DIRECTING PROOF BY DAVID AUBURN
by
HOLLY NOVAK, B.A.
A THESIS
IN
THEATRE ARTS – PERFORMANCE AND PEDAGOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF FINE ARTS
Approved
William Francis Gelber
Chairperson of the Committee
Linda Lee Donahue
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
December, 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Gelber and Dr.
Donahue for their tireless efforts to help me write this thesis and their feedback
throughout the process of directing Proof. I would also like to thank Dr. Gelber for
bringing the play Proof to my attention. I am fortunate to have found such a wonderful
play to direct as my thesis project.
Special thanks to Dr. Marks for his advice throughout the production of Proof. I
sincerely appreciate your patience and criticism. Somewhere during that time a much
more confident director in me emerged.
I would also like to thank all the professors and staff in the Texas Tech
Department of Theatre and Dance that I have been in contact with throughout my
education in the department. Your knowledge and willingness to help on any occasion
did not go unnoticed.
Most of all, I am thankful for the support and assistance I have received from my
husband and family. Without their encouragement, I would not have continued on the
path I have taken.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
CHAPTER
I.
SUMMARY OF PROOF
1
II.
THE PROCESS OF PLANNING
7
Introduction to David Auburn
7
Pre-Production
7
Design
11
Rehearsal Ideas
12
III.
PRODUCTION MEETINGS
15
IV.
ON DIRECTING PROOF
21
Rehearsals
23
Technical Rehearsals
41
V.
PERFORMANCES
45
VI.
FINAL ANALYSIS
49
BIBLIOGRAPHY
54
APPENDIX
55
iii
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY OF PROOF
Act One, Scene One
The act begins with Catherine sitting on her back porch napping. Robert enters
and startles her when he asks, “Can’t sleep?” (Auburn 5). He wishes her a Happy
Birthday and questions her reasons for being on the porch and not hanging out with her
friends. She tells him that she has no friends, but Claire is coming in to town. Robert
advises Catherine to do mathematics to pass the time, and she tells him that math is
boring. Robert questions her about her depression. It is revealed that she has been
depressed since he became sick again. Catherine is worried about getting older and asks
Robert about how old he was when he started to get sick. He says that he was about her
age, but she should not worry because his belief is that only sane people worry if they are
crazy. Catherine tells him that his theory cannot be right because he admits he is crazy.
Robert says he can admit such a thing because he is also dead. He tells her talking to a
hallucination may be a bad sign for her and then disappears.
Hal enters the scene and tells Catherine that he is finished going through her
father’s books for the day. Hal idolized her father and Robert was Hal’s mentor.
Catherine is still agitated with his research upstairs, and Hal obviously annoys her. Hal
invites Catherine to hear him play in his band at a local club. Catherine makes fun of him
and his band and declines. Hal starts to walk off, and she asks to see his backpack. Hal
refuses to give it to her, and they argue about it. Eventually Catherine grabs it and
1
rummages through it looking for notebooks that she thinks he has stolen. She finds
nothing and awkwardly gives him the bag. When Hal picks up his coat, a notebook slips
out. Catherine calls the police and Hal reads to her what is in the notebook. Robert
wrote about how much he appreciated what Catherine had done for him and Hal planned
to wrap it and give it to her as a birthday present. Hal leaves the backyard and the sound
of police sirens can be heard approaching the house.
Scene Two
Claire has arrived and is outside drinking coffee with Catherine. Claire is trying
to be agreeable with Catherine. Claire tries to discuss the funeral and changes the subject
to her upcoming marriage to her long-time fiancé, Mitch. Claire then decides to ask
Catherine about how she is feeling and Catherine becomes defensive, so Claire asks
Catherine if she called the police the night before. Catherine tries to tell Claire about
what happened but it is obvious that Claire is skeptical about the story that a student was
actually there. Catherine admits she called one of the cops a “dickhead” (Auburn 26),
and Claire is appalled that she would do such a thing. Claire asks Catherine if she would
go to New York with her, when Hal walks in. Claire decides to stop asking Catherine
questions and Hal goes upstairs to look at the notebooks again.
Scene Three
Catherine is out on the porch during the funeral reception when Hal enters. His
band was invited by Claire to play, and the funeral reception has turned into a party. Hal
apologizes but Catherine tells him she appreciates that they have come. Hal compliments
her dress and they talk about how his friends use drugs to stay in the “game” (Auburn
1
30). Catherine brings up Sophie Germain, and Hal is surprised that she knows so much
about her theories. Catherine begins to quote a passage by Sophie Germain that she has
memorized. When she finishes, Hal kisses her. There is an awkward moment, and they
talk uncomfortably until Catherine starts to flirt with him. Catherine is terrible at flirting,
so she just kisses him. They kiss again and Hal admits that he has had a crush on her
since the first time he met her. The scene ends with them kissing until the lights fade out.
Scene Four
It is the next morning and Hal has spent the night with Catherine. There is an
uncomfortable conversation as Hal says he has to leave. When they kiss, Catherine gives
him a key to a drawer in her father’s study. Hal admits he was wondering what was in
the locked drawer and excitedly runs upstairs. Claire comes out on the porch clutching
her head from her hangover. She has tried to drink as much as Hal’s friends, but has
failed and Claire compliments Catherine on her good mood, and Claire asks Catherine
again to go to New York. When Catherine declines, Claire tells her that she and Mitch
are selling the house. Catherine is outraged and begins to berate Claire for not helping
her take care of their father. Claire admits that she thinks Catherine has inherited their
father’s condition. As they are arguing loudly, Hal runs in excitedly. He asks Catherine
about the notebook he has found and wants to know where she found it. He tells her it is
an important proof, and if the validity can be proven then they could have a substantial
find on their hands. Claire and Hal begin to interrogate her about where she found the
proof. Catherine states that she did not find the proof because she wrote it. The lights
fade for the intermission.
2
Act Two, Scene One
This is a flashback scene. Robert is outside on the porch with Catherine.
Catherine tells him that she is going to start school at Northwestern University at the end
of the month. Robert is not happy with her decision, and he tries to convince her to go to
school at the University of Chicago. As they are talking, Hal enters the backyard. He is
there to give Robert his completed dissertation. Robert introduces Hal to Catherine and
they talk about school. Robert realizes it is Catherine’s birthday, and they invite Hal to
join them, but he declines.
Scene Two
This is the continuation of Act One, Scene Four. Hal and Claire are not
convinced Catherine wrote the proof because the handwriting looks like Robert’s.
Catherine cannot believe that they would question the validity of her explanation,
especially Hal. Hal tells her that the handwriting is too similar to her father’s and the
math is too advanced for her. Catherine tells him the only reason he does not want to
believe she wrote it is because he would have to admit that all his education was
worthless. Hal leaves and Catherine falls to the ground and starts to tear up the proof
when Claire stops her and takes her into the house.
Scene Three
Hal enters the backyard and knocks on the back door. He is startled to find Claire
answering the door. It is obvious he is there to apologize, but Claire will not let him
speak to Catherine. Claire questions his motives, but Hal insists he was always truthful
with Catherine. Hal questions Claire and her decision to sell the house and take
3
Catherine to New York. They both think they know what is best for Catherine, but
neither of them really knows if Catherine is well. Before he leaves, he asks Claire for the
notebook. Claire obliges but asks Hal to let the family know about the proof when it has
been examined.
Scene Four
This is a flashback scene. Robert is on the porch in a short sleeved shirt writing
furiously in a notebook. Catherine enters and asks him why he is outside without a coat.
Robert tells her the heaters are stifling his creativity. He tells her that his creativity has
sparked again, and he is feeling young. He tells Catherine that he has been working on
some very interesting material that could prove to be very important, and he would like
Catherine to be part of the project during her off-time. Catherine agrees but wants to see
what he has written. Robert changes the subject and tells her that he has always thought
she was so intelligent and gifted and that she is his favorite daughter. Catherine is
delighted but is still curious to see the notebook. Finally, Robert relents and asks her to
read the notebook aloud. Catherine glances at it and tells Robert they should go inside
first. This time, Robert yells at her loudly to read the notebook. She reads his writing,
and as she reads, Robert starts to sit and shiver. She puts the notebook down and goes to
take him inside. Robert asks her not to leave him, and she promises that she will stay.
Scene Five
Claire has everything packed and is out on the porch organizing all the plane
tickets and paperwork before their departure. Catherine is not happy and sits down and
stares out into the yard. Claire tries to convince her that she is doing the right thing, but
4
Catherine only retorts with sarcastic lines about how much she will love New York and a
Dr. Von Heimlich with whom she can blame all her problems on Claire. Claire is upset
that she would be so cruel and tells Catherine that she can stay but she will not be able to
take care of herself and then leaves the backyard and puts Catherine’s plane ticket on the
table. Hal enters the backyard out of breath and explains that he was hoping she had not
left yet. Hal says that the proof is real, and he wants her permission to publish it because
he now believes she wrote it. Catherine tells him he is too late to apologize because he
really has hurt her. She tells him she is going to New York with Claire, but Hal tells her
she should stay. They have a conversation about the house and the winters in Chicago,
which seems to be symbolic of Catherine having such an unpredictable temperament.
Hal tells her that there is nothing wrong with her, and Catherine admits she is afraid she
will be just like her father. Hal asks her how she wrote the proof, and the play ends with
her explaining the proof to Hal.
5
CHAPTER II
THE PROCESS OF PLANNING
Introduction to David Auburn
David Auburn was not a popular playwright; when, in 2001, at the age of 31, he
won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama for his play, Proof (Online New Hour 1). Afterwards,
he won several awards including the Joseph Kesserling Prize for Drama, The Helen
Merrill Playwrighting Award, and the Guggenheim Foundation Grant (2001 Pulitzer
Prizes 1). Furthermore, the play won the Tony Award for Best Play of 2001. Auburn’s
career as a playwright included Skyscraper, Fifth Planet, Miss You, and The Next Life.
Auburn gained much of his knowledge at the program for playwrights at The Julliard
School which he called, “a great kind of incubator” where his plays could be reviewed
and performed by the “wonderful actors at Julliard” (Online New Hour 3).
Pre-Production
I was apprehensive to submit my application to direct Proof because of my fear
that understanding math would be an important part of this play. I believe this is what
most people think when they read the summary at the back of the script. Having the
director explain mathematics to an audience is an interesting concept, but one that may
not be interesting for an audience to watch. I believe that as theatre practitioners we must
entertain, and the audience must be at least somewhat interested in the subject matter we
are presenting. Fortunately, my reservations were not unfounded. Proof is a beautiful
6
play about so much more than mathematics. In the following submission to the faculty, I
described my feelings and reactions to the play:
Proof is written like a mathematical proof, in that not everything is
solvable right away. It is mysterious and parts of the plot are revealed
slowly and painstakingly. I would like to explore the similarities between
a mathematical proof and this play in my approach. I hope to bring that
information to the actors so that they know what they are talking about
when they have to say lines explaining mathematical theory. The beauty
of this play lies in the rhythmic delivery of the lines. I do not mean that
the play should resemble a Shel Silverstein poem, but I hope to place an
emphasis on delivery to create smooth tension and release. I see the
dialogue as a kind of ballet of words that should be delivered patiently.
Without that rhythm, a disservice is done to Auburn’s script and the
audience. I believe that it could be easy for the actors to fall into the trap
of playing the sadness of Catherine, or the lunacy of Robert, but the
characters are so much more complex and their many facets are written
into the script. In order to counter this, I hope to have a warm-up before
every rehearsal that focuses on body awareness and exercises to help
create intimacy among the cast members so that they are comfortable with
each other. In order to create a word ballet, there needs to be an unseen
dance among the actors with the delivery of their lines to each other. I
want the Lubbock audience to be introduced to a Pulitzer Prize winning
play and suspense and mystery without tremendous spectacle.
The play submission was written after reading the play. I knew this was the play I
wanted to direct, present, and ultimately, write about.
For this production, the through-line of the play is about validation. Each
character needs to find a sense of identity. They need the help of the other characters to
validate themselves. Some of them do; and some of them do not, but they all seek it.
The characters in Proof try to get validation from each other throughout the play.
For example, Robert tries to validate himself and reassert his identity in Act Two, Scene
Four when he is outside writing. He believes his talents for math have reawakened after
lying dormant. When Robert asks Catherine to read his writing, he is trying to prove to
7
Catherine and himself that he has written something worthwhile. However he finds his
sense of identity is lost forever.
Claire tries to prove her sense of identity as a helpful big sister in Act One, Scene
Four. She argues with Catherine about not coming home when her father was ill, but
Catherine tells Claire that her offer to help was too late.
Hal tries to prove his identity as a mathematician in Act One, Scene Three when
he explains his math research to Catherine. Hal tells Catherine that his work is not
exceptional because he does not possess the talent that Robert had; but later in Act Two,
Scene Two, he tells Catherine that she could not have written the proof he discovered
because she did not have the talent to write it. He discredits her in order to validate his
own sense of identity as an educated mathematician.
Catherine tries to maintain her sense of identity throughout the play. She is trying
to prove that she is sane and brilliant at math.
Prior to the casting process, I researched the nature of Robert’s mental illness. In
my research, I found that graphomania, Robert’s supposed illness, is not so much a
mental disease as it is a condition of impulse control. It is the fascination with writing
that drives some people to write (reView 1). However, the urge to write is so great that
the person feels he/she must publish books for others to read. Furthermore, when most
people organize their time in order to write a well formed paper, people with the
graphomaniac condition write in a style resembling stream of consciousness. In Proof,
Robert has a monologue about a college student which sounds similar to something from
Gone With the Wind because of the nostalgic nature. This may be where his desire to
8
write again came from. Coupled with his natural tendency towards mania, this lack of
impulse control may have been what caused the deterioration of his health.
One of the effects of graphomania is withdrawal from the outside world (reView
1). Robert has one friend, his daughter Catherine, but he is unable to interact normally in
social situations so he rarely leaves his home. Although it may seem from reading the
play that graphomania is what caused his demise as a writer, graphomania is not the
culprit but another underlying psychological condition.
In relation to the characterization of Robert, there is a fine line between over
exaggeration and the actual mental condition. For example, in Act II Robert is on the
porch excitedly talking to Catherine about campus life, while he is in a heightened state.
The characterization should not appear too frenzied because Robert could look as if he
was more of a savant, which is not accurate, since Robert does function in society for
long periods of time. In my research, Robert’s illness does not cause any strange tics or
twitching as some actions might have shown in some productions that I researched.
Ultimately, the person playing the role of Robert would have to consider a progression of
the illness so the audience was unaware as to whether he was truly mentally unstable or
not.
After seeing the playbill for the first production of Proof, I had a difficult time not
seeing the original actress playing Catherine. In the end, I decided that I wanted to cast
someone who could portray a depressed woman that is trying to hold on to the people she
loves, but unable to express herself. In the dialogue, it is not always apparent what the
character may be thinking, and I like that quality of mystery. Since Catherine is a
9
character who hides her feelings and talents, a major portion of the suspense is focused
on the questions Claire and Hal ask about her actually writing the mathematical proof.
Not only is she elusive about her talents, she hides her fears about inheriting her father’s
mental illness. The duality between the hidden character versus the exposed character
would not be an easy task for any actress, and I knew I would need someone that I felt
could confidently carry out the intricacies of the role.
Of all the characters, Catherine’s sister is the most difficult to discern. This
character is somewhat two dimensional in that there is not a lot of description of her
history, such as where she works, why she left, and her relationship with her mother.
Consequently, the actress playing Claire must be imaginative, creative, and willing to do
extensive character research in order to create a more three-dimensional character. .
Because there were so many unanswered questions concerning Claire, I had no
idea what or who I was looking to cast. As I wrote in my journal, almost any strong
actress was fair game for this role prior to the callbacks. One thing I wanted for certain
was a woman who could believably say the lines and dress the part of a career woman.
In opposition to Catherine, I did have some idea of what I thought Hal should be.
Hal is a character who seems studious but is also a man who likes to have fun. Fun and
scholarly are two elements that viewers may not normally put together, but his opposite
personality traits, in conjunction with a nice description of why Hal is important to the
family, create an interesting character.
During the funeral reception at Catherine’s house, she and Hal come out onto the
porch after drinking. Hal is tipsy and has been having fun drumming in his band, which
10
was invited to the funeral reception. It is obvious this character is not a typical geek and
should look like he shares a little bit of both worlds.
In addition to my casting ideals, my quest during the summer was to find
questions that I wanted to ask of the play, other than the obvious, which is, “Did
Catherine write the proof?” Claire comes to visit her family after being gone for so long.
Robert and Catherine have not seen Claire for five years, and she did not even come
home when she learned of her father’s illness. Claire is jealous because of the attention
Robert lavished on Catherine, but was there any other reason for this? What happened to
their mother? Does Hal take Catherine out of the house, or does she move to New York
with Claire? Does Catherine ever see a counselor or psychiatrist? I wanted to find
answers to these questions for myself so that I had a direction in which to move the play.
Although these questions can never really be answered, creating a background for the
family would help the actors to create fully developed characters and reasons for their
actions.
Design
First, I wanted the scenic design to start taking shape before the actors’ feet
touched the stage. As an actor, it was important to have an idea of where set pieces were
located on the stage floor. The scenic designer contacted me early in the summer to
discuss my ideas about the play in order for the preliminary sketch process to begin. We
discussed Catherine’s world as she knew it and how it has started to unravel.
11
The opening scene in the play is between Catherine and Robert; however, just
before Hal enters the back porch, we find out that the scene has been either a
hallucination or a dream. Robert tells Catherine that he knows she is afraid of being
crazy, but staying at home depressed is not going to help her situation. Also, at the end
of the play, the house where she became a prisoner is being sold, and she will have to
start a new life. However, there was a ray of hope that she is just as much of a genius as
her father and could change the course of mathematics like her heroine, Sophie Germain.
I told the scene designer the only thing I wanted on the stage for certain were at
least two chairs and a table because the characters were outside on a porch. Overall, I
wanted the scenic designer to have the freedom to play with different ideas for the set
since it was his first time to design for the Lab Season.
When the costume designer called me, I had strong ideas in mind for the types of
garments worn by the characters, but I had some confusion with colors. For Catherine, I
thought that pajama pants would be the most practical since she would be sitting on the
chair so much and did not want to deal with embarrassing moments in front of the
audience. The dress that she changed into for the funeral would have to be something
relatively simple to take on and off, since the scenes changed so quickly. The costume for
Claire, we discussed, should be something a business woman from Manhattan would
wear. We both agreed that a suit with a skirt would probably be the best choice for the
character.
For Robert and Hal, I had to rely on the costume designer’s judgment for costume
ideas. For Robert, I knew that I wanted him to look like a professor, but something of an
12
eccentric professor who might wear a pocket protector no matter what he is wearing. As
for Hal, my first impression was to dress him in suspenders, but we both discussed the
comical implications that would have on the character, so khaki slacks would be used and
possibly a polo shirt. We both knew, that depending on who was cast, the costume
choices might have to change slightly, but in the meantime, that would be the direction
we would take.
Rehearsal Ideas
I decided to choose the most effective rehearsal techniques I had encountered.
Overall, I wanted to create an effective and efficient environment for the work, since the
rehearsal time would be limited. For the first rehearsal, I wanted to have a read-though in
which the actors would move about the stage and interact as they wanted. Robert Lewis
solidified my thinking in Advice to the Players, when he stated that at the first rehearsal,
the actors should not force emotions, but should just simulate them because they had not
moved though the process of the play yet (101). According to Lewis, the most important
part of the first play rehearsal was, “conveying intentions and listening” (Lewis 102).
My goals for rehearsals included an introduction to every evening, when the
actors could stretch their muscles and do speech warm ups before beginning. At the end
of the night, I would have a question-and-answer session. During breaks, I wanted the
actors to think about the upcoming scenes, or the continuation of what we were working
on, and any new intentions being brought out in the lines. Through this constant
questioning of the script, I hoped to encourage more exploration during the technical
13
rehearsals and production. During the week of production, I wanted to be there for the
actors so that I could give them feedback on their performances. Since this was
educational theater, I believed that as a director, I should not completely stop my work on
the show, since we are all a part of the learning process. I knew that the design aspects
would not be part of my plan, but at least I would encourage the actors to continually
make changes in the performances.
14
CHAPTER III
PRODUCTION MEETINGS
As I have stated before, brainstorming began before the first production meeting.
However, this does not mean that plans were being drafted, but rather ambiguous ideas
were being formed in order to be ready for first drafts of both the scenic design and
costume design. Unfortunately, our first production meeting was not scheduled until
after the first draft deadlines, so the designers were struggling to keep up with the
deadlines until close to technical rehearsals.
At our first production meeting, we each described our vision for the play from
our perspective fields. I was asked to speak first, and it was here that I repeated what I
had written in my submission to direct and asked that the designers ask me questions in
order to clarify any confusion they might have. I stated that in the play Catherine has just
lost her father, so life was not looking very bright; however, with the visit of her sister,
and the entrance of Hal, new doors were opening in her life if she decided to investigate.
The scenic designer was concerned that our talks during the summer did not
correspond with what I said of my concept of the show. We had discussed Catherine’s
world, as she knows it, being torn apart slowly and the scenic designer wanted to play
with the set design so that maybe something could be torn apart or taken offstage. I
assured the designer that, although I might see Catherine’s world as optimistic, her life
was still changing, albeit not as bleak as he had thought. I told the people at the meeting
this kind of illumination was exactly what we needed before any concrete decisions were
made.
15
Regarding costume, I stated that simplicity was the key, given that the play was to
take place outdoors. What I imagined the characters wearing was nothing too
flamboyant. I told the costumer that I pictured Catherine wearing a pair of old flannel
pajama pants, possibly her fathers’, and a long sleeved flannel shirt. For the funeral, I saw
her wearing a simple black sheath dress with a nice silk material and pin tucks on each
side of the front of the dress. I pictured Hal wearing a button down oxford shirt and
khaki pants. I imagined Robert in a dingy yellow sweater vest with a lightly-colored
plaid shirt underneath and a pair of brown stretch pants from the 1970s. I imagined
Claire wearing a grey three-piece designer suit. Also, I visualized her wearing a pair of
pointed black pumps and carrying a black handbag. I told the costumer that these were
my ideas and that I was not fixed on any certain item, except for the khaki pants for Hal.
Regarding the black sheathed dress, the costume designer reminded me that there
would be one quick change that would have to be carefully coordinated. I had not
completely been aware of the swiftness of the scene change that would occur after the
scene between Hal and Catherine, after the funeral and the next morning. (The script
specifically denotes that Catherine is in her robe, pajamas, and her hair was up in a
towel.) We adjourned without hearing what the sound designer and lighting designer
wanted to add to the play, so I asked that something be brought to the next meeting so
that we could have some understanding of the process from their point of view. It was
stated that the lighting designer might be taking over sound design as well because they
could not find someone to do it.
16
At the next few production meetings, more finalized drawings and models were
brought by the scenic and costume designers. Since I did not know the protocol of
sharing ideas between the designers and myself, I had a difficult time asking the right
questions, so I asked the stage manager would help me during our meetings. Later, when
the scenic designer brought in the final draft of the set, we questioned the aesthetic
qualities of the back of the house in a way that allowed for discussion.
I told the scenic designer that one of the qualities of the backyard that I was
looking for was a feeling of comfort. The family was living on a college campus, and
they had lived in their house for a long time. The houses on or near campuses were
usually cozy with ample area for outdoor activities. Both Robert and Catherine spent a
lot of time on the porch and many of the important events in their lives happened here, so
the sparseness represented in the model was a little disconcerting. Others also questioned
the research on the set design and, while we all agreed the design was that of a backyard
in a crowded neighborhood, it needed to be a little more inviting and pleasing to be in.
The scenic designer seemed happy to be receiving feedback, but I knew the deadlines
were weighing heavily on his mind, and the process needed to be sped up so the building
could start to take place.
The costume designs were almost what I wanted, which was great since the
costumer had less time than the scenic designer did to complete the designs. There were
some disagreements about Hal wearing khaki pants; however, I believed khaki pants
were the best choice for his character because they were not too dressy or too casual and I
did not want him to look too bookish. It was also brought to our attention that one of the
17
actresses might not be comfortable wearing a skirt, so we discussed the option of her
wearing a pantsuit. I added that if the actress was uncomfortable in a skirt, then a
pantsuit would be the best alternative, except the pants would need to be stylish and not
matronly. In addition, Catherine’s quick costume change was something we discussed. I
informed the costume designer that I wanted Catherine to wear a dress for the funeral
because Hal complimented her dress in the script, but maybe we could play with her
waking up the next morning still in the dress. However, the designer reminded me that
Catherine has just gotten out of the shower in the next scene, so she would be out of the
dress; so the solution to the quick-change would have to be a well-coordinated costume
change with many rehearsals so that it could run smoothly. I told her I was a little
worried about a long pause between the scenes, but it was just something we would have
to handle later.
After the set was built, I noticed the sightlines were awful on sections A and C of
the house because of the height of the set. I brought this up at one production meeting
because something needed to be done to fix this. I had blocked the first act from the
worst seats in the section in case there were no changes, but there were still many
problems that could not be fixed. I told the scenic designer that we would be willing to
use the set as is if the table and chairs could be shortened in addition to the railing being
shortened. The technical advisor had not yet seen the stage, and he and the scenic
designer said they would examine the set and make changes as needed. I was anxious
about explaining my problems to the designer because I knew that the deadline for set
completion was already past due.
18
At this meeting I was asked about hand props and if there was anything in
particular I was expecting. I told the technical director that I wanted to make sure the
hard covered suitcases we were using in rehearsals would be replaced with more modern
looking soft-side suitcases. I also wanted to make sure there would be enough glasses for
the actors to use when Robert offered drinks to Hal and Catherine in Act Two Scene One.
I was troubled that we had not yet seen any lighting or sound design ideas. I asked why
there had not been any work done, but I was told that the lighting designer would be
speaking to me privately since he could not attend the meetings. I was told the design
would be “standard,” so it would not be anything unusual. In regards to sound design,
the technical advisor said that he was supposed to be working on creating cues and then
they would be approved or disapproved. I decided that I would not press the issue since
the rest of the group did not seem to be concerned.
When the final costumes were presented and the actors modeled them for me, I
knew that at the next production meeting I needed to address Robert’s costume. I told the
costumer that Robert needed to look more eccentric. I said that I liked his pants, which
were outdated black stretch pants, but the plain white button down shirt with a three
button vest was too tame and it would be preferable to choose something more unusual. I
suggested maybe a shirt with a pocket so there could be a pocket protector or a knit vest.
I was relieved that she laughed and did not take offense to my suggestions. She offered
to use a thick wool knit sweater vest and told me she would be able to get a shirt with a
pocket so there could be a pocket protector.
19
The final designs for lighting were presented as a lighting plot. I asked the
lighting designer about the colors being used and if they were rich and saturated or just a
light wash of light. He stated that the lighting would be warm and light, but they would
change for the scene when Catherine realized Robert had written nonsense in his book.
In that scene, the lighting would be cool in order to express the cold weather during that
time. Also, each scene change would take place in a blue wash of light so that the set
crew and actors could see where they were going, except before intermission, when there
would be a blackout. I told him that since I had not yet heard any sound cues, I wanted to
make sure that there would not be any heavy rock music or ethnic music for pre-show,
intermission or end-of-show cues because I did not want that to be the mood set for the
audience. I told him that the mood should not be too upbeat, but not be too melancholic
either. I gave him the example of music from Schindler’s List as too sad and
recognizable, but suggested that music from a lesser known drama might be a better
choice. He told me he did have a cue with the sound of wind chimes for the scene
changes before and after Robert appeared in the play. I told him I really liked that idea
and was looking forward to seeing how that affected the overall mood.
20
CHAPTER IV
ON DIRECTING PROOF
I decided not to approach rehearsals from a certain acting theory because I am not
familiar enough with any particular acting theory and would not be comfortable ascribing
to any certain one. Therefore, my final decision was to utilize some methods from some
of the different acting theorists I had been exposed to and to allow the actors the same
freedom. From the beginning of rehearsals to the opening of the show, we spent time
learning to adapt to each other.
All of us have different approaches to character work, and I believe it is
important for actors to be comfortable during the process. In the educational setting,
anxiety is sometimes inevitable because the actors involved are working from many
different backgrounds and levels of skill; therefore, I believe there has to be a level
playing field for all involved, from which to work.
From the beginning, I was determined to locate the common thread that the actors
and I could use as our comfort base at rehearsals, and in this production it happened to be
the lines of the play. All of us were interested in the way Auburn wrote the lines, so I
wanted the actors to start working through the rhythms of the scenes by moving about the
stage and reading right away. For this production, we had just four weeks of rehearsal,
with one week dedicated mainly to technical rehearsals, so everything had to be clearly
organized for each meeting so that we could utilize our time wisely. Eventually, I wanted
the actors to feel secure in the progress they were making, rather than nervous about the
amount of rehearsal days. After studying many directors in my directing classes, I
21
assumed my approach might be deemed too safe for the actors; however, I found that to
be entirely untrue. In fact, most of the directors discussed their rehearsals as a place
where the actors can feel safe. In The Director’s Voice, Arthur Bartow described director
Arvin Brown as, “an actor’s director and they [actors] often do their best work in the
creative rehearsal atmosphere he provides” (20). Another well-known theatrical director,
Marshall Mason, said he was not comfortable forcing any particular methods of acting
upon his company because his actors had already developed their own style of acting
(Bartow 203). Furthermore, Mason said once the actors had memorized their parts they
were all at the same level and that was the only way detailed work could begin (202).
During the time I was directing, I was also taking Period Styles with Dr. Laurin
Mann, who was basing our studies in Stanislavski. Everything I had done in class
influenced something I did in rehearsal or with my own Introduction to Acting class. His
theories were something all of us were familiar with, but they needed reiteration, in
particular, the idea that each character had a goal and these goals could be met by
analyzing the overall task the character was trying to achieve.
For example, Catherine kissed Hal at her father’s funeral reception. Catherine
had a reason for making such an advance at such an awkward time. The actress needed
to decide what may have happened before Hal entered the backyard to justify why she
would make such an advance, and what happened to the characters after the lights faded.
Although I used some of Stanislavsky’s theories in my directing, the entire process was
not based solely on Stanislavsky’s method, but on the directors the actors and I had
encountered in our studies and performances.
22
Rehearsals
Sept 7, 2004
At the beginning of our first rehearsal, introductions were made and the stage
manager gave cast pertinent information they needed to know about having a role in the
theater department at Texas Tech. Afterwards, I asked the actors to read the play on the
stage and asked them to move around the space as they read. Between scenes, I asked
them if they had any questions so far, and we continued until we finished the script.
While they were reading, I made notes of some of the choices they made in their reading
so we would have something to talk about during the break. The actress who played
Catherine read well and has an actor’s instinct for advancing and retreating from the other
actors. The actress who played Claire is naturally a strong actress and her experience is a
valuable asset. When she read, she was so focused that the other actors tried to stay at
her level of concentration. The actor who played Hal read very well but had a tendency
to drop the volume of his voice in the last words of every line. The actor who played
Robert may have been confused as to the age of his character, but this gave us something
to talk about during the break. As it turned out, he thought Robert was about seventy
years old and experiencing the symptoms of senility.
During our discussion, I asked each of the actors to give me information about the
characters as stated in the play. I wanted to be sure they were aware of the given
circumstances, such as where they were, how old they were, and what they were wearing.
They all enjoyed discussing the different themes in the play and the wordplay on the
word “proof.” We all discussed how the playwright played with the different definitions
23
of the word “proof” through the validation of a woman. I told them that the word “proof”
is indicative of Catherine’s plight, since she needed proof that she was not mentally
unstable, proof that she could take car of herself, proof that she wrote the mathematical
proof, and proof that she could trust others and love them. I liked that each of the actors
brought some kind of theory that they seemed connected with, and they approached this
play from a different angle than I did.
Sept 8, 2004
Our second rehearsal began wonderfully even though beginning the blocking and
interpretation was difficult to initiate. I noticed that actor who played Robert was the
kind of actor who liked to have explicit instructions and was unsure of how to approach
his needs. So, I decided I had to find a way of making him feel empowered so he could
learn a new way of creating on his own. I told him to think of one of the older graduate
actors in our department as a reference for his characterization work because the older
student was by no means lethargic.
Manic is a term that is sometime used inappropriately, since mania accompanies
people who are naturally very exuberant; however, when they have a manic episode, they
take their exuberance to an extreme level of exhilaration. The actor who played Robert
stated he was teaching “levels of being” to his students at the time and he would have to
“practice what he preaches.” I was looking forward to working with him again to see
what he had researched.
After we blocked the first scene in Act One, we reviewed it twice. I wanted the
actors to be as familiar with the lines as possible, and repetition is essential to actors who
24
have a lot of lines to memorize. After speaking with the actress who played Catherine, I
found that she wanted to be familiar enough with every scene to be able to summarize it
in her head before she began a new scene. I made sure to ask the actors if they had any
questions after we were done, or if there was any blocking or lines that made them
uncomfortable. The actors were comfortable with the process and said they were ready
to begin another rehearsal the next day.
Sept 9, 2004
Since we were rehearsing the scenes in order, I knew we would eventually be
dealing with the kiss between Catherine and Hal. The first scene between Catherine and
Claire went very well. The actresses worked very well together, and I knew they had
marked the changes in moments within the scene. The actress who played Claire had
natural tendency to strive for believability, and I knew that determination helped the
actress who played Catherine work through any nervousness she may have felt.
Sometimes the actress who played Catherine would lose her concentration and begin to
laugh at something she did wrong, but the actress who played Claire would stay focused.
This helped keep the rehearsal running smoothly and without too many unnecessary
stops. We ran through the scene once while I stopped and started them in order to block
their movements. I offered them some blocking guidelines so they had a frame of
reference within the scene. Also, I wanted to work on obvious intention and character
goals within the lines. The actress who played Claire told me she based her character on
her sisters. She said they could all be very pretentious and ultra feminine, so she
understood some of what Claire’s intentions towards Catherine seemed to be. The actress
25
who played Catherine seemed to be experiencing some difficulty with her character’s
overall objective, but she was in every scene, so I knew that she needed to do some work
on her script before rehearsal. Overall, I was very pleased with the way the scenes were
developing.
In addition to Act One, Scene Two, we rehearsed Scene Three. This scene takes
place on the porch after the funeral party. Both Hal and Catherine share the porch, while
the band and math geeks are inside drinking. I sought the advice of a trusted source
because I knew that quite a few kisses were going to be blocked, and I had never blocked
such a scene. Following my source’s advice, I treated the kissing as casually as possible,
in order to avoid too much tension between the actors. I blocked the kisses more tightly
than I had blocked any other scenes, and I talked the actors through them in intricate
blocking sections. The nervousness in the scene came through quite nicely as we blocked
it, because I knew the upcoming kisses were weighing heavily on the actors’ minds.
Once we got through the first kiss, I was amazed at how comfortable the actress who
played Catherine seemed to be. I understood that she was new in the department and
might feel uncomfortable, but I found her to be quite opposite. Although she might have
giggled some, she and the actor who played Hal both worked to create a believable
moment, and they even had suggested some blocking that would help them through the
scene. I had originally blocked the first kiss on the cheek, but after watching them run
through the scene a few times and watching the dynamic between them, I changed the
blocking to a full on the lips kiss initiated by Hal.
26
Sept 12, 2004
The agenda of the day was to work on Act II, Scenes One and Two. After
watching the actors run though it, I was not happy with the blocking we had created.
Robert’s motivations were not being expressed well and needed to be identified better. It
was at this point that I recognized the actor playing Robert and I saw two different
versions of his character. I chose to allow him the time to use his skills as an actor to
create Robert, and then I would work from this to mold it into the overall vision of the
play. I was envisioning specific traits for the character of Robert and it was important to
allow the actor to do his job under the structure that I had organized. Robert has many
monologues in the scene, and I told him we would work individually with him on beat
work because there were so many changes.
All actors work differently, and for this process, I wanted to find a way to work
comfortably with all the actors. The scene between Robert, Catherine, and Hal was in
need of more work. The actress who played Catherine relied on the energy of the other
actors. If the other actors were not sure of themselves, she would have trouble finding the
moments, or beats within her lines. The actor who played Hal seemed to have a natural
instinct for the beats within the lines, probably because of his background as a
playwright. He had a passion for the structure of the lines and the way in which they are
written.
The next scene, between Catherine, Claire, and Hal, was fantastic. The actress
who played Claire was definitely a “feeler.” (By “feeler,” I mean that she did not create
moments that were not set up by the other actors.) She never acted alone and stayed part
27
of the action even if she were silent. In addition, she was always alert and responsive to
the energy the other actors had, and worked within that construct. However, when the
energy was dawdling, she would take the initiative to create more focus and intensity
within the scene. I started to set up a blocking framework for Scene Two, but the actor
who played Hal was curious to try different movements to explore the intentions that Hal
had in the scene. The scene we were working on was the remainder of the confrontation
between Hal and Claire as they discovered the truth about the proof.
Catherine and Hal basically tell Catherine that they do not believe she wrote the
proof. Hal believes that Catherine might have dictated something from Robert, and
Claire is worried that Catherine might be delusional. My goal for this scene was to create
a very powerful dilemma. Catherine has been rejected by both Claire and Hal at the end
of the scene, and the audience is left with the same questions as Hal and Claire. The end
of the scene closes with Catherine on the floor trying to destroy the script and Claire
coming to stop her.
The first time the actors read through the scene, I could feel the electricity
between the actors. After we blocked the end of the scene again and again, I was
unhappy with how Claire and Catherine exited the stage. The actress who played Claire
said that leaving at the end of the scene made her feel uncomfortable, and she suggested
staying on stage during the fade out, while hugging Catherine, to keep the intensity strong
at the end scene. So, we tried it that way, and I was mesmerized by how well the new
blocking worked. The powerful embrace between Catherine and Claire created an
28
interesting new dynamic between the sisters. The stage picture of them onstage was
fascinating, and I was excited to find other changes like this in the play.
Sept 13, 2004
I planned to work on both Act Two, Scene Three and Four, but I decided to do
just Scene Three and then do Act One, Scene One. I felt that we needed to incorporate
Hal into the first scene of the play, which we had not done yet. Act One, Scene Three is
the confrontation between Hal and Claire. Claire is upset because Catherine has slipped
deeper into her depression and she believes that Hal is partially to blame because he slept
with Catherine. Underneath the scene, Claire is secretly curious to know if the proof was
really Catherine’s. The scene itself was only a few pages long, so I knew that we would
not be working on it for a great amount of the time. The actresses and I worked on
asking questions of the scene such as, “Why did Claire get the notebook for Hal?” and
“Was Hal coming through the backyard to coerce Catherine into giving him the
notebook, or was Claire waiting to give it to him?” We came to the conclusion that
Claire knew that Hal would come back and, being curious about her sister, gave him the
notebook because she actually liked Hal, but, she was a true big sister and was attempting
to protect Catherine from any further disasters.
The actor who played Hal brought up a few possible ideas for experimentation.
In particular, when Claire said she would get the notebook for Hal, the actor who played
Hal was having trouble finding the justification to move towards the house. We worked
through a few blocking possibilities so that he could find more appropriate motivation. I
was positive that I did not want Claire to completely leave the porch before he said,
29
“There’s one more thing.” So we fine-tuned the blocking so that he would feel
comfortable and I would get the stage picture I wanted to see. I found that working
through a scene like that gave me the opportunity to isolate images I wanted to create,
and the rest could be left for later explanation.
After we worked through the scene, we worked on re-blocking Act One, Scene
One. We never had a chance to block it because we did not even know where the
essential pieces of the set would be. (Also, the actor who played Hal was not there the
day that we blocked the scene.) Scene One was very long and, after working on Scene
Four, I knew that the rest of the rehearsal would be exhausting to the actors. The scene
started to look better but I had to keep stopping the actors because I was trying to get
them to move further around the space and create more levels. It was obvious the actors
were getting tired, so I reminded them that once the scene was blocked, we would be
done with our preliminary blocking of ninety percent of the entire show. In addition, I
did not want to just give up and leave, because we needed to get all of the blocking
completed so they could start learning their lines. After we finished blocking it all, I told
them to take a long break, smoke a cigarette, or whatever they needed to do to focus
again, because we were going to run through the scene without stopping and leave for the
night.
Sept 14, 2004
Since we had not yet worked on Act Two, Scene Four, we blocked that in
addition to blocking Scene Five. Both are short scenes, so I knew that it would not be a
difficult rehearsal. The rehearsal day turned out to be fun for everyone. Also, an advisor
30
was planning on coming to the end of the rehearsal. I was a little apprehensive about
someone watching the rehearsal process. However, if I changed the way I was holding
my rehearsal, then he would not be critiquing the way my rehearsals normally ran. So,
we blocked Scene Five first.
Scene Five is the last scene of play, and I worked very hard to push the actors to
find out what each character wanted within the scene. I really wanted the actress who
played Catherine to question whether she thought Catherine wants to stay or to go to New
York with Claire.
I believe that Catherine wants to stay and wait for Hal to figure out that she did
write the proof, but not knowing if he will come back in time, she agrees to leave with
Claire. However, I believe that the actor must answer the questions themselves and the
answers must be consistent with the rest of the character work. (Since we would be
running through Act Two on Thursday, I decided to ask her more directly before we
started the scene and see if she had found an answer yet.)
Working on Scene Four was not the easiest for me because I was tired by then and
I was not asking the right questions of the actors and therefore not getting what I wanted.
I asked the actor who played Robert to deepen his voice at the end of the scene when he
yells at Catherine because it did not sound commanding enough. However, I was having
an arduous time explaining my request when the advisor came in. I felt so relieved
because he would be able to give me some advice on another way of asking the actor.
The scene is pivotal because Robert’s unintelligible writing is the assurance
Catherine needed about the condition of her father. Some of the blocking and description
31
that I gave to help the actors along may have been more confusing because I had invested
so much time in helping the actor with his voice that I was exhausted. We ran through it
a few times and then we went home. I was looking forward to speaking with my advisor
about the scene and what advice he could give me to help create more clarity. Later than
night, I surmised that I needed to ask more questions of them and to control my urge to
tell them exactly what to do.
Sept. 15, 2004
The next day I spoke with my advisor and I felt like the rehearsal was more
productive. I spoke with the actors who played Hal and Catherine before rehearsal
started about Act Two, Scene Four, which we worked on the night before. I was more
sure of what I wanted from the scene, and they spoke in appreciation of the more detailed
feedback. Also, I told them to be aware of everything that is said in the script because the
playwright is very specific about what he wants emphasized.
So, we ran through Act 1 twice. The first time, I told them to try to remember
what we had done and to re-familiarize themselves with the lines. During our break, the
dramaturg presented some script analysis of Act One, Scene Three, and we talked about
some of the words in that scene being very sexual. I had not detected the sexual
innuendo before, and I was glad that we had yet another facet in the scene.
Before we started working, I talked to all of them together about levels and how I
had been neglecting that word and it was something that needs more focus. I reminded
them about to look at the punctuation in the script, too. (I had a difficult time trying to
get the actress who played Catherine not to turn an exclamation point into a question
32
mark.) I told them that if the sentence sounds like a question when it was not, then they
needed to think about why the character was saying the line and how it would change the
dynamic of the scene. Afterwards, I asked our dramaturg to be available for any script
analysis that was being overlooked. I stopped the actors before we began each new scene
and asked them about where the characters might be coming from before their entrance in
each scene and what would be happening to them after they left. I believe that my
enthusiastic speech really helped them because I read the scenes while they were on
stage, and I was so happy to see that they were really looking at the script and
questioning while they read. The actress who played Catherine even corrected herself
when she was questioning something that should have been an exclamation. Scene Three
had to be re-blocked somewhat because of the new set designs, but it was nothing that
created chaos. After we reworked some of the blocking for the kissing, I was really
moved by the sexual tension added to the scene and how concerned I was starting to feel
for Catherine because she was making herself vulnerable to another person.
Additionally, we found a few words that we had originally interpreted as innuendo but
determined were playful. The actor who played Hal and I both agreed the first time we
blocked Scene Three, when Hal says there was some “experimentation” going on during
the math conferences, that he was referring to some homoerotic encounters; however, at
this rehearsal, we decided it sounded more like one of Hal’s cheesy jokes. We found that
by changing the joke, the kiss seemed much more sincere and less “experimental.”
33
Sept 16, 2004
We ran through Act Two at our rehearsal and started talking about the script
analysis we had done the day before and how important it was to be aware of how the
lines were written while reading the script during the rehearsal. Our first run-through of
Act Two helped the actors re-familiarize themselves with the action. After the first scene
between Catherine and Robert was over, I realized that, during our break, I was going to
have to sit down with them and ask them some questions about the intentions of each of
the characters. The rest of the scenes looked workable, and my goal was to create a
smoother flowing scene. Every night, the actors came up with something new to bring to
the rehearsal, and I really liked their work ethic because I knew that they were thinking
about the lines and the intentions elsewhere. Overall, I wanted them to make decisions
about what the characters’ intentions were. I noticed the actor who played Robert had an
interesting symbol system that he devised to help him discover intentions in a script. I
asked him how it worked, and he said that each symbol corresponded to a particular
action. Furthermore, these symbols helped make memorization easier for him. I thought
it was so creative and something the other actors might want to try in order to aid their
memorization process.
Later, we spent about twenty minutes making decisions about Scene One before
we ran through the act again. Once they started the scene, I was aware that our
discussion helped the actors because I noticed there were more levels within the scenes
than before. The actor who played Hal expressed some embarrassment towards his
asking so many questions during rehearsals, so I talked to him privately and informed
34
him that his questions were helpful not only to himself, but to the other actors. I told him
that I enjoyed his questions and asked him to continue to be curious. Our rehearsal lasted
until 11pm the previous night and I worried that I would have the same frustration
problems from the actors, but it was quite the opposite. Everyone, including the stage
manager, had the urge to analyze more of the play. I was pleased to know they were all
interested in the script writing and analysis of such a wonderful play. I was looking
forward to our next rehearsal since the actors would be working off-book.
Sept 17, 2004
The stage manager had to run the rehearsal, since I was ill. The actors said that
their first day off-book was a little rough, but they made it through decently and they
were proud of the progress they made.
Sept 19, 2004
The first off-book rehearsal I attended went better than I had planned. The actors
told me they were struggling to memorize the lines. Contrary to what they described,
they came through the first act without too many problems, and I was pleased with what
they had accomplished. The framework for the set design was built on the stage and the
actors worked on it during our rehearsal. Because of the height of the porch, there were
some blocking problems. If the porch were to stay at the same height, then the table
would need to be shortened by approximately five to eight inches in order to alleviate
sight-line problems for the patrons sitting on each side on the first row. (I accomplished
the majority of the blocking for the play from those seats, since I considered them to be
the worst in the house for this particular production.)
35
I decided, since we would be working on Act One again, that I would ask the
actors to do a speed-through the second time around for memorization and blocking. In
this speed-through, the actors would say their memorized lines as fast as possible, and
they would run though their blocking in the same fashion. My plan for the actors was to
work on their lines before all the technical elements were added so they would not feel
rushed or panicked, since the show would be opening the following week. I believe this
rehearsal plan worked for the actors. They all commented on how easy the transition was
from rehearsal to technicals because they were completely sure of their lines, even if they
were not sure of the lighting and sound around them.
Sept. 26, 2004
We ran the through the entire play. It was also a “fun-run.” I told the actors that
would be running the play as if it were a farce. Underneath the lines there was obvious
subtext that I wanted the actors to understand. Furthermore, the actors needed to find
some new attributes for their characters that they had not yet uncovered. I liked that the
actors found many interesting new ideas to play with after the first act was over.
For example, the actress who played Claire found that when she was inviting
Catherine to be in her wedding, she was not truly sincere because Catherine did not get
along with Claire or Mitch, Claire’s husband. Claire was afraid Catherine may create a
scene at the wedding in front of Claire’s friends.
After the actors finished with the second act, it was obvious the actors were
anticipating the outcome of the ending of the play, so I told them to be careful and not
make the end of the play so obvious for everyone. I asked them to think about the first
36
time they read the play. We all wanted to know what happened to Catherine and knew
the audience would be feeling the same way. I told them to create an alternate ending in
their minds every night. They should not tell each other what they had created, but the
different schemes they invented should allow them to have a different performance each
time. After watching the run through, I realized that Act One, Scene One and Three
needed to be re-blocked. I had never realized how little the actors moved and how boring
the scenes looked until after the “fun-run.” The stage manager and I discussed allotting
some time to re-block those scenes.
Sept. 27, 2004
The actors realized just how slow Scenes One and Three were after we re-blocked
it. The actor who played Hal told me he thought I was being too meticulous the night
before, but he could definitely feel the new movement adding new dimension to the
scenes. During the rest of the rehearsal, I told the actors to use the blocking I had given
them as a platform, but it would be acceptable to deviate from the direct path. I
explained that the show would be under technical conditions soon, and it would be up to
them to take what they have been given as a guideline for the play and use their own
skills as actors to work within. When I suggested this, I explained that I did not want to
create organic blocking, but I wanted the movements to look more natural as opposed to
forced and without motivation.
Sept. 28, 2004
The crew came to watch the rehearsal, and the cast was nervous about people
watching and finding the play boring and slow. We were pleasantly surprised to find that
37
they not only chuckled, but they thought some parts of the play were extremely amusing.
Their laughing was definitely a confidence boost to us all since we had all grown
accustomed to the humor in the play. For the evening, my notes focused more on the
details we were constantly working through. For example, when Catherine is startled by
Robert in the opening scene, the sincerity was lacking, as was the bond of love I wanted
to establish between the two in order to justify Catherine’s depression, and I wanted to
allow the audience a chance to like Robert.
One continuing problem with blocking was the actors would sometimes play as if
they were on a proscenium stage. Because the language in Robert’s monologues was so
haphazard, he seemed to be talking to anyone who would listen, and we chose the
listeners to be the audience. The actor who played Robert had a habit of backing up into
the stage right corner next to the porch as if he was backing up into a parking place. The
urge to act as if on a proscenium stage was difficult to overcome for a few of the actors. I
was extremely concerned with the scene where Catherine stole the backpack from Hal
and he just watched her go though his stuff. It seemed contrived and fake, so I asked
them to think about the moments, each of them, rather than scene as a whole, in order to
capture a more realistic feel. I asked them many questions for them to consider. For
instance, Catherine asked for the backpack, so what was her tactic? She then asked Hal
for his backpack a second time and Hal still did not accede, so how did she react? What
did Hal do when she grabbed the backpack? How did she rummage through it? What
did Hal do as she was taking his belongings out? When did Catherine realize that she had
made a mistake? I told the actors that indication was also a major problem. Although we
38
all knew what was going on in the play, the audience did not, so the actors needed to
indicate moments in the play more clearly. It was not clear if Hal was nervous to have
someone find him kissing Catherine on the porch. I told them to think about instances
like that and others like them in order to broaden the performance. During the rehearsal,
there were some problems with noise backstage from one of the members of the
production team. I addressed the problem right away before the situation escalated any
further, in order to avoid an altercation in Act I, Scene Two. Then, one of the crew
members left a cell phone on, and it started ringing during the rehearsal. Again, I
addressed the problem right away with this person so that it would not happen again.
Sept. 29, 2004
The actor who played Robert brought in a Meyers-Briggs personality assessment
test of Robert he had completed online. I thought this was interesting because he was
still finding new characteristics and patterns in the character. The actors played with the
intentions in the lines more which made for a fascinating rehearsal, and they also adjusted
the blocking to look more believable. The stage manager had to leave during the
rehearsal because of a family emergency, but I was not worried about the actors being off
book. They were all so well ahead of schedule with their lines, so I told them to refer to
their scripts if need be to keep the rehearsal moving. They continued to create so many
more interesting moments within the scenes, which pleased me. I asked the actors to
keep looking for those intentions that could be reinvented every night. I advised them that
we have been working on molding my concept and it was obvious they understood it, so
they needed to use their own expertise as actors to create the characters for themselves,
39
based on the original concept. I wanted them to understand that this process was not only
a give-and-take with the each other, but with me, too.
My advisor came in during Act Two, Scene Four again. I knew this would make
the actor who played Robert nervous, but I told him that the notes that my advisor gave
me were not based on how badly he did, but what new things he could add to the scene. I
think the actress who played Catherine was more uneasy than the actor who played
Robert during this visit because she kept fumbling her lines and second-guessing herself.
The rest of the rehearsal was fairly smooth and problem free. It seemed that the actors
who played Hal and Claire were ready to show my advisor their progress, but I think that
he left sometime before they were onstage together. I knew they were eager to perform
in front of more people and not nervous about the upcoming performances.
Oct. 1, 2004
We dealt with the same problem of sincerity in the opening scene because it was
still not convincing. However, I asked the actors many more questions of the play. As
they added new things, more questions arose. For the actress who played Claire, this was
her favorite part of notes because she enjoyed exploring all the different possibilities. I
reminded them that our next rehearsal would be our first technical rehearsal. We would
have no light and sound, so they could use that time to get used to the costume pieces and
stage properties they were given. They all said how ready they were to see how an
audience would react to the performance. I told them they had all worked very hard and
not to rely on the audience reaction to their performance. The performance of the play
40
was sprinkled with humor throughout, but the audience might not laugh every night, so
they needed to work with each other, not for the reactions from the audience.
Technical Rehearsals
Beginning with the paper tech, where we would write in all the possible lighting,
sound and miscellaneous cues in the script, I knew that there would be changes, probably
major, once the show opened. The lighting designer was in charge of designing sound
and had not yet completed the sound design, due to the focus on lighting. Most of the
important sound cues (scene changes, the pre-show and intermission, and end of show
music) were written, but the extra cues would not to be added until the actual technicals.
The technical cues for Proof seemed fairly easy except for the set change cues. The plan
was for the set to be slowly taken apart during the course of the play, but they did not
know how long it would take, so the sound designer was going to have to find some
music to cover the noise that the set crew would be making during the set changes. I
began to have doubts about the possibility that the set changes would be distracting, but
the set designer and I believed the break up of the set would be an interesting addition to
the performance. We decided to try it and then, if we have no other choice, to remove the
scene changes.
On our first technical, I wanted to keep the mood as relaxed as possible. Having
been a stage manager at technicals and an actor, I knew the mood could easily become
tense, and I wanted everyone to stay focused on the duties at hand. With all the technical
advisors there, everything ran smoothly, despite some of the set problems. The set crew
had quite a bit of difficulty with the pieces of the set that had to be moved, and the scene
41
designer was nervous about the stationary pieces coming apart completely. Since there
was so much time being focused on the set, the lighting designer continued to work on
the light cues. I told the actors to sit quietly near the stage in case they were called on.
To my surprise, they had all brought homework and quietly worked while the designers
prepared for the entrances and exits of each scene. We were able to run through all the
sound and light cues before the break for dinner, and they all ran smooth and problem
free. The stage manager and I discussed the possibility of having a shorter rehearsal that
evening if everything ran as smoothly as the first rehearsal.
During the second technical of the evening, it became clear that the set changes
had to be modified. The set crew had such a difficult time with the set changes that the
scene designer decided to leave only two changes. One of the technical advisors was
concerned that the set changes would not be completely understood by the audience, and
the actors would be seen behind the set. Earlier in the summer, the scene designer and I
had discussed this scenario, but having the actors being seen was not a problem, since the
idea behind the play was not to deceive the audience into believing the set was a real
porch, but that it was a memory of a porch to Catherine.
In theory, the actors being seen sounded fine, but seeing it was different. The
wall at the back of the theatre was not covered or prepared to look like it was part of the
set, so it appeared to be a mistake that the actors were being seen, much to my dismay.
All the sound and lighting cues happened on time, and the actors easily adapted to the
minor changes in lighting and sound flawlessly. They all seemed to like adding details to
their performances, and the costumes contributed to more stage business for each of
42
them. After we finished the rehearsal, I told the actors to get changed, and I would come
into the dressing rooms to talk to them, because I did not have much to say to them.
After talking to the scene designer, I was surprised to learn that the set might not change
at all, since he and a technical advisor agreed the moving of the set pieces was too loud
and distracting, and the set crew was accidentally destroying the stationary set pieces.
At our last technical rehearsal, permanent changes were made. The scene
designer tried one last time to change the set pieces while the actors were getting into
costume and make-up, but ultimately the changes were terminated. There was damage to
the set and part of the window unit had broken off. The set crew was reduced to setting
properties after intermission and to helping the costume crew. I informed the cast of the
changes, and they were pleased to hear that the confusion backstage would be cleared,
and they would have room to enter and exit the stage. I found the scene designer and
thanked him for his efforts on the scenery and for attempting to make the set changes
work. I also told him that we were both just trying to create more of an impact on the
play through the use of the scene design. The rehearsal went smoothly, which gave the
actors a chance to run through the play before the Sneak Peek performance. Overall, the
performance went well, except they were anticipating some of the technical cues. We
talked about those problems while they were in the dressing rooms, and I told them to
look at Sneak Peek as another technical, because it would only be their second time on
stage with lights, sound, and costumes. I asked them if they wanted me to come back
stage during intermission or after the show, and they all said they wanted me backstage
during both.
43
In addition to the technicians, my advisor had notes for me to give to the actors. I
knew the actors would like to hear the same notes I gave them from a different
perspective. I told them my advisor thought Hal’s entrance into the backyard was too
nonchalant and needed to look as if Hal were concerned about entering the backyard of
his mentor. He also suggested that Catherine mock the way Claire spoke, with her
accent, so it would create recognition that Claire had an accent. The audience would
notice it, so the characters should address it as well. He went on to say that Catherine and
Hal’s kiss should last longer. The actors who played Hal and Catherine both said that by
pushing the awkward moment further, it should create more tension in the scene. We all
laughed at the suggestion that Claire be more excited about the coffee she offers to
Catherine. The actress who played Claire thought that would be great to work with and
we all agreed the audience would find some humor in Claire, which we felt was much
needed. Furthermore, in addition to the confirmation that she wrote the proof, Catherine
wanted faith, not only in herself, but from Hal, because she thought he was the only
person she could trust, and he turned against her. I thought this would be an interesting
idea for them to work on throughout the performances.
44
CHAPTER V
PERFORMANCES
Texas Tech Lab Theatre season shows run for seven performances in a row.
During those performances, a play performance can change somewhat because the actors
may try something new in their performances and respond to the different reactions from
the audience. The actors in Proof found new things to apply to their performances every
night. I enjoyed seeing these Lab performances towards the end of the run because the
production had reached a level of maturity, and the actors seemed to be confident in their
performances.
At first, the actors were a little unsure of their performances. However, I assured
them that not every performance was going to feel the same, and they could not recapture
the same “perfect” moments from the evening before. They would have to create from
what they are giving to each other. I knew this from my experience with the Meisner
technique: he believed that each actor should go though a process of give and take, where
each actor should not force a moment, but create a moment from the different dynamics
given by his/her fellow actors otherwise it would look contrived. I told them they could
“up the stakes,” but not go too far, which they all agreed to. Although the actors had said
they wanted me to comment on their performances every night, I believed my comments
might have a negative impact on their performances, since actors sometimes rely wholly
on other’s opinions as an assessment of their performance.
As I have said before, the last few performances were the most satisfying to
watch. The actors were more confident because they were creating new tensions in their
45
performance and using their skills to discover new blocking within the existing structure
and were listening to each other more. On the fifth performance, all of their discoveries
were apparent to me. The actors were ecstatic at the end of the night, and they relied less
on my opinion, and more on their own intuition as actors. I knew the audience was more
interested that night because they were not looking around a lot or mumbling audibly
during the play.
When Catherine and Hal stood on the porch after the funeral, they had one kiss
that was exceptionally long. A few audience members cooed at this moment. I smiled to
myself knowing that the actors heard it and were probably quietly happy with the
moment they created. Every night there was some mumbling from the audience when
Catherine said that she wrote the proof. However, starting from the fifth performance on,
the audience’s gasps were louder. I heard nothing but excitement from the cast about this
moment, and they looked forward to finding new ways to create more suspense every
night.
Act Two Scene Four, when Robert is outside writing in the cold, was always
difficult for the actors during rehearsals. During the first few performances, the audience
made small gasps when Catherine read aloud what Robert had written. I think the
audience wanted to believe, just like Catherine, that he was doing better and that maybe
he was really writing something worthwhile. I enjoyed hearing the audience realize the
truth about Robert, because I knew they cared about the character. Again, during the last
few performances, the realization was much more vocal from the audience. For some
reason, Robert’s relapse had more impact on the audience than when Catherine admitted
46
she wrote the proof Hal found. At the final performance, I came to the conclusion that it
had something to do with the order of the scenes. Catherine admitted she wrote the proof
in Act One, and the audience saw her trying to prove to Hal and Claire that she was not
crazy and actually wrote the proof. When the audience witnessed the scene with Robert
and Catherine talking out in the cold, the audience got a glimpse of what Robert must
have been like to live with during his last years. He made some unusual statements like,
“I’m back in touch with the source-the font, the-whatever the source of my creativity was
all those years ago…I’m sitting on it. It’s like a geyser and I’m shooting right up into the
air on top of it” (Auburn 60). In his notebook, he wrote, “Let X equal the quantity of all
quantities of X. Let X equal the cold. It is cold in December…The number of books
approaches infinity as the number of months of cold approaches four…” (63). The
audience witnessed information that Hal or Claire did not know about Robert. They
could see there was little evidence that Robert could have been the person who wrote the
proof.
On the last performance day, the actors were troubled that they would not be able
to play with the dialogue further after their performance. I told them that they should use
it to deviate a little from what they were doing, regardless of the havoc it might create
onstage. They knew the lines and all the cues very well, so getting lost would not be a
problem. I told them that they could have done this all along, but I knew that the fear of
wrecking the performance is great to actors. However, once the show started, I realized
that they were doing exactly what we talked about. Entirely new moments and questions
from the script were created over the course of the night. In fact, so many new intentions
47
were being executed that the actors were unearthing new elements I had not yet
considered. Although I had been watching the play for three weeks, I was mesmerized
by the performance and even vocalized audibly with the rest of the audience though the
first act. I decided I would not go backstage during intermission for fear of ruining the
progress the actors had created, so I sent a note to them through the stage manager
informing them they were performing superbly, but I would be with my family during
intermission. The second act was just as enchanting as the first. The actors playing Hal
and Catherine found ways of incorporating a missing connection of love between their
characters, so the despondency of their relationship carried over from Act One. The
closing action of the play was even more touching because the actors had created more of
a journey, thus the characters were more vulnerable. During the curtain call, they
received a standing ovation, which was justly deserved, and the actors were visibly
moved as they accepted the gesture. Afterwards, I went backstage to congratulate them
all, and I found that they were all delighted with their performances; however, they were
also sad to say “farewell” to their progress.
48
CHAPTER VI
FINAL ANALYSIS
In addition to the discoveries the cast had uncovered together, we had
commentary on the performance from respondent Theresa Newton from Western Texas
College. Ms. Newton raised many questions I could not answer that day because it was
already too late to make any major changes; however I can discuss them in this final
chapter of my thesis. The bulk of the comments and questions Ms. Newton addressed
were related to blocking. From her blocking notes, I discerned the underlying questions
that Ms. Newton was asking were related to motivations.
For example, she inquired why Catherine sat down during her speech about Dr.
Von Heimlich. During this scene, Claire is trying to persuade Catherine to go to New
York with her, but Catherine knows the underlying reason is so Claire will be nearby in
case Catherine should become ill like her father. Catherine sarcastically says to Claire, “I
would like to see a doctor called Dr. Von Heimlich: Please find one. And I would like
him to wear a monocle: And I’d like him to have a very soft, very well-upholstered
couch, so that I’ll be perfectly comfortable while I’m blaming everything on you.”
(Auburn 66). In this scene, I wanted Catherine to illustrate, melodramatically, her
“session” with Dr. Von Heimlich while Claire stood by and watched.
Catherine seems to have the upper hand because she is belittling Claire’s efforts
to help her. Immediately after Catherine says her previously stated line, Claire tells her
not to come to New York and she begins to pick up her things off the porch to leave, but
she hesitates (Auburn 67). While Catherine is sitting, she constantly fidgets because of
49
fear. Therefore, Claire, who is standing still watching Catherine, actually has retained
her strong position in the scene. We tried to create something that might be seen in real
life. However, reversing those roles might have been interesting to see in order to
compare the dynamic between the two characters. On the whole, the scene did illustrate
Catherine’s motivation to debase Claire based on her fear of finding in her the same
psychological disturbances which afflicted her father.
Overall, the comments from the respondent were interesting because Ms. Newton
observed instances in the performance I had grown accustomed to, such as in Act One
Scene Two, when Catherine is out on the porch drying her hair with a towel and her hair
is already dry. I had seen this scene a few times and never once caught the inconsistency
of it. Also, the flashback scenes were not distinguished from the present day scenes in
any way. I knew the story and assumed the audience would too; however, Ms. Newton
pointed out this shift as being awkward. As with many directing assignments, I would
have liked to go back and redo or adjust some of the blocking in order to accentuate the
details I had overlooked; however, my original concept would have been disrupted.
In retrospect, I believe that my overall vision for the play when I started was
fulfilled. I wanted the production to be simple, low budget, and with an emphasis on the
playwright’s language. Although the original scene design was elaborate, in that pieces
of the set would have been slowly detached throughout the performance, the final result
was a stationary set. There were cracks in the set which I believe were more effective in
representing a deterioration of Catherine’s world than a literal breakdown of the set
pieces. Also, there was a large acting space in front of the porch which allowed more
50
levels to be created. The costumes were all solid colors and simple in design.
Catherine’s quick costume change was as minimal as possible in order to keep the flow
of the play consistent. Concerning sound and lighting design, there were cues to change
the mood and time of day, but they did not distract from the action of the performance.
Part of the reason that I chose to direct Proof was because it is a Pulitzer Prizewinning play. So, the question for me to address in my submission to direct was, “Why
is a Pulitzer Prize winning play important to the students and audience in Lubbock?”
When I submitted to direct Proof, I tried to address that question though the literary merit
of the play. I was most interested in the way that the language the characters spoke was
reminiscent of Mamet but much more lyrical than Mamet’s short, fragmented dialogue.
When reading Proof, the comparison is extremely evident; however, seeing the play
performed was a different experience. On a general level, it seemed that the audience
members were much more interested in whether Catherine wrote the proof or not, and
secondly, if she had taken on her father’s mental instability. I would hear those questions
during the intermission every night of the play from both theatre students and the general
audience. However, my infatuation with the smooth flow of the dialogue was not
completely unfounded. With Mamet, the staccato nature of the language is rough and my
reaction is two-fold: I have an interest in the story, but I know people do not normally
converse in such an ultra-realistic manner. In Auburn’s play, the language flows so
evenly that we hear what is being said as opposed to how it is being said. Therefore, the
conflict in the play is more noticeable
51
Throughout the process of directing Proof, we all questioned the motivations and
fears of the characters. After the process was over, I read an interview with David
Auburn from Online New Hour and was pleased that our answers matched Auburn’s.
When asked if Catherine was afraid of inheriting her father’s affliction, Auburn replied
that the audience identifies with this because they have fears that they will inherit, along
with admirable qualities, the “patterns that they don’t like very much,” in idolized
members of their own family (Online New Hour 3). Similarly, everyone in the cast all
mentioned how the characters in the play were so realistic and that they had someone in
their own families they could compare with the characters. One cast member said that
Robert was such a great father because he tried diligently to parent as best he could, but
his mental instability stood in the way.
From the outcome of the process of directing Proof came the answer to my initial
inquiry of directing a Pulitzer Prize-winning play in Lubbock. The similarity between the
audience’s reactions to the cast’s reactions was too much of a coincidence. The actors
were always trying to find new ways to create suspense because they knew the outcome
of the story. In spite of this understanding, the actors were not all in agreement about
Catherine’s ultimate condition and if she actually wrote the proof. In my approach, I
coached the actors to give back what the other actors were giving to them. I wanted a
give-and-take relationship between the actors so that the rhythms were not out of sync
with what the actors are doing on stage. The actors’ familiarity with the characters they
played and their differing opinions of the conclusion created a new performance every
evening. Likewise, the questions the audience asked every night were the same two
52
questions the actors asked themselves. So, in the end, the answer to bringing a Pulitzer
Prize winning play to Lubbock was that the play was unique, just like all other awardwinning plays. David Auburn has written characters the audience and actors can easily
identify and an interesting story. Having put those two characteristics together, Auburn
created a play with realistic characters and a storyline that was remarkably similar to
questions the participants asked in their own lives. Therefore, even in Lubbock, Texas,
the overall effect was touching and far-reaching to all whom participated in the process.
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2001 Pulitzer Prizes. 2001. DRAMA-Biography David Auburn. 15 Sept 2005.
<http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2001/drama/bio/>.
Auburn, David. Proof. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 2001.
Bartow, Arthur. The Director’s Voice, Twenty-One Interviews. New York: Theatre
Communications Group, 1988.
Benedetti, Jean. Stanislavsky & the Actor. New York: Routledge/Theatre Art Book,
1998.
Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 5th ed. New York:
The Modern Language Association of America, 1999.
.
Lewis, Robert. Advice to the Players. Theatre Communications Group. New York:
1980.
Online NewsHour. 20 Apr 2001. Pulitzer Prize Winner. 15 Sep 2005.
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/auburn 04-20.html>
reView. 1996. Ed. Todd E. Napolitano. Of Graphomania, Confession and the Writing
Self or The Kitch of Online Journals. 15 Sep 2005.
<http://www.altx.com/ebr/reviews/rev3/todd.htm>.
The Mathematical Association of America. Ed. Gerald L. Alexanderson. 2005.
Osserman Interviews David Auburn Author of Proof. 15 Sep 2005.
<http://www.maa.org/features/proof.html>.
54
APPENDIX
55
56
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
Holly Novak
_______________________________________________
Student Signature
Nov. 28,2005
_________________
Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
_______________________________________________
Student Signature
_________________
Date