraper, by David Auburn. Araca Group at Greenwich
House Theater, New York. Back Stage 10 Oct. 1997: 64.
Hofler, Robert. “Review of Proof, by David Auburn” Variety 29 May 2000: 33.
Harris 166
Lazan, Michael. “Review of Proof.” Back Stage 2 June 2000: 56.
Novick, Julius. “Review of Proof.” Back Stage 27 October 2000: 53.
Pohlers, Wolfram. Proof Theory: An Introduction. Berlin; New York: SpringerVerlag, 1989.
Robinson, Sarah. “Proof: An Admirable Approximation of Mathematical Culture.”
5 April 2002 <http://www.siam.org/siamnews/01-02/proof.htm>.
Solow, Daniel. How to Read and do Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical
Thought Process. New York: J. Wiley, 1982.
Thomas, James. Script Analysis for Actors, Directors, and Designers. Boston:
Focal Press, 1999.
Vanden Eynden, Charles. Number Theory; An Introduction to Proof. Scranton,
PA: International Textbook Co., 1970.
Weber, Bruce. Rev. of Proof, by David Auburn. Walter Kerr Theatre. New York.
New York Times 27 Oct 2001, late ed., sec. A: 11.
“Willpower.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. 2000.