Please inform your students of this excellent opportunity
DURING the HOLIDAY BREAK!
By David Auburn
WINNER OF THE 2001 PULITZER PRIZE
AND TONY AWARD FOR BEST PLAY
STUDY GUIDE
“…combines elements of mystery and surprise with old-fashioned storytelling to provide a
compelling evening of theatre…[PROOF is a] smart and compassionate play of ideas.”
--New York Magazine
“PROOF surprises us with its aliveness…MR. Auburn takes pleasure in knowledge…At the same
time, he is unshowily fresh and humane, and he has written a lovely play."
--The New York Observer
“[A] wonderfully funny…ambitiously constructed work…”
--Variety
Student Preview Night:
Friday, January 2, 7:30 pm
RESERVATIONS are Requested. Please call (970) 484-5237
Contains Mature Language
The
Thornton Family
Foundation
Additional seasonal support provided by:
OpenStage Theatre is delighted
to have you experience
Student Night Performance
at the Lincoln Center!
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, SOME THINGS
YOU WILL AND WON’T WANT TO DO
AT THE PERFORMANCE!
THESE DOs AND DON’Ts ARE COMMONLY CALLED
Theatre Etiquette
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DO dress up a bit. You don’t have to be fancy, but don’t wear shorts. Absolutely no hats
are allowed.
DO enjoy the performance. Listen, laugh when appropriate, applaud!
DON’T embarrass yourself by yelling out, whistling, clapping at inappropriate times, or
acting as if you were at a sports game instead of a theatre. Don’t, above all, fall asleep!
DON’T bring food! This is not like a movie theatre, so food is totally inappropriate. No eating
at any time.
DON’T talk to your friends during the performance. If you don’t understand something or
wish to make a short comment once or twice, that’s fine, but constant conversation is the
ultimate in rudeness.
DON’T leave the performance unless you feel ill. Stay in your seat during the play and
during the blackouts between scenes.
DO focus on details, listen and watch carefully, and take some memories of the
performance with you!
If necessary, a teacher will ask you to leave the theatre, which could be embarrassing.
FREE Student Preview Night
A unique, exciting opportunity to explore the world of theatre!
FRIDAY, January 2, 7:30 pm
Lincoln Center Mini-Theatre • 417 West Magnolia Street • Fort Collins
Proof
by David Auburn
A discussion with the cast will follow the performance.
Reservations are Requested!
CALL (970) 484-5237 to make reservations for you & your students.
Contains Mature Language
For questions and information, contact OpenStage Theatre at 484-5237
*note: OpenStage is transitioning to a web-based distribution of its study guides. Please contact us with your email
address in order to receive electronic notification as each study guide is posted.
To access our study guides online, please visit
http://www.openstagetheatre.org/productions/student.php
and click the approp riate study guide link.
Proof
STUDY GUIDE
Table of Contents
From the Director ..……..………………………………………………………………. Page 1
Plot & Themes …….…………………..…..………………..…………………….…….. Page 2
Schizophrenia ……...…………………………….....…………………..………………. Page 4
Are Creativity & Mental Illness Linked? ………….…..…………………………………. Page 4
Sophie Germain ……………...….……………...……………………………………… Page 5
The Author …….......…………….……………...……………………………………… Page 6
The Pulitzer Prize ………………...……………...………………………………………. Page 7
Creating a Theatrical Production .……………...………………………………………. Page 8
Overview of OpenStage Theatre .……………...………………………………………. Page 9
From the Director
Proof is a marvelous new play - winner of the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for
Drama and the Tony Award for Best New Play – two of the American
theatre’s most coveted awards. A humorous and poignant play, Proof
revolves around issues of genius and instability, productivity and aging,
and most importantly, a correlation between mathematical proof and
the proof of trust between people.
A genius is, virtually by definition, not like the majority of humanity. A
genius sees things differently and, frequently, in a new light. The very
uniqueness of a genius' perceptions puts into question the validity of
those perceptions. We tend to view a mentally imbalanced individual in
that same light: we question the validity of that individual's perceptions.
Thus, our belief of who an individual is – our interpretation of an
individual's intelligence, insight and mental stability – may well color both that individual's belief in himself or
herself and the acceptance of that person's ideas in the larger world.
But, despite its heady subject, Proof explores this territory with humor and compassion and transports the
world of mathematical genius into our own back yard. The characters in Proof possess a realism and depth
that belongs to the world in which we live. There is an organic truth to these people and to their interactions
with each other. Our understanding of who they are subtly shifts from moment to moment as their personal
stories are revealed.
Since Proof is so intrinsically focused in the personal worlds of the characters and their interactions with
each other, as a director I have emphasized the inner reality of each character. The shape of each scene
has been developed through the individual actor's relationship to his or her character - feelings, thoughts
and motivations.
David Auburn's play is fresh and humane. It surprises us with its aliveness and intelligent modesty and
engages us on an extremely personal and dynamic level.
"Nearly every scene [of Proof] is based on a piece of information
cunningly withheld until the last moment; and unlike playwrights
who take such strategic games in ponderous earnest, Auburn
perceives their essential playfulness, as do his characters, who toy
with each other much as he toys with them and with us. It's
impossible to resent manipulation that's carried on in such a
generous spirit; by its uninsistent acceptance of its own
shallowness, it opens out into a vision of reality. One of the few
genuinely big feelings you can get from the well-made play is this
overarching sense of life as a huge, silly game, in which we're all
buffeted about randomly."
Denise Burson Freestone
Director
Michael Feingold, The Village Voice
OpenStage Theatre & Company
1
December, 2003
The Plot
David Auburn's play "Proof," first produced in 2000, centers on the younger daughter of a brilliant mathematician. The father,
Robert, had become mentally unstable in his later years. Emotionally drained after years of taking care of him and neglecting her
own education, 25-year-old Catherine must face her father's death, deal with her manipulative, estranged sister, Claire, and cope
with the amorous attentions of a former student of her father, Hal.
The plot centers on the authorship of a potentially outstanding mathematical proof in number theory, which was found among
notebooks filled with Robert's less-than-lucid scribbles. At first glance, the play appears to be both a mystery and a romantic
comedy. On a deeper level, it raises questions about proof in human relationships as well as in math.
The Themes
PROOF. The word "proof" comes to us from an Indo-European root meaning "through" or "forward." From this root comes one
of the word's primary English meanings: a test or trial in which a person or object is put through an ordeal, or placed in a forward
position in the face of danger. Thus we say of someone, "He has been proven in battle," and we use phrases such as "bullet-proof"
or "rust-proof," or "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."
A second sense of "proof" means the deployment of evidence or reasoning to establish a fact or validate theory. A "proof" in this
sense is a demonstration that something is actually the case. The meaning of "proof" in Proof continually oscillates back and forth
between these two senses, sometimes figuring as a test or ordeal--that is to say, an emotional trial--and at other times appearing
as an exercise in logical demonstration.
In "Proof," Auburn found a witty, engrossing way to explore the notion of proof in several different senses – in the idea of a
mathematical proof with its particular iron-clad inevitability, the notion of establishing the authorship of an intellectual work, and
the daily proof that people seek to reassure themselves of the stability of reality and of their personal relationships. The scripts
explore the counterpoint between pure logic and the emotional complexities of everyday life, and they elucidate the meaning of
proof in different settings.
GENIUS AND MADNESS Genius is typically regarded as a positive thing. Those who have genius are recognized for how
they excel, for how intelligen t they are, for how they affect progress. Genius is spoken of with reverence, is made a goal of
scholars – though most often an unattainable one – and is respected. But genius is often seen in partnership with a not-so-liked
trait of the human mind: insanity. Mental defect is often embodied within the same person as creativity, and in fact the two are
often associated, or, in some instances, even equated.
We meet this idea – that exceptional talent goes hand-in-hand with insanity – in the classics and the comics, in the distant past
and in the immediate present. Shakespeare tells us that “The lunatic, the lover, and the poet” are brothers under the skin,” while
Batman battles one deranged genius after another in defense of Gotham.
The deranged artist is a familiar figure --think of Van Gogh -- as is the mad scientist, a character who haunts both fiction and
reality: Dr. Frankenstein, meet Dr. Mengele. And Hollywood recently bestowed an Academy Award on a movie about an insane
mathematician, a work mingling fact and fiction.
OpenStage Theatre & Company
2
December, 2003
GENIUS AND MADNESS continued:
Why do we make this link between genius and insanity? Partly, as some of the examples above demonstrate, because it exists.
Many gifted people have also been tragically deranged. Perhaps because the same twist in the brain that makes for exceptional
talent also opens the door to mischief. After all, who can draw a clear line between extreme originality and madness? Innovative
works of art or incandescently unconventional scientific theories have routinely been dismissed as crazy.
In Proof the main character fears for her sanity, in part because her father was mad, and genetics is, after all, a powerful
predictor of one's own fate in life. But her fears are all the greater because she also shares her father's genius. Her sister, Claire,
who is intellectually undistinguished, has no worries about her mental health. And so we watch as a young woman struggles to be
both brilliant, like her father, and normal, like her sister – to achieve the balance that our culture tells us may be impossible.
MATH: A YOUNG MAN'S GAME? At twenty-eight, Hal, a researcher and professor of mathematics,
already considers himself on the downhill side of achievement, and Robert, twice his age fears that he will
never do math again. Though fictional, these men are not alone in their fears. Over the years, many myths
have developed about the lifestyles of mathematicians – from the idea that they work in strict isolation to the
geeky stereotype of taped glasses and pocket protectors. But two of the most persistent perceptions are that
mathematicians (at least the successful ones) are men and, that they are young men.
However, research indicates that this is not necessarily the case. In her 1997
book, Women and Mathematics: the Addition of Difference, Claudia Henrion cites a study by
Nancy Stern which shows that contrary to the popular belief that the most productive years of a
mathematician's life are between 20 and 35, the greatest number of papers were produced by
researchers aged 35- 39, and the number of papers published by mathematicians over age sixty
was still greater than that of researchers under 35. Henrion suggests that quantity does not
necessarily equal quality, but Stern's study shows no direct relationship between a decline in quality
of work and an increase in age. In fact, the quality of work produced by those over the age of 60
was twice that of those 35 and younger. Why, then, does this notion of youth still thrive?
Perhaps it is for the same reason that women continue to be viewed as the exception rather than the norm in mathematics.
Despite the fact that numerous women have made and continue to make meaningful contributions to this field, the common
belief is that virility is the driving force in math, which implies a certain advantage for men, particularly young men. As both Hal
and Catherine demonstrate in Proof, these stereotypes be counterproductive. Catherine role model, choice of acclaimed historical
mathematician Sophie Germain (Germain Prime Numbers) is a poignant example of the traditional role of women in
mathematics.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that mathematical talent is limited neither by gender nor by age, but until the mathematical
community as a whole acknowledges this, researchers will have to continue to prove that math is not a young man's game.
Information excerpted and adapted from www.thepublictheatre.org/stdygds/proofsg.htm, www.repstl.org/education/studyGuides/proof, and “The
Correlation Between Genius and Insanity” by Kaitlin Burge.
OpenStage Theatre & Company
3
December, 2003
Schizophrenia
Although Robert's mental illness is never specified in the play, the symptoms discussed suggest schizophrenia. Catherine's fear for
her own sanity surfaces when Hal suggests that she is paranoid since paranoia is often associated with schizophrenia.
The National Institute for Mental Health notes that more than 2 million Americans are affected by schizophrenia. The illness,
which may impair a person's ability to manage emotions, interact with others, and think clearly, typically develops in the late teens
or early twenties. Symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, disordered thinking, and social withdrawal. Most people with
schizophrenia continue to suffer chronically or episodically throughout their lives. Even between bouts of active illness, lost
opportunities for careers and relationships, stigma, residual symptoms, and medication side effects often plague those with the
illness. One of every 10 people with schizophrenia eventually commits suicide.
As the search for better treatments and ways to transfer those treatments to clinical practice continues, the National Institute for
Mental Health is harnessing the most sophisticated scientific tools available to determine the causes of schizophrenia. This brain
disorder, like heart disease or diabetes, is complex and likely results from the interplay of genetic, behavioral, developmental, and
other factors. There is an active search on several levels for the specific risk factors that may lead to schizophrenia.
Many years of family studies indicate that a vulnerability to schizophrenia is inherited. Still, scientists do not know how many genes
are involved in this complex disorder, how the genetic predisposition is transmitted, or how behaviors or other events may interact
with a genetic vulnerability to trigger the disorder. But an arsenal of new molecular tools and modern statistical analyses are
allowing researchers to close in on particular genes that might make people more susceptible to schizophrenia by affecting, for
example, brain development or neurotransmitter systems governing brain functioning.
Are creativity and mental illness linked?
An article from Today's Science with the above title asks this question researchers have sought to answer for many years. Several
studies were flawed by using groups that were too small to be representative, but a study by Arnold Ludwig attempted to avoid
these and other flaws in previous research by studying 2,200 biographies. His book cited below gave the following statistics: As
teen-agers, between 29% and 34% of future artists and musicians suffered from symptoms of mental illness. In comparison, only
3% to 9% of future scientists, athletes and business people suffered similar symptoms. As adults, between 59% and 77% of artists,
writers and musicians suffered mental illness, while only 18% to 29% of the other professionals did.
Mathematicians like the father and daughter in this play seem to fall between the two groups since their work is both creative and
scientific. In another study quoted in Science Daily scientists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University suggest that
"creative people appear to be more open to incoming stimuli from the surrounding environment. … Previously, scientists have
associated failure to screen out stimuli with psychosis. " The study suggests that normal people weed out extraneous data through
a process called "latent inhibition" (the unconscious capacity to ignore stimuli that experience has shown are irrelevant) and that
"low levels of latent inhibition and exceptional flexibility in thought might predispose to mental illness under some conditions and
to creative accomplishment under others. For example, during the early stages of diseases such as schizophrenia, which are often
accompanied by feelings of deep insight, mystical knowledge and religious experience, chemical changes take place in which
latent inhibition disappears."
Other famous geniuses throughout history that are reputed to have suffered from mental illness:
Sir Isaac Newton
Newton derived the
law of universal
gravitation and
invented the branch of
mathematics called
calculus.
Michelangelo
Italian painter, sculptor,
architect, and poet whose
art istic accomplishments
exerted a tremendous
influence on European
art.
John F. Nash, Jr.
Mathematician and corecipient of the 1994
Nobel Prize in
economics for his
pioneering work in
game theory.
Information excerpted from: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizresfact.cfm, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/1 0/031001061055.htm, and “The Price of
Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy”, The Guilford Press, 1995, written by Arnold Ludwig and quoted on
http://www.talentdevelop.com/Page91.html.
OpenStage Theatre & Company
4
December, 2003
SOPHIE GERMAIN
Sophie Germain was born on April 1, 1776 the daughter of a merchant, Ambroise-Francois
Germain. Outside of her work, her life was to be dominated by the turmoil of the French
Revolution. The year she discovered her love of numbers, the Bastille was stormed, and her study
of calculus was shadowed by the Reign of Terror.
In 1794, the Ecole Polytechnique opened in Paris. It was founded as an academy of excellence
to train mathematicians and scientists for the nation. It was an institution reserved only for men.
Germain's natural shyness prevented her from confronting the academy's governing body, so
instead she resorted to covertly studying at the Ecole by assuming the identity of a former student
at the academy, Monsieur Antoine-August Le Blanc. Germain managed to obtain what was
intended for Le Blanc, and each week she would submit answers to the problems under her new
pseudonym.
Everything was going according to plan until the supervisor of the course, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, could no longer ignore the
brilliance of the previously uninspired Monsieur Le Blanc's answer sheets. Lagrange, who was one of the finest mathematicians of
the nineteenth century, requested a meeting with this much-improved student, and Germain was forced to reveal her true identity.
Lagrange became her mentor and friend.
She became interested in number theory and inevitably came to hear of Fermat's Last Theorem. She worked on the problem for
several years, eventually reaching the stage where she believed she had made an important breakthrough. She needed to discuss
her ideas with a fellow number theorist and decided that she would go straight to the top and consult the greatest number theorist
in the world, the German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss. Germain's immediate goal was not to prove that one particular
equation had no solutions, but to say something about several equations. In her letter to Gauss she outlined a calculation which
focused on those equations in which n is equal to a particular type of prime number.
Prime numbers are those numbers which have no divisors. For example, 11 is a prime number because 11 has no divisors, i.e.,
nothing will divide into 11 without leaving a remainder (except for 11 and 1). On the other hand, 12 is not a prime number
because several numbers will divide into 12, i.e., 2, 3, 4, and 6. Germain was interested in those prime numbers p such that 2p
+ 1 is also a prime number.
For values of n equal to these Germain primes, she could show that there were probably no solutions to the equation: xn + yn =
zn. By "probably" Germain meant that it was unlikely that any solutions existed, because if there was a solution, then either x, y,
or z would be a multiple of n. This put a very tight restriction on any solutions. Her colleagues examined her list of primes one by
one, trying to prove that x, y, or z could not be a multiple of n, therefore showing that for that particular value of n there could be
no solutions.
Germain's work on Fermat's Last Theorem was to be her greatest contribution to mathematics, but initially she was not credited for
her breakthrough. When Germain wrote to Gauss she feared that the great man would not take her seriously, so she resorted
once again to her pseudonym, signing her letters as Monsieur Le Blanc.
Germain's contribution would have been forever wrongly attributed to the mysterious Monsieur Le Blanc were it not for the
Emperor Napoleon. In 1806, Napoleon was invading Prussia. She sent a message to her friend, General Joseph-Marie Pernety,
asking that he guarantee Gauss's safety. In Germain's next letter to Gauss she reluctantly revealed her true identity. Far from
being angry at the deception, Gauss wrote back to her with delight: “But how to describe to you my admiration and astonishment
at seeing my esteemed correspondent Monsieur Le Blanc metamorphose himself into this illustrious personage who gives such a
brilliant example of what I would find it difficult to believe.”
After Fermat, Germain embarked on an eventful career as a physicist, a discipline in which she would again excel only to be
confronted by the prejudices of the establishment. Her most important contribution to the subject was "Memoir on the Vibrations
of Elastic Plates," a brilliantly insightful paper which was to lay the foundations for the modern theory of elasticity.
As a result of this research and her work on Fermat's Last Theorem, she received a medal from the Institut de France and became
the first woman, who was not a wife of a member, to attend lectures at the Academy of Sciences. Then, towards the end of her
life, she re- established her relationship with Carl Gauss, who convinced the University of Göttingen to award her an honorary
degree. Tragically, before the university could bestow the honor upon her, Sophie Germain died of breast cancer in 1831.
Information excerpted from www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/germain.html
OpenStage Theatre & Company
5
December, 2003
The Author
David Auburn, aged 30 when Proof was first produced in 2000, was born in Chicago and raised in
Arkansas. There his father was a professor of English specializing in the work of Richard Brinsley
Sheridan, the eighteenth-century British playwright. Thus, like the main character in Proof, Auburn
was raised in an academic environment and has walked – approximately – in his father's professional
footsteps.
Auburn attended the University of Chicago where he majored in political philosophy and studied
calculus. He also began working in theater, writing and performing sketch comedy for a group
named Off Off Campus, and serving as theater reviewer for the college newspaper.
Despite his academic interest in politics, he turned down an offer to work for Illinois Senator, Paul
Simon, during the summer of his sophomore year. Instead he attended the Edinburgh Festival, an
annual international celebration of the performing arts in Scotland.
The next stop in his developing career was Los Angeles, where he was the recipient of a Steven Spielberg fellowship in
screenwriting. After that, it was off to New York and a brief detour as the author of labels for rug shampoo containers. This was
followed by enrollment in the playwriting program of the renowned Julliard School. There Auburn studied under such established
dramatists as Marsha Norman (author of 'Night Mother), and Christopher Durang (Beyond Therapy and Sister Mary Ignatius
Explains It All for You). As a Julliard student, he wrote Skyscraper, a comedy set in Chicago, which was produced Off Broadway in
1997.
Following that play's brief run, Auburn moved to London where his fiancée was working on her Ph.D. There he began writing
Proof, drawing on his experiences at the University of Chicago. As he told an interviewer for The New York Times, "He recalled
one professor who taught chemistry all day and then would spend his free time marching around his neighborhood with a
broomstick chanting the song from The Bridge on the River Kwai at the top of his voice." Says Auburn in that interview, "I think
there is some connection between extremely prodigious mathematical ability and craziness. . . . Those with edgy or slightly
irrational personalities are drawn to it."
Working with the memory of these eccentric Chicago academics in mind, Auburn began organizing his play around a related pair
of ideas: "One was to write about two sisters who are quarreling over the legacy of something left behind by their father. The
other was about someone who knew that her parent had problems of mental illness" and faced the possibility that "she might be
going through the same thing." These ideas turned into the conflict between Catherine, the daughter of a brilliant but mentally
unstable mathematician, and Claire, her utterly conventional sister. The "legacy" became a mathematical proof, an appealing
device because, says Auburn, "In math, someone could have done something major working alone in an attic." Unlike a scientific
discovery produced by teams of researchers in a laboratory, the proof could have remained secret, its authorship subject to
dispute – a dispute that then becomes the core of the play.
Information excerpted from www.thepublictheatre.org/stdygds/proofsg.htm
OpenStage Theatre & Company
6
December, 2003
The Pulitzer Prize
History
In the latter years of the 19th century, Joseph Pulitzer stood out as the very embodiment of
American journalism. Hungarian-born, an intense indomitable figure, Pulitzer was the most
skillful of newspaper publishers, …and a visionary who richly endowed his profession. His
innovative New York World and St. Louis Post-Dispatch reshaped newspaper journalism.
Pulitzer was the first to call for the training of journalists at the university level in a school of
journalism.
In writing his 1904 will, which made provision for the establishment of the Pulitzer Prizes as an
incentive to excellence, Pulitzer specified four awards in journalism, four in letters and drama,
one for education, and four traveling scholarships. In letters, prizes were to go to an American
novel, an original American play performed in New York, a book on the history of the United
States, an American biography, and a history of public service by the press. But, sensitive to the
dynamic progression of his society Pulitzer made provision for broad changes in the system of
awards. He also empowered the board to withhold any award where entries fell below its
standards of excellence.
Since the inception of the prizes in 1917, the board has increased the number of awards to 21
and introduced poetry, music, and photography as subjects.
In letters, the board has grown less conservative over the years in matters of taste. In 1963 the drama jury nominated Edward
Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, but the board found the script insufficiently "uplifting," a complaint that related to
arguments over sexual permissiveness and rough dialogue. In 1993 the prize went to Tony Kushner's Angels in America:
Millennium Approaches, a play that dealt with problems of homosexuality and AIDS and whose script was replete with obscenities.
Notwithstanding these contretemps, from its earliest days, the board has in general stood firmly by a policy of secrecy in its
deliberations and refusal to publicly debate or defend its decisions. The Prizes are perceived as a major incentive for high-quality
journalism and have focused worldwide attention on American achievements in letters and music.
Award Process and Administration of Prizes
More than 2,000 entries are submitted each year in the Pulitzer Prize competitions, and only 21 awards are normally made. The
awards are the culmination of a year-long process that begins with the appointment of 102 distinguished judges who serve on 20
separate juries and are asked to make three nominations in each of the 21 categories.
The drama jury of four critics and one academic attend plays both in New York and the regional theaters. The award in drama
goes to a playwright but production of the play as well as script are taken into account.
In early April the board assembles having read the texts of the journalism entries and the 15 nominated books, listened to music
cassettes, read the scripts of the nominated plays, and attended the performances or seen videos where possible. By custom, it is
incumbent on board members not to vote on any award under consideration in drama or letters if they have not seen the play or
read the book.
Both the jury nominations and the awards voted by the board are held in strict confidence until the announcement of the prizes,
which takes place about a week after the meeting. The details appear on the Pulitzer Web site. The announcement includes the
name of the winner in each category as well as the names of the other two finalists. The three finalists in each category are the
only entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees. The announcement also lists the board
members and the names of the jurors (which have previously been kept confidential to avoid lobbying.)
A gold medal is awarded to the winner in Public Service. Along with the certificates in the other categories, there are cash awards
of $10,000, raised in 2003 from $7,500. Five Pulitzer fellowships of $7,500 each are also awarded annually on the
recommendation of the faculty of the School of Journalism. One fellowship is awarded to a graduate who wishes to specialize in
drama, music, literary, film, or television criticism. For most recipients of the Pulitzer prizes, the cash award is only incidental to the
prestige accruing to them and their works.
Pulitzer winners receive their prizes from the president of Columbia University at a modest luncheon in May in the rotunda of the
Low Library in the presence of family members, professional associates, board members, and the faculty of the School of
Journalism.
Information excerpted from http://www.pulitzer.org/History/history.html
OpenStage Theatre & Company
7
December, 2003
Creating a Theatrical Production
From start to finish, it takes an incredible number of artists to create a theatrical production, and the greatest productions
are frequently realized by individuals who respect each others’ talents and abilities and develop a strong sense of teamwork—
camaraderie, dedication, and joy in the work being accomplished are often the first signs that an excellent work of art will soon
be created.
First, and obviously foremost, is the Playwright. In modern theatre, the vast majority of plays are in written script form.
However, other types of scripts are still developed today, such as scripts that are loosely based on a “scenario” or plot line and
then improvised by the actors and director with no specific spoken lines ever being formally written.
For OpenStage Theatre, the plays to be performed in a given season are selected by the Artistic Director, with a great
deal of input and recommendations made by the Company’s regular directors and key Company Members. Once the season is
chosen, the Artistic Director then selects the individual Directors for each play. Each spring, OpenStage holds auditions for all of
the shows to be produced the following season, which runs from August through the following June. The Directors cast their plays
from the actors and actresses who are new to the Company as well as those who have worked with the Company previously
(some for as long as twenty-eight years).
Each production rehearses for six to nine weeks, four to five times a week, usually for three hours per rehearsal. During
the rehearsal process, the Assistant Director helps the Director in numerous capacities, including recording stage blocking,
making notes for the Director, communicating necessary information to the performers and designers, etc. Prior to the beginning
of rehearsals, the Director meets with the Design Team, which is composed of the Set Designer, Costume Designer, Lighting
Designer, Properties Designer/Set Dresser, Sound Designer, Hair Designer, and Make-Up Designer. The Design Team determines
all of the physical design elements for a production, from how an individual character’s hair is styled to what quality, intensity and
hue the lights will have during individual scenes. All of these elements—set, costumes, hand properties, furniture, set dressing,
lights, sound, make-up, hair, and special effects (if needed)—must be coordinated so that they work together to actualize the
Director’s vision in the best possible way. The Design Team continues to meet throughout the rehearsal period, and their expertise
in visualizing the final physical product of the play is a vital element for the play’s success. The Producer or Production Manager
oversees all of these efforts, as well as the realization of the designs—such as set construction, costume construction, etc. This
realization may be accomplished by the Designers or by Theatre Technicians, such as Master Carpenters, Stitchers, Master
Electricians, Sound Engineers, Hair or Make-Up Stylists, etc. Other Theatre Technicians vital to mounting a finished production
include the Stage Hands, who run the show backstage, the Lighting and Sound Board Operators, and, most importantly, the
Stage Manager, who is in charge of all aspects of the play once the design aspects and the acting are merged together. This
“merging” occurs when the play “sets in,” or moves out of the rehearsal and construction space and into the performance space
for technical rehearsals and dress rehearsals, which usually last one week. The Stage Manager makes sure the stage is set
appropriately, that all equipment is operating correctly, that all performers are present for their entrances, and “calls” all the cues
during performances by telling the Board Operators and Stage Hands when to execute a change in lighting, sound or stage
setting.
All of these individuals are vital to the final product and, in essence, are present on the stage during the performance
through their artistic contributions. They create the world the Actors and Actresses reside in during the actual performance. But all
of these efforts would be meaningless without the Audience. The following quote, from the play The Dresser by Ronald Harwood,
captures the true purpose of theatre:
I had a friend once said, “Norman, I don’t care if there are only three people out front, or if the audience laugh when
they shouldn’t, or don’t when they should, one person, just one person is certain to know and understand. And I act for
him.” That’s what my friend said.
OpenStage Theatre & Company
8
December, 2003
A Brief Overview of OpenStage Theatre & Company
Founded in 1973, OpenStage Theatre & Company has committed itself to a professional orientation
for the serious theatre artist. The organization’s goal has always been to establish a nationally recognized
professional performance group in Northern Colorado. Excellence, discipline and artistic integrity are the
principles, which continue to guide the Company, as evidenced by the Company receiving the 1997
Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts.
OpenStage Theatre has been actively producing and promoting live performing arts in Northern
Colorado since its inception, making it one of the longest practicing theatrical producers in Colorado. The
Company has grown steadily and consistently and is a strong member of the statewide arts producing
community.
The Theatre produces shows for a wide range of audiences, including adult and family fare in both
the contemporary and classical genres, and supplements its six regular season shows with additional
popular and classical theatre productions. The Company has produced comedies, dramas, histories, grand
operas, musicals and original works and has toured regionally. In 1999, OpenStage Theatre began a new
endeavor, openstage etc., which is dedicated to producing challenging works in non-traditional venues and
to providing exciting new theatrical opportunities for performing artists and audiences.
OpenStage Theatre continues an ambitious policy of community outreach and development,
providing materials, personnel and professional advice to schools, government and social service agencies,
businesses, and other art producers. The Company is an active partner in the planning efforts of Arts Alive
Fort Collins, the Chamber of Commerce, the City of Fort Collins, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the
Colorado Council on the Arts and the Colorado Theatre Guild.
OpenStage Theatre & Company is committed to the development of Fort Collins as an important
and viable cultural center for Colorado. Its reputation for quality and consistency has been built through
years of hard work and with the talents of many fine performers and theatre artists. The Company has been
paying honorariums to actors and technicians since 1977. The stipends currently paid establish OpenStage
in the first rank of (non-Equity) theatrical organizations statewide for compensation of artistic personnel. In
numerous instances, the training and experience acquired through OpenStage have provided individual
artists with the expertise to launch successful professional careers.
During its history the Theatre has produced over 300 theatrical events, and the caliber of its
productions has been compared with professional companies in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Seattle, Denver and…yes…even New York.
“OpenStage…can easily take its place among Colorado’s best companies…”
The Denver Post
“Be ready! They produce the finest, most entertaining plays.” The Coloradoan
“…one of the valued constants on the Colorado theatre scene.” The Reporter-Herald
OpenStage Theatre & Company
9
December, 2003