Fine Arts PDF

FREEDOM, STRUCTURE, FREEDOM:
ANNE BOGART'S DIRECTING PHILOSOPHY

by
DAGNE OLSBERG, B.A., M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
FINE ARTS
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
December, 1994
Copyright 1994, Dagne Olsberg
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Above all, I want to thank Anne Bogart for giving me

permission to pursue this project, for her generosity, for
allowing me the privilege of attending the rehearsals for
The Women, and for taking the time for interviews. Thanks
also to the actors and the staff of the production of The
Women at Hartford Stage, especially to Lynn Cohen, Karen
Kandel, Ellen Lauren, Maria Porter, Laila Robins, and Myra
Lucretia Taylor for sharing such a precious insight.
Thanks to photographer T. Charles Erickson for the
permission to include reproductions of his production
photographs and to Jennifer Dana at the Saratoga
International Theater Institute for her assistance.
Special thanks to Professor George W. Sorensen for his
dedication and his guidance in the development of this
study. I would also like to thank the committee members
for serving on my committee. Also, thanks to my friends
and colleagues who have encouraged me in my work. Thanks
to Simon Ha and Alison Russo for reading part of this stud^
and giving me helpful comments, and to Karen Osman and Amy
Freeman without whom this study may not ever have ended up
in printed form. Finally, I thank my family for always
being there for me and for giving me support, of all kinds,
and my husband, Shivcharn, for his care and for always
being a source of encouragement and inspiration. I would
like to dedicate this work to my parents, Gerd and Erik
Olsberg.
The tropistic tension between the inner process

and the form strengthens both. The form is like
a baited trap, to which the spiritual process
responds spontaneously and against which it
struggles.
[Jerzy Grotowski, Towards a Poor Theatre, p. 17]
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vj
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ]
Notes 8
II. OVERVIEW OF ANNE BOGART' S WORK S
Notes 21
III. VIEWPOINT TRAINING 2A
Introduction 24
Introductory Viewpoint Exercises 26
Introduction to "Shape" and "Kinesthetic
Response" 3C
"Shape" 30
"Kinesthetic Response" 31
The Viewpoints 32
"Spatial Relationship" 32
"Shape" 33
< "Architecture" 33
"Kinesthetic Response" 34
"Repetition" 35
"Gesture" 35
"Tempo" 36
Viewpoint Improvisation 36
Important "Principles" of the Viewpoint
Improvisation 38
Response 38
Discovery 4C
Risk-taking 4]
Stillness, Variation, Clarity and Specificity. 4]
"Icing on the Cake" 42
"Lyricism" 42
Conclusion 4;
Notes 4(
IV. D I R E C T I N G PHILOSOPHY 4"
Rehearsal: A Meeting Place 4'
Directing Philosophy 5i
V i e w p o i n t Improvisation and C o m p o s i t i o n 5(
iii
The Viewpoint Training and the Rehearsal .... 51
Form and Inner Life 53
Communication with the Actor 56
Rehearsal as Composition 56
The Violence of "Setting" Material 57
Notes 5S
V. THE REHEARSAL PROCESS 6]
First Day of Rehearsal 62
Viewpoint Sessions 63
"Table Work" 66
Staging Rehearsals 70
"Setting" the Scenes 72
The Musical Number I Don't Want to Play in
Your Yard 78
Preparing for Rehearsal 81
Juxtaposition of Text and Choreography 82
Collaboration: "Composition" 84
Collaboration: Communication with the Actors . 89
The "Rebirth" or "Resurrection" of the Scenes .. 93
Technical Rehearsals and Preview Week 97
Actors' Response about the Process 99
Ensemble and Collaboration 100
The Viewpoint Training 102
The "Table Work" 105
Choreography and Movement Patterns 107
Co-creators 114
Observations 115
Notes 11'
V I . THE PRODUCTION OF THE WOMEN 13i
The Production 13^
The First Encounter 135
The Set 138
The Transitions 138
"The Chorus of Women" 13S
Objects Becoming Symbols 14C
Music 143
Feminist Play 1A<
Analysis of the Composition 14^
Notes 15(
V I I . CONCLUSION A N D EVALUATION 15:
Director's Function 15:
iv
structure Leading to Freedom 153
Collaboration: Actor as Co-creator 155
The Rehearsal Cycle: Freedom, Structure,
Freedom 159
Conclusion 161
Notes 163
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 164
APPENDIX
A. ANNE BOGART'S DIRECTING HISTORY 170
B. REHEARSAL SCHEDULE OF THE PRODUCTION
OF THE WOMEN 176
C. PERMISSION LETTER FROM COPYRIGHT OWNER 179
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
5.1 The Women, P r e - s h o w 120

5.2 The Women, Act I , Scene 1 122
5.3 The Women, Act I I , Scene 4 124
5.4 The Women, Act I I , Scene 5 126
5.5 The Women, I Don't Want to Play in Your Yard .... 128
5.8 Movement p a t t e r n from " b r i d g e - s c e n e , " The Women . 134
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Starting at the end of the last century and

increasingly during the course of our own, the
theatre has become colonised by a determined
group: the directors. . . .
There are a number of consequences of this
unchallenged hegemony which devolve most
strikingly on the actors and the writers.
Actors, quite clearly, have been stripped of
initiative and responsibility. They wait to be
hired; having been hired, they wait to be told
how to play their roles (how, that is, to fit
into the director's 'concept'); and in the
execution of the role and their conduct during
its realisation, they strive to please the
director in order to be allowed to exercise their
craft again. All important decisions about the
production have been taken before their
involvement, and they are as much as possible
kept ignorant of the factors which govern the
fate of the production in which they're
involved. . . .
A distressing consequence of this development
for actors is that the director has interposed
himself between actor and writer, claiming that
they cannot speak each other's language. . . .
The important thing is to restore the writer
. . . and the actor to each other, without the
self-elected intervention of the director,
claiming a unique position interpreting one to
the other. We don't need an interpreter—we
speak the same language: or at least we used to.^
In this manner Simon Callow, the British actor, proposes
the elimination of the director in his manifesto (1984).
Although one may disagree with his provocative proposal.
Callow touches on aspects concerning the relationship
between director and actor that may deserve consideration.
In many cases, actors have been "stripped of initiative and
responsibility"; in many cases, actors are excluded from
partaking in "important decisions"; and, in many cases,
actors are "kept ignorant of the factors which govern the
fate of the production." Callow's manifesto, thus, draws
1
attention to important questions about what the nature of
the relationship between actors and director should be. Is
the actor just one of many elements to embody the
director's vision; or should the actor take a larger part
in the creation and the development of the production?
What is the function of the actor; what is the function of
the director; and what should be the nature of their
collaboration?
Callow's position is understandable. It is
understandable that an actor reacts to the kind of "role"
that he or she is given in the whole rehearsal process.
There is, however, more to a director's job than
interpreting the text, which Callow seems to suggest it to
be. Today's theatre is not only about text. A production
may be based on text or on a deconstruction of a text, or
the text may be created by the actors through
improvisation. Since Antonin Artaud, however, many theatre
artists have claimed that theatre is not subordinated to
text, but that the language of the stage is the mise en
scene—all the physical elements creating the visual and
aural composition in space--and that theatre pieces should,
thus, be fully created in the theatre space.
Whether basing a production on a text or not, the
interaction of all the artistic elements of the stage--the
mise en scene--has become increasingly important. Thus has
grown the need for an "outside eye" to ensure a strong
composition and expression. Edward Gordon Craig and
Vsevolod Meyerhold were revolutionary in their merging of
all the elements creating a total expression. Later
directors like Richard Foreman and Robert Wilson, whose
theatre has been characterized by Bonnie Marranca as
"theatre of images,"^ have become known for their
compelling stage compositions. In the process of creating
strong visual and aural compositions, many of these
directors or theorists, however, have been accused of being
"autocrat directors" and treating the actors as "puppets,"
stifling the actors' creativity.
During the 1960s and the 1970s, perhaps as a reaction to
the auteur director, theatre artists or companies wanted to
give the emphasis and the role as creator back to the
actor. Groups like the Living Theatre, the Open Theatre,
and the Performance Group developed pieces as a
collaborative effort through improvisation. One could say
that this would give the actor the ultimate freedom. The
problem that some encountered, however, was how to bring
the stage of exploration or improvisation to the stage of
performance.
Improvisation may be good for exploration and discovery,
but may be hard to transfer to the performance mode.
Furthermore, with the actors collectively creating the
composition, not having an "outside eye" to help in
composing the mise en scene, the production may lack focus
and a strong expression.
In this brief overview, extremes have been chosen to
address the ranges in the actor's and director's functions
and to bring up the possibility of combining "the best from
both worlds"—the actors having significant creative input,
as well as the creation of a strong composition. In
attempting this, the challenge would be to, on one hand,
find a way to create a rehearsal situation where everyone
is a creator, where the actors are given the freedom to
create and to contribute in a significant way to the
development and the shaping of the production. At the same
time, the challenge would be to find a way to bring the
collective exploration to a performance mode, ensuring a
mise en scene with a strong expression, seen with the
audience's and the director's eye.
Anne Bogart, the director, appears to have been able to
combine these two. That the actor is a "creator"—the
actor being given the freedom to contribute in a
significant way—seems to be the underlying value of
Bogart's directing philosophy. This value is reflected in
every aspect of the rehearsal. At the same time, Bogart
has come to realize the need for structure in the
rehearsal, that there is a need to "set things" and that
this is the director's job. She calls this a "violent" but
"necessary act." Although Bogart eventually "sets" the
staging or the choreography—the form—it is created
collaboratively based on what the actors bring to the
scene.
The form or structure, in turn, Bogart maintains, gives
the actor freedom: a precise choreography, relieving the
actors of the concern of what to do physically with their
bodies, freeing up the actor to concentrate fully on the
interpretation. The form is "set," while the emotions
remain "fluid." Structure leads to freedom,^ Bogart
proposes.
Furthermore, Bogart has developed an actor training
technique called "viewpoint training," that prepares the
actors to "become creators." In addition to creating an
ensemble feel, creating a common vocabulary for the
collaborators, and encouraging spontaneity, it develops in
the actors a sensibility to make compositional choices.
It, thus, prepares the actor for the staging rehearsal.
This training, particularly the "viewpoint improvisation,"
provides ultimate freedom for the actor. Although this
improvisation is not used during the actual staging
rehearsal, Bogart attempts to bring a similar sense of
freedom to the "setting" of the staging or the
choreography.
Bogart combines both "structure" and "freedom"; these
two "opposites," one could claim, coexist in Bogart's
rehearsals in an intriguing way. Bogart appears to have
been able to create a rehearsal situation where the actors
are true collaborators. She gives them the freedom to
shape the production with her and, at the same time,
together they choreograph all the elements into a
compelling and strong expression. In doing so, Bogart
seems to have brought new aspects to—if not redefined—the
nature of collaboration between actor and director.
In recent years there has been an attempt to give an
account of contemporary directors' work and to capture
various approaches to developing a production. Books like
Arthur Bartow's The Director's Voice: Twenty-One Interviews
(1988),^ Laurence Shyer's Robert Wilson and His
Collaborators (1989),^ and Susan Letzler Cole's Directors
in Rehearsal: A Hidden World (1992)^ are excellent
contributions. This study serves as an addition to the
literature on contemporary directors' approaches to
directing and the rehearsal process.
The study is primarily based upon notes from
participating in Bogart's "viewpoint training" and
"composition" classes during the summer workshop at the
Saratoga International Theater Institute (SITI) in the
summer of 1993; the symposia given by Bogart at the
workshop; interviews with Bogart; notes from observing the
entire rehearsal process of The Women by Clare Boothe Luce,
directed by Bogart at Hartford Stage in December, 1993
through January, 1994; and interviews with some of the
actors in The Women. These unique opportunities, both in
hearing Bogart talk about her philosophies and theories on
theatre and observing the rehearsal process for one of her
productions, provided important insight into Bogart's
rehearsal philosophy. This study offers a discussion of
Bogart's directorial principles and practices and evaluates
them for study and application by other directors.
Chapter II gives a brief overview of Bogart's work, her
philosophy of theatre, and artists who have influenced her.
It addresses Bogart's rationale behind "deconstructing"
plays, and her dedication to working with and developing
work dealing with the American performance tradition.
Chapter III discusses the "viewpoint training," Bogart's
actor training technique. It includes a description of
some of the introductory exercises and the "viewpoint
improvisation." The last section discusses how the
training stimulates ensemble work and the actor's awareness
of spatial and temporal composition.
Chapter IV addresses the underlying value of Bogart's
directing philosophy—the rehearsal as a collaborative
process. It also discusses various aspects of Bogart's
directing philosophy: the relationship between the
viewpoint training and the rehearsal process; Bogart's
belief that by "setting" the form or choreography, the
inner life of the character is allowed to remain "fluid";
and Bogart's analogy that the staging rehearsal is like
composing a piece of music. It concludes with Bogart's
recollection of the episode when she came to the
realization of the importance of setting the form or the
choreography—"the violence of setting something on stage."
Chapter V describes Bogart's rehearsal process and uses
the rehearsal of The Women as a way of gaining insight into
Bogart's directing philosophy. The end of the chapter
includes excerpts from interviews with some of the actors
in The Women, in which they discuss how they experienced
the rehearsal process. Chapter VI discusses the production
of The Women and how Bogart's unique approach to staging
appears to have influenced the aesthetics of the
production.
Chapter VII summarizes what appear to be recurrent
aspects of Bogart's rehearsal process. It discusses how
Bogart is able to create a situation where the actors are
true collaborators, and how she, at the same time, is able
to create a structure, which, in turn, gives freedom to the
actor. It proposes that Bogart's directing philosophy
could be characterized as a cycle—"freedom, structure,
freedom."
Notes
1 Simon Callow, Being an Actor (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1984), 185-86,88.
^ Bonnie Marranca, introduction to The Theatre of Images,

ed. Bonnie Marranca (New York: Drama Book Specialists
(Publishers), 1977), x.
^William K. Gale, "Anne Bogart," Providence (RI)

Journal-Bulletin, 23 April 1989, [p. M6 first page of the
article].
''Arthur Bartow, The Director' s Voice: Twenty-One

Interviews (New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1988).
^ Laurence Shyer, Rojbert Wilson and His Collaborators

(New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1989).
^ Susan Letzler Cole, Directors in Rehearsal: A Hidden

World (New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1992).
8
CHAPTER II
OVERVIEW OF ANNE BOGART'S WORK
Anne Bogart is a prolific and controversial director.

In a recent article in the New York Times, Mel Gussow
describes the disagreement about her work among both
audiences and critics: "Depending on the point of view,
she is either an innovator or a provocateur assaulting a
text."^ She often gets labeled "iconoclast,"
"deconstructionist," or "conceptual postmodernist." During
her less-than-twenty-year career as a director, she has
directed a variety of types of productions: modern dramas,
musicals, operas, contemporary plays and "collaborative
dance-theatre pieces."^ She has directed in environmental
spaces (Manhattan), off-Broadway, off-off-Broadway, at
regional theatres, and in Europe. She has directed at the
Public Theater, En Garde Arts, American Repertory Theater,
San Diego Repertory, and Actors Theatre of Louisville.
She served as artistic director for Trinity Repertory
Company in Providence, Rhode Island, for the 1989-90
season; and she is co-artistic director of Via Theater that
she founded with Brian Jucha in 1987. Recently she and the
Japanese director, Tadashi Suzuki, founded the Saratoga
International Theater Institute (SITI), with its inaugural
season 5-13 September 1992.^ SITI is dedicated to
developing new pieces of work, international exchange
through symposia and visiting artists, and training
programs for actors and other theatre artists.
Bogart is not only important for the contributions
(often controversial ones) that her productions have given
to the contemporary theatre scene, but she is also known as
an educator. Constantly searching to develop the art, not
only learning from other theatre artists, but also
frequently going to the other arts and the theories of
other arts for inspiration, she willingly shares her
thoughts, theories and anecdotes. Having taught at the
Experimental Theatre Wing of the Tisch School of the Arts
(New York University); University of California, San Diego;
American Repertory Theatre (ART) Conservatory; and
Bennington College, she currently heads the graduate
theatre directing program at Columbia University. She also
gives workshops at SITI, teaching her actor training
technique, "viewpoint training," and "composition." During
the years she has gained a following of actors and theatre
students. According to Robert Coe, already in the mid-
1980s she had gained a "guru-like devotion from students."*
In her comprehensive article, "From the Battle to the
Gift: The Directing of Anne Bogart" (1992),^ Eelka Lampe
gives an account of Bogart's directing history, including a
list of all of Bogart's productions from 1976 through 1991
(see Appendix A) and talks about Bogart's formative years
as a director and about artists that influenced her work.
This article also includes an in-depth analysis of the
choreography of movements in the production History^ an
American Dream (1983), and a description of the rehearsal
process of Danton's Death (1986), staged at New York
University. Robert Coe's article, "The Once and Future
Trinity: Now Anne Bogart Holds the Key to the House that
Hall Built" (1990),^ also gives an overview of Bogart's
work.
Bogart's early experimental pieces that she developed in
Manhattan in the late 1970s were often done in locations
like streets, apartments and lofts. Among these was Out of
Sync (1980), an adaptation of The Seagull, for which she
received a Villager Award. The production is described at
length in Jessica Abbe's article, "Anne Bogart's Journeys"
(1980).' In this adaptation the audience encounters Nic
making a film with Karina and Peter as actors; Karina
dreams of a film acting career in Rome; Nic, an aspiring
film director, is hopelessly in love with her; Nic's
10
half-sister, Edith, and her lover Zagreb--both famous
film-makers—pay a visit. The audience members (twenty to
thirty) follow the story, first assembling at an East
Village cafe; then they are led by Bogart to a second floor
loft, where they witness Acts I and II; then they, through
a cumbersome walk through the streets, through a
playground, and through a courtyard, end up outside of a
basement room where Act III takes place, observing this act
through the windows; then the "journey" continues past a
boiler room to the basement room for Act IV; and, finally,
they are led back to the street where the final act takes
place.
Abbe describes Bogart's work at this time:
Bogart composes precisely choreographed dances
and series of movements whose appeal is visual
rather than visceral. Within one play are
juxtapositions of stagey actions within a
naturalistic environment, and tiny, awkward
mannerisms codified into whole scenes. A moment,
gesture or glance between characters is broken
down into structural beats, which are then
repeated with changes in tempo, resulting in
subtle alterations in meaning. This kind of
structure provides counterpoint to "'.e intimate
and the naturalistic."
The distinctly eclectic style gives rise to
the manner in which a narrative—a series of
revelations about the relationships between
characters—is exposed through details. In the
context of an ultrareal locale, seemingly
pedestrian activities are loaded with Chekhovian
significance. But the contrasting structural
elements keep this significance from becoming
overwhelming. They distance the audience.^
Bogart's production of South Pacific (1984) at New York
University got a Bessie Award (New York Dance and
Performance Award). It was highly acclaimed and
controversial, of course, with the play being set in a
rehabilitation ward for war veterans who had suffered a
traumatic experience (in Beirut or Grenada). The clients
11
put on South Pacific as a "graduation ceremony."^ Lampe
describes a scene from the production:
On Bali Ha'i Lieutenant Joe Cable, just after
making love to islander Liat, breaks into the
romantic song "Younger than springtime are you
. . ." which modulates into "younger than
springtime am I . . ." Cable might simply be
declaring his love to Liat, which is how the
Broadway musical and the movie play the scene.
In the Bogart version Joe Cable rejoices over his
own youth, strength, and sexual potency. Liat is
reduced to no more than a stimulus releasing
Cable's energy. The words are directly addressed
to Liat, but Cable's whole posture ignores her
physical presence. He touches her in a
mechanized way while vibrantly presenting his own
body to the audience. Liat crawls like a dog
around his feet. This scene is doubled by the
two other couples, one with a gender-crossed male
Liat and female officer.^"
Coe describes how the event was received: "The
Hammerstein estate cheerfully denied NYU permission to
extend the show, but word of Bogart's meta-critical hoot
spread like wildfire across the downtown theatre-dance-
performance world. "^^
The success of South Pacific led to Bogart's being
offered to stage The Making of Americans (1985),^^ an
adaptation of Leon Katz and Al Carmines' opera based on
Gertrude Stein's novel, produced by Music Theater Group.
In 1988 Bogart staged another opera adaptation—
Cinderella/Cendrillon, based on Jules Massenet's opera
Cendrillon, also produced by Music Theater Group in
collaboration with Via Theater. According to Coe, this
"postmodern retelling" was Bogart's "finest work to date.""
For her production No Plays No Poetry But Philosophical
Reflections Practical Instructions Provocative
Prescriptions Opinions and Pointers from a Noted Critic and
Playwright, produced by Via Theater, the Talking Band, and
Otrabanda (1988), Bogart received an Obie Award. This
production was based on writings by Bertolt Brecht. Bogart
12
later revived the production as her first production at
Trinity Repertory Company (1989). Coe calls the event "the
single most aesthetically radical inaugural event in the
history of the nation's resident theatre movement."^" He
describes:
Led into the concrete scene shop through a
side door, the opening night mob in Providence
was accosted by actor Paul Zimet shouting through
a megaphone, "I don't think the traditional form
of theatre means anything any longer! Works by
such people as Ibsen and Strindberg no longer
move anybody!" Virtually every word in the 90-
minute performance which followed were [sic]
taken directly from Bertolt Brecht's scathing
polemics for the theatre; after the opening
harangue the audience was free to roam the
Lederer's stages, hallways, backstage dressing
room and Escher-like stairwells, discovering a
range of makeshift attractions: A peep show, a
sex education class, a boombox rapper, a lecture
on bread, and other circuslike apparitions in
which virtually nothing anyone said has anything
to do with their actual behavior, unfolding as a
kind of disintegrated spectacle-symposium—a
post-Brechtian deconstruction of Brecht in a Hall
of Mirrors. "^^
In 1992 Bogart received a second Obie Award, this time
for a new play—The Baltimore Waltz by Paula Vogel—
produced by Circle Repertory Company. The play—a comedy—
deals with AIDS and is a dedication to Vogel's own brother
who died of the disease four years earlier. It is about
Anna who, as a reaction to her brother, Carl, dying of
AIDS, fantasizes that she and her brother are on an
adventurous trip in Europe together, only that in her
dream, she is the one who is ill (a disease allegorically
called ATD).^^ Gerald Weales (in a review in Commonweal)
writes: "The Baltimore Waltz . . . must be the funniest
AIDS play ever written—which does not mean that it is not
an extremely moving one."^^ Greg Evans {Variety) writes:
"Director Anne Bogart skillfully blends silliness with
sadness. Her light tone is well suited to Vogel's
13
illusions. . . . The Baltimore Waltz is as bracing as the
dance that ends it."^®
Although she has been greatly influenced by European
directors and theatre, Bogart has also realized that her
American roots are important. She has, thus, recently
devoted her work to the American theatre heritage.^^ Among
numerous other projects, Bogart's current work is
developing a trilogy of original plays on American
entertainment: American Vaudeville was originally produced
by Movement Research (1991) and later by the Alley Theater
in Houston (1992); Marathon Dancing was first produced at
University of Iowa and recently by En Garde Arts (1994);
the next play in the trilogy will be The Birth of a Nation,
which will be about silent movie acting.^"
In a keynote lecture at Actors Theatre of Louisville
(1993), Bogart reminds American artists about the
importance of their own performance tradition. She says:
Even today, much of our mainstream theater is an
imitation of the Western European tradition of
theater. But this dependence belies an inherent
difference in our natures. Europe is a literary
culture. America, on the other hand, is an aural
cultural [sic]. In our evangelical natures, the
sound of the words take precedent [sic] over
their meaning. We are ill at ease with
literature on stage yet we pretend not to be.
This pretense makes for a false feel in the
theater.
And yet I sense that we have been the
innovators of some pretty great stuff in the
world of performance. Jazz, the American
musical, and the phenomenon of Vaudeville form
part of our unique cultural heritage.
Unfortunately, we often perceive this art as
lowbrow; thin, populist tender. I suggest that
it is NOT. I suggest that we have a rich and
unique cultural history and that to celebrate it
is to remember it. To remember it is to use it.
To use it is to be true to who we are.^^
Recently, Bogart's production of The Medium opened at
New York Theater Workshop, a revival of the production that
14
premiered at SITI in 1993. It is an original work, based
on the writings of Marshall McLuhan. Although critics
questioned the way McLuhan's "message" was handled, many
noted the production's compelling expression. Ben Brantley
describes, what he characterizes as a "vivid, surprisingly
diverting piece of expressionist theater":
The Medium is a visual and aural collage that
exists both in the Op-and-Pop past of McLuhan's
heyday and the present of virtual reality and a
galloping communications industry that turns
yesterday into instant nostalgia.
While McLuhan (Tom Nelis) spouts gnomic
epigrams, the other four performers, lacing
McLuhanisms with more contemporary references,
act out a jerky, robotic ballet that gives the
lie to the pundit's optimism. Wearing Gabriel
Berry's graphic Mod costumes, they cross the
stage in hunched postures suggesting windup
Quasimodos, respond to zapping noises as if they
were electrocuted frogs and collapse stiffly onto
brightly colored vinyl chairs. A Max Headroom-
like stand-up comedian "from cyberspace" talks
about virtual reality, and a Vegas-style
ventriloquist finds his identity usurped by his
shrill dummy.
The precise choreography ranges from
ritualistic waltzes that turn into strangleholds
to joyless voguing. Blithe 1960's pop music
tinkles ironically in the background.^^
One of the reasons why Bogart is seen by some as a
"provocateur assaulting a text," to use again Gussow's
words, is the way she often deconstructs texts,
particularly classics. To Bogart, the question of how to
deal with the classics—how to deal with a play that the
audience already has a knowledge of and associations about,
a play with a shared "cultural memory" or "baggage"--is a
crucial question. She feels that there is a need "in the
postmodern world" (previously she used to dislike the term
"postmodernism," but has come to accept it because of how
it addresses reexamination of the classics)" to consider
this shared cultural "baggage."
15
One essay that has been particularly helpful to Bogart
in dealing with this question is Heinrich von Kleist's Uber
das Marionettentheater.^* From this essay she learned:
"Since the fall of Adam and Eve, the loss of innocence, we
are aware of what we're doing while we're doing it. So we
cannot enter paradise from the front gate."" Instead, one
has to "go around the world and enter through the back
door."
She proposes, thus, that when doing a classic one needs
to take the audience's "baggage" about the play into
consideration—to make the "baggage" part of the
production—that one needs to "present the material through
a frame," or make the play "contain its baggage." Bogart
says about A Streetcar Named Desire:
How does an actor play Stanley Kowalski? Do you
enter through the front door and pretend like it
never happened before? Or do you walk around the
back of the world and assume . . . Marlon Brando
inside of you? Do you include him as part of it,
because you are conscious of somebody else having
played it—of all the Streetcars you've ever
seen?^^
Bogart feels that the artist has the responsibility to
recognize that the audience has a "baggage" of the play and
that it has knowledge, feelings and associations about it.
(Bogart explains that when seeing a play for the first
time, one tends to experience it in a linear way, but when
seeing one that one is familiar with—that has a
"baggage"—one sees it in a more "associative" way.)^''
Another aspect concerning doing classics is the question
of the necessity of doing it—"who needs to do it?" This
has led Bogart to approach a number of her earlier
productions through, what she calls "personas." The actor
takes on the role of a certain "persona," and the "persona"
is the one who actually is acting the character in the
play, because this "persona" has a particular need for
doing it. In South Pacific, as mentioned above, the actors
16
took on the "personas" of clients in a rehabilitation ward,
who, in turn, were the ones who put on the musical as
therapy, as the graduation ceremony from the institution.
Bogart says:
To get to the central heat of the play, the
original impulse, is to ask the question, "Who
needs to perform it now, and who does it heal?"^^
One of Bogart's fundamental beliefs is that the audience
should be given an important role in the theatre event.
The aim is not suspension of disbelief, but that the
audience members are aware that they are attending a
performance and, at the same time, that they believe what
is being presented on stage.^^ The audience should be
allowed to make their own associations and have the freedom
to interpret.
Bogart, thus, is dedicated to creating "stage poetry."
To explain what she means by this, she brings up the
difference between poetry and prose in literature, singing
and speaking, and dance and pedestrian movement.^° She
says: "I'm interested in stage poetry opposed to stage
prose. "^^
Bogart feels that American theatre today lacks
"poeticism." She suggests that psychological realism,
which she finds to be limiting, is one of the reasons for
this. She says:
We took the very limited aspect of his
[Stanislavsky's] "method" and turned it into a
religion. What I call the Americanization of the
Stanislavsky System, which is really a very
particular approach to psychological realism, has
proven to be a highly effective acting method for
film and television but I worry that it is
killing the theater. It has become as all
pervasive as the air we breathe. It is a
mentality that so totally envelops us that we
cannot see that there might be anything else. It
limits the scope of theatrical possibility, not
only for the actor, but the director, playwright,
and designer.^^
17
This does not mean that Bogart does not find Stanislavsky's
work of interest, but she feels that it should not be
exclusive of other aspects and approaches: "So his whole
oeuvre interests me—emotional recall interests me—but not
to the exclusion of everything else.""
In her development as a director, Bogart has found
influences, not only from theatre artists, but also from
the other arts—music, visual arts, postmodern dance and
Eastern dance and movement forms.
During her years at Bard College, Bogart and the other
members of Via Theatre did training based on the physical
exercises from Jerzy Grotowski's Towards a Poor Theatre.^^
She was also introduced to early postmodern dance through
her teacher Aileen Passloff .^^ As she moved to New York
City in 1974, she got introduced to the later work of the
Judson Church group—postmodern dance and artists from
different disciplines developing works together.^^ Coe
describes the theatre scene Bogart encountered at this
time:
In Soho a theatrical golden age was announcing
the end of the party: Richard Foreman's Rhoda in
Potatoland, Meredith Monk's Quarry, the Robert
Wilson-Philip Glass opera Einstein on the Beach,
Mabou Mines's Beckett pieces, Andrei Serban's
Greek trilogy and Richard Schechner's Mother
Courage secured Bogart's fascination with
environmental theatre as a nexus of postminimal
form, concept and human presence."
Richard Foreman and Robert Wilson were of a great
influence to Bogart. Lampe characterizes Bogart's
relationship to their work as a "love-hate relationship."^^
Bogart says (quoted in Abbe's article, 1980) how when she
was at Bard, she and her colleagues used to question
Foreman's "dictatorial" approach:
We said he had absolutely no trust in his
actors. "How can you do this to the actor? It's
immoral!" We were so righteous. When I moved to
New York City, I started going to see plays at
18
his loft. This was before he was taken under the
wing of the avant-garde. I'd go and I'd hate it.
But I'd always come back. He obviously has a
very strong vision.
My feelings have changed about dictating. I
think there are two distinct ways of directing,
and the extremes are Richard Foreman on the one
hand and Andre Gregory on the other. Gregory
will rehearse for months and months and simply
laugh or not laugh. Those are his reactions.
That is how the actors know whether to set
something or not. I'm not an extremist one way
or the other.^^
While attending the MA program at TSOA's Department of
Drama, Bogart wrote her thesis on the directing of Lee
Strasberg, Andrei Serban, Richard Foreman, and Richard
Schechner .^°
European directors, whose work Bogart admires, are Peter
Stein, Klaus Michael Griiber, Ariane Mnouchkine, and Giorgio
Strehler.^^ It was an encounter with Mnouchkine that
inspired Bogart to pursue creating her own company.^^
Various artists and theorists from the other arts have
also been of great influence to Bogart. She says about
John Cage:
John Cage has had a tremendous influence on me,
not so much in his work per se, but in his
theories about art. I mean, he taught me the
greatest lesson. . . . He said: "If you wanna see
theatre, sit down on a park bench, put a frame
around what you see, and that's theatre." And
I've done that almost every day of my life
since I read that. That's how I learned to
direct, because I looked. I put a frame around
what I'm looking at, and then I don't look with
desire, I look with no desire, which is a whole
different ball-game. . . . I call that God's
choreography. . . . What I see in the frame, out
of doors, or through windows of people's suburban
houses. A terrible "peeping Tom."^^
Furthermore, Bogart acknowledges the influence of the
theories of Marcel Duchamp and Sergei Eisenstein's theories
on montage.^^ Mahler taught Bogart about "line"^^ and
transformation—how to develop a theme (see Chapter IV) .
19
Meredith Monk's use of sound,*^ and Gertrude Stein's use of
a small palette of words that she "rearranges," have been
of influence.^^ Hitchcock's name also frequently comes up
when Bogart talks about "composition," or directing. She
says:
Hitchcock understood something about art. He
didn't shoot on location. He understands that if
you shoot on location, everything is flat, that
you can't reproduce reality. That in a sense he
made . . . everything seem super-real . . . by
making them . . . particularly off-kilter. So if
you look at Hitchcock's films, there is always
something lifted about them. But, in fact, he
created them through a sense of new reality.'*®
Bogart feels that it is in letting the other arts
"inform" the theatre that "our salvation is":
I'm really interested in being with the movement
of our time in art, you know, not behind it. The
theatre is so slow. I want to keep learning
about what painters are doing now, what they're
thinking about . . . [what] the composers are
doing, and keep informing the theatre from that,
which is why I'm interested a lot in new music
and new opera and what artists are thinking
about .''^
20
Notes
^ Mel Gussow, "Iconoclastic and Busy Director: An
Innovator or a Provocateur?" New York Times (Late Edition),
12 March 1994, p. 11.
^ Eelka Lampe, "From the Battle to the Gift: The

Directing of Anne Bogart," Drama Review, 36 (1) (Spring
1992): 14.
^ Eelka Lampe, "Collaboration and Cultural Clashing: Anne

Bogart and Tadashi Suzuki's Saratoga International Theatre
Institute," Drama Review, 37 (1) (Spring 1993): 147-56.
^ Robert Coe, "The Once and Future Trinity: Now Anne
Bogart Holds the Key to the House that Hall Built,"
American Theatre, 1 (3) (June 1990): 20.
^Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 14-47.

^ Coe, 12-21,59-63.
^ J e s s i c a Abbe, "Anne B o g a r t ' s J o u r n e y s , " Drama Review,

24 (2) (June 1 9 8 0 ) : 8 5 - 1 0 0 .
Âbbe, 89-90.
^ Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,

Saratoga Springs, NY, 9 June 1993.
^° Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 24.
^^ Coe, 20.
'' Ibid.
^^ Ibid.
'' Coe, 60.
^^ Ibid.
^^ Thomas M. Disch, [Review of The Baltimore Waltz],
Nation, 23 March 1992, pp. 389-90.
^''Gerald Weales, [Review of The Baltimore Waltz],

Commonweal, 24 April 1992, pp. 18-19.
21
18
Greg Evans, [Review of The Baltimore Waltz], Variety,
17 February 1992, p . 7 7 .
19
Bogart, symposium, 9 June 1993.
^° Gussow, 11.
^^ A n n e Bogart, "American Theatre in the Twenties,"

Keynote lecture, ("Classics in Context Festival: The
Roaring T w e n t i e s " ) , Actors Theatre of Louisville,
Louisville, K Y , 17 October 1993.
^^ B e n Brantley, "McLuhan's Old Message, A s the Medium

Mutates," [Review of The Medium], New York Times, 17 May
1994, p . C 2 0 .
^^ A n n e Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

Workshop, 2 June 1993.
^^ Heinrich von Kleist, Uber das Marionettentheater, in

iJber das Marionettentheater: Aufsatze und Anekdoten,
(Wiesbaden: IM Insel-Verlag, 1 9 5 4 ) , 5-13.
^^ Bogart, symposium, 9 June 1993.
'^ Ibid.

^® Bogart, symposium, 9 June 1993.

Workshop, 31 M a y 1993.
^° A n n e Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

W o r k s h o p , 7 June 1993.
^^ Bogart, "composition" class, 14 June 1 9 9 3 .
^^ Bogart, keynote lecture, 17 October 1 9 9 3 .
^^ A n n e Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs,

N Y , 22 June 1 9 9 3 .
^^ Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 19.
^' Ibid.
22
36
Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
^^ Coe, 19.
^^ Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 22.
^^ Bogart quoted in Abbe's article, "Anne Bogart's

Journeys," 92.
^° Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 20.
^^ Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 21
^^ Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,
1 June 1993.
^^ Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
'' Ibid.
^^ Ibid.
'^ Ibid.
"^^ B o g a r t , "composition" class, 31 M a y 1 9 9 3 .
"^ B o g a r t , "composition" class, 14 June 1 9 9 3 .
''^Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
23
CHAPTER III
VIEWPOINT TRAINING
Introduction
The viewpoint movement philosophy that Anne Bogart has
developed is an integral part of her work. She defines it
as "a philosophical approach to movement on the stage and
the organization of movement on the stage."^ It is the
basis for her actor training technique, called "viewpoint
training," and it serves as a foundation for the staging
rehearsal.
Influenced by postmodern dance, Bogart developed the
viewpoint training early in her career. When asked about
how the viewpoint training originated, Bogart tells about
how she, when she moved to New York City in 1974, was
introduced to the work of the Judson Church movement. She
found this work to be "the most exciting work that was
going on then."^ This encounter inspired Bogart to start
collaborating with choreographers. One of her
collaborators was Mary Overlie.^
Overlie introduced Bogart to the viewpoint training—or
the six-viewpoint training, as it was called earlier.
While Bogart taught at the experimental theatre wing at New
York University, she and Overlie co-directed several works.
Bogart says: "Mary Overlie . . . essentially gave me the
six viewpoints, although her six viewpoints were a little
bit different. They were called things that were
different."'
Bogart developed her own version of the viewpoint
training by combining her own adaptation of Overlie's
viewpoints and study of the Asian movement form Chuan.^
The viewpoints soon became part of Bogart's directing
philosophy. Bogart says:
It became apparent to me how the six viewpoints
were applicable to the theatre so clearly . . .
to actors, not to dancers necessarily . . . to
24
staging . . . to a philosophy of movement on the
stage with text, for Chekhov . . . you know . . .
So I started using it, and developing my own
thoughts about it.^
The viewpoint training consists of a series of exercises
which culminate in "viewpoint improvisation." This
improvisation is improvisation of movement, or sometimes
both movement and sound, in space. The viewpoints are
"Spatial Relationship," "Shape," "Architecture,"
"Kinesthetic Response," "Repetition, " "Gesture," and
"Tempo." By developing an awareness of these spatial and
temporal elements and a sensitivity to the energy in the
group, the actors create dynamic improvisations in space.
The improvisation, thus, focuses on aspects of formal
composition'' and not on the narrative.
As mentioned, the viewpoint movement philosophy also
serves as a foundation for the staging rehearsals. Bogart
strongly believes in creating a rehearsal situation where
the actors feel that they are "creators" of the work. The
viewpoint training prepares the actors to "become creators"
by helping them develop a sensitivity to the energy in the
group and an awareness of the whole stage composition. The
actors, thus, are able to create compositions, instead of
being told dictatorially what to do. Bogart explains:
But even more importantly is so that when I'm
working with actors on staging, I'm not having to
say: "O.K., go down to stage left, turn right
. . . sit down." That they understand the
philosophy behind the movement choices. That
they actually create the movement themselves, all
of them. And it's not me dictating what the
movement should be, because that doesn't really
interest me at all.®
Being aware of the danger of developing a technique and
viewing it as an answer,^ Bogart constantly works on
developing the viewpoint training, exploring new
possibilities. It is a technique in constant development.
(The name has even gone through changes. When there were
25
six viewpoints--"Spatial Relationship," "Shape,"
"Architecture," "Kinesthetic Response," "Repetition," and
"Gesture"—the training was called "six-viewpoint
training." As the seventh, "Tempo," was added, it was
renamed "seven-viewpoint training." Consequently, as new
viewpoints have been added, Bogart has decided to call the
training "viewpoint training."^° The different terms,
thus, appear in this study.)
This chapter describes the viewpoint training as
experienced from taking the workshop taught by Anne Bogart
at the Saratoga International Theater Institute (SITI) in
the summer of 1993, and from observing the rehearsal
process of The Women, directed by Bogart at Hartford Stage,
in December, 1993 through January, 1994.^^ It includes an
objective description of some of the viewpoint exercises,
the viewpoints, the viewpoint improvisation, and what
appear to be important "principles" (the term "principles"
is not used by Bogart) for the improvisation. The last
section of the chapter is a discussion of the uniqueness of
the viewpoint training and improvisation concluded from
having participated in and observing the training.
Introductory Viewpoint Exercises

The first session starts with warm-up exercises. The
group is asked to create a circle, a perfectly shaped
circle with equal distance between each person. Each
person needs to be able to see the two persons next to him
or her, as well as the entire circle. Bogart leads the
warm-up exercises, which emphasize releasing.
The session continues with "sun-citations." Bogart
explains that these "citations" are similar to the "sun-
citations" in Yoga; however, unlike Yoga, the focus is on
the external. Another distinction is that here one
breathes normally. The most important aim with this
exercise is simultaneous movement. The focus is on
26
everyone in the circle. Again, the circle has to be
perfectly shaped. The "citations" consist of a sequence of
movements that is repeated twelve times. Each time the
sequence is completed, one should be a little more awake
than before. The tempo increases gradually each time that
the sequence is repeated. Bogart encourages the group:
"Ask yourself what working generously means."
After the "sun-citations," the next challenge is for the
whole group to make one very high jump simultaneously,
without being signaled when to start, and to land together,
making no sound when landing. Bogart instructs: "Whatever
happens, land together." This is attempted a couple of
times, each time with Bogart challenging the actors to jump
even higher, to land even more quietly, and to be even more
together when landing.
Following this, everyone, still in the circle, runs in
one place. One is to imagine that a golden band is gently
pulling one from the head up into the sky. One should
have, as Bogart calls it, "soft eyes," meaning that one
should not focus on any specific point but be aware of the
entire room. Shoulders should be relaxed. Feet should be
like farmers' feet, muscular, strong and working heavily
into the ground, while at the same time one should have the
feeling of being pulled towards the sky. Then one is asked
to put the hands on the heart and open up the arms, opening
oneself up to the whole room.
Without the person's being assigned, someone is then to
initiate a run towards the center of the circle, with the
rest of the group following immediately. Anyone can
initiate, but it should not be visible to a viewer who the
initiator is. The first times that this is attempted, one
can usually see who the initiator is. Bogart, thus,
challenges the group to cooperate even better and to be
more sensitive to the whole group in order to accomplish
the task.
27
At this point one continues running, but now the circle
is abandoned for movement on a grid system. Bogart says:
"Do anything you like as long as you're running on a grid."
She challenges the group: "What do you have to do to
surprise yourself?" and "What do you have to do to work
dangerously?"
At one point the group is asked to stop. Then the group
is to continue moving on a grid, but this time everyone is
asked to be aware of the first viewpoint, "Spatial
Relationship" (created by the distance between each actor).
Bogart stops the group a number of times and asks everyone
to look at the "Spatial Relationship" that they have
created. She cites when the spatial composition is strong:
"Look how much more interesting."
The group continues working on a grid, this time working
with either top speed or stillness. "Devour space with no
fear," says Bogart, challenging the actors to increase
their speed.
Still on a grid, the group then works with top speed or
stillness, with being either "up" or "down" and with being
aware of the "Spatial Relationship." Bogart challenges the
actors with the notion that top speed also has stillness.
Later the actors are asked to add the viewpoints "Shape"
and "Repetition" to the work.
The group is asked to stop. The actors are then, on
their own time, to start walking without fear. Soon the
actors are told that, on a count from five to one, everyone
is to end up in the same circle, running in the same
direction and with the same speed. When this is
accomplished, Bogart reminds the group that the circle
should be perfectly shaped and challenges everyone to find
a way, while still running, to be able to see everyone in
the circle, including the persons right in front and
behind.
28
This leads into the next exercise, where the group,
still running in the circle, is doing "turns," "jumps," and
"stops." When doing the "turn," the whole group, without
anyone initiating, is to turn simultaneously and to change
direction without stopping. The first times, while the
group is still working out how to do the "turn," Bogart
signals when to start. Eventually, however, through
heightened concentration, the group has to manage on its
own. The "jump," as in the exercise above, is to be as
high as possible, and everyone is to land at the same time,
without making any sound. The first times that this is
attempted, Bogart assigns somebody to initiate the "jump."
Later, however, the initiator is not assigned. After each
"jump," everyone, again without anyone initiating, is to
start running simultaneously and in the opposite direction.
Last, when doing the "stop," somebody is to initiate a
"stop" with everyone stopping simultaneously. Afterwards
everyone, without anyone initiating, is to continue running
simultaneously in the same direction. These are the
"rules" of the "turn," the "jump," and the "stop."
The exercise consists of the group's doing twelve
"turns," six "jumps," and four "stops," in any order and
according to the above "rules." The group (during the SITI
workshop, the class was divided into two groups) starts
running. When the same rhythm and pace have been
established, the "turns," "jumps," and "stops" are
attempted. Bogart challenges the group to find a way to
communicate physically. The group is asked to pick up
speed gradually. Bogart encourages the actors again to
work "generously" and to work with the spirit of keeping
open for anything to happen. In the beginning problems
occur; and, when they occur, the participants lose
concentration for a moment. Bogart points out that one of
the most important things that she wants everyone to learn
from this exercise, however, is that the moment when
29
something falls apart or a mistake happens is a moment of
creation. She explains that there is energy in that
moment.
When all the "turns," "jumps," and "stops" have been
completed (the exercise will hereafter be called "the turn-
jump-stop exercise"), everyone keeps running in the circle.
At a signal one is to try to touch the person in front and
to make sure not to be touched by the person behind,
finding a motivation or reason for doing so. This is
repeated, this time running in the opposite direction and
with a new motivation.
Finally everyone is to walk around freely in the room
(this time not in a circle or on a grid) with presence and
with "soft eyes." While walking, one is then to choose one
person and make sure to keep this person in one's field of
vision all the time. One should absorb as much information
as possible about this person. After a while one is to
choose a second person and keep both persons in the field
of vision. Finally, if able, one is to choose a third,
fourth and fifth person. At some point one lets go of
these persons and chooses a new person. This time the
actor walks up to this person as closely as possible,
closer than that with which one is usually comfortable.
The whole group ends up in a cluster. Everyone closes
their eyes and is to absorb information about the persons
that one is close to—how they feel and how they smell.
Then, in one's own time, one opens the eyes, while trying
to keep the other senses—smell and touch—alive. Each
person then begins to move away from the cluster.
Introduction to "Shape" and

"Kinesthetic Response"
"Shape"
The whole group forms a large circle. One person runs
in to the center and creates a strong pose. The next
person runs in and builds to the shape or "sculpture." One
30
by one, the rest of the group adds to the shape, so that
finally everyone is part of the "sculpture." Bogart
chooses a couple of people to remain in their pose as the
rest of the group runs out again to study the remaining
shape. The compositioh and the dynamics of the shape are
being discussed. "Where does your eye go?" asks Bogart.
This is repeated a few times. Bogart encourages the
group to work in riskier ways by using parts of the body
that one is less comfortable with using. She also warns
against the tendency of people joining the "sculpture" with
their hands, which tends to make a less interesting choice.
At times, as a new shape has been created, people are asked
to title the "sculpture."
The class is divided into teams of four or five. The
teams line up, like swim-teams, at one side of the room.
The first person ("number one") runs across the floor,
along his or her team's "lane," inventing one movement or
action during the course of the run. Each member of the
team, one by one, repeats "number one's" movement across
the floor. "Number two" then adds a movement or action to
what "number one" has created. Everyone repeats this new
cross. In turn the rest of the team, and then beginning
with "number one" and "number two" again, add to the cross,
until a whole sequence has been created. The last person
is asked to make a vaudevillian "wow-ending" to the
sequence. Each team, now with the members lined up one by
one along the wall, performs the sequence in unison to the
rest of the class.
Then new groups are formed, consisting of the persons
with the same number from the different teams. All the
"number ones," for instance, make up the first team. This
time the members of each team are to perform their
different sequences together, and now they move freely in
31
the entire room, abandoning their "lanes." The performers
find a spatially dynamic beginning point, and then create
an improvisation of movements in space. Each one performs
his or her own sequence, disregarding the tempo of the
original sequence and, instead, timing each movement and
action by responding to what is happening in the rest of
the group. The participants have now been introduced to
"Kinesthetic Response"—the timing of movement. Awareness
of "Spatial Relationship" is also part of this exercise.
The Viewpoints
After these introductory exercises, the group starts
working with viewpoint improvisation. To teach the
viewpoints to the actors, Bogart starts going through each
of them separately. The class is divided into groups of
seven, and each group does an improvisation focusing on one
viewpoint at a time. Bogart stresses that it is really
impossible to separate the viewpoints and that they should
not be viewed as separate. This time, however, in order
for everyone to understand what each of the viewpoints is,
one focuses 90% on each particular viewpoint.
"Spatial Relationship"
"Spatial Relationship" is defined by Bogart as distance
(distance to the other actors). The seven actors start
moving in the room, being aware of the "Spatial
Relationship" and always maintaining a dynamic
"composition" in space. Bogart challenges the actors to
work against what one in everyday life would consider as
comfortable distance to other people, by being either
closer to each other than what feels comfortable or by
being very far from each other. The stage picture
constantly changes. Whenever a person or a small group
crosses the room, it causes the rest of the group to move
in order to maintain strong spatial "compositions," or
32
"Spatial Relationship." At times, clusters of people are
formed, and at times tension is created through
juxtaposition between an individual and a whole group.
Bogart occasionally side-coaches, reinforcing to the actors
when strong choices are being made or pointing out the
moments that are weak. At times she asks the group to stop
and maintain positions for a moment so that they can study
the "Spatial Relationship." As she did with the "Shape"
exercise above, Bogart discusses composition with the
actors in order to increase their awareness. Bogart also
reminds the actors that they, through the way they work
with the space, can communicate to an audience how the
space is or the feel of the space.
"Shape"
Bogart explains that this viewpoint applies to creating
shapes either individually or in relationship to other
shapes or people. The actors explore creating "sculptures"
alone or in groups. Instead of thinking about what the
shape should look like, they should allow shape to be
created through themselves.
Bogart instructs:
Extend through shape.
Where does it take you?
Let it lead you to another shape.
If it leads you to something unfamiliar, you're
doing the right thing.
How do you go through space with shape?
Find a way to enjoy shape.
"Architecture"
This viewpoint is about the actor's relationship to or
use of the architecture. The actor works physically with
the architecture or the physical space. Bogart admits that
this viewpoint might be the hardest on which to work. She
explains that the actor should think of it as doing a dance
with the architecture or the set. The actor is asked to
33
consider the following: "How can you do a duet with
architecture?" and "Use the architecture as a partner."
The actors start exploring the room. In the dance
studio used for the SITI workshop, the "stage-right" wall
had large windows that could be opened, with floor length
curtains and with a view of the trees of the Skidmore
campus; a bare wall with a double door leading into a
storage room was the "upstage" wall; and the "stage-left"
wall was bare. These and the pattern of the wooden dance
floor and the patterns in the ceiling became the actors'
set. (For the viewpoint sessions for the rehearsal of The
Women, the rehearsal stage, even though it lacked many of
the features of the actual set, gave the actors a chance to
start exploring the potentials for the use of the set for
the show.)
Bogart reminds the actors that architecture can make one
feel something. "Let it talk back to you," she says. She
also reminds the actors that their use of architecture
expresses the character. She admits that actors who have
the ability to work with the physical space, as well as
with the relationship to other actors, are her favorite
actors.
"Kinesthetic Response" is defined as timing, that is,
timing of movement. It is the actor responding in the
moment to what is happening in the room. It is about
responding, not initiating. It is not about creating
rhythm, but about reacting to rhythm. Bogart gives an
example of "Kinesthetic Response" in everyday life. At a
bus stop, if one person turns, everyone else,
subconsciously, ends up turning. Even though all the
viewpoints are important, Bogart suggests that this is
perhaps the most important one.
34
One of the actors suddenly runs across the floor, which
unleashes a lot of activity on the floor. A thump of
somebody falling on to the floor suddenly ignites tramping
on the floor. Someone suddenly being in a certain shape
influences someone else to explore creating another shape
in response. As the actors are working in the beginning,
Bogart helps them to become aware of the potential flow of
timing. When suddenly a strong movement or a certain noise
happens that potentially could unleash a reaction, she
calls out, "Use that." The reaction needs to be immediate
and spontaneous. Bogart instructs: "If you think about
it, it's too late."
"Repetition"
This viewpoint is about repetition done either
individually or in relationship to the other actors. For
instance, one actor repeats a certain gesture over and over
again, or one actor does a certain gesture which then gets
repeated by others in the group.
Bogart feels that repetition is the most important tool
for building the mise en scene. She acknowledges being
influenced by Gertrude Stein with her use of a small
palette of words. This has made Bogart realize the
potential for using a small palette of gestures when
creating the mise en scene. Bogart suggests repeating
twenty gestures in different combinations, rather than
using a thousand. Bogart also feels that, through
repetition, one can get deeper into the character.
"Gesture"
Bogart distinguishes "Gesture" from "Shape." A
"Gesture" has a beginning, middle, and end. Working with
"Shape," however, takes the actor gradually from one shape
into another shape. Bogart views "Gestures" as entirely
culturally related and encourages the actors to "embrace
35
the stereotype." "Do it with the whole being in order to
make it work," she says. She also observes that doing
gestures tends to have an exorcistic quality.
"Tempo"
"Tempo"—the pace or the speed of doing things—was
added in the fall of 1993. Bogart previously considered
"Tempo" as part of "Kinesthetic Response," but has started
treating it as a separate viewpoint. She feels that she is
still experimenting with how to implement it into the work.
After having gone through each of the viewpoints, each
actor is to choose the viewpoint that he or she found to be
the easiest to work with. After a while each actor is to
choose another viewpoint. Last, one is to choose the
viewpoint one had the hardest time with and "do it with
vengeance."
Viewpoint Improvisation
Viewpoint improvisation is improvisation of movement—at
times movement and sound—in space. The viewpoints—
"Spatial Relationship," "Shape," "Architecture,"
"Kinesthetic Response," "Repetition," "Gesture," and
"Tempo"—provide in the actors an awareness, which helps
them create, as a group, dynamic improvisations in space.
One could say that the viewpoints create a structure within
which the actors can function.
For each improvisation the group usually consists of
seven actors. The rest of the class becomes the audience
watching from one side of the room. The seven actors line
up along the "upstage" wall. The beginning of the
improvisation is restricted to movement in lanes
perpendicular to the wall. Each actor works in his or her
own lane (again like swimming lanes), and there are three
choices of movement--running, walking and falling. Being
aware of the viewpoints, the actors start moving in their
36
lanes. Since they are separated by lanes, the actors'
awareness of the whole room needs to be even more acute in
order to be able to respond to the whole group.
After awhile the actors, on their own time and when they
feel a need to, open up to start moving on a grid. Now
they work freely, without the restrictive choices of
running, walking and falling. Eventually the grid is
abandoned, and the actors move freely around in the room.
Bogart has recently added another stage in the sequence.
After working on a grid and before opening up to free
movement on the floor, diagonals are added to the movement
pattern, allowing movement in eight directions. The
sequence, thus, is lanes (running, walking or falling),
grid, diagonal patterns and free movement on the floor.
Sometimes the improvisation starts directly with free
movement on the floor, without first going through lanes,
grid and diagonal patterns. The actors then start by
finding a strong beginning point with a dynamic spatial
"composition."
The length of each improvisation varies. During the
SITI workshop the first improvisations were relatively
short, about four to five minutes long, but gradually they
became longer, extending to ten, fifteen and thirty
minutes.
At times Bogart adds music or themes to the viewpoint
improvisation. In both cases the new element is brought in
some time into the improvisation, after it has been
established. She explains that music is added to make the
actor feel more at home in the improvisation. She warns,
however, not to "get trapped in the music." One should
instead take what one gets from the music—rhythm, for
instance—and go further with it. "Use it as a
springboard, not as a prison," she says. Examples of
themes that are added are "first date," "reunion," "love,"
"rush-hour" and "mine-field." Bogart stresses that one
37
should not act these out. Instead one should "make the
theme happen," or "let it into the spinal column."
Sound is also introduced to the work. Bogart has
recently started adding sound to the viewpoint
improvisation. By producing sounds or uttering phrases,
the actors improvise whole "compositions" of movements,
gestures, shapes, sounds, and words. When using sounds,
the actors are encouraged, as with their physical work, to
reprocess the vocabulary established in an improvisation by
reusing the same sounds and words.
These are a few of the viewpoint exercises and viewpoint
improvisation variations that Bogart teaches. As
mentioned, Bogart is constantly experimenting with new
exercises and variations in the viewpoint training.
Important "Principles" of the

Viewpoint Improvisation^^
Response
One could argue that response is the basis for the
philosophy of the viewpoint improvisation. In an attempt
to describe the response cycle, one receives a stimulus
which ignites a reaction; this reaction starts an action to
which one instantaneously fully commits; in the middle of
pursuing this action other stimuli occur, which makes one
abandon the current action and respond to a new stimulus.
The improvisation is centered around responding or
reacting, as opposed to initiating action. One is
constantly picking up stimuli from the entire room and
responding to them. A sound, a gesture, somebody suddenly
running diagonally across the floor, or suddenly noticing
the pattern on the floor may trigger a reaction. One may
suddenly find oneself in a certain position in relation to
another person, and both may start exploring by developing
a "sculpture" together. Bogart explains:
It's not making things happen, but seeing things
happening.
38
There is always something happening. Use what's
already happened. Let things happen through you.
Be open to what the others do and use it.
You don't have to be inventive. Trust that it
will happen, happen through you.
This approach demands of the participants a heightened
awareness. Bogart explains at the end of one class period
that the state one is in right before doing a turn in "the
turn-jump-Stop exercise," described above, is the kind of
state one should always be in when working. This level of
openness, excitement and concentration should always be
present.
One needs to work with a high level of awareness and
alertness. First, one needs to be aware of the entire
room--both the physical space and what happens in the rest
of the group. One should have "soft eyes" or "soft focus."
It is important that one does not focus in on certain areas
but that one is open and receptive to what might happen
anywhere in the room, including what is outside one's field
of vision. One should be aware of the whole. Bogart side-
coaches: "Pick up on what you least expect to," and "Use
what's farthest away."
Second, one needs to work with a high level of alertness
or readiness. The response should be instantaneous and
spontaneous. One should not plan in advance the focus of
one's response. It all should happen in the moment.
Bogart says:
Let yourself not know what's going to happen.
Surprise yourself about what you pick up on.
Pick up faster than you usually do.
Respond to things you least expect to work with.
Be open to work with what you do not expect to
work with.
Bogart stresses, furthermore, that one should not focus
on selecting which things to which to respond. Although
she realizes that in actuality the participant always, to a
39
certain degree, selects which stimuli to respond to, one
should not consciously focus on it.
The improvisation demands the intensity of being able to
pick up on any stimuli and instantaneously commit fully to
the action that it has triggered. One does not, however,
carry this action to a completion. Just as one is in the
middle of pursuing the action, other stimuli will occur
that will ignite new responses. One allows oneself to
commit fully to something and then suddenly lets it go to
pursue other actions.
Bogart says:
Enter fully with one choice, knowing that it will
change.
The moment you feel attached to something, go on
to something else.
Don't put an end to what you're doing.
Don't decide where it is going to end.
The moment something becomes precious, let it go.
In this manner, one goes from one response to another.
The response or reaction should be in the body or should
"happen through oneself." For instance, during "the turn-
jump-stop exercise" the participants are introduced to the
challenge of communicating physically with the rest of the
group. Many of the exercises seem to aim at training the
actor to sense and experience the space. During the
viewpoint improvisations, Bogart side-coaches:
Don't make decisions with the head, but with the
body.
Don't think. Trust that the seven viewpoints are
in you.
[Again,] If you think about it, it's too late.
Let things happen through you.
Discovery
The viewpoint improvisation has here been discussed as
being a series of responses, but it could also be viewed as
a series of discoveries, a journey or a quest for making
discoveries, with each stimulus being a potential for a new
40
discovery. The whole group makes discoveries together.
Bogart says: "Do not do things to the others, but discover
together." Bogart encourages the participants to work with
the idea that, as one is making discoveries, one then
shares these with the audience, saying to them, "Look at
this." The spirit of enjoyment over finding things,
exploration and discovery seem to be important aspects of
the viewpoint improvisation.
Risk-taking
Risk-taking is another important aspect of this
improvisation. Bogart constantly challenges the
participants: "Work in a riskier way," and "Go further
than you think you can." Many of the exercises seem to
have been designed to help the actors overcome possible
blocks. Bogart repeatedly encourages everyone: "Surprise
yourself."
Stillness, Variation,
Clarity and Specificity
In the beginning of the workshop the improvisations have
a tendency to have fast paced and staccato-like movements
and blurred "composition." Bogart, thus, reminds everyone
to listen more carefully to what is happening in the room,
especially increasing the awareness of what is happening
behind one. She also draws attention to making stillness a
part of the "compositions" and avoiding excess movement.
One should try to create more variation in the
"composition" by having a greater range of intervals. To
illustrate her point, Bogart compares this to the
variations in a symphony. There should be differentiation.
A reaction should not necessarily be equal to the stimulus.
Bogart also emphasizes clarity and specificity in the work.
She warns against doing general movements. She feels that
it is better to stop if one feels lost, rather than doing
some general dance movements.
41
"Icing on the Cake"
As mentioned earlier, the focus of the viewpoint
improvisation is on the formal. The viewpoints help the
actors to become aware of spatial and temporal
"composition." The focus, thus, is not on creating
stories. Bogart acknowledges that sometimes stories,
relationships or emotions may occur spontaneously in the
moment; and she encourages the participants to enjoy them
if they happen, while, at the same time, being open for new
things for response. She regards stories or emotions
occurring as "icing on the cake." She stresses, however,
that this occurrence should not be a conscious effort: "Do
not work for the stories to happen." Bogart also warns
against concentrating on ideas. She says: "Don't impose
your ideas," and "Ideas cheapen work easily."
"Lyricism"
Towards the end of the four week workshop at SITI,
Bogart explains to the participants in the class that they
have reached the stage to start "putting finishing detail"
on the work. She asks the class to start finding lyricism
in the work: "Let yourself go to find lyricism." Work
with imagery—responding to imagery—is introduced. She
explains that, when images emerge, one should pursue them,
allowing the imagery to extend through the body, and then
let it go. Similar to responding to other stimuli as
described earlier, one should not hang on to a certain
image. Exercises encouraging further exploration of
creation of shapes (with two or more persons), sharing
weight and lifting are also introduced. Bogart stresses
the importance of suspension in seeking heightened moments
in the theatre. She feels that theatre tends to be too
weighted. Some of the last reminders that she gives the
class before starting one of the last improvisations of the
workshop are "lyricism," "extension" and "freedom."
42
Conclusion
The viewpoint training appears to be unique in the way
it c r e a t e s a group awareness and how it develops in the
actor an awareness of temporal and spatial composition.
The group awareness is established early on during the
i n t r o d u c t o r y exercises. A number of the exercises are
centered around unison movement, with a leader and without
a leader. Being able to accomplish this task demands an
acute awareness of the group. M a n y of the exercises use
the structure of a circle.
The viewpoint improvisation further strengthens this
group a w a r e n e s s . The key to this is the fact that the
focus is on reacting rather than initiating action. The
focus is on the whole group and what is right for the
c o m p o s i t i o n , and not on individual accomplishments.
Through responding to what is happening at any given
m o m e n t , the whole group organically develops the
improvisation in space.
To refer to m y own experience participating in the
w o r k s h o p , I was struck by this group awareness. I
p a r t i c u l a r l y recall "the turn-jump-stop exercise." It
e s t a b l i s h e d the need for being sensitive to and
communicating well with the group. It also gave the
e x p e r i e n c e of what it feels like working as a u n i t . A s we
w e r e running in the large circle, with our upper bodies
lightly twisted, enabling us to see everyone in the group
and w i t h our feet hitting the floor simultaneously, I truly
felt that I w a s part of a w h o l e — l i k e I was part of a whole
organism. It was as if the heavy beat of our feet hitting
the floor was the heartbeat of this o r g a n i s m — t h e life
n e r v e holding us together. We also shared the alertness
for suddenly doing a "turn," "jump," or "stop" together.
The m o m e n t , the fraction of a second, before we would jump
t o g e t h e r , w a s a moment of excitement and o n e n e s s .
43
Looking back at the viewpoint improvisation, I remember
the exhilarating sensation of "Kinesthetic Response," the
moment when a reaction was unleashed in me. This felt to
be particularly strong when a strong stimulus would occur,
triggering in return a strong response. The sound of a
loud clap, for instance, could trigger a quick movement
across the floor. At this point I would feel like I was
part of a machinery, as if a spring had been released to
push me along to accomplish my "operation."
The training, particularly the viewpoint improvisation,
develops in the actor a sensitivity to timing or temporal
composition. The improvisation has a unique sense of flow
and movement. There is always an energy flowing, even at
the times when there is stillness. This appears to be due
to the constant alertness and awareness in the whole group.
Furthermore, the immediacy in the "Kinesthetic Response"
pushes the flow of the composition constantly forward, by
connecting the stimulus and the reaction. The fact that
one never finishes one action but that one responds to a
new stimulus while in the middle of pursuing the current
action, also contributes to the flow.
The awareness of the "Spatial Relationship" also appears
to strengthen the flow or movement. In order to maintain a
dynamic spatial composition, one movement or change of
position in one actor will trigger a change in the rest of
the group. For instance, one actor running from "upstage
right" to "downstage left" will tilt the balance and, if
the whole group is sufficiently aware, eventually will lead
to a movement or change in the whole stage composition.
The spatial awareness that the training develops in the
actor is equally unique. The early exercises seem to be
designed to make the actor start experiencing the feel of
the whole space and to increase his or her sensitivity
towards it. The work in lanes and on a grid seems to force
the actor to start acknowledging the entire space rather
44
than giving in to the tendency of automatically gravitating
towards the center of the room. The actor is also
challenged to explore the different levels of the space.
In one of the exercises, walking on a grid, one is to be
either "up" or "down." When working with the
"Architecture" viewpoint, the actor is challenged to
explore the potentials of the physical space or the set.
It is a way for the actor to learn to enjoy working with
the physical space, without having to think about character
and text.
During the viewpoint improvisation, the actors, being
aware of the viewpoints "Architecture," "Spatial
Relationship," "Shape," and "Gesture," create spatially
dynamic compositions. These spatial elements help create
variety, clarity and tension in the total composition.
Rather than being forced choreography or blocking, the
composition created through the viewpoint improvisation has
the potential of being a creation that is alive and
dynamic. If everyone in the group is truly aware of each
other and the whole, the composition through the viewpoints
has the potential to be "a breathing organism in space."
A l l improvisations, one could argue, will always have the
potential of creating a composition with flow or "a
b r e a t h i n g organism." This improvisation, however, through
the structure provided by the viewpoints and the
"principles" of the improvisation, may not only create
flow, but also help avoid unintentionally chaotic or
b l u r r e d composition. The viewpoint improvisation has the
p o t e n t i a l to be both liberating and spontaneous and, on the
other hand, dynamic and strong compositionally.
45
Notes
^ Anne Bogart, interview by author, Hartford, CT, 30
December 1993.
Anne Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs, NY,

22 June 1993.
^ Ibid.
' Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
-1
Bogart does not view the viewpoint improvisation as a

composition. Composition, to her, means the actual
composition choreographed or "set" during the rehearsal of
a piece or a production. The term "composition" is in this
chapter used by author to address the compositional aspects
of the improvisation or the use of the physical space.
®Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
^ Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,

^° According to a phone conversation with Bogart on 30

June 1994, "Duration" and "Topography" are recent
viewpoints that have been added.
^^ The descriptions of the training and the quotes by

Bogart in this chapter are taken from author's journal.
^^ Again, Bogart does not talk about the viewpoint

improvisation in terms of "principles." The term
"principles" and the subheadings in this section are used
by author for clarification and discussion.
46
CHAPTER IV
DIRECTING PHILOSOPHY
As suggested in the Introduction, Anne Bogart's belief

in rehearsal as a collaborative process and the actor as a
"creator" seems to be the underlying value of her directing
philosophy. The first section of this chapter addresses
how this value defines the nature of collaboration between
the actors and the director—that the rehearsal is not
about what the director "wants" but what the actors and the
director create collectively.
The second section addresses various aspects of Bogart's
directing philosophy. It discusses the relationship
between the viewpoint training and the rehearsal process;
Bogart's belief that the form—the choreography—is what
should be "set" while emotions should remain "fluid," and
that this form, the structure, gives the actor freedom; and
Bogart's analogy that a staging rehearsal is like composing
a piece of music. The section concludes with Bogart's
recollection of the episode when she came to the
realization that "setting something on stage," or
"composing" the scenes, is a "violent act," but "necessary
violence."
Rehearsal: A Meeting Place

Anne Bogart sees rehearsal as a collaborative p r o c e s s —
"a meeting place between actors and director."^ She
attempts to create a rehearsal situation or atmosphere
where the actors feel that they are "creators" and not
merely persons fulfilling the director's vision or "want."
Many actors, however, being used to the latter, do not view
themselves as creators. Bogart, thus, feels that one of
her functions as a director is to reassure or encourage
them to "become creators":
47
You see, the problem I have with most theatre
situations is that . . . the actors don't believe
that they are creators. So a huge part of my job
is to . . . allow them to be creators, and for
them to recognize that their creation is an
absolute necessity, otherwise I wouldn't be
there; there's no reason for me to be there. And
I'm not the kind of director who just directs
them. I don't do that.^
One of the reasons that the actors do not see themselves
as creators is the often prevailing attitude in theatre
that the actor is fulfilling the director's "wants" or
doing "what the director wants." Bogart sees this as a
"deadly"^ philosophy. She addresses the participants at
the SITI Summer Theater Workshop:
I think that the word "want" is killing the
American theatre. Now I'll tell you why. In a
rehearsal what does the director do? The
director says, "I want you to . . . this." But
what does an actor do: "Do you want me to . . .
this?" What kind of relationship is that? It
seems to me to be parental. I get so frustrated
and upset if, in a rehearsal, an actor says to
me, "What do you want me to do?" . . . What about
"What the play wants?" . . . If you as an actor
. . . if what you are doing is fulfilling the
director's "want," isn't there something wrong
with that? . . .
I am trying, personally, to get the word "want"
out of the rehearsal. . . .
What I'm suggesting to you is that the excision
of the word "want" is so radical and so radically
affects the psychology of a rehearsal that I
can't even begin to tell you how different it
is.^
Bogart suggests other phrases in the rehearsal dialogue:
"What's right?"; "What's true?"; "Is this better?"; "Is
this in the right direction?"^
Bogart continues her discussion on eliminating the word
"want" from the rehearsal: "Also what I want is really
small compared to what I think the play is."^ She proposes
that there are two different ways for both the actor and
the director to approach a work. She says to the actor
48
about how to approach the character: "You can either think
of it as something smaller than you that you control and
define, or you can think of it as something larger than
you."' Bogart believes in the latter approach. An
indication that the actor is working according to the
former approach is the response, "My character wouldn't do
that."^ "Then you know that the definitions have gone far
too soon," Bogart says.^
Likewise she warns against the director saying, "I know
this play." She feels that defining "what the play is" too
early easily becomes reductive:
It becomes reductive. If you understand it and
it's smaller than you, then the play will be
smaller than you . . .
I want to be a little girl in front of a huge
canvas. I think it should be . . . it must be
. . . huge for me and undefinable. And I should
really look at it with great awe and really enter
into it with bravery . . .
How do you let the thing you're working on be
bigger than you? It's really scary, because that
also means that it's out of your control.^°
In proposing what the nature of collaboration between
actors and director should be, she makes a comparison to
the relationship between astronauts and the person in the
control tower:
I think of myself as . . . I'm in the control
tower and the actors the astronauts. And the
actors are having the experience and I'm going,
"Try it a little to the right." It's not [so],
"I want you to be to the right." It's because
. . . there is something about being to the
right.''
Instead of rehearsal being about what the director
"wants," it is about what the actors and the director
create collectively in the moment. Bogart, thus, does not
plan the staging beforehand. She tries to keep the
"canvas" big; she does not "define" what the scene is
before it has been explored; she watches what the actors
bring to the moment—or, as she says, "I look with no
49
desire" (Chapter II). She compares her job as a director
to the painter's, suggesting that a painter does not plan
the painting in detail beforehand, but creates the painting
with the tools in the moment—"in the crisis of the
moment."'^ Likewise, the staging is created "in the crisis
of the moment."
Although the scene is created in the moment, both Bogart
and the actors prepare extensively before rehearsal. The
nature of Bogart's preparation varies for each piece, but
an important part of her preparation is "having
associations about the material."" She says: "One has to
prepare a lot before rehearsal. But what one thinks will
happen, rarely happens."'*
The rehearsal is a "meeting place" and Bogart sees it as
her function in this collaborative process to "create an
atmosphere" where all the collaborators can "dream"
together; to "encourage risks"; and to put "pressure on the
events" so that the rehearsal does not "lag."'^ She
describes the rehearsal process:
I often think a rehearsal process is like
exquisite pressure. . . . It is a beautiful
pressure in a rehearsal. The director pushes
things on. The actor puts something into motion.
And my job, I always feel, as a director, is to
keep that thing going forward.16
Directing Philosophy
Viewpoint Improvisation and Composition
As described in the previous chapter, the viewpoint
improvisation is part of the viewpoint training. Bogart
stresses that this improvisation is training. It is not
used directly in the staging of the production. Bogart
does not believe in improvisational theatre.'"' In the
actual rehearsal, as will be discussed in the next chapter,
the staging or choreography of the scenes gets "set" from
the first staging rehearsal. Bogart frequently uses the
term "setting material" instead of "choreography,"
50
"staging," or "blocking." The "setting" of exact movement
and sound in space is what Bogart calls "composition."
The Viewpoint Training and the Rehearsal

Although the viewpoint improvisation is not used in the
actual rehearsal process, the philosophy of the viewpoint
training and the viewpoint improvisation seems to serve as
a foundation for the staging rehearsal. If the actors in a
production have not gone through the viewpoint training,
Bogart often starts the rehearsal process with training
sessions. The viewpoint training prepares the actors for
the rehearsal process, and it provides a common vocabulary
for the collaborators.
First of all, it provides actor training and gets the
actor attuned to certain values about working. It
stimulates alertness, spontaneity, concentration,
discipline and specificity. It encourages the actor to
work with the spirit of discovery, excitement and seeking
lyricism. The actor learns to listen to, experience, and
enjoy working with the physical space, and the training
forces the actors to explore the potential of the physical
space or the set.
Second, it strengthens the ensemble feel in the group.
As discussed in the previous chapter, one of the unique
aspects of the viewpoint training is the emphasis on the
group awareness. During the improvisation, the actor
constantly listens to what is happening in the whole group.
The focus is on responding to stimuli in the whole group
and not on initiating and individual ideas or
accomplishments.
Third, the viewpoint improvisation prepares the actors
for, in collaboration with the director, composing the mise
en scene. The actors, by being aware of the seven
viewpoints—the spatial elements ("Spatial Relationship,"
"Shape," "Architecture," and "Gesture"), the temporal
51
elements ("Kinesthetic Response" and "Tempo"), and the
compositional element ("Repetition")--respond and make
choices in a way that creates stage composition. The
improvisation develops in the actors a sensitivity to
create compositions with variation, stillness and clarity.
One could say that the actor views the composition from
both the inside and the outside. In addition to being
aware of the group energies, the actor also views the
improvisation from the audience's perspective. Bogart
describes how the focus is on "two things": first, making
the improvisation
visually clear for the audience, and, secondly,
that there is a channel of energy going from
performer to performer, so that there is a
possibility to meet without speaking . . . on
different levels . . . having an exchange.'^
The sensitivity to these compositional aspects seem to
function on both an intuitive and sensitive level and an
intellectual level. With the viewpoint training, Bogart
attempts to get the actor to react with the body, so that
body and mind are joined.
The actors bring the compositional awareness and
sensitivity that they have developed during the
improvisation to the staging rehearsal. In this way, one
could say that the viewpoint training prepares the actor to
"become a creator" in the rehearsal process. It encourages
the actor to view himself or herself as a "creator."
Not only does the viewpoint training prepare the actors
for the rehearsal, but Bogart, as a director, also seems to
use many of the underlying principles of the viewpoint
improvisation. Responding seems to be an important aspect
of her directing process. She responds in the moment to
what is happening on the stage and what the actors bring to
the scene and uses that response in composing the scenes.
As mentioned earlier, she does not plan the staging
beforehand.
52
Spontaneity is important. She says that "the greatest
secret of directing," when uncertain about something in
rehearsal, is to say "I know" and start walking towards the
stage. Then one is forced to "think of something fast."'^
As the actor works with "soft eyes," Bogart also
"directs with soft eyes." For instance, when the focus in
a scene is on a particular action or group of actors, she
also watches the other parts of the stage.^° Just as the
actor, she tries to always be aware of the entire space.
As mentioned above, she watches "with no desire."
"Kinesthetic Response," timing, is particularly
important in applying the viewpoint training to staging.^'
Like the stimulus in the viewpoint improvisation ignites a
response, when something happens on stage, it needs to be
pursued. Bogart says:
You put something into motion . . . as director
and actor . . . same in the six-viewpoint work
. . . you have to follow it, it has to take you
somewhere. If you sit, it's weighted . . . the
minute you relax in it, you have to start all
over again. . . .
Nothing sits on the stage in one place. If
you're still, you are putting something in
motion and it moves inside, unless everything
stops. . .
Things change once you initiate them. . . . When
you put something into motion, it develops, it
changes. Things don't stay the same.^^
There should be a constant transformation—a "pressure"—
pushing what is set into motion forward, making it develop
and change.^^
Form and Inner Life

As discussed, the viewpoint improvisation focuses on
formal aspects and not on the narrative. During the
rehearsal when "setting material," it is the choreography—
the form—that gets set. This does not mean that Bogart's
53
main interest with a piece is the form of it. On the
contrary, she does not see the form as the ultimate object
of her work. The form is only a "vehicle." Bogart's
theory is that by "setting" the form, the emotions or the
inner life can remain fluid or free. She disagrees with
the approach where the actor and the director work on
"setting" or determining what the character or actor is
feeling at any given moment. Emotions are fluid, she
argues; therefore, one cannot and should not attempt to
"set" them. Only form can be "set." She explains in an
interview:
. . . to me, the emotions are the most precious,
the most beautiful things we have, and the minute
that we grab on to them, they die. You know, in
most rehearsals directors will say: "O.K., that
was a good emotion. Keep that," you know. I
don't think that's the thing to keep. I think
the body is the thing to keep, in terms of
setting where it is. But in order for the
emotions to be very fluid . . . they're the fluid
thing inside of us; the body is solid; the
emotions aren't. So why would you want to set a
thing that is fluid? In a way, we're doing all
this so that emotions can happen, but we don't
focus on emotions to get emotions. [Referring to
her theory about having to enter paradise through
the back door,] That's like going through the
back door to get to the front.^*
Later in the interview she says:
I don't set the psychology, I set the movement.
And to me, the movement is a subtext. I set the
subtext in the movement, and I try to keep the
psychology somewhat fluid. And that there's text
and subtext . . . to me, usually, there's text
and there's subtext within the movement, and
there is another level under that, which is the
actor's being, which is underneath that. Those
three disagreeing—at times disagreeing, at times
agreeing—aspects of the performer's work, really
interests me, how they relate to three things."
Instead of text and sub-text in a traditional approach
to acting, Bogart suggests three levels: (1) text; (2)
subtext, or choreography subtext; and (3) sub-subtext, or
54
the subconscious (which is traditionally thought of as
subtext).^^ Bogart explains: "People usually say subtext
is u n d e r n e a t h the text . . . is something inside. But I
think it's outside."''
B o g a r t " s e t s " the choreography in detail from the first
staging r e h e a r s a l . She believes that the set choreography
gives the actor f r e e d o m — f r e e d o m to concentrate on
interpretation.'^ When asked how the choreography gives the
actor freedom, she answers:
B e c a u s e if the choreography is not set, they have
to spend all their attention figuring out what
they're going to do with their bodies that's
interesting. If that's set, then they can
concentrate on . . . thinking about the inside.
B e c a u s e you can't concentrate on everything at
the same time. If I'm thinking about, you know,
h o w am I going to put my elbow in this scene that
will be interesting, I'm not going to look at the
i n s i d e . But if that's already set, then I can
focus on other things.'^
The choreography, or form, provides a structure for the
actor to "live in." Bogart compares the form to a v e h i c l e :
I o f t e n think of a staging as a vehicle in which
you can live. It's a vehicle that's going
somewhere, in which you can live. A n d w h e n I'm
directing, I'm trying to think of that. It's
just a vehicle in which the actors can live.^°
B o g a r t gives another analogy: that acting is like a
k e r o s e n e l a m p — t h e choreography functioning like the glass
and the emotions being the flame. Bogart says:
If I tell an actor to move his arm just this w a y
exactly, every time, then he is free of worrying
w h a t m o v e m e n t he can m a k e — h e can find the
e m o t i o n . The flame is the emotion; the glass
chimney is the form. The chimney's there to m a k e
the light brighter, and that flame changes all
the time.^'
The structure helps reveal the inner life.^'
55
Communication with the Actor
The inner life of the actor, the "flame," is, to Bogart,-
sacred and an area where the director should not interfere.
A director asking an actor what he or she is feeling is,
according to Bogart, "sacrilegious"." The inner life of an
actor should be "insane," "perverse," and "mysterious." It
is "nobody's business to ask what it is. II 34
Rehearsal as Composition
A s mentioned earlier, Bogart lets other arts influence
her thoughts about theatre and how to approach her own art
as a director. She often compares directing to composing
music: "Directors have to feel the music of the p i e c e .
You have to feel the journey you're creating. "^^ The
director, as the composer, creates a journey. One of the
aspects that she feels she learns about from composers is
transformation--how to present a theme and then develop
it.^^ She says:
To m e to learn how to deal with composition, to
deal with the theatre, to deal with creating a
journey for an audience is very similar to music
. . . how you handle themes and variation, what
you present, when you present it, the timing, the
kinesthetic relationship between a light going
off and the music starting, between a gesture and
a look. . . . You put an idea on the stage . . .
w h e r e does it go next. You have to feel, as a
director, as an actor, where . . . It's like a
Ouija-board. I often feel like directing is like
following a Ouija-board . . . It's like . . . you
present something and now where is it going,
w h e r e does iX want to go? Not where do you want
it to g o . Where does it want to go? Where does
the music of it want to go. . . . But it's really
to feel the music of the piece.^''
M a h l e r ' s Tenth Unfinished Symphony, the Adagio section, for
instance, is for Bogart "a great lesson" in how to "present
information" and then "how you deal with it."^^
56
Bogart feels that directing a piece is like "composing
an extraordinary piece of music for an audience":^^
The older I get, the more I feel like a composer.
What I'm doing . . .I'm composing sound and
sight together. And what I mean by the older as
I get, the more relaxed I get in rehearsal. You
know, the older I get, the more I love being in
rehearsal . . . it's a great source of joy . . .
whereas when I was younger, I was really scared.
I still get scared, but . . . . And I love that
aspect of composing scenes. In fact, I don't
like to do endless improvisation. I like to
compose things . . . and now comes the whistle in
the distance . . . now comes the silence, you
know that's . . . I love that.''°
The Violence of "Setting" Material

Bogart made an important realization when observing
Robert Wilson in a rehearsal for Hamletmachine at New York
University. She tells about how he studied the stage
picture for a long time and finally went up to the stage
and moved a chair, seemingly 1/4 inch. Bogart realized at
that moment that "setting something on stage" is a "violent
act":
That setting something on the stage, setting that
a chair is like this and not like that, is an
extremely violent act. That it cuts out every
other possibility once you set it. And that in
fact setting something with an actor is also
equally violent. . . . It's like an actor will be
doing something wonderful and natural, and it's
good, and you as a director you go over and you
say, "O.K., keep it!" And it's like you've got a
knife in your hand and you're going, "Keep it!"
[Bogart makes the sound of a knife slashing
through the air]. Because the actor knows that
the next time they do it, it's going to be
horrible and affected and horrendous.
But what I've learnt from that is that it is a
necessary violence. That unless you do the
violence of setting something . . . you have to
do it sooner or later, unless you're doing
improvisational theatre . . . That the art begins
57
. . . not when it's first done in its natural
stage when you first do something beautiful and
natural, but when you've been able to create it
over again. So once it's been killed, and it's
brought back to life. The actor knows in the
minute that you set something, the tremendous
amount of work they have to do to bring that
thing back to life again. Which is like giving a
birth, giving a rebirth, it's a resurrection.
Bogart continues with telling about how she, as a young
director, was afraid of "setting" the scenes, because she
would feel that the actors' work was so "wonderful." She
was afraid that she would ruin it by "setting" it,
resulting in waiting until the last moment, even to the
night before opening, before "setting things":
And in that moment, in that pressure of having to
set things, I realized that that was my job. You
know once you've gotten to a certain point that
the lights need to come down like this, and not
like that.
She realized that "setting things" is her job as a
director, and this discovery resulted in the fact that now
she choreographs the scenes early in the rehearsal. She
continues:
I think what keeps theatre from being very good
often is that . . . one is afraid of the
violence, you're afraid of committing the
violence of setting something or of saying, "This
is what we're after," because it cuts off all
other possibilities. But in the definition of
that gesture or that moment or that choice opens
up eventually a whole another realm of life.*'
58
Notes
^ Anne Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs, NY,
22 June 1993.
' Ibid.
^ Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,
' Ibid.
^ Ibid.
^ Ibid.
' Ibid.
^ Ibid.
^ Ibid.
'° Ibid.
" Ibid.
'^ Anne Bogart, interview by author, Hartford, CT, 30
December 1993.
13 Bogart, interview, 30 December, 1993.
'^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
'^Bogart, interview, 30 December 1993.
'Ânne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
'^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
Workshop, 2 June and 16 June 1993.
'^ Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
'Ânne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
20 Anne Bogart, "viewpoint" class, SITI Summer Theater
59
^^ Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993
^^ Ibid.
" Ibid.

25
Ibid.
^^ Bogart, interview, 30 December 1993.
^' Ibid.
'' Ibid.
'' Ibid.
^° Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993.
^'Bogart quoted in William K. Gale's article, "Anne

Bogart," Providence (RI) Journal-Bulletin, 23 April 1989,
[p. M6 first page of the article].
^2 Bogart, "composition" class, 2 June 1993.
^^ Ibid.
^' Ibid.
^^ Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993.
^^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^"^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^^ Ibid.
^^ Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993.

4°Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
'^ Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,

2 June 1993.
60
CHAPTER V
THE REHEARSAL PROCESS
This chapter discusses Anne Bogart's rehearsal process

and describes the rehearsal process for The Women by Clare
Boothe Luce that Bogart directed at Hartford Stage. The
discussion of the rehearsal of The Women^ offers insight
into Bogart's directing philosophy. It does not suggest
that there is a certain methodology in Bogart's work.
First, Bogart has reservations about the word
"methodology."^ Second, as mentioned in Chapter II, she
directs different kinds of productions—plays, musicals,
operas, and dance-theatre pieces.^ Sometimes she works
with an already written text, as with The Women. Other
times the piece is developed or "written"^ by her and her
collaborators. The Medium that premiered at SITI the Fall
of 1993, for instance, was based on writings by Marshall
McLuhan.^ Bogart says in an interview that she approaches
each production differently; "I try to," she says about
that.^ The discussion of the rehearsal process for The
Women, thus, can only serve as an example of a process when
working with an already existing text, again, not claiming
that this is a particular methodology. The end of the
chapter includes excerpts from interviews with some of the
actors in the production, sharing how they experienced the
rehearsal process.
The rehearsal period for The Women lasted from 30
November to 31 December. (The first preview was on 1
January, and the show opened on 7 January.) (See rehearsal
schedule in Appendix B.) Bogart had previously staged the
play at San Diego Repertory Theatre. Of the sixteen
actors, six had worked with Bogart before, either taking
the viewpoint training or acting in previous productions
with her. One of the actors had been in the San Diego
production.
61
First Day of Rehearsal^
In describing the rehearsal process, Bogart says about
the first day of rehearsal:
First I always come in and talk for a long, long
time and basically say everything I have been
thinking about and dreaming about, all my ideas,
everything I can possibly put together to say
about the production. What I see. How I imagine
it. Knowing that most of the things will change.
But at least I put them all out on the table.'
It is important for her to share as much as possible her
thoughts with the actors (especially when working on a
piece that does not have a finished text): "The more the
actors know what I'm thinking about, the more companionship
I feel . . . you know . . . that they really are working
along the same lines."^
When she talked to the cast the first day of rehearsal
for The Women, in addition to sharing her "thoughts" and
"dreams" about the play, she also shared her aesthetic
values with the cast, in order to create a common work
vocabulary.
First, she introduced a theory by Victor Shklovsky,'° a
Russian formalist thinker by whom she has been influenced.
His theory is that the language of the artist is asleep and
that the artist's job is to "awaken" it. For instance, the
writer's job is to "wake up the words."" Bogart, thus,
thinks of the language of the stage in similar terms — that
everything one does on stage is asleep, because it is
"defined." The theatre artist's role is to "awaken" it:
If your language is the language of the stage,
everything—walking downstage, turning left,
picking up a tea-cup saying, "I love you" — i s
asleep because it's defined. That the artist's
role is to lift the stereotype or the thing that
is asleep and turn it until it awakens.'^
Bogart has come to realize that everything on stage
is a "stereotype": "Everything we do on stage is a
stereotype . . . You walk downstage, you cross left, you
62
lift up a tea-cup, you say 'I love you.' Everything is
essentially a stereotype."'^
Bogart, thus, wants to find a way to "put a fire under
the stereotype."'* She continues:
There should be something about the way you shake
someone's hand on stage, the way you look to the
right, the way you say a line. How can you not
. . . out of terror of being right or O.K. on the
stage . . . not categorize the line: "I know what
it means, and I know how I'm gonna say it." But
how can you look at it, how can you turn the line
or turn the gesture or turn the cross so that it
is awake? Everything on the stage is asleep.
Our job is to awaken it.'^
Second, Bogart asked the actors to be aware of (1)
lightness, (2) quickness, (3) visibility, (4) exactitude,
(5) multiplicity, and (6) continuity, when working. These
terms are taken from Italo Calvino's work Six Memos for the
Next Millennium.^^ Bogart particularly likes the notion of
"lightness." She explains Calvino's theory that because
everything in life pulls us to death, the function of art
is "the lightness that rises above the weight towards
death."'"' Bogart feels that "multiplicity through
juxtapositions" is important, because it creates richness.'°
Third, Bogart also brought up the analogy of being a
painter in front of a large canvas (as described in Chapter
IV) , encouraging the collaborators to keep what they are
working on "larger than oneself" and "undefinable."
During this first "meeting" between everyone involved
with the production, the actors did the first read-through
of the play.
Viewpoint Sessions
During the following three days of the rehearsal of The
Women, the first part of the rehearsal consisted of
viewpoint training, and the second part was "table work."
The viewpoint training took place on the rehearsal stage.
63
In the first viewpoint session the actors go through the
whole process, from the first exercises through the
introduction of all of the viewpoints (as described pp. 26-
36). Bogart explains to the actors that there are four
aspects that she hopes that they will learn from the
experience doing the viewpoint training.
First, as mentioned in Chapter III, the state one is in
the moment right before changing direction in "the turn-
jump-stop exercise" is the kind of state one should be in
when in rehearsal. Second, the training is meant to make
the actor start "listening with [her] body." Third, the
training challenges the actor to work with the notion that
anything can happen. Bogart wants the actor to bring this
spirit of working, even when a scene is fully
choreographed. Fourth, Bogart acknowledges the danger when
working with style (the art deco style, as in this
production); there's a danger that the style may "kill the
inside," or the inner life. She, thus, hopes that the
training will encourage the actors to "constantly work
together in a gutsy way."
At one point, Bogart also talks to the actors about
movement and stillness. To illustrate what she hopes to
achieve, she gives an example from film—she thinks that
great film-makers know about the importance of constant
movement. For instance, first the camera and the person
are both moving, then the camera stops while the person
continues moving by getting seated, and then turning his
head. There is constant movement. When there is finally a
"full stop," for instance a landscape shot, the "full stop"
gives meaning. Bogart hopes that they will achieve this
kind of composition in this production—constant movement,
and when there is finally a stop, the stop "gives
substance."
The next day the actors review each of the viewpoints
and then do viewpoint improvisations, starting with working
64
in lanes, then on a grid and then with free movement on the
floor (as described pp. 36-37). During the last
improvisation Bogart introduces working with themes (as
described pp. 37-38).
At the end of the session, Bogart talks to the actors.
She first of all encourages them, when working on staging
and when coming to a point when unsure of what to do—or
"when in doubt," as Bogart often says—always to go back to
the viewpoints.
Bogart also explains how in rehearsal she "sets the
body" or "sets the formal," because that is what can be
set. She feels that it is a misunderstanding that
"setting" movement or the formal takes away the actors'
freedom; on the contrary, it gives freedom. To her,
feelings are "the most precious," but one should not
attempt to "set" and then repeat emotions. Emotions should
always change, also during performance. Emotion, "Tempo,"
and "Kinesthetic Response" should always change.
At the same time, she stresses that even though "setting
the formal" is what they will be concentrating on in
rehearsal, the form is not what she is really interested
in. On one hand, their objective will be to create
"pictures" that are clear for the audience, but, at same
time, the actors should be "larger inside" (wilder,
obscene).
For the third viewpoint session, art deco chairs to be
used in the production (see Figure 5.1) are placed on
stage. This time the actors do a viewpoint improvisation
with the chairs and wearing their high-heeled character
shoes. It seems as if the character shoes, and perhaps the
actors having studied the art deco pictures put up in the
rehearsal hall, are starting to have an impact on the
actors' movements. Their movements are getting more
graceful and stylized. Also, it appears that the shoes and
the chairs start bringing the improvisation towards the
65
context of the play (as opposed to the improvisation being
purely about responding to the formal aspects). Bogart
tells the cast that she notices a progress in the group and
that she feels that they should continue doing the
viewpoint training for a short while every morning to allow
the group to develop a sense of working together.
The fourth session is brief. This time music is added
to the improvisation (as described p. 37). This, actually,
ends up being the last session. Today also is the first
staging rehearsal (in addition to continuing the "table
work").
"Table Work"
The "table work," as mentioned, took place in the
afternoons after the viewpoint sessions. Bogart and the
cast went through the entire play thoroughly, scene by
scene. It took five afternoon sessions to complete the
whole script. (Bogart had prepared the cuts of the script.
During the rehearsal, however, if an actor felt strongly
that a certain section that had been cut should be included
and suggested so, Bogart would consider it. Many times
these sections would be restored to the script.) All the
actors were present during the whole "table work" process,
even if an actor did not appear in a particular scene.
Bogart has added a new character to the play—the
Hostess. Bogart shares her thoughts about this new
character with the cast—"these are the things I know."
The Hostess is the link to the play, and her stake is what
pushes the play forward. She has complete control. Bogart
explains that "the play happens out of her [the Hostess']
body." The Hostess' moves, thus, will influence the rest
of the characters, even though they do not see her or are
not aware of her on a conscious level. There is a
connection between the Hostess and the characters. They
can, on some level, feel her, and they respond
66
"kinesthetically" to her. Bogart explains to the cast that
they will discover what this connection is during the
rehearsals.
The Hostess will be on stage throughout the play and
will introduce each scene and the characters through Clare
Boothe Luce's stage directions. She will be taking the
audience from one place to another. There will be no
black-outs in the production.
Bogart consults with Helen Gallagher, who is playing the
part, whether she feels that the Hostess should be Mary
Haines, the main character of the play, or Clare Boothe
Luce. Gallagher feels that the latter is the best choice.
In preparation for the "table work," each actor has been
asked, for each scene she is in, to make lists: one
listing fifteen facts that the actor has learned about the
character in the particular scene (what new she had found
out about the character); a second listing fifteen things
that she intuits from these facts; and a third listing what
new she has learned about the character's relationship to
each of the other characters in the scene. Before going
through each scene, the actors in the scene read their
lists to the other actors.
The actors are encouraged to make strong choices about
what one intuits or the character's inner life. The strong
emotions should be as a contrast to the women's artificial
lifestyle. During the process Bogart often encourages the
actors to think in terms of the kind of strong emotion
needed when playing Medea. Hearing the lists that the
actors have written makes Bogart start thinking that each
character is a Greek mythological character. Bogart also
feels that, since everything the characters say is "slick,"
what is underneath is important as a contrast. If the
actors were to play only on that "slick" level, everything
would end up being on that level.
67
The actors then start reading the scene—slowly, line by
line, or word by w o r d — t o explore and to make sure not to
go past something. Anyone is welcomed to stop the reading
at any time to ask a question, to make a comment, or to
share a thought or an idea with the rest. Bogart listens
intently and stops the reading frequently, sometimes when
something is not quite clear, for instance, if a line lacks
specificity or the character's intention does not come
through. She explains to the cast that she stops whenever
a line sounds general, or "I stop when it sounds like a
line from a play." Bogart asks questions: Why is the
character saying this thing? What does a certain line
mean? Does the character really mean what she is saying?
What is the character's motivation for being in the scene?
Other times Bogart may feel that the actor rushes past a
word or that a line lacks history behind it; an example is
when Sylvia says her husband's name. Bogart also helps
bring attention to possible double entendre, intention,
sarcasm, and word play, and she encourages "juicy" or
strong choices.
When an actor says two sentences the same way, Bogart
points out: "When you set something into motion, you have
to pursue it." As mentioned in Chapter IV, Bogart often
talks about the importance of "transformation." For
instance, when one takes the second step (or, as the case
with text work, when one says the second sentence), one
needs to bring something new to it. It has to transform
inside oneself.'^
When Bogart stops the reading, the actor is asked to go
back again to try something else with the line. When not
quite satisfied herself, the actor is welcomed to go back
and repeat a section. Sometimes a certain section is
repeated numerous times.
68
In an interview Bogart explains:
I use this thinking of information overload
equals pattern recognition. I try to get the
actors to know much more than they can possibly
. . . I make them decide . . . that's why I do
lists. They always have to write "Ten things
they know about this character" and all this
stuff . . . so that they almost know too much and
therefore something else starts to happen. . . .
Which just gets the actor to be specific with the
text, that they say something that other people
can understand and they hear.^°
When Gallagher asks Bogart what the purpose of the
Hostess i s — w h y she wants to tell the story of the p l a y —
Bogart reads the notes she has written about the Hostess.
Bogart does not give the answers or immediate "solutions."
Both the actor and the director share their thoughts about
the character. Bogart then encourages Gallagher to
continue working on these questions. Gallagher expresses
that she finds having listened to everyone's lists and
stories very important, because she feels that she needs to
know where the other characters and actors are "coming
from," since the other characters are part of her.
This is typical of how Bogart communicates with the
actors. When she responds to the actors' work and their
questions, and in her dialogue with them, Bogart never
tells or suggests to the actors what kind of choices they
should make, which intentions. She challenges the actor to
be specific in their choices and intentions and encourages
bold choices, but she does not provide the answers.
It
Occasionally she might say, "May I suggest that . . .
In a dialogue with Myra Lucretia Taylor, who plays Nancy,
Bogart hints to her that Nancy may be in love with Mary,
but Bogart does not push this interpretation on the actor
She just throws out this thought to stimulate the actor's
further work with the character. The actor makes her own
choices. One day Bogart suggests to the cast that each
69
character should have five contradictions that drive the
character.
During the "table work," the dramaturg, John Dias,
brings in different talks to the cast. He gives an
extensive talk about Clare Boothe Luce's life story and a
shorter one on the film noir genre. One of Bogart's
assistants, Laura Esparza, gives a talk on femininity.
When Dias talks about the art deco period to the cast,
Bogart asks the actors to notice particularly the
information about shape and lines and to let this influence
their movement work. The actors are encouraged to "steal
gestures" from the art deco style. At the same time, she
stresses that there should be a contrast between the
coldness of the style and the "heat" that is "underneath,"
or the inner life of the characters.
The rehearsal hall is filled with pictures of Clare
Boothe Luce, pictures of art deco sculptures and other art
deco art, clippings about feminism, books provided by the
dramaturg, and the model of the set.
Bogart explains to the cast that she hopes that
everything that is brought in will start associations and
discussions, and she thinks that it will eventually
"translate on stage." Again, she seems to be talking about
"information overload equals pattern recognition."
On the last day of the "table work," Bogart suggests one
sentence that could encompass the whole play: "We can't
create, so we destroy."
Staging Rehearsals
Bogart engages in extensive "table work," concentrating
on the psychological aspects of the play at the beginning
of the rehearsal period so that the actors have a solid
understanding of the play, or, in Bogart's own words, so
that the actors "know what every word means." Bogart now
hopes that, when they start the staging, she can tell the
70
actors to "stop thinking."" (Bogart also admits that the
"table work" is helpful to her personally as a director.
It forces her to listen to or pay close attention to the
language. Since she feels that at a certain point in the
rehearsals she has a tendency to pay more attention to the
choreography and the visual, rather than listening to what
the actors are saying, the "table work" is a "discipline"
to her as well.)"
As mentioned earlier, Bogart sees rehearsal as "a
meeting place between actors and director," and she sees
the stage as a place where "a meeting happens"^^ —where the
actors can meet or have an exchange on different levels (as
mentioned in Chapter IV).
The viewpoint training has stimulated an ensemble feel,
stimulated the actors to listen and respond to the whole
group and to the architecture, and stimulated the actors to
listen and respond with their bodies. It has stimulated
alertness and spontaneity. It has created a common
vocabulary for the collaborators.
When starting the staging rehearsal, it is, however,
important to continue building this vocabulary and sense of
working together. Bogart works for a long time on the
first moments of the play—to create a vocabulary for the
play so that the first moment and, thus, the following
moments will work.^" Bogart says:
The only interesting thing on stage is . . . that
a meeting happens. . . . Why go further until
something happens in the moment. That's why I
work for a long time on the first five minutes of
a play I work on. I work forever . . . then you
and the actors know what it means. . . . Because
if you really work on one section, then you know
what the thing you're cooking is. You know what
the world of it is. You understand it together
because you've created it together."
To help build this common vocabulary, all the actors are
asked to attend the first staging rehearsal of The Women,
even if they are not in this scene.
71
"Setting" the Scenes
The first staging rehearsal begins with Act I, Scene 1.
The actors have their lines fully memorized. The stage is
bare. Bogart carefully places the bridge table downstage,
diagonally and with chairs placed sideways. She leaves one
chair tilted on the floor (see Figure 5.1).
Before beginning the staging of each scene, the actors
do a line-through. Bogart listens intently as the actors
go through their lines.
The staging then begins. Bogart choreographs all the
entrances and transitions in the play in detail. The
Hostess' entrance opens the show. Helen Gallagher is asked
to enter from the upstage left wing. Gallagher enters with
a particular walk—crossing the right leg diagonally in
front of the left leg for every fourth step. Bogart asks
Gallagher to try crossing the right leg every second step,
but realizes, when this is tried, that the first manner of
walking looks the best. (Gallagher's walk is probably what
Bogart would call "Shklovsky.")
Bogart then asks for a piano chord. Upon the chord, the
Hostess is to abruptly turn and face downstage and begin
the first line: "Today, Park Avenue living rooms are
decorated with a significant indifference to the fact that
ours is still a bi-sexual society." The Hostess continues
her introduction. Upon her, "Mary Haines' living room is
not like that," Jane, the maid, (played by Sung Yun Cho),
is asked to enter from the stage right vom. Her entrance
is choreographed to the Hostess' lines—the exact timing
and the speed of her entrance, the way she puts the plates
down on the table, raises the tilted chair, starts on her
way out again, but turns to finish arranging the table,
just as the Hostess is saying, "Today, Jane, a pretty
little Irish-American maid, is arranging the tea-table."
When the Hostess announces, "Four women are playing
bridge," the actors, Myra Lucretia Taylor (Nancy),
72
Karenjune Sanchez (Peggy), Karen Kandel (Sylvia), and
Kristine Nielsen (Edith) are asked to enter on "four
women," with their furs, purses, and cigarettes, and to
create a pose upstage left. This is rehearsed several
times; it has to be quick and precise. After the word
"bridge," the women light their cigarettes. The unison
"click" of the lighters comes immediately after the word
"bridge"—as a "Kinesthetic Response." As each of the
women gets introduced, she takes her position at the bridge
table. Each cross is meticulously choreographed to the
Hostess' lines.
The first nine lines of the play have now been staged,
or "composed." This section is rehearsed several times.
When staging the bridge game, Bogart asks the four
actors to create together seven moments that express the
bridge game and the women's relationship to each other.
The actors develop the sequence of moments on their own by
letting the viewpoints and "Kinesthetic Response" lead them
from one moment to the next. From time to time Bogart
glances at the progress. When the sequence of moments has
been developed, Bogart helps "set" the sequence, making
minor adjustments. The actors then learn the sequence.
Now the text gets added. As opposed to a "traditional"
approach where the text informs each movement choice, here
the movements are developed separately. The movements and
the text are two separate entities that then are joined.
The actors take the positions of the first moment in the
sequence, and Sylvia starts with the first line: "So I said
to Howard, 'What do you expect me to do? Stay home and
darn your socks? What do we have money for? Why do we
keep servants?'" The actors search their way through,
experiencing how the lines and the movements come together.
Bogart helps "set" the timing of each line, or word, with
the sequence of movements and moments. She sometimes calls
out "Go!" to start the actor towards the next movement or
73
moment in the sequence. The movement sequence gets
repeated four times before Mary's entrance (on page 5).
The sequence is (with minor adjustments each time it is
repeated) (see Figure 5.8): (1) Everyone in their chairs
playing cards; (2) Peggy leaning away from the table; (3)
Peggy crossing to Edith's chair (see Figure 5.2); (4)
Sylvia crossing downstage right, Nancy getting up from her
chair, and Peggy crossing downstage and scratching her
foot; (5) Sylvia crossing to Nancy, having a brief exchange
with her, and Peggy crossing upstage; (6) Sylvia and Peggy
meeting, and Nancy crossing stage right; (7) Peggy crossing
to Nancy, and Sylvia crossing to and leaning on Edith's
chair; and (1) everyone seated in their chairs again. The
logistics of the card game are worked into the sequence.
Jane runs in and out with plates of sandwiches. She enters
from the stage right vom each time Sylvia is downstage
right, changes plates on the table and exits through the
upstage wing. The Hostess is present during the whole
scene, working off of what is happening among the women.
(In later rehearsals, a cleaning woman cleaning the chairs
upstage of the glass wall and a lady entering on the
balcony and leaning on the hand railing are worked into the
choreography.)
This section is extremely technical and demands a
precise execution. During this first staging rehearsal,
which lasts for four hours, five pages of the first scene
get staged.
At times Bogart has, as described above, the movement
pattern created separately from the text. This is often
done for larger group scenes that are difficult to manage.^^
Other times, often for smaller scenes,^'' the scene is "set"
gradually, moment by moment, or section by section, by
starting directly with the text. This is the case, for
instance, for the scene between Sylvia (Kandel) and Crystal
(played by Laila Robins) in Crystal's bathroom (Act II,
74
Scene 3). Crystal is in the bathtub talking on the phone
to her new lover. Buck. Sylvia enters and interrupts the
conversation. The actors start exploring the scene, while
Bogart watches. Sometimes, when she suddenly sees a
certain potential in a moment, Bogart stops. As Sylvia is
crossing towards Crystal, Bogart suggests that Sylvia sits
down on the bathtub. They do this section again. Kandel
seems to enjoy this new blocking and leans in to Crystal in
Sylvia's interrogating fashion, attempting to find out who
Crystal was talking to. The actor seems to get "mileage"
out of this new blocking. Later as Sylvia says to Crystal,
"He says men of Stephen's generation were brought up to
believe that infidelity is a sin," Bogart suggests to
Kandel, "Could you sit on 'says?' I think you'll see why."
Other times the actors stop to explore other choices.
After having gone through a few moments or a short section,
they go back to "set" what the actors just have developed.
When Bogart sees something wonderful happen that she
wants to "set," she utters: "That was great. We better do
it again"; or "That's a keeper. Could we do that again?"
Bogart makes minor adjustments and helps time or coordinate
lines or words with movements or "business." The moments
are "set" in detail.
For other scenes Bogart lets the actors explore a whole
section before they start "setting" things. When staging
the scene between Mary (played by Ellen Lauren) and Miriam
(played by Kristin Flanders) at the end of Act II, Scene 2,
for instance, Bogart watches the actors go through the rest
of the scene from Mary's phone call without stopping. She
watches what the actors bring to the scene. They then go
back and start "setting" the last part of the scene moment
by moment. From observing the actors, Bogart comes to the
realization that this entire scene starts out with large
circles and that, during the whole scene, the circular
movement pattern gradually gets smaller and smaller. She,
75
thus, suggests to Mary to do less walking during her phone
conversation.
Act II, Scene 4—the women gathering in Mary's room
after Mary's dinner—is also "set" gradually starting with
the text. It appears that the actors during the rehearsal
process have become more aware of using the viewpoints in
creating compositions. The setting is the red velvet art
deco chaise, a chair and the pedestal ashtray (used in
several other scenes). The actors create a variety of
compositions around, next to, and on the couch (see Figure
5.3). The moments happen organically in the moment. The
actors are really working with the architecture, or are
"having a dance with the architecture," to use a viewpoint
phrase. At a later rehearsal, the actors end up adjusting
some of the blocking automatically when going through the
scene.
For the final scene of the play, Mary and Crystal's
confrontation, or showdown, at the Casino Roof, the scene
is also staged by the actors letting the viewpoints lead
them in "composing" the scene, or "following the Ouija-
board. "
The first section of the scene consists of couples of
restaurant guests entering rapidly from upstage, passing
the Hostess who is in the middle of their path, functioning
in a way as a door, then having a brief exchange as they
check in their wraps to Sadie, the coat check lady (played
by Helen Harrelson), and then exiting just as rapidly as
they entered. The movement pattern is a straight line from
the doors upstage to Sadie's stool center stage and then
exiting the same way.
As they reach the point in the scene when Mary and
Miriam finally enter, Bogart realizes that at this moment
the "conventions" of the scene change. Miriam, Mary,
Crystal and Sylvia end up on a "horizontal" line, the
Hostess exits up to the balcony, and the rest of the cast
76
is downstage of the glass wall. They listen in on the
confrontation between Mary and C r y s t a l — n o w , not really as
characters but as women (see Figure 5 . 4 ) . One could say
that they become a "chorus." When the confrontation
starts, they start moving and responding guided b y the
viewpoints. A s there is a new development in the "show-
d o w n , " there is movement in the "chorus." "If you listen,"
Bogart says, "your body will know, before your mind."
Bogart also realizes that the two sides (stage left and
stage right) "mirror" each other. If someone moves on one
side, someone will move on the other side. The "chorus"
m o v e m e n t accentuates the build in the confrontation. The
sound of the shoes moving adds rhytlim and adds to the
visual effect.
A t one point, Bogart stops and asks the actors to
improve the "Spatial Relationship." A t times Bogart
choreographs certain actors to move. As they are working
their w a y through, Bogart says, "We're walking a tightrope
here." She puts the responsibility on the actors. She
admits that this scene is difficult: "I don't know where
it is going, so you have to . . . ."
Often before starting on the staging of a scene, the
actors, in conjunction with Bogart, determine the placement
of the scenery p i e c e s . For Act I, Scene 5 — t h e "exercise
s c e n e " — B o g a r t and the actors explore the various options
of the placement of the two platforms and the mirror that
will work best with the exercise routines. For the
transition to the last section of Act I, Scene 4 — t h e
confrontation between Mary and Crystal in Crystal's fitting
r o o m — t h e actors and Bogart decide to wheel the mirror
upstage. Lauren (Mary) experiments with various ways of
m o v i n g the mirror, transforming it to a "door."
77
The Musical Number J Don't
Want to Play in Your Yard
Many of the transitions from one scene to a scene in the
play are made into musical numbers, with songs from the
time period. There is also some underscoring during the
scenes. A grand piano is part of the setting (see Figure
5.1), and the pianist, Janet Hood, is present during the
entire production. The musical director, Michael Roth,
attends most of the staging rehearsals.
The second act begins with the song, I Don't Want to
Play in Your Yard. The cast, Michael Roth, and Bogart
choreograph this number together. "We're all
choreographers today," Bogart says. She shares with
everyone the "scenario" of the number. The goal is to tell
the story of the song. The cast, now playing little girls,
is divided into couples of "best friends." During the
course of the song, the friends will start quarreling and
form two groups, or "armies." It will end up in a big
fight between the "two friends," and, thus, the two groups.
The friends will then make up, and the song ends. By the
end of the number, the scenery pieces for the following
scene are to be all set up.
The second act is to start just as the first, with the
Hostess entering from the upstage left wing. This time,
however, instead of a chord, the introduction to I Don't
Want to Play in Your Yard abruptly sounds from the piano,
and the stage is suddenly filled with the whole cast—
giggling, screaming and playing little girls. They quickly
line up in an inverted "V" formation with the "point"
facing upstage and with the two friends opposite of each
other in the "V." This entrance is rehearsed over and over
again. It is important that the actors bursting on to the
stage is sudden and a total surprise to the audience, and
that the actors end up in an exact "V" formation. As the
entrance is being repeated one more time, Bogart warns the
78
cast that this rehearsal will be "tedious." "But," she
assures then, "you'll love it later!"
When the actors finally are lined up in the correct
position, they are asked to sing the first phrase of the
song and to create "choreography" by doing gestures along
with the song. This brings about the stereotypical,
"cute," and funny gestures that tend to appear when adults
play children. Bogart chooses a few of these gestures.
The actors who had created the selected gestures teach them
to the rest of the actors. These gestures, thus, become
the choreography of the first phrase of the song. The next
phrase is choreographed in the same manner.
On the next phrase, everyone is to cross diagonally from
the inverted "V" and end up in another "V" formation, this
time with the "point" facing downstage. The "traffic
pattern" for the cross is worked out. The two friends will
meet at one point during the cross. The actors are asked
to work "kinesthetically" off of each other. The actors
then add variation or texture to the cross. Bogart chooses
certain gestures and "business" (playing "patty cake,"
skipping, and jumping) and these are worked into the
choreography. The cross creates for a moment the lively
and chaotic feel of a crowd of girls outside their school,
until they once again are lined up in the "V."
For the next phrases, choreography is "set, " as with the
first phrases. As the quarrel gets more "heated," two
"armies" are being formed—each "army" lined up on each
side of the "V." Each "army" moves swiftly in a line down
to the "point" of the "V" and then turns and continues
straight upstage. This creates a sweeping-like movement.
Roth at this point adjusts the timing of this movement, so
that the movement builds with the build in the music. At
times Roth also makes adjustments in the choreography,
facilitating the actors' projection.
79
Lines get drawn "in the sand." Three couples then start
a fist-fight, ending up with one of the two flat on the
floor. Regret, however, immediately takes over, and the
three couples make up, influencing the rest of the couples
to embrace and make up. The embraces end up creating a
momentary tableau, which has variation and is
compositionally interesting. It is created naturally out
of the action in the moment, without Bogart's staging it.
Bogart remarks that Karen Kandel's and Kristin Flanders'
embrace looks "Shklovsky." To make this section even
"cleaner," each couple determines the exact position on the
stage for the two of them to meet.
Again, there is a cross to the downstage "V" formation,
this time allowing the scenery pieces to be quickly wheeled
into position for the next scene. For the "refrain," the
actors perform the same gestures as the first time, but
this time as adults. For the end of the number, the actors
are asked to create a final tableau upstage, being women at
a cocktail party who are checking each other out (see
Figure 5.5). Again the "traffic pattern" is worked out in
detail. During the last four measures of the song, the
cast exits just as quickly as they entered.
In a later rehearsal some adjustments are made to the
choreography, and texture is added. To add more detail and
precision to the first cross from the inverted "V" upstage
and to the "V" downstage, each of the couples is asked to
perform their cross to the rest of the cast. All the
couples then go off for a minute to add more detail to
their cross. All the crosses are then coordinated. As
they do their own sequence, each couple needs to play off
of the rest of the couples.
When staging this number, Bogart had the basic
"scenario" and the general movement patterns, or
formations, prepared, while the actors created the texture
or created the detailed choreography.
80
Preparing for Rehearsal
As discussed earlier, Bogart does not have a specific
"want" or vision that she wishes the actors to embody.
This does not mean, however, that she does not prepare for
rehearsal. On the other hand, she prepares extensively.
There is a certain procedure—a "discipline"—that she
follows before each rehearsal:
I take out my notebook and I write . . . the
date, and then I write the word "intentions," and
I force myself to write down what I intend for
the rehearsal to accomplish. This is crazy, I
know this is crazy. And then I write the word
"procedure." And then I write down how I expect
to get to that place . . . . Then after the
rehearsal, before the next one, I have to write
the word "did," so I have to describe what I did.
And then after that I have to write the word
"direction," and I have to write where I think we
need to go.^^
As she creates a structure for the actors—the choreography
or the form that gives the actors freedom—this procedure
has become a structure to herself, as a director. She
continues:
I write those words down, and make myself write
what I am intending to do. Because if I don't,
then I don't feel free. When I do, I feel like I
can deviate. I can do anything I want, as long
as I know where we're headed . . . . But if I
come in and I don't really know what I'm going
for, I don't know what to do with it, you know.
But if I know where I'm headed, if I have written
down, even exactly what I do, I can take detours,
I can make up things, but I have to have that.
As preparation for the staging, Bogart usually determines a
floor design, a different floor pattern for each scene—an
"X, " a circle, a triangle, a line, a "T."^^ For The Women
Act I, Scene 1, the pattern was a "V" shape with the table
diagonally placed downstage at the point of the "V." For
Act 11/ Scene 3, the pattern was diagonals creating an X,
with the bathtub placed at the axis. The pattern for Act
II, Scene 5, was a triangle with one corner downstage, the
81
position of Sadie's stool, and with the opposite side along
the upstage glass wall.
Juxtaposition of Text and Choreography

Bogart, as described above, often uses the approach of
having the choreography or movement pattern created
separately from the text. As mentioned, it is often done
for practical reasons for larger group scenes. The
approach, furthermore, is a reflection of Bogart's
philosophy of juxtaposing text and choreography. She does
not believe that movement should always illustrate the
text. She finds it "frustrating" when the characters, or
actors, do "exactly what they're saying."^° Acknowledging
the influence from Diirrenmatt, Bogart believes in creating
a tension or "disagreement" on stage between what the
audience members can see and what they can hear.^' When
asked why she juxtaposes movement and text, Bogart answers:
Because it's what I see in life. People don't
say what they do, or do what they say. They
usually are doing one thing and saying another.
So you [the audience] can take in information
about the relationship on the stage with your
eyes and with your ears, but they can be
dif ferent .^^
For the Hostess' introductions, for instance, Bogart wants
the simultaneous action in the scene "proper" to be
"adjacent" to what the Hostess describes.
Juxtaposing the text and the movements or the moments,
creates a new type of experience—and a new challenge—for
the actor. As opposed to relying on the logic of the text
to shape the scene, now chance plays a larger role in the
creation of the scene. The actor, finding herself in a
certain pose or situation or doing a certain movement and
then suddenly having a certain line coincide with what she
is doing physically, encounters a new kind of situation.
The actor is now faced with the stimuli from both the text
and from the choreography, and these may not necessarily be
82
similar. The actor's challenge now appears to be to
respond to all of these stimuli and make something new out
of this moment.
This approach appears to add new possibilities to the
scene. First, the number of stimuli appear to open up for
a number of possibilities to occur in the scene. The scene
may suddenly take a new direction. Second, the approach
encourages the actor to respond or create in the moment.
She cannot rely on pre-planned effects but is forced to
work spontaneously. Third, it demands that the actor
constantly is open to and listens to what is going on
around her. Fourth, the spontaneity of the situation seems
to encourage the actors to work in a manner that may
facilitate the inner life to remain fluid. It challenges
the actor to make new discoveries.
In Act I, Scene 4, during the confrontation between Mary
and Crystal in Crystal's fitting room, Mary is gradually
losing ground. She decides to leave the room and is
heading towards the door—"That's all I have to say."
Crystal, however, is not going to let Mary off so easily.
She provokes Mary: "Stephen's not tired of me yet, Mrs.
Haines." Mary makes a final attempt to insult Crystal, but
she is obviously not quite as quick as Crystal, and she
continues losing ground. At this point, if staging the
scene following the text, the logical choice would probably
be to have Mary continue towards the door. According to
the movement sequence already created, however, Mary is to
go back into the room and walk past Crystal, who happens to
be seated in a provocative pose. Mary, thus, has to pull
herself together and gather even more courage to attempt to
stroll past Crystal in as self-assured a manner as
possible. This adds new depth to the scene.
Separating the movements and text may add depth,
richness, tension, irony, and profound moments. It also
adds possibility for interesting or funny juxtapositions or
83
situations to happen. As Edith is being "pursued" by the
Instructress (Act I, Scene 5) Edith (looking hilarious
already, in sheets and a horrendous looking "facial
apparatus") ends up falling onto the platform, with the
sheet flapping up in her face.
Bogart may also be using this approach to create
obstacles for the actors. She believes in creating
obstacles for oneself, and she often says that "the process
of being an artist is to be in off-balance."^^
These juxtapositions may add richness, but at times they
do not work. Bogart, however, does not follow this
approach blindly or slavishly. If the moments do not work,
she makes adjustments or she may drop the already developed
movements that do not work. Act I, Scene 6—Jane telling
Maggie, the cook, the shocking news about Mary and
Stephen's break-up—ends up being a choreography with two
actors, a stool, two tea-cups and saucers, and a newspaper
on a six by eight foot area. The actors had first
developed a movement sequence of nine moments. Later in
the rehearsal period some of the extreme poses are cut—
Maggie "seated" on Jane's back, and Jane lying on the floor
with Maggie standing over her and leaning down reading the
paper. In her notes to the actors, Bogart says that she
feels that the choreography at certain places is "getting
in the way of your playing the scene."^^ "Your director
was being unnecessarily baroque," she adds.
Collaboration: "Composition"
Whether developing the choreography separately from the
text or starting directly with the text, Bogart always
"sets" or "composes" the scene when first staging it. The
actors and she explore a section, and they then "set" the
section in detail, or "make a composition." They then
repeat the section and let the momentum of it bring them
into the next moments. This next section then gets "set."
84
In this manner the whole scene gradually gets "set." In an
interview Bogart says:
And then we start. And I'll give . . . "enter
from the vom," or something, and they [the
actors] will enter and make a composition about
the first moment. I usually stop after that and
I go back and do it again. . . . I do things over
and over and over and over again. And we set
every moment the first time through, we set
everything to, you know . . . the way the hand
sits here . . . everything. But it's explored
and we set and we explore. It's not an
improvisation at all.^^
The sound of the language, sounds and noises are
important in the "composition" of the mise en scene. The
click of a lighter, a slam, or the snap of a purse closing
become important components in the "composition." Bogart
makes "orchestrations" of gestures, poses, movements,
furniture pieces being wheeled on stage, glances, the
turning of a head, lines, words, and sounds. One could say
that all these become part of the "melody line" of the
"composition."
Act I, Scene 2—Michael's beauty salon—starts with the
sudden emergence of a procession with the Countess de Lage
"at the helm." The Countess (played by Lola Pashalinski),
seated in a comfortable arm chair, is being pushed on stage
by a train of beauticians and helpers. On the line, "An
afternoon, a few days later. A hairdressing booth in
Michael's. The booth is, to put it mildly, full," the
snake-like train has arrived, and everyone is in place
executing the various operations (see Figure 5.6). The
Hostess continues: "The Countess de Lage"—(the Countess
lowers the magazine she is reading revealing a head with
hairs sticking out of the "frosting-cap")—"is having her
hair dyed. Olga"—(the Countess reaches Olga her hand)—
"is doing her nails. Her fat bare feet rest in the lap of
the Pedicurist."—(she stretches out her foot)—"1st
Hairdresser"—(1st Hairdresser lifts the bottle of dye) —
85
"applies the dye. 2nd Hairdresser"—(2nd Hairdresser looks
at the clock hanging in a string around her neck)—"times
the operation. The Countess, apparently inured to public
execution, smokes"—(she puts a cigarette in her mouth)—
"reads magazine on her lap, occasionally nibbles a
sandwich"—(takes sandwich from plate)—"which Olga passes
her from a tray near her instruments."
When the Countess complains about the "burning" dye,
"It's dribbling down my neck!" and 2nd Hairdresser
consoles, "Be brave!"—1st Hairdresser snaps the towel from
2nd Hairdresser's shoulder. (The timing and the sound of
this snap is rehearsed repeatedly.)
Miriam (in a mud-mask) enters suddenly from upstage
ending up center stage: "Whoops!"—(she snaps her
cigarette case shut)—"I thought I was in here."—(she
then sees the Countess in the imaginary mirror downstage)--
"Why, hiya. Countess de Lage."—(she turns towards the
Countess)—"Guess who I am?" Euphie, behind the three
chairs upstage, steps up onto one of the chairs, holding up
the pedestal ashtray: "Mustn't talk. Miss Aarons. You'll
crack your mud-mask." Miriam: "I was half-cracked to let
you put this glop on me."—(she crosses quickly upstage and
gets seated).
The Countess, thus, being introduced to the concept of
"mud masks" for the first time, asks, "What does a mud mask
do for you?"—the beauticians, realizing the potential for
more business, take a glance downstage for a beat.
The whole scene ends with a "chorus" of voices coming
from different locations in the theatre—stage left, stage
right and the two voms: "Not too hot!" "My sinus!" "So
she said:" "I wouldn't want anybody in the world to know."
"And I said:" "My dear, you know you can trust me!"
For the short section between Crystal, "lolling" in her
bathtub, and Helene, the French maid (Act II, Scene 3), all
the "business" is orchestrated to the dialogue in a similar
86
way. Helene (played by Alison Russo) enters with a bouquet
of flowers and puts it next to the bathtub: "Madame has
been soaking an hour." Crystal (Robins): "So what?" —
(Crystal lowers the magazine she is reading). Helene:
"But monsieur -." Crystal: "Monsieur is going out with me
and my friends, whether he likes it or not."—(Helene hands
Crystal the ashtray)—"Has that kid gone home yet?"
Helene: "Mademoiselle Mary has just finished the supper
with her daddy."—(Helene opens the bath towel with a snap
and then studies herself briefly in the mirror upstage of
Crystal before starting crossing downstage)—"Madame,
monsieur is so anxious that you say good night to her."
Crystal: "Listen,"—(Helene gets seated on the stool
downstage of the bathtub)—"that kid doesn't want to bid me
beddy-bye any more than I do. He's tried for two years to
cram us down each other's throats."—(Crystal throws the
bouquet of flowers on the floor)—"Let her go home to her
mommer."—(she throws the magazine on the floor, then
passes Helene a brush)—"Here - scrub - Some day I'm going
to slap that kid down. She's too - Ow!"—(she tears the
brush from Helene and throws it and then a sponge on the
floor)—"You're taking my skin off - Oh, I'm so bored I
could - Helene, never marry a man who's deserted a 'good
woman.' He's as cheerful as a man who's murdered his poor
old mother."—(Helene lights Crystal a cigarette). The
Hostess announces that the phone rings, and Crystal signals
for Helene to leave the room.
The choreography, or "orchestration, " helps give
emphasis or punctuate certain moments or lines. When 1st
Saleswoman in Act I, Scene 4, tells the two salesgirls,
"Girls, show in Number 3 to Miss Allen," it makes Mary and
Sylvia aware that Mary's rival. Crystal, is actually in the
fitting room next door. The significance of the moment is
given more emphasis by the salesgirls, with their arms
loaded with dresses, running with tiny steps across the
87
stage to the other fitting room. Sylvia waits with her
next line, "Did you say Miss Allen?" until they have
completed the cross. In addition to its comic effect, the
movement and the sound of the tiny steps punctuate the
Saleswoman's line.
When staging a section or an entrance, before "setting"
the exact choreography to it, Bogart often asks the actor
to say the line or sing the phrase, so that she can
"orchestrate" the movement and sound with the sound of the
language or the rhythm of the moment. In the transition
number. Solitude (from Scene 2 to Scene 3 in Act II), a
"chorus" of women upstage listens to Mary's phone
conversation and gradually crosses downstage to begin the
song. In order to "set" the exact timing of each of the
actors' entrances, Bogart first has to listen to the
dialogue; she has to "hear, feel and sense," she says.
Again, the actor is the co-creator. It is the way the
actor says the line, rather than what Bogart feels the line
should sound like, that becomes the basis for the
"composition."
Bogart watches and listens to the actors as they explore
the scene or the moment. She then helps them "set" it. By
finding the exact timing of a sound, a word, a movement or
a gesture, Bogart helps the actors unleash the latent
dynamics in the moment.
Specificity and exactitude are crucial at this stage.
Many may say that by "setting" everything so precisely, one
restricts or stifles the actor and that this seems like an
authoritarian way of directing. It appears, on the other
hand, that Bogart helps amplify what the actors already are
bringing to the scene. It is all about what the actors
create and what happens in the moment, not an embodiment of
Bogart's own vision.
It also appears that Bogart, by working in detail,
instills in the actors an increased awareness of rhythm and
88
"orchestration." During the rehearsal process, they seem
to start utilizing sounds and creating movement and
business along with the dialogue more. As with the
viewpoint training, it gets the actor attuned to the
compositional aspects of creating a scene.
Bogart watches the actors closely and responds to what
they are bringing to the scene and to what is happening in
the moment. She appears to watch for the actors' impulses,
reassuring and helping them follow their impulses. Often
when an actor hesitates a moment, Bogart calls "Go!" She
helps push the actor along. As mentioned in Chapter IV,
Bogart sees the rehearsal process like an "exquisite
pressure." She perceives that her job as a director is to
"push things on."
Collaboration:
Communication with the Actors
The rehearsal is conducted very much in the spirit of
collaboration. If the actors are having problems with a
certain moment and are not quite sure where to take it,
Bogart may stop and ask, "May I make a suggestion"; "Could
you try something? It may be too much"; or "I have an
idea." Bogart seems to give these suggestions to stimulate
the actors or to steer them back on the track of
exploration again. When the actors try something that does
not quite seem to work, Bogart may suggest that they try
something different. When during the beginning of Act II,
Scene 5, the Countess leans over Sadie, Bogart says, "I
don't know about this." When working on simplifying the
staging of Act I, Scene 3, as Lynn Cohen (Mrs. Morehead)
begins to cross on "One more piece of motherly advice,"
Bogart stops for a moment and says: "Are you sure?" This
makes Cohen explore this moment again, and she ends up
remaining center stage.
89
When staging Act I, Scene 5 (Elizabeth Arden's beauty
salon), as the actors' discussion about what exercise
routine to work into the choreography does not really seem
to develop, Bogart says jokingly, "Well, I guess I'll
direct it."
As with the "table work," the actors are encouraged to
give suggestions to each other during the staging
rehearsal. In Act II, Scene 4, Taylor (Nancy) is working
on how to wear her stole as she exits. The others come
with suggestions—letting the stole slide off, or wrap it
around her body. As Taylor tries these different choices,
the others call out approvingly, "That works." Bogart
listens to this exchange and watches the various options
being tried out.
When asked if the actors giving comments to each other
sometimes creates problems between the cast members, Bogart
responds: "Well, sure. But they're not problems I want to
avoid. I don't like situations where people don't say
anything. "^^
During the rehearsal process, Bogart continues what she
started with in the viewpoint training—to stimulate the
actors to make compositionally strong choices. When
staging Act I, Scene 4, at one point Robins (Crystal) leans
against the mirror as Mary is looking at herself at the
other side of the mirror (see Figure 5.7). Bogart then
asks Robins to step out of the scene and watch. Bogart
takes the same pose and then shows how a much stronger
choice instead would be to take a couple of steps back.
Bogart also repeatedly encourages the actors to make
choices that create moments that are "awake." "That was
very Shklovsky," she often side-coaches. As the actors,
together with Bogart, are choreographing Down in the
Depths, Bogart reassures the actors that now at least the
movement patterns are created. She adds that they will
later "make them more Shklovsky."
90
As mentioned in Chapter IV, Bogart does not interfere
with the actors' character work, and she never asks the
actor what she is feeling. Occasionally, if something is
unclear, she might ask an actor questions to get her to
consider the intention of the moment more strongly or to
encourage more specificity:
If I don't understand what the actor is doing or
saying, I'll stop and say, "What are you doing?
What's your intention at this moment? What are
you working on?" And that's only if I don't
understand. If I understand what they're doing,
I never ask them. . . . If it seems right to me
. . . and again, it's not a question as they're
doing something I want them to do. I have no
idea what I want them to do. But if it feels
right to me, then . . . I will never ask them
what they're working on, you know . . . or what
their intentions are, as long as they're clear.
It's only when they're not clear, or if I'm not
clear .^''
When working the scene between Mary and Crystal in Act
I, Scene 4, as Mary is entering the room, Bogart walks over
to the actors and suggests that "there's a lot more" in
this moment. At the end of the scene, Bogart and Robins
(Crystal) discuss what is happening with Crystal at this
point. Bogart asks: "How do you deal with the hurt? I
can't get inside to what's happening to her." She adds
that she, as a viewer, feels excluded.
When a certain cross, glance, or movement is being
choreographed (particularly when this is as a juxtaposition
to the text), the actor needs to find a motivation for it.
Bogart often says to the actor, "Find a deep dark secret."
Again, as with the "table-work," Bogart does not give
the answers; she only stimulates further exploration. She
helps the actor get back on track again and "pushes" her to
explore even deeper. Occasionally she may make a
suggestion. When the Nurse (played by Maria Porter) (in
Act 11/ Scene 1) gives the lecture, "Try having a baby in a
cold filthy kitchen, without ether . . . ," Bogart
91
suggests that perhaps the Nurse is really talking about
herself. Bogart may also come with a suggestion if the
actor expresses that she wants some help with her character
or with a motivation choice.
In this dialogue, however, Bogart does not seem to want
the actors to come up with immediate answers. As mentioned
earlier, Bogart wants to keep the inner life of the
characters fluid. Furthermore, rather than arriving at
decisions through talking, Bogart seems to encourage the
actors to try something and, if it does not work, to try
something new. She seems to encourage the actor to
experiment with different choices, rather than making
definite decisions too early. This seems to be what she is
encouraging when Sanchez (Peggy) asks Bogart if her crying
segment when visiting Edith at the hospital (Act II, Scene
1) is "little bit too much," and Bogart responds, "I don't
know."
As discussed earlier, Bogart does not have a certain
"want" for the scene, or, in her own words, she watches
"with no desire." When an actor asks what Bogart has in
mind about her character, Bogart's most likely response is:
"I rarely have anything in mind."
The work atmosphere that Bogart creates is one of
openness, acceptance, reassurance, and respect for the
actors' contributions. There is also a spirit of
playfulness and having fun. "Shtick" is encouraged; and,
even though much of the "shtick" eventually gets tightened
up or eliminated, the original spirit in which the scene
was staged seems to remain within it. When something funny
or outrageous happens, Bogart jokingly responds to the
actor(s): "Two words for you—'Never less!'" In addition,
as mentioned, Bogart wants to keep a "pressure" during the
rehearsal. She acknowledges Tadashi Suzuki for reminding
her about the importance of rigor and the value of
obstacles in the rehearsal. She says: "We Americans are
92
not so rigorous, and he [Suzuki] makes me really think
about rigor. And he reminds me how much I can ask of an
actor."^' Bogart, thus, attempts to "push" the actor: "I
try to be a little bit hard, you know, like 'O.K. Go!'—
not soft, too much like 'let's talk,'—but 'What! What!
What! What! What! Go!' like that."'' The rehearsals also
demand patience, persistence and precision as sections are
rehearsed to the minutest detail and repeated time after
time. As the actors are working on a technical and
detailed section, Bogart may throw in an occasional dry
remark: "I have two words for you—'Good Luck!'"
The "Rebirth" or "Resurrection"

of the Scenes
As quoted at the end of the previous chapter, Bogart
views "setting" a scene as a "violent" but "necessary" act,
and that by "setting" something, one "kills" it, so that
the next task is to bring it "back to life again." She
believes that
the art begins . . . not when it's done in its
natural stage when you first do something
beautiful and natural, but when you've been able
to create it over again.
"Bringing" the "bridge scene" (Act I, Scene 1) "back to
life" was particularly hard, due to its highly technical
nature. All scenes were choreographed in detail, but this
scene, with its complicated movement sequence and the
logistics of the card game needed a particular amount of
work. The scene was staged 4 December, and reworked 7 and
14 December. As the actors start going through the scene
again, much of the effort is to remember the exact
choreography—exact positions, crosses, movements, when to
play the cards, when to look a certain direction, and the
exact timing of certain lines. The fact that text and
movements at times are disparate adds to the complexity of
the scene.
93
The first time through, things flowed naturally. The
actors responded "kinesthetically" to what was going on in
the moment, and they found motivations in the moment. This
stage, however, appears to be the painstaking process of
memorizing the precise choreography until it becomes second
nature and the whole scene regains its natural flow.
During this stage, Bogart and the actors also make
adjustments in the staging. Scenes are being "cleaned up,"
removing excess movement patterns and "shtick" and
tightening up pauses. Entrances and transitions are being
"tightened up." When reworking the scenes and eventually,
during the fourth week of rehearsal in run-throughs, Bogart
is getting gradually more specific in her notes about which
pauses to cut, about the exact word to enter on, turn on,
or begin a cross on, and in pointing out which moments that
could be explored more—"There's is more in there."
The choreography of the "bridge scene" finally gets
memorized. When running through the section on 15
December, Bogart expresses that it is "wonderful"—that the
actors have learned the choreography. Now they finally can
"start working" on this section. The actors seem to be
comfortable with the choreography, and there is again a
flow in the scene. Again, the actors are responding
"kinesthetically" to each other. After the first run-
through on 20 December, Bogart remarks that she notices
that the choreography of the show is starting to be "down-
played, " which she feels is good. Now the actors should
have fun with the scenes. The scene appears to be at the
stage when it can be "reborn" or "resurrected" again.
As discussed earlier, Bogart's philosophy is to "set"
the form but not the emotions, so that the emotions, the
inner life of the character, can remain fluid. By
"setting" the form in detail, the actors are relieved of
the concern of what to do physically with their bodies and,
thus, are given freedom—freedom to interpret.
94
Bogart compares this stage of interpretation to the
pianist interpreting a piece of music. The form is set,
but the pianist still has freedom in interpretation: "It's
like when you play Chopin. . . . So it's not interesting
playing an exact replica of the notes, it's how you manage
the notes. And each time you play, you bring something
different to them."'°
The form is "set," Bogart explains to the cast, "so that
you can attack it differently."*' She explains about this
stage:
The choreography does a lot of work for you—the
visuals are all there—now you can concentrate on
the characters and the situations.
Now the characters need to live in the context.
You don't have to make the situations work—
they're there.*^
Use the text, the characters and the situation."'

Work off of the actors around you. Off what they
are really giving you in the moment in each
scene.""
Emotions are, to Bogart, the most precious element; they
should remain fluid. Bogart encourages the actors to
always try something new, both when reworking scenes during
the rehearsals and during the performances. As mentioned
earlier in this chapter, the actor should continue working
with the notion that anything can happen, an aspect the
viewpoint training emphasizes. Emotions, "Kinesthetic
Response," and "Tempo" should always remain fluid. Bogart
repeatedly tells the cast: "Always new. Always different.
Always better."
After the run-through on 23 December, Bogart writes in
her response to the actors:
The benefit of carefully wrought and hewn
choreography is that it should give you more
freedom of interpretation. Each time that you
think that you know the meaning of a word or
95
expression it should surprise you with its new
possibilities. This is vital to our approach.
It doesn't mean that you have to force new
meaning into the text; it means that you must be
open [to] its many vicissitudes. That also
demands that you listen very closely to the way
the text is being played around you. That is
your nourisliment. Like a scat singer in relation
to the base-line."^
She continues by encouraging "irreverence" in the work:
The irreverence is achieved by not assuming that
one's first take on the characters and
interactions and words are necessarily the right
ones. How can you get swept into the out of
balance world of this play?"
To explain further what she means by "irreverence" in the
work, she points to certain moments that she felt this
happened. To Taylor (Nancy) she writes about the moment
"Too, too - too!" (Act I, Scene 1 ) :
You reinvented something that has already had a
satisfactory meaning but you brought it to a new
level and we learned new stuff about Nancy through
it."^
To Porter (1st Saleswoman) about her "sherry line" (Act I,
Scene 4 ) , she writes:
It is another example of WAKING UP THE SITUATION
so that it is not just what is defined by the
first reading of the words, but cracks open the
play. It's the kind of irreverence and thrill of
the situation that makes the whole play work
best."'
And she writes to Nielsen (Edith) about the "Wagner line"
(Act II, Scene 4 ) :
You are swept into the world and you have decided
to live in a particular way and then in little
surprise moments you realize the price you pay.
But these realizations are fleeting. But
unforgettable for us."'
Furthermore, Bogart reminds the actors that the
characters should be "momentarily surprised by what
happens":
96
I learned how important it is to let things
happen to these characters. Not to telegraph
where the play is going, but to let the moments,
the story, catch us anew each time. The
characters don't have the benefit of an overview
that we might feel as creators. They are going
through the existential blips and bleeps as the
moments and events avalanche around them. They
are just doing the best they can. They are at
best momentarily surprised by what happens to
them and to those around them.^°
"Letting the audience inside"^' is a term that Bogart
frequently uses when talking about acting. In her response
to the actors, Bogart also explains that she is looking for
"transparency" in the actors:
By transparency I mean being able to look into
each person on the stage and see inside.
Transparency is when I don't feel that I am being
assaulted with ideas but that I am allowed inside
a human moment, a discovery, an insight, a
denial, a lie, a truth. The human comedy.^^
Technical Rehearsals and Preview Week

The first day that the actors got to work on the actual
set (see Figure 5.1) was 28 December. Before the spacing
rehearsal, Bogart asks the cast to "listen to the
architecture." She also encourages the actors to use the
technical rehearsals to work on exactitude—to figure out
exactly how many steps to take for a certain entrance or
cross, for example.
It takes three days of rehearsal to go through the
entire show. Now, being on the actual set, having the
Plexiglas wall with the three doors, the pillars, the
spiral staircase and the balcony, the timing of the
entrances need to be adjusted. Entrances are, again,
rehearsed to the minutest detail. Furthermore, the
simultaneous presence of the cleaning woman (played by
Alison Russo) and various women in the "glass corridor" and
on the balcony is now being choreographed along with the
97
scenes. These women, seated in the chairs, leaning on the
railing and the pillars, in many ways become a "chorus" in
the production. The actors, when not in a scene, are
encouraged to be in this "chorus." The actors use the
viewpoints to work off of the scene "proper." At times
Bogart asks a certain actor to enter, and at times she
choreographs the exact entrance and cross along with the
action of the scene "proper."
Staging the beginning of Act II, the actors are asked to
enter the "glass corridor" towards the end of the
intermission to take their positions for the opening
number. Bogart asks the actors to enter in a "low-key
deco" manner. She assigns the order for each actor to
enter. The actors enter and take a pose, working
"kinesthetically" off of each other.
During these rehearsals the process of clarifying and
tightening up the scenes continues.
The production has an elaborate and vibrant lighting
(650 instruments are hung for the show). Each entrance,
each transition, and each scene has a number of light cues.
Now the lighting, the visual images, and the scene changes
become part of the complete "orchestration" or
"composition."
There is an extraordinary and productive work atmosphere
in the theatre—it is a place to create and to work out
problems. Everyone—the lighting designer, Mimi Jordan
Sherin; the set designer, Loy Arcenas; the musical
director, Michael Roth; Bogart; the stage managers and the
technical crew—work together. Everyone is considerate to
the others' needs to work things out. If the lighting
designer needs to reset a light cue or level, the scene is
stopped. Bogart often uses this time to rehearse a certain
section or go into quiet conference with the actors in the
scene. At times Bogart stops the scene to work out a
certain moment or entrance. Other times the musical
98
director, the set designer or the technical crew need to
work out certain problems.
As the rehearsal nears the preview week and the pressure
rises, this atmosphere does not change. Not ending up
having a full technical run-through until the morning of
the first preview, everyone remains apparently calm. It
appears that Bogart's considerate, calm and encouraging
personality permeates this productive work atmosphere.
After the first preview, Bogart shares with the cast
that there may be more to get out of the final moments of
the play—that perhaps Crystal does not "capitulate right
away."" "Perhaps there is a tense moment that we've
skipped," she adds. The re-staging of this moment may
serve as an example how, through the process, the actors
have been treated as co-creators and feel genuinely
responsible for the whole show. Bogart asks the actors to
go back to the "Ouija-board" to start a new exploration of
this final moment. Instead of Mary's getting up
immediately after Nancy's line, "There's a gentleman called
Mr. Haines. He says he's been waiting a long time for his
wife," Crystal first crosses to the pile of furs. As she
bends down to pick up her wrap, right in front of Mary,
there is a brief exchange between the two before Crystal
begins crossing upstage. Then suddenly Mary gets up and
answers Nancy's announcement: "J am coming." As this new
moment has been created, the whole cast literally and
genuinely cheers at this accomplishment.
Actors' Response about the Process

To realize a sense of the actors' response about the
rehearsal process for The Women some of the actors were
asked to share their thoughts and feelings about the
experience and about this approach to staging. Lynn Cohen^"
(Mrs. Morehead, 1st Woman), Karen Kandel" (Sylvia), Ellen
Lauren^^ (Mary) , Maria Porter" (Olga, 1st Saleswoman,
99
Maggie, Nurse, Cigarettes Girl), Laila Robins^' (Crystal),
and Myra Lucretia Taylor^^ (Nancy) were willing to take some
time between scenes during a busy preview week to share
their thoughts.
Ensemble and Collaboration

One of the aspects that all of the actors interviewed
found to be so remarkable about this rehearsal process was
the unique sense of ensemble in the company. "There's a
wonderful atmosphere . . . an ensemble feeling," Cohen
says. The actors were also impressed about how Bogart was
able to create such an ensemble of actors with such varied
backgrounds and training and in such short time. They also
appreciated the common vocabulary Bogart established during
the viewpoint sessions and the "table work."
Porter says:
The thing that I find remarkable about working
with Anne is her generosity of spirit and her
ability to bring people from different
backgrounds and philosophies together . . . in
creating an ensemble in a relatively short amount
of time, which I've never seen another director
do.
She's also, again in a relatively short amount of
time, she's able to give people a common
vocabulary . . . a physical vocabulary, which,
again, is unheard of, I think, in most mainstream
venues. And she does it without the actors
having the same kind of training, necessarily.
Robins also appreciated how the viewpoint sessions
established a "common vocabulary": "I thought it was way
of really bringing the cast close together, quickly."
About the stories or anecdotes that Bogart told to the
cast the first day of rehearsal, Taylor says:
I love the way she also gave us all a vocabulary
to work with. All the little stories she told at
the beginning were very clever of her. She
completely gave us a vocabulary with which to
work—"There could be more"; [Taylor refers to
100
one of Bogart's stories] . . . all she would need
to say was, "could be," and you knew. And she's
brave that way. . . . Shklovsky, which is another
brilliant idea. It's . . . also part of the
vocabulary that she gave us.
The collaborative work atmosphere was another aspect
that frequently came up during the conversations. Robins
says:
And I think Anne just creates an environment
. . . for people to feel comfortable and free to
create. Everything you bring to the rehearsal is
embraced and tried and looked at. She relies on
. . . she challenges us to bring in things. She
doesn't really dictate. . . . She's creating an
environment for it to happen . . . she really
makes you feel that you're creating . . . that
you're helping create the piece. . . . She makes
you feel like your contribution is very
important. . . . You really feel that you are an
integral part of the creative process.
Porter has a similar response:
Most directors are not interested . . . in the
collective process, of . . . working in
collaborative process. Most [of] . . . the
directors that I've worked with aren't especially
interested in actors' input, especially about
things that are not directly related to their
particular roles. So Anne's generosity and
letting people contribute to the whole is unique.
Taylor tells about one instance when she and Bogart had
had different interpretations about the character of Nancy,
but how Bogart fully respected Taylor's choice. Taylor
also appreciated that it was possible to make changes in
character choices even late in the process. She says:
"She gives you so much freedom . . . you don't even
recognize it, because you're so used to working the other
way." On the other hand, she stresses that, along with all
this freedom, a heavier responsibility rests with the
actor:
It's the hardest I've ever worked. Because the
actor is responsible for so much. . . . You know,
I get so excited about it, and yet there's not a
101
day that I don't get up and wish that I could run
away. Because there is so much that you're
responsible for. It's a great, great burden to
be so responsible for the total picture, the
total look.
The actors also found the way that Bogart trusts the
actors remarkable. Being given so much trust and not
having the director interfere with the character work is
quite unusual. Kandel tells about how she still, after
having worked on several productions with Bogart, tends to
forget how Bogart fully trusts the actor to develop her
character and, thus, does not always comment on her work.
She explains how this sometimes can make one feel a little
"isolated":
She totally trusts her actors. So I think that
if you're going in a direction that's not right,
she'll come to you, which she has done to me.
When she doesn't say anything and you're just
going along on your own, you're feeling a kind of
. . . isolated and abandoned. It's because where
you're going is the right place. And she doesn't
want to interfere with that. She just lets it
go. You know . . . and it's hard to trust that.
It's hard for me to trust it, and I've worked
with her. Because there are sections of the play
that, even in notes, she never commented on. And
I thought, "Oh my God, oh my God, she never said
anything." And I have to think back . . . "It's
because it's going in the right direction. It's
O.K."
The Viewpoint Training

All of the actors loved the viewpoint sessions. They
appreciated, as mentioned, the way they created a common
vocabulary, and the actors found themselves using the
viewpoints in the scene work. "She establishes in the body
of the actor, a vocabulary from which you then write
sentences," Lauren says. The actors also brought up how
the viewpoints helped them become more aware of listening
with their bodies and connecting physically, as well as
102
mentally. "Kinesthetic R e s p o n s e " seemed to b e one of the
favorite viewpoints.
P o r t e r feels that the viewpoints give h e r , as an a c t o r ,
a " s e n s e of p o w e r " :
It g i v e s m e a sense of . . . power that 1 h a v e
. . . that I'm able to have a visual sense of m y
o w n . That I'm not completely reliant on a third
e y e . She instills in the actor a b e l i e f that her
p h y s i c a l instincts are correct, w h i c h is
e m p o w e r i n g . So, in general, that's what the
v i e w p o i n t s do for m e . They give m e a sense of
p o w e r , and intelligence and creativity.
P o r t e r c o n t i n u e s that "Kinesthetic R e s p o n s e " and "Spatial
R e l a t i o n s h i p " are the viewpoints that she p a r t i c u l a r l y
" c o n n e c t s t o " or "easily p r o c e s s e s " : "I find m y s e l f doing
it c o n s t a n t l y , even now in p e r f o r m a n c e . " She finds it
p a r t i c u l a r l y useful during the times when she is u p s t a g e
w o r k i n g off of the "main" action that is going on
downstage.
K a n d e l feels that Bogart, with the v i e w p o i n t s , "breaks
d o w n " w h a t is fundamental for every actor:
[It] seems to m e , she breaks it down so that you
d o n ' t forget any area. For instance, I think any
a c t o r w o u l d be kind of spatially a w a r e . But
b e c a u s e she m a k e s that an exercise and something
w e s p e c i f i c a l l y d o , . . . [it m a k e s the actor]
h y p e r aware of it. Which I think is an
i n t e r e s t i n g and freeing thing, because it takes
the a t t e n t i o n off of yourself and on to either
a n o t h e r p e r s o n or to this "Spatial R e l a t i o n s h i p . "
She s t r e s s e s h o w it can "free" the actor from s e l f -
consciousness :
A n d the "Kinesthetic R e s p o n s e " is, I think, this
f a b u l o u s tool b e c a u s e it is things that w e do in
l i f e , but you tend to . . . when you get on
s t a g e , forget how to move and talk, b e c a u s e you
get s e l f - c o n s c i o u s . . . so when you m a k e that
into a specific thing, then it frees you, it
frees you from yourself.
103
Taylor expresses:
I love the idea of the "Kinesthetic Response."
She's [Bogart's] so right, that if you let the
space talk to you, wonderful things will happen.
You don't have to . . . to try for it. You'll
discover that someone is, you know, beside you,
or behind you, or in front of you, or you're
doing something together, and it makes so much
sense in that moment. That's one of the great
things about her process. How much . . . how
magical . . . magic does happen. It really does
happen. . . .
I think from now on I'll always be thinking in

terms of, "Oh, O.K., Architecture, Shape," you
know, "Kinesthetic Response." It just makes so
much sense. And it sounds hard when she starts
talking about it, but it's absolutely natural.
Lauren feels that working with the viewpoints "opens up
. . . the intensity of awareness you got to have . . . on
the stage for your fellow actors." She emphasizes the
physical aspect of the viewpoints and how she feels that
they help the actor "connect physically" to the text or the
lines. She continues: "And I think it establishes a sense
of timing in the body of the actors. Timing is often an
intellectual idea in the theatre. And it's really not."
Furthermore, Lauren acknowledges the fact that Bogart is
one of the few directors who "cares about" and have made
the training of the actor a "priority."
Kandel also brings up how she feels that, working in
Bogart's productions, makes her listen, not only with her
eyes and ears, but with her "whole body," her "whole
being":
And then once you allow yourself to open up and
turn off this stupid brain, you know. Once you
say, "Stop thinking. Don't think. Just go, just
go," all kinds of wonderful, amazing, mysterious,
fabulous things happen. And you say, "I don't
know where that came from." I love those
moments. I just love those moments. And I have
more of them in her shows than I have in any
other show that I have ever done. You know, so
104
it's rare . . . to have those kinds of m o m e n t s on
stage.
The "Table W o r k "

W h e n a s k e d w h a t they got out of the "table w o r k , " the
w r i t i n g of lists and exploring the whole p l a y line b y l i n e ,
a c o m m o n r e s p o n s e w a s that it helped speed up the p r o c e s s .
L a u r e n s a y s : "It just forces you to m a k e d e c i s i o n s , choices
from w h i c h to b e g i n . " Robins appreciated how " m e t i c u l o u s "
B o g a r t w a s in m a k i n g sure that the actors w e r e e x p l o r i n g
the t e x t . She s a y s : "We really explored it, w e p l a y e d
with it." R o b i n s also feels that the "table w o r k " speeded
up the p r o c e s s :
T h e r e ' s an interesting thing that happens w h e n
you h a v e to m a k e a choice, you're forced to m a k e
a c h o i c e right away. Then maybe in a w e e k you'll
find that it's not correct, but at least you m a d e
o n e , and you can start to discard the stuff
t h a t ' s not w o r k i n g . But at least you jump in
fully, and there's not that kind of w a i t i n g
p e r i o d a lot of actors like . . . that kind of
"mushy" p l a c e where they just kind of feel things
o u t . . . . A c t u a l l y intellectually to m a k e a
c h o i c e , I think, was very helpful and, I think,
t i m e - s a v i n g . I thought that we m a d e so m u c h
p r o g r e s s the first week. I'm amazed h o w q u i c k l y
we were working.
Kandel says:
If she d i d n ' t have that extensive "table w o r k , " I
p r o b a b l y w o u l d have gone home and w r i t t e n down
t h r e e things that I felt about M a r y , and two
t h i n g s I felt about Edith, instead of fifteen
t h i n g s w h i c h then led to fifteen more things
w h i c h led to . . . but those things . . . they
kept g r o w i n g . . . . I think that it's right that
h a v i n g that kind of information . . . that once
you get on your feet, it already begins the
p r o c e s s of you discovering even m o r e and m o r e and
m o r e about your c h a r a c t e r — m u c h sooner than you
normally would. It kind of speeds up the p r o c e s s
. . . I think, at least it did for m e .
105
The "table work," as well as the viewpoint s e s s i o n s , was
a w a y of bringing the actors together so that they could
start getting a sense of working together. Lauren says:
It sort of flushes out everything, gets it v e r y
up front, between the company. And you hear h o w
each other presents ideas, you hear the nature of
each other's creative energy, how people think.
Y o u familiarize yourself very quickly with, not
only the text, but each other.
Taylor truly enjoyed the "openness" of the "table work"
and felt that it was this "openness" that made the
r e h e a r s a l process everyone's p r o c e s s — " i n a way that this
w a s our p r o c e s s " :
I m e a n , so that we could get the kind of moment
w e got a couple of days ago where, when they
found a solution to the end of the play and we
all literally cheered. You know, and that was
m a d e possible by having that openness in the
b e g i n n i n g . A l l of us around the table jumping
in, you know.
R o b i n s points out how the "table work" gives the actor a
sense of h o w her character is related to the w h o l e :
A n d I think it is very important for the entire
cast to be there in the process, because you
learn so m u c h better the character just by
listening to the other scenes, or perhaps people
talk about you, or just seeing other scenes. So
you can see what kind of instrument you need to
p l a y in the context of the whole.
Lauren adds:
A n d she allows just that much time, and then from
that point on you have to get up on your feet and
the ideas have to be translated into the body.
W i t h m a n y directors that kind of "table work" is
carried on for weeks and w e e k s — e v e n when you're
up on your feet, you're still doing that kind of
intellectual exercise.
It stays with you, you know. The oddest thing

w i l l come up weeks l a t e r — w h e n you're in the
p r e v i e w , for i n s t a n c e — w h i c h we did long ago at
the table.
106
C h o r e o g r a p h y and M o v e m e n t Patterns
B o g a r t ' s w a y of working was new to some of the a c t o r s ,
w h i l e o t h e r s had worked with Bogart b e f o r e . Some of the
a c t o r s w e r e trained in a more internal or p s y c h o l o g i c a l
a p p r o a c h to acting, while others had a m o r e p h y s i c a l
a p p r o a c h to acting. The actors were asked whether the
p r e c i s e c h o r e o g r a p h y felt constraining or freeing. They
w e r e also asked to describe what it felt like w h e n the
m o v e m e n t p a t t e r n was developed separately from the t e x t .
W h a t did it feel like when being in a certain pose or
p o s i t i o n in the movement sequence, and then suddenly having
a c e r t a i n line come up? How did this juxtaposition of
m o v e m e n t and text work? It was the responses to these
a s p e c t s of the rehearsal process that varied the m o s t .
M y r a Lucretia Taylor had not worked with Bogart b e f o r e .
H e r t r a i n i n g w a s based on an internal or psychological
a p p r o a c h to a c t i n g — o r , as she says, "working from the
inside o u t . " She explains that since so m u c h focus during
the staging w a s on the external, she felt that she had to
p l a y " c a t c h - u p " with the internal work:
I find that what's lost in the process is the
internal work on the scenes. A n d you kind of
h a v e to quickly play catch-up. You know, m a y b e
if w e h a d a longer rehearsal time . . . that then
the internal work on the scenes could get as m u c h
w o r k as the external work on the scenes.
A n d I appreciate her philosophy that staging is a

v e h i c l e in which you live, but I think the w a y
m o s t of us have been taught to work . . . truly
is from the inside o u t . So that the inside kind
of gets short-shrift. So that's again another
w a y the actor has to work really hard . . .
h a r d e r than in any p r o c e s s , because you work so
h a r d on the external, physical, and then you h a v e
to do all that work to catch up on the inside,
b e c a u s e A n n e is not gonna do that for you. . . .
So, I m e a n , the great danger is that truly the
m e a n i n g of the scene, or the intent of the s c e n e ,
or the beats of the scene can sometimes get l o s t .
107
She, thus, feels that it has been a "challenging" process.
But then she adds:
But it's exciting. I mean, I think after working
with Anne, it's kind of like you never want to go
back . . . to the old way of working.
She is asked how it felt when staging the "bridge
scene," having the text added to the movement sequence.
How did it feel when suddenly a line was juxtaposed with a
certain pose? Taylor says:
It was kind of awful. Because most of us don't
work that way. . . . You just feel like you
suddenly you can't talk anymore, you know. . . .
You just felt like you had somebody else's hands
on, somebody else's feet on your feet.
When she is asked whether the movement sequence in this
scene eventually gave her anything once she had learnt the
choreography of the scene, she responds:
Oh, definitely. I mean . . . they give you
relationships at any given moment. And they give
you moments. . . . You just have to work fast.
It's like . . . it can free you up in the sense
that you're not searching for behavior, kind of.
But then you have to play really quick catch-up
with the emotional work.
Taylor gives an example how the sequence made her
realize something new about Nancy's relationship to the
other characters. Since she ended up sitting next to
Sylvia, she started asking herself whether she liked Sylvia
or not, and in doing this, she suddenly came to the
realization that she did not really care for Peggy, as she
first had thought during the "table work." Taylor feels
that this is one example of how "a mental thing came out of
the physical." Another example of the "movement informing"
the internal, is in Act I, Scene 2, when Mary asks Nancy
whether she has ever been in love. According to the
choreography, she is center stage at this moment. Taylor
felt that there was something "scary" about being center
stage; it was, to her, a moment of "rawness" and
"boldness."
108
Taylor also adds:
A n n e ' s process allows you to be big on stage.
A n d w h e n she says embrace the obstacle, she
certainly gives you a lot of obstacles to
e m b r a c e . A n d in doing that, you feel quite large
and c r e a t i v e . You know, the stage . . . it is
not foreign at all. It's all your territory.
E l l e n Lauren had acted in two of Bogart's previous
p r o d u c t i o n s — P i c n i c at Actors Theatre of Louisville and
Orestes at S I T I . Having been a guest artist in several of
Tadashi Suzuki's productions and having taught the Suzuki
A c t o r Training M e t h o d in this country, she acknowledges
Suzuki for teaching her and influencing her belief that
"structure is freedom." She feels that the choreography in
B o g a r t ' s productions provides such a structure:
It imposes a certain structure on the body, and
then the body informs the spirit. Rehearsal is
not only an intellectual exercise . . . primarily
rehearsal is a physical exercise. . . . Emotion
is physically registered in the musculature
m a k e u p of the human body. And when you address
the body, with the specific s t r u c t u r e — t o where
exactly your feet are, where the tilt of your
h e a d i s — t h e n the actor ceases to play a general
m o o d or emotion and, thus, begins to operate
outside their own habitual world, physically and
emotionally.
W o r k i n g w i t h this kind of structure is, to Lauren, "the
m o s t freeing, the most joyful." Without this s t r u c t u r e —
just d o i n g "what you f e e l " — s h e finds "very intimidating,"
b e c a u s e there are no "parameters."
W h e n Lauren is asked about creating the movement p a t t e r n
s e p a r a t e l y from the text, she responds:
W e l l , again, that's just giving the body p r i o r i t y
over the emotion that you want to get a t . So
that you're not starting rehearsal by going for
an end result. Placing the body of concentration
on the specificity that you have to think about,
and w h e n you lay the text and filter the text
through that concentration, it begins to take on
a m e a n i n g you could never see by attacking it
109
strictly through your own filter of habits, the
way you plan intellectually to do the scene.
Karen Kandel had worked on four earlier productions with
Bogart--Jn the Jungle of Cities, 1951, The Making of
Americans, and Cleveland. When asked whether working with
the precise choreography seems constraining or freeing, she
responds:
It kind of goes through stages. . . . In the
beginning all of that choreography makes it . . .
I think, frees you, because . . . your attention
is not necessarily on yourself. But as you begin
to learn more about the character, some of the
movements might seem like they're wrong—
sometimes they are, more often they're not wrong.
[At this stage, Kandel continues, the
choreographed movements may make her feel:] "Why
do I feel like I have to move here, but I'm
feeling this." And then you get to another stage
which is: "Oh, O.K., I can still have this and
do that movement too." And what it does . . . it
takes movement, which was just movement at one
time, and it informs it and . . . gives it
purpose. I think every time you go through
repetition of the movements, hopefully, they are
informed from a different source, they have a
different energy behind them. . . . [Kandel
adds:] I can almost justify anything given time
to live with it. . . . 1 kind of like to live
with things before I say "no."
Kandel continues, explaining that when they were working
the "bridge scene" the second or third time after the
choreography had been "set," she reached the stage where
she felt that the choreography did not "make sense." Now,
in performance, however, she has reached this new stage:
But now as we're performing, it makes absolutely
sense. And I love . . . I love the movement. It
helps propel me into the next moment. It's
great. I love it. And I feel like I'm dancing.
Kandel is also asked about the juxtaposition of text and
movement sequence in the "bridge scene." How was it being
in a weird pose and suddenly having a certain line come up;
did the juxtaposition open something up? Kandel answers:
110
Yeah, what that did was . . . and what it's still
doing is . . . sometimes when I end up in a weird
pose . . . it even happened today when we were
running through it . . . a small thing, just for
me. I was in a weird pose and I turned around
and I said, "Oh, there's Jane. Oh, O.K., that
moment could be about Jane." So I kind of find
little places if I feel awkward where I can focus
on another person, focus on another actor in the
scene and have a relationship there that I never
knew existed. And I think that, because . . .
since I've worked with her before, I know that as
the run goes on, instead of it getting less, you
get more and more of those moments. So it kind
of never . . . it never dies. It's like on-going
. . . living.
To Kandel, these are "secret little moments" that she
always looks forward to. She also feels particularly
connected to the other actors on stage—that she has a
special awareness—when in Bogart's productions.
The Women is Lynn Cohen's second play with Bogart,
having previously done Eye of the Hurricane at Actors
Theatre of Louisville. One of the aspects that she finds
remarkable about Bogart is her ability to bring together
actors with different backgrounds. She states that she
herself was trained to work "from the inside out." (Cohen
is a member of The Actors Studio.) She finds the rehearsal
process "exciting"--how, as she feels, Bogart "takes
movement from the outside in." Cohen continues:
But I do really think it's the same thing. I
think one is as valid as the other. And I don't
think she lays movement on a character that
doesn't have to do with the character, you know.
She lets you find it.
Upon the question whether the precise choreography
seemed to be constraining in any way, Cohen responds:
I think . . . when you find the right movement,
it opens the scene up. Once you find . . . the
right movement, it says everything about what's
happening in the scene.
Ill
Cohen refers to how they ended up changing some of the
staging in Act I, Scene 3, and how they explored it again.
She admires Bogart's willingness to change things if they
don't work—or in Cohen's words, "She doesn't fall in love
with [her] work." Cohen continues:
If it's the right movement . . . it opens up the
character and emotion for you. And if you find
the right movement . . . . It's really
interesting, quite fascinating, to see what
happens if, you know, you put your glass down on
one beat instead of another. It changes the
whole rhytlim or meaning of the action.
Cohen recalls working with directors who prepare the
blocking before the rehearsal process begins. Directors,
like Bogart, "really look organically to see what comes out
of the actors. Good directors, I think, watch what's
happening with the actor."
This is Laila Robins' first production with Bogart. She
admits that she had first been a little apprehensive during
the staging of the scene between her. Crystal, and Mary in
Act I, Scene 4—the way they first developed the movement
pattern separately from the text. She says:
I found it difficult to trust that at first,
because I always feel that the movement does come
out of the text. Even when your movement is
contrary to the text, it is related to the text.
But she had this way of saying "Well, let's
just," you know, "just move and see what shapes
we can make in this room." So I found that a
little bit difficult to trust, but I think
ultimately it does go with the text.
Robins particularly appreciated Bogart's precision in
choreographing the scenes. This kind of precision has
always been important to her as an actor. The analogy that
she often uses to describe this is the "dot drawing"—where
one goes from one dot to the next:
And then you place your dots. These dots keep
you grounded in the scene. And what happens
between the dots is the spontaneity. That those
dots really keep you grounded in the scene. And
112
they get consistent on some level too . . . you
know, there is a technical consistency. So it's
not just relying on how you feel that day. . . .
But within that, if you really do go to those
dots, it will happen to you automatically. The
experience will happen to you.
"This has been a very freeing experience," Robins adds.
Maria Porter studied with Anne Bogart at the University
of California, San Diego. She has also studied with
Tadashi Suzuki in Japan. This is her first production with
Bogart. For the staging of the "pantry scene" (between
her, Maggie, and Jane) the actors first developed a
movement sequence of nine moments. The "set" was a six by
eight foot area on the floor and a stool. Porter says
about the movement pattern:
I think . . . the most important thing--it helped
put furniture, psychic furniture, on that stage
for us, because it's a terrifying space. And I
think it takes a really good actor . . . a really
good actress to be courageous in this space. And
her structure is the furniture, that all actors
who are trained in behavioralistic methods want,
especially when we're dealing with a realistic
text . . . so the inside structure is there.
Porter further explains the experience of having the text
juxtaposed to the moments in the movement sequence:
"Sometimes it felt like a bright light went on and . . .
the text was illuminated by the tableau." Other times,
however, she admits that it felt "stupid." She, however,
appreciated how they would "move on" after trying something
and finding that it did not work. (Eventually many of the
movements and poses in the movement sequence were altered.)
When asked whether the precise choreography felt
constraining or not. Porter responds:
In the beginning. It feels very awkward. Some
of the things were really just ideas, and putting
them together in a particular order didn't always
make good aesthetic sense to me. But then I
understood the dance of the scene. And I
understood it as a dancer would've a piece of
choreography, and it allowed me . . . to take
113
risks with the text that I would not necessarily
have taken right away—not in a few weeks, but
right away—because I had to fill that
choreography. I felt I needed to fill it, so I
did it textually . . . so my body informed my
inner sensibility. My body re-informed my
psychology.
Co-creators
Taylor says about Bogart:
And she listens. . . . She is the most patient
director I've ever worked with. She truly is
interested. I mean, she really wants to see
what's around the corner, what's under the rock.
It's that curiosity, that can be ^ intimidating
and s^ inspiring.
Cohen concludes:
She's a great positive director. She seems to
have faith that her actor will find it, given the
proper time and climate. . . . She has great
faith in her actors and their intelligence and
talent. I think that that's of great importance
to an actor and leads him to fresh and surprising
results. With Anne you find parts of yourself as
an artist you never knew existed.
Taylor's and Cohen's quotes illustrate the nature of
collaboration between actors and director—how Bogart truly
sees the actor as a co-creator; how she trusts the actor to
be a creator; and how it is all about discovery.
What also becomes clear during the conversations is the
tremendous respect and admiration that the actors have for
Bogart; how they trust her; and how they appreciate
Bogart's generosity and the way she, in turn, respects and
trusts the actor. "Extraordinary director," "enormously
giving," "respect," "generous," "she's a goddess," and
"love her," are some of the many words and phrases that
came up describing Bogart during the conversations.
114
Observations
Even though Bogart's way of working—"setting" the
choreography in detail and, at times, developing the
movement patterns separately from the text—was new to many
of the actors, they seemed to embrace this approach. Only
a few times did there seem to be some reluctance; when
choreographing some of the musical numbers, some
frustration appeared. Some of the actors seemed to find it
hard to trust that the choreography would take shape by
listening and responding to what everyone brought to the
moment. It appeared that they missed a finished
choreography with which to work. At one rehearsal some of
the actors suggested some choreography that they had
prepared beforehand, and, thus, ended up somewhat
dominating the process.
This is not to say that frustration is necessarily bad;
something good may emerge from tension. Furthermore, one
could argue that since everyone is a co-creator, preparing
choreography is part of the function of being a creator.
It does, however, seem to work against the work situation
Bogart is attempting to create. Her approach seems to work
best when the actors, as in the viewpoint improvisation,
come in without specific notions about the composition and
trust that the composition will take shape by listening and
responding spontaneously to what the others are giving
(just as Bogart herself does not prepare a specific
choreography beforehand). This process appears to work
best if the scene is taking shape organically in the
moment.
It is, however, understandable that an actor new to this
kind of approach may be a little reluctant. In comparison,
being given a polished choreography the first day—even
though it may allow for less creativity on the part of the
actor—probably would seem much safer. As mentioned in one
of the interviews, Bogart's approach to staging gives the
115
actor, in addition to the freedom to create, a great amount
of responsibility.
Choreographing the scenes in such detail seemed to be
another aspect for the actors to get used to. In the
beginning, many seemed to have problems remembering the
choreography. The actors who had worked with Bogart
before, on the other hand, seemed to have a better facility
with working with and remembering the minute details of the
choreography.
These actors also, being more familiar with Bogart's
aesthetic and being used to working with non-illustration
in mind, tended to make more physical movement choices and
choose movements juxtaposing the text.
Throughout the rehearsal process—from the viewpoint
sessions, the "table work," the staging rehearsals, and
through the technical rehearsals—there appeared to be a
unique sense of ensemble in the group and a generous and
productive work atmosphere. There was true collaboration;
the actors were treated as creators. The actors were
included, asked and challenged to contribute and to give
input, and were welcomed to come with suggestions. Bogart
generously observed what the actors contributed and what
happened in the moment and, based on this, helped "set" the
choreography of the scenes. Even though, Bogart's
approaches to staging were new to many of the actors, the
actors seemed to embrace the challenge. From the actors'
interviews there was an overwhelming sense that they truly
appreciated the rehearsal process. To quote Taylor again:
"I think after working with Anne, it's kind of like you
never want to go back . . . to the old way of working."
116
Notes
The descriptions of the rehearsal process are taken
from the author's journal from observing the rehearsals.
Anne Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs, NY,
22 June 1993.
^ As an example of a different approach, see Eelka

Lampe's description of the rehearsal process for Danton's
Death at New York University in the article, "From the
Battle to the Gift: The Directing of Anne Bogart," Drama
Review, 36 (1) (Spring 1992): 33-42.
^ Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
" Ibid.

December 1993.
^ Author was not present the first day of rehearsal, but
attended the rest of the rehearsals, from the second day of
rehearsal through the opening. The discussion in this
section is based on previous interviews and symposia by
Bogart.
® Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
^ Ibid.
'° Bogart may be referring to Victor Shklovsky's essay,
"Art as Technique," in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four
Essays, trans, and with an introduction by Lee T. Lemon and
Marion J. Reis (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1965), 3-24.
" Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,
'2 Ibid.
'^ Ibid.
'" Ibid.
'^ Ibid.
117
Italo Calvino,. Six Memos for the Next Millennium
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988; reprint. New
York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1993).
^"^ Bogart quoting Calvino during the SITI symposium, 2

June 1993.
18
Bogart, symposium, 2 June 1993.
19
Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
^° Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.

^' Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993.
"Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993.
'" Ibid.
" Ibid.
'' Ibid.
^® Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
^° Bogart, rehearsal, 9 December 1993.
^' Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
Workshop, 31 May 1993.
^^ Bogart, rehearsal, 19 December 1993.
^" Anne Bogart, written notes to the actors after the
run-through on 23 December 1993.
^"^ Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.
118
^' Ibid.
'' Ibid.
''° Bogart, interview, 30 December 1993.
"' Bogart, rehearsal, 22 December 1993.
^^ Bogart, rehearsal, 18 December 1993.
^^ Anne Bogart, written notes to the actors after first
preview.
^^ Bogart, notes to the actors, run-through on 23
December 1993.
'" Ibid.
'^ Ibid.
'' Ibid.
'^ Ibid.
'^ Ibid.
'° Ibid.
51 Bogart, "composition" class, 31 May 1993.
^^ Bogart, notes to the actors, run-through on 23

December 1993.
" Bogart, notes to the actors, first preview.
^^ Interviewed 4 January 1994.

^"^ Interviewed 5 January 1994.
^® Interviewed 4 January 1994.
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Figure 5.8
Movement pattern for "bridge scene" m Act I, Scene 1
(N=Nancy; E=Edith; S=Sylvia; P=Peggy.)
134
CHAPTER VI
THE PRODUCTION OF THE WOMEN
The Production
The First Encounter
Upon entering the thrust stage theatre of Hartford
Stage, one is struck by the large empty marble-like floor.
It is empty, except for a black grand piano in the upstage
right corner and a bridge table with chairs downstage. One
of the chairs is tilted on its side. The whole stage is
washed in a tint of green light. Upstage, at a glass wall
with three glass French doors, a cleaning woman in a green
uniform is meticulously cleaning the wall (Figure 5.1).
A closer study reveals that the glass wall is part of a
corridor-like construction of steel-grey pipes, with a
balcony with steel pipe railings. It has fluorescent light
pipes along the edges. A white spiral staircase leads up
to the balcony level and continues up beyond our view. The
entire upstage wall is visible through the glass—half of
it white and the other half covered by an enormous flat
with a pattern reminiscent of a blown-up wall paper design
(large white roses and darker patches with more rigid-
looking curves or waves). The edges of these patches are
hard, creating a cubist-like fragmented effect. The design
has both a hard, rigid and, at the same time, soft feel in
almost an unsettling, yet subtle way, which makes it hard
to look away from it. The spiral lines of the staircase in
front of the flat adds to the curved lines of the "wall
paper" design. The upstage right wings are closed off by
another large flat with the same design. On the opposite
side three black wings are visible. Behind the glass wall
art deco chairs are placed in a scattered manner. The
curved lines of the chairs also reinforce the lines in the
"wall paper" design.
135
The overall feel is of elegance: the spiral staircase;
the glass wall with its steel-grey pipes; the railings of
the balcony; the art deco chairs; the grand piano; and the
sophisticated "wall paper" design. The colors of the set
are in blacks, whites and greys. The green and purple
velvet seat-coverings of the chairs add a slight touch of
color. It has a cool feel. The shine in the glass wall
and the marble floor adds to this feel. There is
simplicity, elegance and order—or "almost" order with the
tilted chair downstage and the seemingly scattered chairs
behind the glass wall. There is a prevailing sense of
quietness. There is no pre-show music. The faint green
light adds to the quiet feel; and the cleaning woman's
quiet work makes her almost invisible.
Suddenly an elegantly dressed woman enters from the
stage left wing as a follow spot comes up on her. She
walks in a curious manner: she faces stage right, and for
every fourth step her right leg crosses diagonally in front
of the left foot. She turns abruptly as a chord from the
piano sounds (the pianist has entered simultaneously). The
woman starts: "Today, Park Avenue living rooms are
decorated with a significant indifference to the fact that
ours is still a bi-sexual society . . . ." The first scene
has just started. According to the program, this woman is
the Hostess.
The Hostess continues her introduction. On her line,
"Mary Haines' living room is not like that," light comes up
on the bridge table as Jane, the maid, comes running in
(from the stage right vom). She stops, sets down the
plates that she is carrying on the table, and puts the
tilted chair back in its proper position at the table.
Jane is on her way out again, but turns just as the Hostess
introduces her as "a pretty little Irish-American maid."
Just as she is uttering this, the Hostess suddenly realizes
that Jane is not exactly Irish. The name of the actress
136
who plays Jane is Sung Yun Cho. On the Hostess' line, "is
arranging the tea-table," Jane starts dealing the bridge
cards.
The Hostess continues the introduction: "Four women
are playing bridge." Nancy, Peggy, Sylvia and Edith
suddenly enter from the stage left wings and create a brief
tableau—each in fur, hat and gloves and each holding a
cigarette ready to be lit. As each of the women is being
introduced, she gives her fur and gloves to Jane and then
crosses over to the table and takes her position for the
bridge game. The Hostess continues, "So." Another piano
chord sounds, and Sylvia starts her first line: "So, I
said to Howard, 'What do you expect me to do?'" The
"baton" has been passed on to the characters, and the
"scene proper" is in motion.
The Hostess remains present during the scene, and she
follows the action intently. At one point the cleaning
woman from the pre-show starts arranging and cleaning the
chairs behind the glass wall. Later an elegantly dressed
woman appears on the balcony. She stops and leans on the
railing and stares out in the air. Thus, simultaneously,
the scene with the four women unfolds: Jane keeps running
in and out with plates; The Hostess remains in close
proximity to the scene; the cleaning woman is meticulously
at work behind the glass wall; and the lady remains on the
balcony. In addition, the pianist, a woman in a black
sequined evening gown, watches the action.
The audience members might at this point be wondering
who this Hostess is and what her relationship to the play
is. Why does she remain present during the scene; and why
is she reacting to what is happening? The fact that the
Hostess' descriptions do not always coincide with the stage
action, may be another aspect that may seem puzzling. Why
is not the Irish maid Irish? And why is the maid dealing
cards while the Hostess is describing her as "arranging the
137
tea-table?" Other questions may be about the significance
of the simultaneous presence of the lady on the balcony and
the cleaning woman.
At least one thing probably is getting apparent to the
audience members. This production is going to be a little
different; things are going to happen that will require
some thinking, analyzing, association and consideration, in
addition to following the story line.
The Set
The production has a minimalist setting. Only a few
furniture pieces, along with the elaborate lighting and the
introductions by the Hostess, establish the locales of each
scene. The few selected furniture pieces are reused for
the different scenes. A stylish art deco red velvet
chaise, a steel pedestal ashtray, a chair, a glass screen
on wheels, two low and slightly raked platforms and a small
rectangle stool are wheeled on and off for the various
scenes. A new position, a different angle or a new
combination of pieces indicate a new locale. A manicure
table and an arm-chair establish Michael's beauty salon
(Act I, Scene 2). For the bathroom scene (Act II, Scene 3)
a black bathtub with an attached side-table is rolled on to
the stage.
The patterns on the floor—created by the large squares
of "marble," by five grey horizontal lines across the
floor, and by shapes created by lighting—are important in
establishing the various settings. For instance, for Act
I, Scene 4, a hard-edged rectangle of white light indicates
the downstage hallway of the two dressing rooms heavily
"trafficked" by sales personnel and customers.
The Transitions
The transitions are an important part of the spectacle
and the production. The few furniture pieces allow for
138
quick transitions. At times there is a flurry of activity
of actors wheeling or carrying pieces on or off stage.
Other transitions are subtle, quiet and emotional. Some of
the transitions have musical numbers with songs from the
time period. Often the transitions underscore or comment
on the scenes. In Act I, Scene 6, between Jane and Maggie,
the cook, the audience, through Jane, experiences the fight
between Mary and her husband which ultimately leads to
their divorce. At the end of the scene Maggie utters:
"The first man who can think up a good explanation how he
can be in love with his wife and another woman is going to
win that prize they're always giving out in Sweden!"
Both Maggie and Jane take a sip of their tea. There is
a click of the cups being placed back on the saucers. Then
the first phrases of Giad to Be Unhappy, sung by Myra
Lucretia Taylor, begins. Taylor, having entered
inconspicuously ending up center stage, performs the
melancholic song about unrequited love. Meanwhile, Jane
and Maggie exit slowly, and Jane then starts carrying
suitcases on stage, setting up for the next scene—Mary's
departure. A simple cross on stage of a maid carrying
suitcases suddenly becomes emotional and expressive. A
mood is established for the following scene.
"The Chorus of Women"

As mentioned above, the presence of other women, in
addition to the women in the "scenes proper, " is
significant about this production. At times women are
seated in the chairs or on the staircase, leaning against
the steel pillars behind the glass wall, or standing on the
balcony, often in apparently reflective poses. These
women, taking on a chorus-like function, represent women of
different ages, in different situations, and from different
strata of society. The cleaning woman or the tired
cigarette girl are both in sharp contrast to the elegantly
139
dressed lady on the balcony during the first scene and the
affluent and spoiled women in the scenes.
Although they seem to represent different women, they,
at the same time, seem to have something in common. The
reflectiveness and awareness of these women behind the
glass wall, even though they do not always seem to watch
the action of the scenes, makes them seem to share the
pains, concerns or experiences of the women in the scenes.
As Mary in Act II, Scene 2 receives the telephone call from
her ex-husband and is told that he is about to marry his
mistress, four women enter through the glass doors,
listening in on Mary's phone conversation. As Mary hangs
up, they start singing Solitude, underscoring the emotional
tone of the scene.
The "chorus" women seem to represent the sisterhood of
women who have shared the pains. At the same time, the
women in their reflective poses seem to be a celebration of
the strength, beauty and sensuality of women.
Anne Bogart feels that theatre should reflect the larger
social contexts—not only the stories of individuals and
their problems.' One might say that the glass corridor and
the balcony and the "chorus" of women represent the outside
world.
Objects Becoming Symbols

With the bare stage, the few selected scenery pieces and
props on stage get added significance. They take on
symbolic qualities. In Act I, Scene 7, Mary throws the
flower on the floor that she receives from her husband,
Stephen, as a parting gesture before she embarks on the
divorce journey to Reno. The flower, the card and the box
end up conspicuously center stage and remain there for the
rest of the scene. Mrs. Morehead, who is angry with the
way Mary has handled the whole situation, almost steps on
it as she crosses the stage. Later in the scene, as Mary
140
' <."!U V
is telling her daughter. Little Mary, about the divorce.
Little Mary picks up the flower for a moment. Flowers,
often associated with love, suddenly—and ironically—
become a symbol of the opposite, or falling "out of love,"
to use Mary's words.
In Act II, Scene 3, Stephen's flowers are ironically
again thrown on the floor—this time, two years later—on
the bathroom floor of his new wife, the one for which he
broke up his marriage to Mary. She has taken up a new
lover and does not treasure Stephen's flowers anymore.
Furs are conspicuously present in this production. For
an upper class woman from the 1930s, a fur is a natural
part of her outfit. Here the furs, however, take on an
almost grotesque quality. What these women say and at
times do is quite unpleasant, to say the least—their
selfishness, their lack of caring for their so-called
friends, their rivalry and their gossip. By constantly
wearing dead animals, the women's behavior seems even more
ugly. Whether one is a fanatical animal rights person or
not, the sight of dead animals—heads and tails—dangling
all over these ladies becomes quite grotesque.
For the musical number Down in the Depths (the
transition between Scenes 4 and 5 in Act II) fur stoles are
an integral part of the choreography—four women's night-
club act. At times the furs are wrapped seductively around
the women's bodies; at other times they are thrown angrily
on the floor. The women take out their frustration on
these dead animal skins for the men who have deserted them.
At the end of the scene the furs end up in a pile center
stage.
This pile of furs becomes part of the setting for the
following scene—the powder room at the Casino Roof.
Sadie, an old check-in lady, is seated on a small stool
right behind the pile of furs and facing downstage. The
whole scene, culminating in the final showdown between
141
Crystal and Mary, takes place behind her. The acting area
is a V-like area, with Sadie and the pile of furs as the
downstage point of the "V" (see Figure 5 . 4 ) . There is both
something strong and vulnerable about Sadie's position. It
is strong, because she has a dominant position center
stage. Being the focal point of the whole stage picture,
in a way Sadie becomes the main character of the scene. At
the same time she is made vulnerable. Because the other
women checking in their w r a p s — t h e furs becoming additions
to the gradually growing p i l e — t o her totally ignore her,
the audience ignores her. Second, she is, in a way, pushed
into the "corner" of the acting area. This creates a
tension; she becomes the invisible focal character of the
scene. Just as the furs, she is another object. The women
pay as little attention to her as they do to their furs.
The furs and she have the same status and position. The
only consolation might be that at least she is still
living, as opposed to the furs on the floor.
The fact that so few selected objects are used in the
production makes these objects conspicuous in the whole
stage composition. At times the objects become as
important as the human beings on the stage. The
juxtapositions between inanimate objects and the human
beings create jarring moments. At times an object almost
takes on human qualities; at other times a person is
reduced to the level of an object.
Reusing vocabulary is part of Anne Bogart' directing
philosophy. As mentioned earlier, Bogart being influenced
by Gertrude Stein, she believes in reprocessing things
(gestures, movement patterns, sounds and o b j e c t s ) . A s the
objects recur, often in different contexts, they bring new
meanings or associations to the situation.
142
Music
Music is important in this production. The grand piano
and the elegantly dressed pianist are always present. As
mentioned, many of the transitions have musical numbers,
with songs by Cole Porter, Duke Ellington, Rodgers and
Hart, and Brown and Freed—most of them dealing with
unhappy love.
The second act seemingly starts as the beginning of the
play. The Hostess, with the same dance-like steps, enters.
This time, however, as she turns, instead of a chord, the
introduction of a song sounds from the piano. Suddenly the
stage is filled by the whole cast, who noisily line up for
a totally unexpected start—the song being J Don't Want to
Play in Your Yard. Suddenly childhood quarrels come to
mind. There is feuding—not women's rivalry about men, but
just as painful.
Underscoring is also used for certain moments in the
play. In Act I, Scene 1, when Sylvia breaks the news to
Edith about the infidelity of Mary's husband, the source of
the damaging gossip is also revealed: Olga, the manicurist
at Michael's beauty salon. Sylvia has, of course, just
gotten her nails done by Olga in the latest nail polish—
"Jungle Red." Sylvia shows her "divine" nails to Edith.
Just as the word, "Jungle Red," is mentioned, a chord
(slightly dissonant) sounds from the piano. At the same
time, the glass corridor upstage turns red. This happens
every time the two words are mentioned. "Jungle Red," the
chord, and the red lights become a recurrent theme in the
production, again becoming reprocessed vocabulary. Bogart
suggested during one of the viewpoint sessions that if one
really "embraced" stereotypes and cliches, perhaps one
suddenly would create something very deep. These humorous
moments seem to have succeeded at that.
143
Feminist Play
This production avoids making The Women a rhetorical
production that preaches a specific political or feminist
message. The play has a number of puzzling utterances that
would seem provocative or insulting today. For instance,
Mrs. Morehead advises Mary to ignore Stephen's affair. Her
argument is that a man, having been married for awhile, has
a need for some change, just as a woman needs to change her
wardrobe at times. She adds: "There's nothing like a good
dose of another woman to make a man appreciate his wife."
Later in the play Mary has similar advice to the
Countess, who also is being deceived by her husband:
"Flora, let him make a fool of you. Let him do anything he
wants, as long as he stays. He's taking the trouble to
deceive you. And if he took the trouble, he really must
have cared." One could have taken these lines and
commented upon or made fun of them. In this production,
however, they are not singled out. The audience members
are left to draw their own conclusions.
Analysis of the Composition

"Orchestration" is a word that has been used in the
description of Bogart's staging. To carry the music
analogy further, one could say that the mise en scene has
both a "melody line" and "harmony." The lines, words,
gestures, movements, glances, and sounds make up the
"melody line" in the composition, while the "harmony" is
•created by the juxtaposed movements and images, the
simultaneous presence of other persons in addition to the
"main action," and the juxtaposition of the selected
objects. This "harmony" creates complexity and richness.
The "harmony," or the juxtapositions, does not take away
from the "melody line." Personally, I would follow the
"main action, " but momentarily something else—a person on
the balcony, an object, the color of a shadow on the floor,
144
the way the spiral staircase casts shadows, the piano
underscoring, or the "floral pattern" of the upstage flat-
would catch my eye, creating an emotional shading or
leading to reflection. (The "harmony" does not always
underscore the "melody line." It may also serve as a
contrast.) When staging, Bogart seemed to stress both the
"melody line" and the "harmony" in "setting" the scene.
Another aspect is the interaction between the spatial
and the temporal elements. Both are equally important in
the composition. The moments of "stage pictures" or
"tableaux" are compelling. In the descriptions (and the
pictures) of the staging and the production these types of
moments have been given most attention. The constant flow
in the production, however, is equally compelling.
As with the viewpoint improvisation, it appears that the
"Kinesthetic Response" pushes the composition forward. The
actors let the new line or moment emerge out of the
previous one in order to avoid pauses or beats between
moments, lines or sections. Second, the movement sequences
choreographed for some of the scenes appear to add to the
fluidity of the composition. They become the pulse, surge,
or driving force in the scene.
The choreography or "orchestration" of the scenes has
precision, economy and clarity. The minimalist set adds to
this clarity. It seems to amplify each minute detail in
the staging. It helps channeling the energy in the scene.
The actors and each object stand out; even a small gesture
or detail in a pose is distinct and profound. An image
that constantly recurs when recalling the production is the
way the tired cigarette girl, seated in a chair upstage of
the glass wall, is leaning her head against a pillar, while
the "main action" is going on downstage.
The set also accentuates the juxtapositions between
persons and between a person and an object. It makes these
moments strong and profound. In the final scene, for
145
i n s t a n c e , there is the jarring juxtaposition b e t w e e n the
p i l e of furs, Sadie on the stool, and the ladies in their
wraps.
Two aspects of Bogart's staging approach that seem
u n i q u e are the way she choreographs the scenes in detail
and the w a y some scenes are staged by developing m o v e m e n t
s e q u e n c e s separately from the text. Both of these
a p p r o a c h e s clearly have an impact on the aesthetic of the
production.
The m e t i c u l o u s choreography, or "orchestration," creates
the p r e c i s i o n , economy and clarity mentioned above. It
a p p e a r s to channel the energy in the scenes. Each
important m o m e n t , cross, transition, and the interplay of
s o u n d s , m o v e m e n t s , and gestures are given a maximum outlet
of energy. It creates a focused and clear expression. The
w a y the choreography channels energy could be compared to
h o w a p l a s t i c track channels the kinetic energy of the
little toy car. The track and the kinetic energy sends the
toy car on a journey, culminating in going even upside down
in the loop at the end of the track.
To c o m p a r e , "traditional" staging approaches have a
t e n d e n c y to result in wandering and unfocused gestures,
c r e a t i n g a m u d d l e d effect. This weakens the energy in the
s c e n e , m a k i n g the energy "fizzle out." This varies of
course. There are actors who have the talent to bring
clarity, focus, precision and specificity to their w o r k ;
h o w e v e r , as an overall effect and for larger scenes, this
w o u l d b e hard to accomplish without the careful
" o r c h e s t r a t i o n " of all of the elements.
The m o v e m e n t sequences developed also add to the energy
in the p r o d u c t i o n . A s mentioned, they function as the
p u l s e or surge in the scenes. They also appear to help
a v o i d a certain tentativeness that often is present in
" t r a d i t i o n a l " productions (with the actor waiting for a
146
c e r t a i n line or moment in the script before thinking of
d o i n g a m o v e m e n t or a c r o s s ) .
The juxtapositions of text and movement created b y the
m o v e m e n t sequences also appear to prevent r e d u n d a n c i e s .
U s i n g the text to inform the movement, as done in
" t r a d i t i o n a l " staging, easily ends up with the actor
" i l l u s t r a t i n g " the text, so that the text and the p h y s i c a l
w o r k are saying the same. It can also turn into "cliche-
b l o c k i n g " — a certain type of line or response leading to a
c e r t a i n type of expected movement. The juxtapositions set
u p for m o m e n t s of tension and awkward situations to o c c u r .
A g a i n , there are exceptions in "traditional" staging; there
are actors who have the talent to find movements or
" b u s i n e s s " that contradicts the lines spoken and, t h u s ,
create richness.
The juxtaposition of text and movement, in addition to
c r e a t i n g r i c h n e s s , also creates a sense of d e t a c h m e n t .
This appears to be an intentional effect on Bogart's p a r t .
O t h e r s , h o w e v e r , including a number of critics, find this
d e t a c h m e n t hard to accept.
This juxtaposition, or detachment, at times seems to
d e - e m p h a s i z e the story line. Again, this is something
B o g a r t m a y be doing intentionally. Not only the "melody
l i n e " b u t also the "harmony," seem to be important in the
whole composition. To emphasize or punctuate every m o m e n t
s i g n a l i n g the development of the plot does not seem to b e
the o b j e c t i v e of the staging of the scenes. To use a
m o m e n t from the "bridge scene" (Act I, Scene 1) as an
e x a m p l e , w h e n Sylvia's line, "I think Mary's gone off
t e r r i b l y this w i n t e r . Have you noticed those deep lines
h e r e ? " comes u p , she is seated at the table, facing
upstage. The line, thus, does not get emphasized in the
m i d s t of the other chatter and gossip. It just h a p p e n s to
b e c o m i n g up at this particular moment in the m o v e m e n t
sequence. This is the first line where Sylvia h i n t s at
147
S t e p h e n ' s a f f a i r , which, when she eventually leaks the
e x p l o s i v e information to the others, sets the whole
c o n f l i c t in m o t i o n .
The m o v e m e n t sequence also appears to bring freedom to
the a c t o r ' s w o r k . To use the "bridge scene" as an example,
the m o v e m e n t sequence adds a playfulness and life to the
scene. It also appears to reinforce the redundancy in the
w a y the w o m e n spend their days, spending a considerable
amount of time at the bridge table gossiping.
A l s o during the "bridge scene," the movement sequence
appears to "chop" up the dialogue into a sequence or series
of short sections of gossip exchanges. The dialogue
appears to be segments of exchanges rather than a
c o n t i n u o u s conversation. This, again, brings out the
m u n d a n e n e s s of the situation. There seems to be no purpose
in h o w these women spend their days, except for an
o c c a s i o n a l plotting or scheming that "juices" up their
e x i s t e n c e at times. This segmented dialogue adds to the
sense of detachment that already is established by the
j u x t a p o s i t i o n of dialogue and movements.
The m o v e m e n t sequence during the "bridge scene" also
opens up the scene. With c o n v e r s a t i o n — p a r t i c u l a r l y
sitting at a bridge table and g o s s i p i n g — t h e projection and
energy easily can "gravitate" towards the center of the
group rather than out to the audience. Here the movements
b r i n g the actors in sweeping movements out from the table.
O f t e n the movement patterns in the choreography of the
p r o d u c t i o n are curved (Scenes 5 and 6 of Act I, and Scenes
2 and 5 of A c t I I ) , creating a sweeping feel, which adds to
the fluidity and life of the scene. In "realistic"
p r o d u c t i o n s , where the movement pattern is often determined
b y the f u r n i t u r e — t h e actor crossing to the table on one
line and then to the couch on the next l i n e — t e n d s to have
a m o r e angular movement pattern.
148
B o g a r t ' s rehearsal approach has created a production
w i t h compelling moments of tableaux, creating "harmony," in
addition to the story line (the "melody l i n e " ) ; a
p r o d u c t i o n w i t h a pulse or surge created by the movement
p a t t e r n s ; and a production with focused expression achieved
by the economy in both the set and the staging.
149
Notes
^ A n n e B o g a r t , symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,
S a r a t o g a S p r i n g s , N Y , 9 June 1993.
150
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION
Although Anne Bogart approaches each production

differently, there appear to be certain recurrent aspects
in her rehearsal process. First, as suggested in the
Introduction and in Chapter IV, Bogart's belief in
rehearsal as a collaborative process and in the actor as a
"creator" appears to be the underlying value in her
directing philosophy. Again, to quote Bogart, she sees
rehearsal as a "meeting place between actors and director."
She believes in giving the actor freedom to contribute in a
significant way to the shaping of the production.
Second, based on what appear to be recurrent aspects in
the rehearsal process and Bogart's theories and anecdotes,
the rehearsal process could be described as a rehearsal
cycle: Freedom, Structure, Freedom. The viewpoint
improvisation provides a situation with, one could say,
ultimate freedom for the actor. As suggested in Chapter
III, spontaneous response in the moment is the basis or
core of the viewpoint improvisation. To bring the same
sense of freedom to the actual "setting" or composing of
the choreography, the staging appears to be based on chance
and spontaneous response as a way of shaping the
production. This "setting" of the choreography, or
creating the structure, is the second phase of this cycle.
The structure or choreography is "set" in detail. This
leads to the laborious process of learning and making the
choreography second nature, which eventually leads to the
last phase, the "rebirth" or "resurrection" of the scene.
The actor is again obtaining freedom—freedom to interpret.
The form is set, while allowing the emotions to remain
fluid—structure leading to freedom.
151
Director's Function
The director's role appears to be that of pushing the
rehearsal cycle along. Bogart says that "a rehearsal
process is like exquisite pressure" and that the director's
job is to "push things on," so that the rehearsal does not
"lag."
The viewpoint training starts the actor with strenuous
exercises. During the viewpoint improvisation Bogart
pushes the improvisation along. By her side-coaching she
helps the actor to become more aware of and to respond to
the potential stimuli in the moment. It increases the
actor's sense of timing, helping the actors to pick up on
and use the stimuli in the moment. In this manner, she
"pushes" the momentum of the improvisation forward.
The "table work" appears to be the "jump start" of the
rehearsal. First, Bogart shares her "dreams" about the
production (expecting that many of the dreams will
eventually change) and shares her theories. By having the
actors write lists of facts and "intuits," she forces them
to start making choices. Furthermore, as the actors are
exploring the script line by line or word by word, Bogart
listens in an intent and scrutinizing manner, challenging
the actor to make specific and bold choices. In her
interview, Laila Robins points out how "meticulous" Bogart
was in making sure that the actor was always exploring the
text.
The fact that Bogart "sets" the scenes right away as
they are being explored is another way that she "pushes"
the process along. It forces both the actors and Bogart tc
respond and make choices; it brings an immediacy and
spontaneity to the act of "setting" the scenes. (The
choices at times eventually get adjusted.) Bogart observes
the actors exploring the scene, and by "setting" the
choreography, she helps amplify what the actors are
bringing to the moment. Bogart has come to realize (Bogart
152
being quoted in Chapter IV) that the "violence of setting"
the staging or the choreography is a "necessary violence"
and that it is the director's job to do this.
In this manner Bogart "pushes" the rehearsal cycle on up
to the last stage-the "rebirth" or "resurrection" of the
production.
Collective development of a piece could easily result in
lack of productivity in rehearsal or a shapeless
production. All the way through the rehearsal, however,
Bogart makes sure that the rehearsal is progressing, that
there is development; she leads the actors back on track
again when they seem to have worked themselves into a
corner. One of the aspects that appeared to make the
rehearsal process of The Women (and probably all of
Bogart's rehearsals) so remarkable is the way Bogart
unobtrusively watches and listens to the actors exploring
the work and, at the same time, "steers" them back on track
and "pushes" them forward. This is partly due to the
unique way in which Bogart structures the rehearsal, but a
major factor is Bogart herself: her remarkable ability to
listen and her generosity, and, at the same time, the
alertness and the quickness or sharpness in the way she
"pushes things on."
Structure Leading to Freedom

Jerzy Grotowski found discipline and spontaneity to be
mutually important to the actor. He says in Towards a Poor
Theatre:
One of the greatest dangers threatening the
actor is, of course, lack of discipline, chaos.
One cannot express oneself through anarchy. I
believe there can be no true creative process
within the actor if he lacks discipline or
spontaneity. Meyerhold based his work on
discipline, exterior formation; Stanislavski on
the spontaneity of daily life. These are, in
fact, the two complementary aspects of the
creative process.^
153
One of Grotowski's actors, Zbigniew Cynkutis, is quoted
in Jennifer Kumiega's The Theatre of Grotowski. He is
describing the collaboration between Grotowski and the
actor, and how, in setting the "acting score" by setting
small details, he was able to "re-improvise" or "re-
create" :
Grotowski was listening, watching, trying to
fix something almost impossible to fix, points
that may not have been aesthetically interesting,
but were important as part of the process. I
remember that he selected from improvisation
points that weren't even important for me—but he
was using them as reminders, bringing them to my
notice. He recalled for me, for instance,
certain positions of my body, or the place I was
in—not how 1 did something, but where I was and
what 1 did, without attention to the quality of
voice or intensity of action—and when I tried to
repeat it, by means of these small details the
process returned. And I was able, never to
repeat exactly what I had done before, but to
improvise again. And the more often we worked
that way, the easier and more certain it became
that there was a real possibility, to fix
something that seems impossible to fix. And
something that leads not to repetition, but to
re-improvisation, re-creation.^
This suggests Bogart's rehearsal process where the
choreography is "set" in detail, and the actor gives
"rebirth" to or "resurrects" the scene, responding to what
is happening "anew."
David Warrilow acted in Robert Wilson's revival of
Golden Windows. Warrilow tells how the actors were given
the exact choreography from the earlier production and that
Wilson would then adjust the choreography to suit each
individual actor. Warrilow had been a little apprehensive
about this way of working in the beginning but then
realized this type of experience to be similar to a
dancer's, who "personalizes" the choreography and then
"transcends" it. Furthermore, he feels that exact
choreography is important to him as an actor:
154
I love exact choreography. I've always said that
about my work. The more exact the parameters,
the freer I become. Because once my body knows
how to do those things, all the rest gets to be
free. I get to be comfortable and free inside,
and that gives me greater strength and
centeredness. And I know that matters to
audiences, it makes them more comfortable.^
In the interviews with the actors in The Women, it
appeared that the actors' response as to whether the
precise choreography gave them freedom or not depended on
what kind of training or background the actors had. Karen
Kandel, having worked with Bogart in four previous
productions, feels that it "goes through stages." The
choreography first gives her freedom, because she feels it
takes the attention off herself; then she reaches a stage
where she feels that the choreography does not "make
sense"; then, eventually, she reaches the stage where the
choreography makes sense again. For the "bridge scene,"
she felt the movement helped "propel [her] into the next
moment." Furthermore, she feels that every time she goes
through the choreography of a scene that the movements are
"informed from a different source"—that they "have a
different energy behind them."
Collaboration: Actor as Co-creator

As mentioned in Chapter IV, Bogart, realizing that many
actors do not see themselves as creators, feels that one of
her functions as a director is to help the actors "become
creators." One way that Bogart does this is developing in
the actors a compositional awareness. The viewpoint
training increases the spatial awareness in the actors.
This spatial and compositional awareness appears to
function on both a physical—with the actor experiencing
and responding to the space and the "Spatial Relationship"
with their bodies—and on an intellectual level. As
mentioned, at times Bogart stops the actors for a moment tc
155
draw attention to why a certain moment is strong or weak
compositionally. Furthermore, the viewpoint training helps
the actor get more attuned to timing, or "Kinesthetic
Response." Through her side-coaching, Bogart reinforces
and encourages the actor's sense of timing, enabling the
actors to keep the momentum of the viewpoint improvisation
going.
During the rehearsal process for The Women, Bogart
explains to the actors what kind of aesthetics she finds
important. She explains how she finds the relationship
between constant movement and sudden stillness in the
composition important. During the staging, as mentioned in
the previous chapter, she explains to the actor why a
certain choice is stronger compositionally than the other
choice.
Composing the mise en scene has traditionally been
viewed as the director's or the designers' job. Bogart,
however, trains the actor and makes the actor trust that he
or she can make compositional choices. It is as if she is
lending the director's, or the audience's, eye for the
moment, enabling the actor to make compositional choices.
It appears that Bogart attempts from the beginning of
the rehearsal to establish a broad base or foundation, so
that the development of the production can be a truly
collaborative effort. Creating a common work vocabulary is
crucial for true collaboration. As mentioned in Chapter IV
and V, the viewpoint training establishes a common
vocabulary—a vocabulary both experienced physically and
understood intellectually. By Bogart's only saying
"Kinesthetic Response" or "Spatial Relationship," for
instance, the actors know both what this feels like and
what it means. As the actors interviewed expressed, they
all particularly appreciated how the viewpoint sessions
established a common vocabulary. During the "table work"
Bogart shares her philosophy and theories with the actors
156
and, thus, establishes a work vocabulary—to "awaken" each
moment (Shklovsky) and lightness, quickness, visibility,
exactitude, multiplicity, and continuity (Calvino).
From the beginning of the rehearsal an effort is made tc
create a sense of ensemble. The viewpoint sessions allow
the actors to get attuned to each other and to establish a
way of listening to and working with each other.
The "table work" further appears to establish this
foundation for collaboration. In her interview, Ellen
Lauren brings up how the "table work" enabled one to "hear
the nature of each other's creative energy." Everyone is
present as everyone is sharing their lists (about facts anc
what they intuit about these facts), thoughts, questions,
and comments. This exchange and shared analysis become the
common background, or common history. Each actor gains in-
depth analysis of the other characters, in addition to
their own. The actor is "asked" to care about the entire
production—not only about what pertains to her own
character. In addition, this common background will help
color the production. During the "table work" of the
rehearsal of The Women, Lauren (Mary) brought up the phrase
about Stephen being "so fond of Mary," which is said by
several of the characters in the play. She expressed how
humiliating the word "fond" is to Mary. The word, thus,
came to have a significant meaning to everyone. Later as
this word would come up when staging and rehearsing the
scenes, the word would have a certain reverberation or
ironic bite.
Bogart treats the actor as an equal, as a thinking
creator. Instead of just choreographing the scenes, she
first explains her philosophy of "setting" the form and
allowing the inner life to remain fluid to the actors.
As mentioned, the actor is "asked" to care about the
entire production. The production is everyone's creation.
Everyone's input is valued and taken into consideration.
157
The actor makes important decisions. As mentioned, Helen
Gallagher helps decide what the Hostess' function in the
whole production should be. Furthermore, the actor may
stop the reading or the staging if she has a comment or
suggestion, and the actors give each other suggestions.
Decisions are also made in the actors' presence. As the
underscoring and musical transitions are being staged, the
entire cast watches the cue-to-cue rehearsal. The cast,
thus, hears Michael Roth, the musical director, and Bogart
discuss various options. For the musical transition from
Scene 5 to 6 in Act I, for instance, they discuss how much
of the Copland piece should be included.
It seems to be important that the actor gets a sense of
the whole and sees how the production is developing, so
that she can see how she fits in the whole—"see what kind
of instrument you need to play, " as Robins suggests —
enabling the actor, thus, to help in shaping the
production.
The fact that the staging is created in the moment
further reinforces the production as a collaborative
effort. The scene is created by what the actors bring and
by what happens by chance in the moment. As discussed
earlier, Bogart does not see the staging as an embodiment
of her own specific vision for the scene. (She may have
certain strong feelings or a concept in broad terms, but
she does not envision the scene to look a particular way.)*
She strongly believes in the eradication of the word "want"
from the rehearsal.
During the rehearsal process for The Women, from the
"table work" and viewpoint sessions through the technical
rehearsals, there was the sense that it was the whole
ensemble that was creating and sharing the responsibility
for the production. There was a unique sense of ensemble
and sharing in the room—among the actors and between
actors and director. Everyone was "pulling together."
158
The Rehearsal Cycle: Freedom.
Structure, Freedom
Response appears to be the core of the rehearsal
process, or the rehearsal cycle. As suggested in Chapter
III, response is the fundamental "principle" in the
viewpoint improvisation: The actor is aware of the entire
space and everyone in the group (having "soft focus"), and
as a stimulus occurs, one responds spontaneously in the
moment and pursues fully the action that the response has
triggered, until again another stimulus occurs, making one
abandon the current action and respond to the new stimulus.
As stressed earlier, the viewpoint improvisation is about
reacting and not initiating. One could say that the
viewpoint improvisation provides the ultimate freedom for
the actor—freedom to respond spontaneously in the moment.
There is freedom; there is fluidity.
Response appears to be the core of the rehearsal as
well. It appears that Bogart sets up various situations
for the actor to respond. First, the "table work" creates
a broad base of stimuli for the actors to respond to or to
make associations about. On the first day of rehearsal
Bogart shares with the cast what she has been "thinking"
and "dreaming" about—she "put[s] them out on the table."
Bogart says that the writing and sharing of lists and
bringing up various questions is a way to make the actor
"start reacting."^ In addition, various lectures and talks
are also brought in during the table work. All this,
Bogart hopes, will start associations and discussions. She
believes that "information overload equals pattern
recognition" (Chapter V). Bogart attempts to "expose" the
actors to as much information and stimuli as possible,
making the rehearsal as rich and varied an experience as
possible in order to stimulate a variety of associations
and responses. The "table work" forces the actor
immediately to start responding to the play, to immediately
159
get involved in the play. It lays a foundation and starts
the process of responding to the material, which will
continue during the scene work and performance. Lauren
mentions in the interview how things from the "table work"
suddenly come up, even when in performance.
Also in the "setting" or choreographing of the scenes,
Bogart appears to set up a situation that encourages
response and spontaneity, similar to the viewpoint
improvisation. Even though the actor is aware of
character, relationships, motivations and story, the
situation is still based on responding as in the viewpoint
improvisation (the difference is that now, the actor has,
in addition, the text to which to respond). The actors,
listening to each other and the architecture, respond in
the moment, enabling Bogart, in turn, to "set" the
choreography by responding to what is happening in the
moment. Everything is "set," based on what the actors are
bringing to the moment. (Even the transitions that, at
times, seemed to have been carefully planned are actually
choreographed in the moment.)^ Everyone is responding by
letting the viewpoints lead, or by "following the Ouija-
board."
Bogart's approach to developing the movement pattern
separately from the text (Chapter V) appears to be another
way to create a situation where the actor is forced to work
spontaneously. The way a movement or a pose are juxtaposecj
with a line or a word creates a variety of stimuli to which
the actor can respond. It sets up for unexpected moments
to happen. Chance plays a role in making the actor work
spontaneously rather than planning or calculating the scene
beforehand.
When the actors finally have learned the choreography,
they have reached the last phase of this cycle—the
"rebirth" or the "resurrection." Again the actors listen
and respond in the moment. Even though this time the
160
choreography and the timing of certain lines are set, the
actor listens to the "Architecture," to the "Spatial
Relationship," to what the positions that the choreography
has established give, to the other actors, and listens to
the text anew—letting "the moments, the story, catch us
anew" (Chapter V). The actor is still responding and
making discoveries in the moment. The form is set, but the
emotions remain fluid. The form relieves the actor of the
concern of what to do physically with their bodies. The
actor is free to interpret.
During a "composition" class during the SITI Summer
Theater Workshop, Bogart expressed that she is attempting
to create a situation in rehearsal—in the "setting" of the
choreography—that allows the actor to "work with the same
sense of freedom" as in the viewpoint improvisation.^
Bogart appears to accomplish this by making the "setting"
of the scene based on what happens spontaneously in the
moment—what the actors bring to the moment--instead of
relying on premeditated effects. Second, the way the role
of "chance" is worked into the rehearsal, instead of only
relying on the text and intellectual preparation when
"setting" the material, allows for spontaneity in the
process. The viewpoint training appears to heighten the
actor's ability to respond spontaneously. It appears to
increase the actors' awareness of the entire space and of
each other, making them more attuned to listening and
responding. The actor experiences the space and responds
to the moment physically or intuitively as well as
intellectually. The actors trust themselves to make
compositional choices, both viscerally and intellectually.
Conclusion
"Structure" and "freedom" frequently come up in
different contexts when discussing Bogart's rehearsal
process. The whole rehearsal cycle, as suggested above,
161
a p p e a r s to b e b a s e d on structure and freedom. The actors
in the v i e w p o i n t improvisation experience the u l t i m a t e
f r e e d o m b y responding spontaneously in the m o m e n t . A
s i m i l a r kind of freedom is brought to the "setting" of the
s c e n e s or the choreography; the structure is "set" b y the
a c t o r s ' , and then B o g a r t ' s , responding to what is happeninc
in the m o m e n t . Finally as the choreography has b e e n
l e a r n e d and the actors have brought the choreography to
life a g a i n , the actor, again, has f r e e d o m — f r e e d o m to
interpret: Structure leading to freedom.
O n e c o u l d also say that the collaborative nature of the
r e h e a r s a l is another way the actor is given freedom. The
p i e c e is d e v e l o p e d in a clearly collaborative m a n n e r . At
the same t i m e , Bogart ensures that there is m o m e n t u m in the
r e h e a r s a l p r o c e s s and that a "structure" gets "set"
i m m e d i a t e l y , ensuring a strong compositional e x p r e s s i o n .
R i c h a r d Foreman and Robert Wilson create p r o d u c t i o n s
w i t h c o m p e l l i n g stage compositions. The w a y they structure
t h e i r r e h e a r s a l , however, has caused them to b e accused of
t r e a t i n g the actors as p u p p e t s . A n n e Bogart, on the other
h a n d , h a s b e e n able to combine both composition and
collaboration. Her productions are developed through true
c o l l a b o r a t i o n , in the way that she combines allowing her
c o l l a b o r a t o r s the freedom to contribute in a significant
w a y to the development of the production and, at the same
t i m e , h e l p i n g to "set" a structure which eventually leads
to a c o m p e l l i n g expression. Bogart truly appears to h a v e
r e d e f i n e d the nature of collaboration b e t w e e n actor and
director.
162
Notes
^ Jerzy Grotowski, Towards a Poor Theatre, with a Preface
by Peter Brook (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), 209.
^ Zbigniew Cynkutis quoted in The Theatre of Grotowski by

Jennifer Kumiega (London: Methuen London and Methuen, 1985;
Methuen London, 1987), 137.
^ David Warrilow quoted in RoJbert Wilson and His

Collaborators by Laurence Shyer (New York: Theatre
Communications Group, 1989), 17-18.
December 1993.
^ Anne Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs, NY,
22 June 1993.
^Bogart, interview, 30 December 1993.
"^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater
Workshop, Saratoga Springs, NY, 2 June 1993.
163
SELECTED BIBLOGRAPHY
Articles by and about Anne Bogart

Abbe, Jessica. "Anne Bogart's Journeys." Drama Review. 24
(2) (June 1980): 85-100.
Bogart, Anne. "Anne Bogart: Stepping Out of Inertia." Drama

Review. 27 (4) (Winter 1983): 26-28.
"Making It New." American Theatre. 6 (6)

(September 1989): 5.
• "Paradise's Back Door: An Interview with Anne

Bogart." Interview by Catherine Sheehy. Theater. 22
(1) (Fall/Winter 1990-91): 6-13.
Coe, Robert. "The Once and Future Trinity: Now Anne Bogart
Holds the Key to the House that Hall Built." American
Theatre. 7 (3) (June 1990): 12-21,59-63.
Gale, William K. "Anne Bogart." Providence (RI) Journal-

Bulletin, 23 April 1989, M6+.
Gussow, Mel. "Iconoclastic and Busy Director: An Innovator

or a Provocateur?" New York Times (Late Edition), 12
March 1994, 11 and 16.
Lampe, Eelka. "Collaboration and Cultural Clashing: Anne

Bogart and Tadashi Suzuki's Saratoga International
Theatre Institute." Drama Review. 37 (1) (Spring
1993): 147-56.
. "From the Battle to the Gift: The Directing of

Anne Bogart." Drama Review. 36 (1) (Spring 1992): 14-
47.
Oxman, Steven. "A Place to Create and Contemplate: Bogart
and Suzuki Join Forces in Saratoga Springs." American
Theatre. 9 (7) (November 1992): 34-35.
Symposia, Workshops and Rehearsals

Bogart, Anne. "American Theatre in the Twenties." Keynote
lecture ("Classics in Context Festival: The Roaring
Twenties"). Actors Theatre of Louisville, Louisville,
KY, 17 October 1993.
164
— . Symposia, "Composition" Classes, and "Viewpoint
Training" Classes, at SITI Summer Theater Workshop,
Saratoga Springs, NY, 31 May 1993 through 26 June
1993.
Rehearsals for The Women. Hartford Stage, CT, 30 November

1993 through 6 January 1994.
Interviews
Bogart, Anne. Interview by author, 22 June 1993. Saratoga
Springs, NY.
. Interview by author, 30 December 1993. Hartford,

CT.
Cohen, Lynn. Interview by author, 4 January 1994. Hartford,
CT.
Kandel, Karen. Interview by author, 6 January 1994.

Hartford, CT.
Lauren, Ellen. Interview by author, 5 January 1994.
Hartford, CT.
Porter, Maria. Interview by author, 5 January 1994.

Hartford, CT.
Robins, Laila. Interview by author, 4 January 1994.
Hartford, CT.
Taylor, Myra Lucretia. Interview by author, 6 January 1994.
Hartford, CT.
Reviews of the Production of The Women

Donovan, Phyllis S. "Women Reveals Role of '30s Society
Wives." Meriden (CT) Record-Journal, 16 January 1994,
Fl and F6.
Johnson, Malcolm. "The Women Takes Road Less Traveled."
Hartford (CT) Courant, 10 January 1994, A7 and A8.
Kemper, Steve. "Clawless Cattiness: This Hartford Stage
Production of The Women Mews Rather Than Roars."
Hartford (CT) Advocate, 13 January 1994, 21.
165
Phillips, Julie. [Review of The Women]. Village Voice, 18
January 1994, 88.
Richards, David. "Unorthodox View of Luce Classic." New

York Times (Late Edition), 13 January 1994, C13 and
C18. ^
Stuart, Jan. "Luce's Women, Minus the Venom." New York

Newsday (City Edition), 12 January 1994, Part II, pp
53 and 58.
Wilson, Edwin. "Women Chase Men; Man Chases Lincoln"

[Review of The Women by Clare Boothe Luce and The
America Play by Suzan-Lori Parks]. Wall Street
Journal, 2 6 January 1994, A12.
Other Reviews
Brantley, Ben. "McLuhan's Old Message, As the Medium
Mutates" [Review of The Medium] . New York Times, 17
May 1994, C20.
Disch, Thomas M. [Review of The Baltimore Waltz by Paula

Vogel]. Nation, 23 March 1992, 389-90.
Evans, Greg. [Review of The Baltimore Waltz by Paula

Vogel]. Variety, 17 February 1992, 77.
Weales, Gerald. [Review of The Baltimore Waltz by Paula

Vogel] . Commonweal, 24 April 1992, 18-19.
Books
Artaud, Antonin. The Theater and Its Double. Translated by
Mary Caroline Richards. New York: Grove Press, Grove
Weidenfeld, 1958.
Banes, Sally. Democracy's Body: Judson Dance Theater 1962-

1964. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1983.
Bartow, Arthur. The Director's Voice: Twenty-One

Interviews. New York: Theatre Communications Group,
1988.
Bradby, David, and David Williams. Directors' Theatre. New

York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
166
Braun, Edward. The Director and the Stage: From Naturalism
to Grotowski. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers,
1982.
/ ed. Meyerhold on Theatre. Rev. ed. Translated and

with a Critical Commentary by Edward Braun. [London]:
Methuen and Co., 1969; reprint, London: Methuen Drama,
1991.
. The Theatre of Meyerhold: Revolution on the

Modern Stage. [London]: Eyre Methuen, 1979; reprint,
London: Methuen London, 1986.
Brecht, Stefan. The Original Theatre of the City of New

York: From the Mid-60s to the Mid-lOs. Vol. 1, The
Theatre of Visions: Robert Wilson. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag, 1978.
Callow, Simon. Being an Actor. New York: St. Martin's

Press, 1984.
Calvino, Italo. Six Memos for the Next Millennium.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988; reprint.
New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1993.
Chaikin, Joseph. The Presence of the Actor. New York:
Atheneum, 1972; reprint. New York: Theatre
Communications Group, 1991.
Cole, Susan Letzler. Directors in Rehearsal: A Hidden

World. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1992.
Davy, Kate. Richard Foreman and the Ontological-Hysteric

Theatre. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1981.
Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. With a Preface

by Peter Brook. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968.
Hirst, David L. Giorgio Strehler. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1993.
Jou, Tsung Hwa. The Tao of Tai-Chi Chuan: Way to
Rejuvenation. 6th printing. Edited by Shoshana
Shapiro. Warwick, NY: Tai Chi Foundation, 1991, [3d
rev. ed., 1983].
Kiernander, Adrian. Ariane Mnouchkine and the Theatre du
Soleil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
167
von Kleist, Heinrich. Uber das Marionettentheater. In Ober
das Marionettentheater: Aufsatze und Anekdoten.
Wiesbaden: IM Insel-Verlag, 1954.
Kumiega, Jennifer. The Theatre of Grotowski. London:

Methuen London and Methuen, 1985; Methuen London,
1987.
Leach, Robert. Vsevolod Meyerhold. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1989.
Livet, Anne, ed. Contemporary Dance: An Anthology of

Lecturesr Interviews and Essays with Many of the Most
Important Contemporary American Choreographers,
Scholars and Critics. With an Introduction by Anne
Livet. New York: Abbeville Press in association with
the Fort Worth Art Museum, 1978.
Marranca, Bonnie. Introduction to The Theatre of Images.

Edited by Bonnie Marranca. New York: Drama Book
Specialists (Publishers), 1977.
Patterson, Michael. Peter Stein: Germany's Leading Theatre
Director. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Shank, Theodore. American Alternative Theater. New York:

Grove Press, 1982.
Shklovsky, Victor. "Art as Technique." In Russian Formalist
Criticism: Four Essays. Translated and with an
Introduction by Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965, pp. 3-24.
Shyer, Laurence. Robert Wilson and His Collaborators. New

York: Theatre Communications Group, 1989.
Articles
Case, Sue-Ellen. "Peter Stein Directs The Oresteia."
Theater. 11 (3) (Summer 1980): 23-28.
Davy, Kate. "Foreman's PAIN(T) and Vertical Mobility."

Drama Review. 18 (2) (June 1974): 26-37.
Foreman, Richard. "Richard Foreman on Richard Foreman: An
Interview by Richard Schechner." Drama Review. 31 (4)
(Winter 1987): 125-35.
168
Kalb, Jonathan. "The Iconoclast and the Underdog: Richard
Foreman and Biichner's Woyzeck Were Destined to Meet."
American Theatre. 1 (2) (May 1990): 22-27,71-72.
Lackner, Peter. "Stein's Path to Shakespeare." Drama

Review. 21 (2) (June 1977): 79-102.
Locke, Stephen. "Klaus Michael Gruber." Drama Review. 21

(2) (June 1977): 45-58.
Marranca, Bonnie, ed., and Elinor Fuchs (interviews). "The

PAJ Casebook: Alcestis." Performing Arts Journal (PAJ
28). 10 (1) (1986): 78-115.
Nahshon, Edna. "With Foreman on Broadway: Five Actors'

Views." Drama Review. 20 (3) (September 1976): 83-100.
Overlie, Mary. "Mary Overlie: A Letter." With an
Introduction by Sally R. Sommer. Dance Scope. 14 (4)
[1980]: 30-34.
Stein, Peter and Dieter Sturm. "Utopia as the Past

Conserved: An Interview with Peter Stein and Dieter
Sturm of the Schaubiihne am Halleschen Ufer." Interview
and Translation by Jack Zipes. Theater. 9 (1) (Fall
1977): 50-57.
Thomas, Richard. "Wilson, Danton and Me: A Recollection of

the Production Process." (Art by Robert Wilson.)
American Theatre. 10 (7/8) (July/August 1993): 24-28.
Trousdell, Richard. "Giorgio Strehler in Rehearsal." Drama

Review. 30 (4) (Winter 1986): 65-83.
169
APPENDIX A
ANNE BOGART'S DIRECTING HISTORY^
1976:
Macbeth, adaptation of Shakespeare's play, produced by The
Brook, New York City.
Two Portraits by Dedee O'Connel, produced in New York City

and San Francisco, CA.
1977:
RD 1,, the Waves, an original adaptation of Virginia Woolf's
novel The Waves, coproduced by Theater for the New City anc
the Iowa Theater Lab, performed in New York, California,
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Canada.
1978:
Inhabitat, an original theatre work, self-produced. New
York City.
1979:
Hauptstadt, an original theatre work, produced by New York
University, New York City.
1980:
Out of Sync, an original adaptation of Anton Chekhov's The
Seagull, self-produced. New York City.
Artourist, an original dance/theatre work codirected with
Mary Overlie, produced by New York University, New York
City.
The Emission Project, an original conception involving a

new piece each week performed as a soap opera in different
locations in New York City, produced by New York
University.
1981:
Dance on the Volcano, an original theatre work, produced b^
New York University, New York City.
Exposed!, an original theatre work, produced by New York

I'm Starting,, I'm Starting Over Again, an original theatre

work, produced by the August Moon Theater Festival, New
York City.
170
Leb Oder Tot, an original theatre work, produced by the
Hochschule der Kunste, Berlin, West Germany.
1982:
Between the Delicate, an original theatre work, produced b^
Theater am Montag, Bern, Switzerland.
Die Gier Nach Banalem, an original theatre work, produced

by Theater am Montag, Bern, Switzerland.
Sehnsucht, an original adaptation of Tennessee William's

Streetcar Named Desire, produced by Abia Theatre,
Northampton, MA.
Small Town/Big Dreams, an original dance/theatre work,

produced by Dance Gallery, Northampton, MA.
The Ground Floor and Other Stories, an original theatre

work, produced by the University of the Streets, New York
City.
Women and Men, A Big Dance, an original dance/theatre

piece, produced by PS 122, New York City.
1983:
Cordial Panic, three plays by Noel Coward performed
simultaneously, produced by the University of the Streets,
New York City.
The Lower Depths by Maxim Gorki, produced by New York
Sommer Nachts Traum/Lost and Found, an original
dance/theatre piece, produced by the Munich Theater
Festival, West Germany.
Grid, an original theatre work, produced by Werkhaus Mosad
in Munich, performed in Italy, Germany, and Austria.
History, an American Dream, an original dance/theatre

piece, produced by Danspace, St. Mark's Church, New York
City.
1984:
Inge: How They Got There, based on texts by William Inge,
codirected with John Bernd, produced by PS 122, New York
City.
171
South Pacific by Rodgers and Hammerstein, produced by New
York University, New York City.
Spring Awakening by Frank Wedekind and music by Lieber and

Stoler, produced by New York University, New York City.
1985:
Albanian Softshoe by Mac Wellman, presented as a staged
reading, produced by the River Arts Repertory, Woodstock,
NY.
The Women by Claire Boothe Luce, produced by Bennington
College, Bennington, VT.
Four One Act Operas by new composers, produced by the Texas

Opera Theatre, Houston, TX.
The Making of Americans, based on the novel by Gertrude

Stein, music by Al Carmines, libretto by Leon Katz,
produced by Music Theatre Group, performed at Stockbridge,
MA, and St. Clements, New York City.
1986:
1951, Les Traces, collective creation, produced by the
American Center in Paris, France.
1951 by Mac Wellman and Anne Bogart, produced by UC-San

Diego, La Jolla, CA.
1951 by Mac Wellman and Anne Bogart, produced by the New

York Theater Workshop, performed at the Perry Street
Theatre, New York City.
Betiêen Wind by Jessica Litwak, produced by Music Theater

Group, performed at the Lenox Arts Center, Stockbridge, MA
Cieveiand by Mac Wellman, produced by B.A.C.A., Brooklyn,

NY.
Danton's Death by Georg Buchner, translation by Howard
Brenton, produced by New York University, New York City.
1987:
The Dispute by Pierre Marivaux, produced by UC-San Diego,
La Jolla, CA.
Babel, an original theatre work, performed by the Theater
zum Westlischen Stadthirschen, produced by West Berlin's
750 Year Festival at four locations, Berlin, West Germany.
172
Cinderella in a Mirror, based on the opera Cendrillon by
Jules Massenet, text by Wendy Kesselman, produced by Music
Theater Group, performed at the Lenox Arts Center,
Stockbridge, MA.
Where's Dick, a new opera by Stuart Wallace and Michael

Korie, produced by Opera Omaha, Omaha, NE.
In His Eightieth Year by Gillian Richards, coproduced by

B.A.C.A. and Cement Theater, performed at B.A.C.A.,
Brooklyn, NY.
1988:
Assimil, an original dance/theatre piece, produced by
Danspace and Via Theater, performed at St. Mark's Church,
New York City.
Cinderella/Cendrillon, adapted from the opera of Cendrillon

by Jules Massenet, text by Eve Ensler, produced by Music
Theater Group in association with Via Theater at St.
Clements, New York City.
No Plays, No Poetry, adapted from the writings of Bertolt

Brecht, produced by Via Theater, the Talking Band, and
Otrabanda, performed at the Ohio Theater, New York City.
Kaetchen von Heilbronn by Heinrich von Kleist, produced by
the A.R.T. Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Once in a Lifetime by Kaufman and Hart, produced by the
River Arts Repertory, Woodstock, NY.
1989:
Strindberg Sonata, an original adaptation based on the life
and works of August Strindberg, produced by UC-San Diego,
La Jolla, CA.
Life is a Dream by Calderon de la Barca, produced by
A.R.T., Cambridge, MA.
Summerfolk by Maxim Gorki, produced by Trinity Repertory
Company, Providence, RI.
1990:
On the Town by Leonard Bernstein, produced by Trinity
Repertory Company, Providence, RI.
Once in a Lifetime by Kaufman and Hart, produced by A.R.T.,
Cambridge, MA.
173
1991:
American Vaudeville, an original piece, produced by
Movement Research, New York City.
In the Eye of the Hurricane by Eduardo Machado, produced by

Actors Theatre of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
Another Person Is a Foreign Country by Charles Mee, Jr.,

produced by En Garde Arts, New York City.
In the Jungle of Cities by Bertolt Brecht, produced by the

Public Theater, New York City.
1992^ :
The Baltimore Waltz by Paula Vogel, produced by Circle
Repertory Company, New York City.
American Vaudeville, compiled by Anne Bogart and Tina

Landau, produced by Alley Theater, Houston, TX.
The Baltimore Waltz by Paula Vogel, produced by Alley

Theater, Houston, TX.
The Women by Clare Boothe Luce, produced by San Diego

Repertory Theatre, San Diego, CA.
Orestes, Charles L. Mee Jr.'s version, produced by the

Saratoga International Theater Institute, Saratoga Springs,
NY.
1993:
Picnic by William Inge, produced by Actors Theatre of
Louisville, Louisville, KY.
Behavior in Public Places, adapted from the writings of

Erving Goffman, produced by Via Theater, performed at St.
Mark's Theater, New York City.
The Medium, adapted from the writings of Marshall McLuhan,

produced by the Saratoga International Theater Institute,
Saratoga Springs, NY.
1994:
The Women by Clare Boothe Luce, produced by Hartford Stage,
Hartford, CT.
Escape From Paradise, written and performed by Regina

Taylor, produced by Circle Repertory Company, New York
City.
174
Marathon Dancing by Laura Harrington, musical adaptation by
Christopher Drobny, conceived and directed by Anne Bogart,
choreography by Alison Shafer, produced by En Garde Arts,
performed at the Masonic Grand Lodge, New York City.
Hot 'n' Throbbing by Paula Vogel, produced by A.R.T.,

Cambridge, MA.
The Medium, adapted from the writings of Marshall McLuhan,

produced by the Saratoga International Theater Institute,
performed at New York Theater Workshop, New York City.
^ This list appeared in Eelka Lampe's article "From the Battle to

the Gift: The Directing of Anne Bogart," Drama Review 36 (1) (Spring
1992), 16-18.
2
The rest of the list (1992-1994) is updated by author
175
APPENDIX B
REHEARSAL SCHEDULE OF THE
PRODUCTION OF THE WOMEN
30 November: Introductions, Bogart talking about the

production.
Read-through.
1 December: Viewpoint session.
"Table work."
"Table work."
"Table work."
4 December: Staging - Scene 1,1 (pp. 1 - 5 ) .
"Table work."
5 December: Staging - Scene 1,2.
"Table work."
7 December:^ Staging - The rest of Scene 1,1.
- Scene 1,3.
8 December: Staging - The rest of Scene 1,2 (pp. 14-18)
- Scene 1,4 (the beginning of the
scene).

- Continued Scene 1,4 (pp. 28-31;
34-37) .
11 December: Staging - I Don't Want to Play in Your Yard.

- Continued Scene 1,4 (pp. 3 1 - 3 2 ) ,
and run-through of the beginning
of the scene.
- Scene 1,7 (pp. 4 9 - 5 1 ) .
12 December: Staging - Scene 1,7 (pp. 51-52; 5 4 - 5 6 ) .
Cue-to-cue - music transitions and
music underscoring.
Staging - Scene 1,4 (pp. 3 2 - 3 4 ) , and
run-through of the entire scene.
176
14 December: Staging - Scene 11,2 (pp. 60-68).
- Down in the Depths.
Working - Scene 1,1 (pp. 1-5).
15 December: Staging - Scene 11,2 (pp. 68-70).
Working - Scene 1,1.
- J Don't Want to Play in Your Yard.
Staging - Scene 11,3.
Finish Scene 1,7.
Scene 11,4.
17 December: Working Scene 1,4 (pp. 34-37).
Staging Continuing Down in the Depths
Scene 11,5.
18 December: Fight rehearsal - Scene 11,2.
Staging - Solitude
Work-through - From the beginning of the
show to transition to
Scene 1,4.
19 December: Work-through - From Scene 1,4 to Scene 11,2.
20 December: Work-through - From Scene 11,3 to the end of
the show.
First Run-through.
21 December: Notes from first Run-through.

Work-through from Scene 1,1 to Scene 11,2.
22 December: Work-through - From Scene 11,2.
Second Run-through.
23 December: Working - Scenes 1,3; 1,1; and 11,5.

Third Run-through.
27 December: Fourth Run-through.
28 December: First day on the stage.

Spacing Rehearsal (from the beginning of the
show to Scene 1,4).
29 December: Technical Rehearsal.
177
1 January: Run-through.
First Preview.
2 January: Working Down in the Depths and Singing in
the Rain, and Scenes 1,6; 11,3; and 11,5.
Second Preview.
4 January: Work-through from Scene 1,4 to Scene 1,7.
Third Preview.
5 January: Work-through from Scene 11,1 to the end of
the show.
Fourth Preview.
6 January: Work-through from Scene 11,4 to the end of
the show; and Scenes 1,1; 1,2; 1,3; 1,5;
and 11,3.
Fifth Preview.
7 January: Opening.
^ Music rehearsals are also taking place during the week of 7

December through 12 December.
178
APPENDIX C
PERMISSION LETTER FROM
COPYRIGHT OWNER
T. Charles Erickson
211 Lawncrest Road
New Haven, CT 06515
University Microfilms
Manuscripts Publishing
3 00 N. Zeed Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48102
To Whom It May Concern:

I give permission to University Microfilms, Incorporated t
micro publish my production photographs from The Women at
Hartford Stage, Connecticut along with the manuscript of
Dagne Olsberg's dissertation.
I am aware that University Microfilms, Incorporated will
sell single copies of the dissertation upon demand.
T. Charles
/ - / ^ ' ^ ^
date
179

Fine Arts PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fine Arts PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FREEDOM, STRUCTURE, FREEDOM:

ANNE BOGART'S DIRECTING PHILOSOPHY

Above all, I want to thank Anne Bogart for giving me

The tropistic tension between the inner process

5.1 The Women, P r e - s h o w 120

Starting at the end of the last century and

^ Bonnie Marranca, introduction to The Theatre of Images,

^William K. Gale, "Anne Bogart," Providence (RI)

''Arthur Bartow, The Director' s Voice: Twenty-One

^ Laurence Shyer, Rojbert Wilson and His Collaborators

^ Susan Letzler Cole, Directors in Rehearsal: A Hidden

Anne Bogart is a prolific and controversial director.

^ Eelka Lampe, "From the Battle to the Gift: The

^ Eelka Lampe, "Collaboration and Cultural Clashing: Anne

^Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 14-47.

^ J e s s i c a Abbe, "Anne B o g a r t ' s J o u r n e y s , " Drama Review,

^ Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,

^''Gerald Weales, [Review of The Baltimore Waltz],

^^ A n n e Bogart, "American Theatre in the Twenties,"

^^ B e n Brantley, "McLuhan's Old Message, A s the Medium

^^ A n n e Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^^ Heinrich von Kleist, Uber das Marionettentheater, in

^^ Bogart, symposium, 9 June 1993.

^^ A n n e Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^® Bogart, symposium, 9 June 1993.

^^ A n n e Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^° A n n e Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^^ Bogart, "composition" class, 14 June 1 9 9 3 .

^^ Bogart, keynote lecture, 17 October 1 9 9 3 .

^^ A n n e Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs,

^^ Lampe, "Battle to Gift," 19.

^^ Bogart quoted in Abbe's article, "Anne Bogart's

"^ B o g a r t , "composition" class, 14 June 1 9 9 3 .

''^Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.

Introductory Viewpoint Exercises

Introduction to "Shape" and

Important "Principles" of the

Anne Bogart, interview by author, Saratoga Springs, NY,

Bogart does not view the viewpoint improvisation as a

®Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.

^ Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,

^° According to a phone conversation with Bogart on 30

^^ The descriptions of the training and the quotes by

^^ Again, Bogart does not talk about the viewpoint

As suggested in the Introduction, Anne Bogart's belief

Rehearsal: A Meeting Place

The Viewpoint Training and the Rehearsal

Form and Inner Life

The Violence of "Setting" Material

^^ Bogart, interview, 22 June 1993.

^^ Bogart, interview, 30 December 1993.

^'Bogart quoted in William K. Gale's article, "Anne

^2 Bogart, "composition" class, 2 June 1993.

^^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^"^ Anne Bogart, "composition" class, SITI Summer Theater

^^ Bogart, "composition" class, 21 June 1993.

'^ Anne Bogart, symposium, SITI Summer Theater Workshop,

This chapter discusses Anne Bogart's rehearsal process

Juxtaposition of Text and Choreography

The "Rebirth" or "Resurrection"

Use the text, the characters and the situation."'

Technical Rehearsals and Preview Week

Actors' Response about the Process