00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content PROM THE COMPANY THEATRE TO THE PROVISIONAL THEATRE,
LOS ANGELES,.1967-1979: A CONTEMPORARY SEARCH
FOR AESTHETIC BALANCE
by
Philip Carter Doran
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Communication--Drama)
September 1979
Copyright Philip Carter Doran 1979
UMI Number: DP22925
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP22925
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
T H E G R A D U A TE SC H O O L
U N IV E R S IT Y PA RK
LOS A N G E LE S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Philip Carter Doran
under the direction of hl.3.... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
f P .........
Dean
D a te...
DISSERTATION MMITTEE
Chairm an
.........
‘Ph. D .
3
'qo
D£°!3
r$6S3A~'
M
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is dedicated to my wife., Constance,
and to my two daughters, Elisabeth and Meredith.
The author wishes to express grateful appre
ciation to the other people who offered monumental
assistance in this investigation: the members, past
and present, of the Company Theatre and the Provi
sional Theatre,- Dr. Herbert M. Stahl, dissertation
committee chairperson; and Mary Caroline Hymanson
of the English Department at Mt. San Antonio College.
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• >
11
Chapter
INTRODUCTION 1
II.
III.
Statement of the Problem
Importance of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Definition of Terms
Methodology and Feasibility
Review of the Literature
Plan of the Study
THE BEGINNINGS: HISTORICAL GENESIS AND
FORMATION OF THE COMPANY THEATRE., 1967 . . . 18
Educational Background
Artistic Training
Pragmatic Awareness
Political and Social Commitment
Aesthetic Understanding
THE FIVE YEAR SPAN: THE COMPANY THEATRE,
Tevya and His Daughters
God of Vengeance
In White America
Johnny Johnson
Antigone
Two by Terry
Coney Island of the Mind
Sir. 1
Icarus 1 Mother
The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey
The Empire Builders
The Sport of My Mad Mother
James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre
Red Cross
Voyages
The Emergence
Such As We Are for as Long as
It Lasts
1967-1971
38
iii
Chapter Page
Narrow Road to the Deep North
Children of the Kingdom
The Plague
Out of Town Experiences
Caliban
IV. A HOUSE DIVIDED: 1972, THE SPLIT, AND
THE COMPANY THEATRE THROUGH 1979 ........... 94
1972
A Separation
A Professional Theatre
A Theatre in Exile
A New Space
V. THE BEGINNINGS REVISITED: HISTORICAL
GENESIS AND FORMATION OF THE
PROVISIONAL THEATRE........................ 140
Company Theatre Ideals
Socio-Political Exploration
Smaller Ensemble
Outrageous Theatre
Equal Commitment
Performers f Theatre
Cooperative Collective
VI. THE RENEWED SEARCH: THE PROVISIONAL
THEATRE THROUGH 1979 ........................ 157
XA: A Vietnam Primer
Dominus Marlow^A Play on Doctor Faustus
America Piece
Voice of the People, Parts I and II
Inching Through the Everglades
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................... 176
Contributions of the Company Theatre
Contributions of the Provisional Theatre
Implications
SOURCES CONSULTED ..................................... 189
IV
Page
APPENDIXES........................................... 220
A. PRODUCTION HISTORY, COMPANY THEATRE,
1967-1972 221
B. PRODUCTION HISTORY, COMPANY THEATRE,
1972-1979 231
C. PRODUCTION HISTORY, PROVISIONAL THEATRE,
1972-1979 ..... ........................ 237
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 19^7* groups of students from three
Los Angeles, California, colleges formed the Company The
atre, a unique producing/performing group, which described
Itself In this manner:
The Company Theatre is an ensemble workshop, an
experimental laboratory, and a performing unit of
directors, actors, dancers, musicians, designers,
and technicians. It operates its own 72 seat play
house In Los Angeles. The group is dedicated to
exploring the newest forms, techniques, and materi
als of today's world theatre, developing them in a
cohesive workshop ensemble, and presenting the
results in public performances of rotating reper
tory.!
The company was structured so that all decisions, both
business and artistic, emanated from the Board of Trustees
elected by and from the active membership. Since only
persons functioning in the artistic community were active
members, "the artists themselves determined their own fate
and direction."
Unusually successful in determining its fate and
direction, before one year had passed, the Company Theatre
had developed a repertory, presented two original works as
well as several West Coast premieres, and received critical
1
acclaim. Jay Ross of the Los Angeles Advocate declared
Los Angeles
. . . the home of the finest repertory acting company
that I have ever seen. Best in acting, direction,
and selection of plays, the Company Theatre (1024 S.
Robertson Blvd.) is a true repertory company. . . .
No matter which of the productions you catch, you
are sure to experience an exciting and rewarding
evening.3
Harvey Perr, writing in the Los Angeles Free Press, added
the following:
An evening with the Company Theatre is never less
than a crucial, meaningful, and valuable experience.
At their worst, they are better than anybody else
in this city. At their best, they are capable of
building empires.^
By 1 9 6 9, the reputation of the Company Theatre had
spread across the country. Robert Pasolli of The Village
Voice in New York had this to say:
The Company Theatre is the fusion of the raw' romantic,
excessive spirit of the off-off-Broadway with the
solid training of the academy. It is the most bal
anced theatre practice which I have seen anywhere in
America.5
The Company Theatre continued to win awards, get financial
grants, create original works, and even become the first
performing group to mount a show in New York's Guggenheim
Museum. By 1972, the Company Theatre had attained
national significance. Richard Toscan, Assistant Professor
of Drama at the University of Southern California, review
ing a Company Theatre production, called it
2
. . . further proof that this is the most versatile
and exciting ensemble in Los Angeles and one of the
leading groups now working in the United States.
. . . To know what is happening in the contemporary
American theatre* experiencing the Company Theatre
is a must.6
In 1973j Arthur Ballet* the Executive Director of the
Office of Advanced Drama Research and a Professor of Speech
and Theatre Arts at the University of Minnesota* wrote
about the group’s artistic cohesiveness:
Moreover* while the big resident theatres around
the country promised us ensembles and new plays* it
seems that only the Company Theatre has accomplished
both. They have an internal style and togetherness
which no other company in the nation has acquired. •
One may take issue with some of the plays* and one
may fault some of the individual acting* but they
are an ensemble. And one may wonder if their play
wrights* resident or not* have the stuff of great
ness* but I would be hard pressed to find another
company which continuously tries to find new work
and to get that work mounted with taste and atten
tion. 7
Ironically enough* at the very time that Ballet
wrote* this group* which had an "internal style and
togetherness" unequalled by that of any other national
company* seethed with dissension over the future of the
Company Theatre. Indeed* Arthur Ballet also noted and
lamented the split:
Let it suffice to say that the cooperation and the
creations were dazzling indeed while they lasted.
If the differences have overwhelmed the agreements*
we can only sorrow for the loss to theatre generally.
And we can glory in what the Company Theatre accom
plished in its short togetherness; we shall hope that
out of the split might miraculously come a new togeth
erness or perhaps two equally exciting theatres.”
3
Indeed, the seven year period since the split has
generated two separate ensembles, one still called the
Company Theatre and the other titled the Provisional The
atre. The current Company Theatre defines itself univer
sally and eclectically:
The Company Theatre is an experimental theatre
dedicated to both the exploration of the newest
processes, techniques, and materials of today's
theatre world and the reinterpretation of classic
dramatic works. This eclectic approach enables the
artist and his audience to experience theatre as an
evolving form, directly influenced by, and, in turn,
influencing man's consciousness and environmental
fiber. The artistic force of the Company is a
nucleus of directors, actors, designers, musicians,
dancers, and technicians who individually and col
lectively guide all creative endeavors.9
On the other hand, the Provisional Theatre chooses to
describe itself more socially and humanistically:
The Provisional Theatre is a touring theatre
troupe, a disciplined collective (we laugh a lot
too, though) which is committed to using exciting
and innovative theatre as a tool to help reflect
and change the world around us. The Provisional
people--most of whom have worked together for ten
years--are cultural workers, creating original dra
matic pieces about the experience of living and
working in a land where loneliness, alienation and
cynicism are becoming all too familiar. Our works
are about spirit, hope and potential.10
Statement of the Problem
Clearly the original Company Theatre was an impor
tant theatrical phenomenon in the late 1960s and early
1970s. However, although founded by college-trained
personnel, its initial aesthetic philosophy was not clearly
4
formulated. In fact,.as Barry Opper, former administrator
of the Company Theatre and present member of the Provi
sional Theatre said, "Everyone was fresh out of school, so
nobody had strong, clear-cut opinions of what theatre
11
should be. We learned as we went along."
A study of the artistic advances of the Company
Theatre in its productions over its five year life span
reveals and clarifies this learning process. Therefore,
this dissertation will consider and evaluate the widely
diversified attempts made by the ensemble to create a
viable, balanced, theatre aesthetic. What is the proper
marriage of content and form? What is the nature of audi
ence involvement and aesthetic distance? What is the prior
impulse: the need to entertain or the need to educate?
Each question illustrates some essential value and element
involved in creating any worthwhile dramatic contribution.
Although the Company Theatre’s aesthetic philosophy
did not noticeably evolve clearer articulation in the perioc
from 1967 to 1972, the progression of the ensemble had
become clearer. Thus, disagreements on the future of the
group for the 1970s arose. The surfacing of such dis
agreements eventually resulted in the genesis of the 1972
Company Theatre and the Provisional Theatre. As Marcina
Motter, one of the original Company Theatre founders and
now the Secretary of the Board of the current Company
5
Theatre* pointed out* "The split was caused by three
12
important P's: personalities* politics* and philosophy."
This dissertation* then* will also need to examine the
continued development of the aesthetic philosophies of the
two offshoot groups. Special attention will be paid to the
original differences and to the divergent direction of each
group.
Importance of the Study
Clearly* the Company Theatre was the most important
West Coast experimental theatre launched in the 1960s. It
was the first experimental theatre on the West Coast to
receive a federal grant under the auspices of the National
Endowment for the Arts; it also received grants from the
Office for Advanced Drama Research* the Shubert Foundation,
and the California Arts Commission. Since its inception*
it has produced over fifty plays* among them seventeen
original works. With the disbanding of the Living Theatre
and the Open Theatre* the Company Theatre (along with La
Mama) has become the longest running significant experi
mental theatre group in the United States.
Additionally* the Provisional Theatre has become an
internationally recognized theatre troupe of the 1970s. In
reviewing one of its works in 197^.* Pan Sullivan* the
influential Los Angeles Times drama critic* commented:
6
Meanwhile, to repeat, the Provisional establishes
itself with this work as one of the most accomplished
performing ensembles we have— "we" meaning the United
States, not merely Los Angeles.13
The group annually tours throughout the United States and
also travels to other countries, always accompanied by
enthusiastic audiences:
Although the personalities portrayed by the Los
Angeles group--e.g., a man racked by his own inde
cision, a woman tip-toeing terrified through life--
are supposedly derived entirely from the American
experience, the enthusiastic international' audience
that packed the theatre for the group's European
debut seemed to recognize them all too well.l^
Even though the Company Theatre and Provisional
Theatre have made important contributions to the American
Theatre scene, no in-depth study has been made of either.
No complete historical or analytical record of their
productions exists and apparently no attempt has been made
to identify and codify their aesthetic positions.
Both groups are eager for such a record and
analysis. What was necessary in the 1960s? What is
necessary in the 1970s? What are the essential aesthetic
elements which make a group viable? While both groups feel
the correctness of stances assumed during the split in
1972, they are eager to understand more clearly those
factors which made each side distrust the other. Hope
fully, the philosophical bases for the split will be clari
fied.
For the scholar, the study proves valuable in
showing how an aesthetic philosophy develops within an
experimental theatre group. What historical forces were
shaping the direction of the aesthetic philosophy of the
original Company Theatre? Why have many of the other
groups founded in the 1960s disappeared? Why has the
Company Theatre survived? What changes were necessary for
survival in the 1970s? What tenets has the Provisional
Theatre espoused to attain viability in the 1970s? What
historic forces shaped the aesthetic of the Provisional
Theatre? What changes has the Company Theatre made in
response to the Provisional Theatre?
Limitations of the Study
This study will be limited to specific investiga
tion of the theatre aesthetic of the original 1967 Company
Theatre and its offshoots., the 1972 Company Theatre and the
Provisional Theatre. A comprehensive history of the the
atres will not be presented, except as the history is
important to the development of this aesthetic philosophy.
Similarly, although the productions will be studied
in order to analyze the aesthetic values, no attempt will
be made to investigate finances, purchasing, publicity,
house management, physical maintenance, or the acting of
individuals, except as these items relate to aspects of
philosophical development. Nor will a detailed comparison
of the Company and Provisional Theatres with other contempo
raneous experimental theatre groups be attempted, as such
8
an objective would exceed the bounds of the controlling
purpose of this study. However, some other groups will be
mentioned, since they have played parts in influencing the
aesthetic outlook of the groups considered.
Further, this study will concern itself more with
discovering the aesthetic characters of the Company and
Provisional Theatres as producing theatres than with
revealing the aesthetic belief of any particular individual
in the groups. Naturally, the aesthetic contributions of
key persons will be discussed, but only to the degree that
they influenced or otherwise helped to shape the aesthetics
of the theatres under study.
Definition of Terms
The field of aesthetics provides a very broad arena
wherein are engaged diverse points of view and theories.
As a field of inquiry, it seeks to answer such ques
tions as what is art, upon what principles is it
created, and what value is it to man and civiliza
tion. Thus, for the purpose of this study, aesthet
ics will be limited to a consideration of the art of
the theatre. A theatre aesthetic, as held by an
individual or reflected in a theatre's work, will
be defined as a conception of what theatre is as an
art and how it~ought‘ to be realized in practice.l5
Since most aestheticians talk about a work of art in terms
of content and form, Andrew Cecil Bradley, a professor of
poetry at Oxford University, can provide help here. Al
though he discusses form and content primarily in poetry,
his conceptions can be extended to all the arts. He
9
rejects any antithesis between form and content. In a work
of art, he contends, content and form are not two separate
elements, but one element regarded from two different
vantage points:
. . . it is a unity in which you can no more separate
a substance and a form than you can separate living
blood and the life in the blood. This unity has, if
you like, various "aspects" or "sides," but they are
not factors or parts; if you try to examine one, you
find it is also the other. Call them substance and
form if you please, but these are not the reciprocally
exclusive substance and form to which the two conten
tions must refer. They do not "agree," for they are
not apart: they are one thing from different points
of view, and in that sense identical. And this
identity of content and form, you will say, is no
accident; it is of the essence of poetry insofar as
it is poetry, and of all art insofar as it is art.l6
Therefore, what this, study will look for is the development
of an aesthetic theory in that rare organic combination,
the satisfying meeting of form and content.
Steven Kent, one of the Artistic Directors of the
original Company Theatre and now a member of the Provi
sional Theatre, wrote an article entitled "Theatre Does Not
Live by Content Alone; Play Must Be Total Experience" in
which he expressed himself similarly:
Our critics seem to be looking for content separate
from form and media as though the examinations of
thinkers like McLuhan were not clear or had never
existed, or just simply had no validity. Lighting,
acting, music, choreography, direction, and play-
script are not a literary experience. They are all
part of the theatrical whole. A total experience.
The script is the stimulus. Without it there would
be no production. But it should not be separated
from the production. . . . Content cannot be
abstracted from the event. It is the event.1.7
10
Therefore, in this study, the productions will be examined
in the light of that blended content and form which yields
a satisfying theatrical whole.
Methodology and Feasibility
To facilitate this study, the author received per
mission from both the Company Theatre and the Provisional
Theatre to have complete access to all files, including
minutes of weekly business meetings, internal correspon-
l8
dence, reviews, photographs, and published materials.
Oral histories taken from members of the group constitute
another large source of material. Most of the personnel
involved in both the Company Theatre and the Provisional
Theatre still reside in the Los Angeles area and are will
ing to be interviewed. The third large source of materials
is the critical response of the public press to presenta
tions of both the Company Theatre and the Provisional
Theatre. All Los Angeles productions received press
coverage, and many national and international papers
covered the productions that traveled the United States
and other countries.
As each production is studied to determine contri
butions toward the aesthetic philosophy of the producing
group, four critical questions will be asked: "What was
the producing group's judgment of the production?" "What
was the response of the audience?" "What was the assess
ment of the production by the critics?" Finally, "What
11
contribution did the production make toward formulating a
theatre aesthetic for the times?" The sources listed above
will enable questions to be answered with minimal diffi
culty or bias.
Review of the Literature
Many of the experimental theatres of the 1960 s have
stopped production. Margaret Croyden, Associate Professor
of English and Dramatic Literature at Jersey City State
College,, laments their demise:
By 1973 the non-literary experimental theatre
appeared to be on the decline. The Living Theatre
and the Open Theatre were disbanded, the Performance
Group was reorganized (but its new productions were
not successful), and Grotowski's Polish Laboratory
Theatre seemed to be promoting anti-theatre. . . .
The editor of a promising new theatrical Journal
Performance dismissed the i9 6 01s in four paragraphs:
in a New York Times article, a leading experimental
ist of that decade (Richard Schechner) disclaimed
his former theories. . . . The exciting ferment of
the sixties had turned sour. And so went the
experimental theatre. Not so surprising, really.19
Although there have been several books on specific
experimental groups like the Open Theatre and the Living
Theatre, there have been no volumes on the Company Theatre
or the Provisional Theatre. Indeed, only one serious
success factor consideration has been attempted concerning
the Company Theatre, Maureen O'Toole’s 1970 Master of Arts
thesis done at the University of California at Los Ange-
20
les. Completed when the group had worked together for
12
only two and a half years, the thesis was labelled "Inaccu
rate and sloppy" by Barry Opper.
Some insight into the paths being taken by the
Provisional Theatre may be gained by reading Karen Malpede
Taylor's People 1s Theatre in Amerika [sic ], where she
traces the history of revolutionary, alternative theatre
groups in the United States. As for the Provisional The
atre itself, the only critical work extant is an examina
tion of its production XA: A Vietnam Primer in Paul Dexter
Lion's Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Southern
California, "A Critical Study of the Origins and Charac
teristics of Documentary Theatre of Dissent in the United
States.
Clearly, this dissertation will initiate historical-
analytical study of the development of a theatrical
aesthetic within experimental theatre groups in the United
States in the 1960 s and 1970s and become the authoritative
resource for work treating the Company Theatre and the
Provisional Theatre in the Los Angeles area from 1967 to
1979.
Plan of the Study
This dissertation considers the structure and
nature of the original 1967 Company Theatre and its off
shoots, the 1972 Company Theatre and the Provisional
Theatre. It analyzes, through their productions, the
13
artistic advances that the groups made in searching to
create a viable, balanced aesthetic. Such a study serves
as a historic and analytic record of an important dramatic
event in American Theatre in the 1960s and 1970s, and also
illustrates some essential elements and values in any
creative dramatic form.
The following chapter examines the beginning of the
Company Theatre in 1967- It reveals the historical context
which spawned the creation of the group as well as the
aesthetic position articulated at that time.
The third chapter examines the productions of the
Company Theatre from 1967 to 1971- The judgment of the
group is considered, the audience reaction is evaluated,
and the response of the critics is examined. Thus, the
growth of the aesthetic, philosophy is charted.
The fourth chapter traces the rise of the diverging
points of view toward Company Theatre development in the
1970s. These differences began in earnest in 1971j
resulting in the split between the current Company Theatre
and the Provisional Theatre. This chapter then looks at
the productions of the Company Theatre since the time of
the split through 1979 in an attempt to gauge the develop
ing aesthetic position of the current troupe.
The fifth chapter examines the beginning of the
Provisional Theatre in 1972 and 1973. It shows the
14
historical context in which the group became an entity as
well as the concurrent aesthetic position articulated.
The sixth chapter examines the productions of the
Provisional Theatre from 1973 to 1979* The judgment of the
group is considered* the audience reaction is evaluated*
and the response of the critics is examined. Here also*
the growth of an aesthetic philosophy is charted.
The final chapter includes the summary and conclu
sion. A complete production history of all three groups
is included in the Appendix.
15
NOTES
^■"The Company Theatre: What It Is," unpublished
descriptive material, November 1969* p. 1.
2Ibid., p. 2.
8Jay Ross, "Exciting Theatre Livens L.A.," Los
Angeles Advocate, November 1 9 6 8.
^"Harvey Perr, "The-Empire Builders," Los Angeles
Free Press, 1 November 1 9 6 8.
^Robert Pasolli, "Off-Off Broadway: Out of Town,"
Village Voice, 20 March 1 9 6 9*
6
Richard Toscan, "Notes for KPFK Review of Caliban,"
advocacy program Dealing, 5 P.M., KPFK, Los Angeles,
9 February 1972.
7
International Theatre Institute of the United
States, Inc., Theatre 5' The American Theatre 1971-1972
(New York: Scribner's, 1973)* P* 134•
8Ibid., p. 143.
^"Aucassin and Nicolette," unpublished program,
September 1976.
■^"Inching Through the Everglades," unpublished pro
gram, April 1978.
■^Interview with Barry Opper, 23 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Opper quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
* 1 p
Interview with Marcina Motter, 26 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Motter quoted In this dissertation
will be from this-interview.
^8Dan Sullivan, "One-and-a-half Cheers for Provi
sional, " Los Angeles Times, 1 October 1974.
^ Newsweek, 2 June 1975 j P* ^0.
"^David Emmes, "South Coast Repertory, 1963-1972: A
Case Study" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1973)* PP* 9-10.
16
1 6
Melvin Rader, A Modern Book of Esthetics. , 4th ed.
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973)* pp. 243-44.
17
Steven Kent, "Theatre Does Not Live by Content
Alone; Play Must Be Total Experience," Daily Variety
(Hollywood), 27 October 1970.
1 R
Company Theatre, private meeting, 26 March 1974.
Provisional Theatre, private meeting, 12 March 1974.
"^Margaret Croyden, Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets:
Contemporary Experimental Theatre (New York: Delta Books,
1975) /pp. 287-88.
20
Maureen O'Toole, "The Company Theatre" (Master of
Arts thesis, University of California at Los Angeles, 1970).
O "I
^ Paul Dexter Lion, "A Critical Study of the Origins
and Characteristics of Documentary Theatre of Dissent in
the United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1975)•
17
CHAPTER II
THE BEGINNINGS: HISTORICAL GENESIS AND FOR
MATION OF THE COMPANY THEATRE* 1967
The political and sociological mood of the United
States in the 1960s Is easily characterized as the era of
the flower children: anti-war* anti-establishment* pro-love.
In an essay entitled "An Elegy for the New Left*" Time
aptly characterized the year that the Company Theatre was
founded:
In 196.7j the New Left was just starting to har
vest its biggest crops of the newly radicalized.
Draft cards and American flags went up in smoke.
The Spring Mobilization to End the War in Viet Nam
brought together hundreds of thousands of protesters
in San Francisco and New York. Dow Chemical's
recruiters were driven off campus. Ahead for the
movement lay Woodstock* Chicago* Kent State* the
Days of Rage . . . .1
Nowhere was this weariness with war and disenchant
ment with the establishment more evident than in institu
tions of higher education. It was at the University of
California* Berkeley* where the Free Speech movement first
took hold. Most campuses around the country sprouted
chapters of Students for a Democratic Society. ROTC
training was scorned* and many colleges discontinued the
programs.
18
That the people who started the Company Theatre in
1967 reflected this social and political scene Is evident
In their educational background* artistic training* prag
matic awareness* and political and social commitment; it is
these elements which give insight into the development of
the aesthetic outlook of the Company Theatre.
Educational Background
Without exception* the people who started the
Company Theatre were college or university students.
Sanford Yaras* for example* had been a theatre arts major
at Santa Monica City College in Los Angeles County* Cali
fornia. When his father died in 1967* Yaras decided to
take $3*660 of the insurance money and start his own the
atre. Because he needed to continue working full time as
a material planner for an electronics firm during the day*
he sought a partner who could devote some hours of the day
to the theatre business. He called on a fellow theatre
artssmajor from Santa Monica City College to become his
partner* and thus William Hunt became involved.
Yaras, Hunt* and Marcina Motter* Hunt's wife*
searched Los Angeles for theatre space to rent. Most
places rented for $800 or $1*000 a month* but they finally
located a small playhouse at 1024 South Robertson Boule
vard* Los Angeles* just southeast of Beverly Hills' city
limits. According to Yaras* "Luther James* the former
business manager of actor Frank Silvera* lived upstairs*
and he was willing to rent the theatre for four nights a
week for $175 a month.
Motter worked in the computer center at the Univer
sity of Southern California., and Hunt had been recruited to
perform one of the leading roles in a USC campus production
the year before. It was only natural, then, that a gradu
ate student in drama, Steve Lee,, was asked to direct one of
the first productions. Logically, other USC students
became involved: Carol Brown, Gar Campbell, Nancy Crawford,
and Lance Larsen, .to name-a few.
A small ad in the Hollywood Reporter on Friday,
July 28, 19 6 7* announced open auditions for "all types, all
ages, non-equity only" the next day. Several performers
became involved, including Toby Coleman, a student at
California State University at Los Angeles, and Wiley
Rinaldi and Chris Van Ness, additional Santa Monica City
College students.
August was devoted to rehearsing in a cast member's
home and fixing up the theatre in time for a September 14
opening. In the meantime, a contingent of University of
Southern California students returned from a well-received
tour at the Edinburgh Festival of the Arts in Scotland.
Since Hunt had written to them while they were touring,
they eagerly took part upon their return. Included in this
number were Nancy Hickey,‘Steven Kent, and Candace
Laughlin.
20
After the first few productions had been presented,
additional personnel were needed to stage larger, more
ambitious plays. Again, it was only logical that fellow
students from Santa Monica City College (Richard Serpe),
California State University at Los Angeles (Coleman’s hus
band, Dennis Redfield; Gladys Carmichael; Russell Pyle;
Linda Walter; and Robert Walter), and the University of
Southern California (Stephen Bellon, Suzanne Benoit, Bill
Dannevick, Barbara Grover, Gordon Hoban, Sandra Morgan,
Louie Piday, Roxann Parker, Jack Rowe, Trish Soodick, and
Michael Stefani) would be asked to join. It is easy to see
that college "studenthood," reflecting as it did the con
sciousness of the period, was an important factor in
shaping the outlook of the Company Theatre.
Artistic Training
The wide array of artistic training among the
Company Theatre members is impressive. Also, because the
Company Theatre founders were college or university-
trained, they were used to disciplined study. Therefore,
the group possessed excellent background and resources in
directing, acting, designing, music, cinema, voice,
lighting, and art.
Indeed, the Santa Monica City College group ac
knowledged that they had received solid theatrical training
from instructors Bert Holland and Win Smith. They com
plained, however, of insufficient productions each year to
21
satisfy their theatrical appetites. Although William Hunt,
for instance, became one of the Artistic Directors of the
Company Theatre, his major interest always remained per
forming and he chose neither to direct nor to influence the
choice of plays.
Students who came to the Company Theatre from Cali
fornia State University at Los Angeles seemed to bring
special skills to those areas demanding detail work.
Russell Pyle, who became the Company Theatre's most promi
nent designer, confided that he had been a physics major,
4
then had switched to mathematics. He took private classes
from Jim Kirkwood, and was most influenced by the lectures
of Alvina Kraus. Gladys Carmichael and the Walters also .
excelled technically, and Robert Walter was also an accom
plished musician. Dennis Redfield was to become one of the
Company Theatre's leading performers.
It was the University of Southern California stu
dents, however, who seemed to bring the most eclectic
aesthetic to the Company Theatre. Stephen Bellon, the
second Artistic Director, was well known for his successful
staging of operas and such classics as Sheridan's The
Rivals.^ Many of the USC students had studied privately
with acting teachers like Nina Poch and William Wintersole,
with off-campus dance and mime teachers, and with voice
coaches. Steven Kent, the third Artistic Director of the
Company Theatre and the one who stayed longest in that
22
position, was not an undergraduate theatre major. He had
been enrolled in the School of Architecture and created
sets and costumes for USC Drama Department productions.
Kent marked his gratitude to the school for four things:
The little Stop Gap theatre gave all of us the chance
to do experimental productions all the time. Andy
Doe [the director of USC's Street Theatre] taught us
to take theatre out to the people wherever they were.
John Blankenchip-stretched all of us so much that
nothing ever scared us in the Company Theatre. We
were willing to try anything. And, finally, I
enjoyed learning from the older drama students like
Steve [Bellon].5
A great number of the students from USC also participated
in the Street Theatre experience and the Fringe Festival at
Edinburgh. Andrew Doe was an expert on Bertolt Brecht and
always advocated "people's theatre" in disadvantaged
neighborhoods. John Blankenchip, on the other hand,
always aimed for commercial success with his musical come
dies and the more serious American plays that he took to
Scotland in the summers.
Paradoxically, although the Company Theatre per
sonnel possessed impressive, even impeccable, credentials
in artistic training, a common thread of conversation was
their happiness that the Company Theatre allowed experi
mentation with skills and was not a "rigid place like the
schools we all went to."^ It is clear, however, that the
high artistic standards set by the people who affected the
training of the Company Theatre troupe have strongly
influenced the group's aesthetic philosophy.
23
Pragmatic Awareness
Time said, "The problem--and the charm--was that
8
nobody in the 60's planned anything." That generalization
does not apply to the Company Theatre. Attendant upon the
artistic training that the group represented was a practical
element. Like any other organization, they addressed three
necessary major areas: facilities, organization, and
finances.
The Company Theatre prospered in its choice of
facilities. When first rented, the playhouse (located on
the street level of a two-story white house near Olympic
Boulevard on South Robertson, Los Angeles) was painted
powder blue, its stage was covered with a shag rug, and all
the seats were on one level. Everyone tackled the remodel
ing job seriously. The apartment upstairs was eventually
turned into an office. The walls of the theatre were
covered with wood gathered from two houses which had been
burned in the Watts riots and stained with linseed oil, as
designed by Noah Purifoy, a sculptor who was serving as
one of the directors of the Watts Workshop, led by Steven
Kent. The rear wall of the theatre was removed and
replaced with sliding doors. A light booth in the back of
the house was built, the seats were raised and re-covered,
a new dimmer board was purchased, sawed off telephone poles
were placed to reinforce the ceiling, and specially stained
24
wooden tunnels leading offstage were built. Murals were
designed for the interior walls and the exterior front of
the theatre. The audience area was raised, so that there
were twelve rows of seats,, each row containing from ten to
fifteen seats, marked by two side aisles and another run
ning along the back of the house. The stage area was
fifteen feet across and fifteen feet deep with an additional
five feet opening into the back yard for building and
storage of set pieces. A garage at the rear of the prop
erty served as the dressing area, the prop storage area,
and the green room. The ambiance of the Company Theatre
Robertson facilities often drew praise from reviewers as
imaginative, tasteful, flexible, and friendly. Hal
Marienthal put his finger on the transformation:
C The playhouse in which Company Theatre performs
must rank with the less prepossessing buildings in
town, despite the fact that it lies on the fringe
of Beverly Hills. Located on Robertson Boulevard
just south of Olympic, it is on the "bad” end of
Beverly Hills', to be sure; in fact, hardly Beverly
Hills at all. Not many years ago, dreams of a
different sort were spun within its confines.
Here, Frank Silvera forged his "Theatre of Being"
and Bea Richards wailed her laments in The Amen
Corner. . . . In its own way, the Robertson Play
house, as it was then called, marked one of the
"in" places. Notably, it housed the first black
acting company to emerge from the ghetto, and the
town's liberal element flocked to its support, at
least at the outset. . . .
All gone I The playhouse has changed, but not
nearly so much as the company it keeps. Cavorting
there now are brave young theatrical bulls for whom
our town has waited far too long. . . . Let there
be no mistake about it: Should this truly impor
tant company be allowed to wither from neglect, all
of us in Southern California will die a little.9
25
The practical side of the Company Theatre was certainly in
evidence in the creation of a pleasant* workable playhouse.
The intimacy of the theatre itself certainly would influence
the aesthetic perceptions.
Since none of the personnel had ever been involved
in a producing group before* the Company Theatre had to
experiment organizationally. In November of 1967.? the
group held a Sunday afternoon meeting and made certain
basic decisions: Yaras and Scott Miller* a cinema student
from the University of Southern California* were named
financial managers; Hunt* Bellon* and Kent were made
artistic directors. Almost immediately* according to
Yaras* "arrangements were made to buy me out for $2*000*
but after receiving $100 a month for three months* I never
heard another thing about money." Steven Kent was one of
three directors of a non-profit organization chartered by
the state of California* and along with sculptor Noah
Purifoy and Judson Powell* the head of Compton/Willowbrook
Enterprises* he had started "Join for the Arts" immediately
after the Watts riots. Under this umbrella fell the Watts
Towers Theatre Workshop* an improvisational theatre group
begun before the 1965 riots* the Watts Summer Festival* and
arts workshops at the University of California in Santa
Cruz and Los Angeles. Although it also produced films and
record albums* the Company Theatre soon became its most
prominent project. A neighbor of Kent's* George ReBell*
26
assumed the financial directorship of the Company Theatre.
Members paid weekly dues and workshop dues, as box-office
receipts had not yet built up. In early I9 6 9. J according to
Marcina Motter, "George ReBell, the token grown-up of the
group, left because of lots of confusion as to where the
money was going." Instead, Michael Dewell of the Producers
Guild of New York, impressed with the work of the Company,
offered to have the National Repertory Theatre Foundation
act as a sponsor. It was he, Yale Wexler, Luther Davis,
and Brooke Lapin who assisted the group to become a founda
tion and to file non-profit papers. A year later, the
Company Theatre found that its relationship to the National
Repertory Theatre Foundation was unproductive, so the NRT
directors "bowed out gracefully," according to Barry Opper,
who had become the administrator after ReBell left. Dues
were no longer necessary. An elaborate set of Company
Theatre Foundation bylaws was drawn up which specified the
principal office, the corporate seal, the charter members,
the senior members' and apprentice members' application
process, the voting rights of members, the composition of
the board of trustees, and the duties of officers, among
other things. That charter members were not subject to
removal for any cause became an issue several years later.
Company Theatre members were especially proud of the demo
cratic nature of the structure, an innovation, they felt,
in the field of theatre. As one of their programs stated:
27
The Company Theatre Foundation was formed in
November of 1969 and is a State of California char
tered, federally tax-exempt, non-profit corporation.
The artists themselves are not employees but rather
voting members of the foundation, and thus determine
their own artistic direction. This democratic ap
proach is unique in the theatre world, and forms the
basis of the Company's legal structure. The major
.decision-making body is the Board of Trustees, com
posed of five representatives elected by the general
membership for a six-month term.10
Thus, after experimenting with the sponsorship of Join for
the Arts and the National Repertory Theatre Foundation, the
Company Theatre emerged as a corporate entity with a non
authoritarian internal structure. This pragmatic, no-
nonsense approach to creating artistic businessmen or
business-like artists was to lead, in time, to tangled
group dynamics and tension in balancing the dual roles.
Financial considerations always presented a problem
for the Company Theatre, as is the case with all theatrical
producing groups. However, the ensemble achieved remark
able success in securing grants for its work. It was the
first experimental theatre on the West Coast to receive a
federal grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
It also received grants from the Office for Advanced Drama
Research, the Shubert Foundation, and the California Arts
Commission. Later it even began collecting royalties from
original works. Despite such patronage, however, because
the theatre was small, box-office receipts were limited.
Rental for the theatre went up each year, rapidly becoming
28
a major item; royalties, props, fabrics, and other equip
ment created incessant and immediate demands. The area
that suffered, of course, was artist remuneration; since no
one was paid during the formative years, the ensemble mem
bers needed employment elsewhere or independent sources of
income. By 19-69* the group recognized four primary needs:
1) Salaries for administrative personnel, the
artistic directors, and other core staffers to
enable full-time involvement.
2) Establishment of a program of publicity and
audience development to maximize potential income
from ticket sales.
3) Establishment of a program of community sup
port through a volunteer Board of Trustees, repre
sentative of the community at large, and responsible
for supporting the long-range development of the
organization.
4) Initiation of a corollary fund-raising program
to subsidize the full professional development of the
theatre.11
These goals, which called for great monetary increases,
were never fully realized. Eventually some of the members
who worked in the office were paid $75 a week, according to
Elinor Graham, secretary to Barry Opper before joining the
12
Provisional Theatre. For the most part, working for the
Company Theatre entailed sacrifice. For all its practical
instincts, this very real concern for remunerating its
people was the problem least solved by the Company Theatre.
Opper clearly implied the artistic ramifications of this
financial situation:
29
Our largest problem Is finding a time--fairly
quiekly--when we can free our people from their out
side- jobs so we can work together In dally rehearsals
and perform six nights a week Instead of four. If
we don't get to that point at some near time, we
risk losing some of the excitement we've turned on.13
The constant tension between high artistic standards and
the pragmatism of financial survival remained a continuing
struggle for the Company Theatre.
Although the Company Theatre was comprised of very
young people, they were aware of the necessity for prag
matic solutions to realistic problems. Despite this
awareness, and although they were most successful in facili
ties and quite successful in structure, they were least
successful in finances.
Political and Social Commitment
Like most other citizens in their early 20s in
1 9 6 7, the founders of the Company Theatre were vitally con
cerned with political and social issues. Steve Kent had
been active in the black ghetto in 19^ 5j forming an improvi-
sational theatre group. At one time, he had considered
studying for the ministry. He and many of his friends,
including Candace Laughlin, spent hours in conversation at
the SCellar, a campus hangout, discussing political issues
with members of the Students for a Democratic Society,
including Michael Monroe, a painter who eventually became a
playwright for both the Company and the Provisional The
atres. William Hunt eventually evaded military duty by
30
claiming conscientious objector status. Most of the
Company Theatre members who came from California State Uni
versity at Los Angeles had been members of the cultural arm
of the W. E. DuBois Club, a leftist campus group. They had
formed the Insurgent Theatre which performed Bertolt
Brecht's A Man1s a Man for three weekends in October and
November 19^7j at the Robertson Playhouse, as it was then
known. Barry Opper had been a child performer and had
studied at the University of Illinois. Before joining the
Company Theatre,, he had served a two-year Peace Corps stint
in Liberia, West Africa, had trained in the Peace Corps
program for migrant labor schoolteachers, and had been
horrified by the evidence of police brutality at the Demo
cratic National Convention in Chicago. Later in the his
tory of the Company Theatre, the issue of the degree of
political and social commitment became a central arena for
group conflict. At the beginning, however, judging from
the first few productions, the Company Theatre personnel
were of one accord. At least in part, Tevya and His
Daughters and the issue of displacement were chosen in
14
reaction to Israel's Six Day War; God of Vengeance ques-
tions the possibility of human justice; Martin E.
Duberman's In White America "docudramatizes" racial injus
tice in the United States;-and Paul Green's Johnny Johnson
combines blatant anti-war sentiments with songs by Kurt
Weill, echoing-Brecht. Increased social and political
31
commitment was eventually to become a conscious driving
force In the Provisional Theatre, hut in the early Company
Theatre it appeared to he a "natural thing to have, because
every one of us was in the same bag," according to Gar
Campbell, a leading performer of the Company Theatre who
15
became one df ;its post-split administrators.
Aesthetic Understanding
The members of the Company readily admit the
naivete with which they first began play production. In
deed, several reviewers likened their beginning to the
improbable Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer musicals:
Arriving at the unprepossessing Robertson Play
house to see a Company Theatre production is a
little like one of those old movies where Judy
Garland, Mickey Rooney and a gang of kids got to
gether in somebody’s barn and somehow came up with
a show so fantastic it made the Ziegfield Follies
look like Krapp1s Last Tape.l6
The ensemble laughed ruefully at these descriptions
because they felt the overtones of truth. In a series of
interviews.in 1976 with members of the Company Theatre and
the Provisional Theatre, a list of retrospective "Original
Company Theatre Values" emerged.
All parties interviewed finally agreed that five
basic values had determined the group aesthetic philosophy
at the beginning: the primacy of the permanent ensemble,
the primacy of rotating repertory, the primacy of produc
tion values, the primacy of creative training methods, and
the primacy of the non-traditlonal.
32
Dennis Redfield, one of the Company Theatre per
formers who had become quite successful as a commercial
actor in films and television, remembered that the group
wanted "to be a permanent, world-famous ensemble of college
trained directors, actors, dancers, musicians, designers,
17
and technicians involved in rotating, repertory work."
This ambitious desire involved having a permanent space for
public performances which could support the personnel so
that all creative energies could be reserved for theatre
work. Democratic management was proposed to ensure each
member's equal franchise no matter what his current
responsibility.
Because Steven Kent had the most experience in
directing past productions and projects (his adaptation of
Lawrence Ferlinghetti's poems had already appeared on
NBC's "Experiment in Television" in 1 9 6 7)^ he transmitted
to the group his desire to explore and experiment with new
forms, techniques, and materials of contemporary world
theatre. He immediately began an ensemble workshop-
laboratory training system which developed exercises to
increase sensitivity, group awareness, nonverbal communica
tion, spontaneity, concentration, trust, and physical con
ditioning in facility, flexibility, and relaxation.
According to Kent, "I was willing to use anything and
everything from Grotowski to Artaud,' from yoga to Essalin."
33
Barry Opper pointed out that the Company Theatre
wanted to bring to the public a unique body of exquisitely
styled work. It was concerned with providing experience
that television and movies could not. It wanted to educate
student groups in techniques, methods, and productions.
Avoiding pretentiousness, intellectualism, and overt
political propaganda, it wished to enchant, dazzle, and
entertain the audience whimsically, magically, with cre
ative, spectacular theatre despite any limitations of
script.
Perhaps the closest printed articulation of any
aesthetic position occurred in a self-descriptive brochure
in 1 9 6 9:
The Company Theatre is composed of actors,
directors, writers, dancers, musicians, and artists
of the plastic and graphic media, who are dedicated
to the exploration of forms and concepts in the
arts, emphasizing communication in a synthesis of
aesthetic disciplines.
WE ARE PROFESSIONAL: Since we were founded in
early 19^7^ we have received recognition and acclaim
from Los Angeles theatre critics, drama departments,
leading theatre figures, and, most importantly, our
audiences.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT EDUCATION: Our parent
organization, Join for the Arts, Inc., is a chartered
non-profit organization designed to research and ex
plore aspects of creativity relative to the learning
process. Its aim is to cultivate, promote and ad
vance participation in the graphic, plastic, and
performing arts, and to use these arts toward
education and self-affirmation.
WE INSIST ON GROWTH: We have initiated a
laboratory session twice weekly, dedicated to ex
ploring the modes and means of our art. We include
creativity in gymnastics, spontaneity, dialects,
non-language use of the voice, music, dance, envi
ronments, body dynamics, and improvisational theatre.
34
OUR MATERIAL IS UNIQUE: We produce works that
need to he done in Los Angeles. In addition to the
standard play forms we have developed productions of
dance, poetry, music and "theatre games." If a
writer's work is incisive, cogent and entertaining,
it should he produced. As a result of this policy
we have established a record.of Los Angeles, West
Coast, American, and World Premieres.
WE WORK IN REPERTORY: Every two months a new
production is added to our busy schedule. There is
no closing date. Productions are maintained in
repertory as long as there is audience demand for
them.
OUR THEATRE IS MOVING PAST: Every art has its
fads and trends. Separating the two is not easy.
We try. Constant awareness of the psychology of
audience response to all of the arts and entertain
ment media equips us to present trend-setting pro
ductions.
OUR THEATRE IS YOUR THEATRE: In European coun
tries, our kind of exploring theatre Is largely sub
sidized by culture-conscious governments. Here in
America, groups such as ours must rely on the support
of educational institutions, art patrons, and private
citizens who encourage an awareness of theatre of
value.1 8
The purpose of the next chapter Il s to trace how
these aesthetic tenets were evolved, how they were modified,
which aspects gained In importance, which declined, which
came Into dispute, and which caused irreconcilable differ
ences among the Company Theatre ensemble.
35
NOTES
^Lance Morrow, "An Elegy for the New Left, " Time,
15 August 1977, P. 6 7.
^Interview with Sanford Yaras, 24 August 1976. All
subsequent statements by Yaras quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
^Interview with William Hunt, 9 September 1976. All
subsequent statements by Hunt quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
^Interview with Russell Pyle, 26 August 1976. All
subsequent statements by Pyle quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
^Interview with Candace Laughlin, 28 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Laughlin quoted in this disserta
tion will be from this interview.
6
Interview with Steven Kent, 4 September 1976. All
subsequent statements by Kent quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
^Interview with Jack Rowe, 14 August 1976. All
subsequent statements by Rowe quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
O
Morrow, "Elegy," p. 68.
^Hal Marienthal, "Towards a 'Theatre of Change,'"
Coast P.M. and Pine Arts, December 1 9 6 8.
^"Aucassin and Nicolette," unpublished program,
September 1976.
■*"^"The Company Theatre: The Immediate Needs," unpub
lished descriptive material, July 1969* P- 5«
"^Interview with Elinor Graham, 22 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Graham quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
■^Viola Hegyi Swisher, "The Company Theatre Phe
nomenon," After Dark, February 1970 j P* 20.
36
14 ,,
Company Theatre, Company Theatre Holds a Dialog
with Itself," Los Angeles Times, 18 October 1970.
"^Interview with Gar Campbell, 16 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Campbell quoted in this disserta
tion will be from thislinterview.
1 f ,
Lewis Segal, "The Company Theatre: L.A.'s Switched-
on Super-Rep," Coast F.M. and Fine Arts, July 1969j p. 22.
"^Interview with Dennis Redfield, 21 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Redfield quoted in this disserta
tion will be from this interview.
*1R
"CO. THEATRE," unpublished descriptive brochure,
August 1 9 6 9.
37
CHAPTER III
THE FIVE YEAR'SPAN: THE COMPANY THEATRE,
1967-1971
Despite the "Mickey Rooney--Judy Garland" label
pinned on the beginning of the Company Theatre, serious
artists were at work. The next five years of the ensem
ble's history clearly fostered a search for a satisfying,
viable theatre aesthetic, wherein finely Interwoven content
and form would speak significantly to an audience. The
task of this chapter Is to consider each production and
assess artistic growth or change. Three points of view are
examined: the judgments of the ensemble about Its produc
tion, the response of the audience, and the assessments of
professional critics.
Tevya and His Daughters
In selecting their first shows, the major concern
of William Hunt and Sanford Yaras was to fill the theatre
with a popular success. Although Israel's Six Day War may
have been one of the influencing factors in selecting
Tevya and His Daughters (the non-musical version of Fiddler
on the Roof by Arnold Perl, based on the stories of Sholom
Aleichem), Hunt confessed, "it really was that I had fallen
38
in love with the album of Fiddler and wanted desperately to
play the part of Tevya."
YaraSj the director, recalled that only one review
of the show appeared: "I think it was in the Beverly Hills
Courier, and it was a big, fat pan." Surprisingly enough,
the commercial intent of choosing Tevya and His Daughters
paid off. Audiences loved the show, and it opened in
September and played through October. Hunt labelled the
show "a mistake," and Yaras conceded that "it was only the
outrageous hamming and mugging that kept the show afloat."
Intent on making itself known to insure future shows, the
producers managed to land a general feature story on
Marcina Motter's costumes for the show in California
Apparel News:
FASHIONS--RUSSIAN STYLE (circa 1900) set the
mood for "Tevya and His Daughters," a production
of THE COMPANY, currently at the Robertson Play
house, 1024 S. Robertson Blvd.
"Tevya and His Daughters" . . . is a sprightly,
nostalgic play set in Czarist Russia at the turn
'of the century depicting the adventures of the
dairyman Tevya to find husbands for his seven
daughters.
It is a pleasant evening’s entertainment watch
ing the comicly superstitious wife, the scripture-
quoting Tevya, and the lovely daughters who manage
to find their own matches. . . .
The acting of William Hunt .as Tevya, who resem
bles- a young Anthony Quinn, is always enjoyable.1
Although popular, Tevya and His Daughters was not a produc
tion of which the Company Theatre is proud; after a few
years, it disappeared from the official list of Company
39
Theatre productions. Gar Campbell said, "We learned we
didn't want to prostitute ourselves."
God of Vengeance
As a companion piece for Tevya and His Daughters,
Steven Lee, graduate student.in drama at the University of
Southern California, decided to direct God of Vengeance by
Sholem Asch. He and Yaras, both Jewish, felt that an
evening of Jewish plays would appeal to the Beverly Hills
neighborhood. Showing some traces of social concern (the
play involves the attempts of brothel-owning parents to
keep their sheltered daughter from following in their foot
steps), God of Vengeance was chosen primarily for commer
cial reasons. By the time it opened, Lee had withdrawn as
director, and his chores were assumed by Steven Kent, just
returned from Edinburgh. The official program, The Play
goer: The Magazine in the Theatre, gives no credit to Kent,
but he was in on the first productions. The fashion
article above called God of Vengeance "bold in mood and
tempo contrasted to the gentle 'Tevya.'" Furthermore, it
mentioned tha't "The Company" was planning to produce In
White America and Johnny Johnson. God of Vengeance was not
a popular success (everyone conceded that it was Tevya
which drew the crowds) and was also removed from the offi
cial list of Company Theatre productions after a few years.
But Kent and his cast discovered that they enjoyed working
together and wanted to do more shows.
40
In White America
The new theatre group needed another production to
maintain the impetus generated by God of Vengeance and
Tevya and His Daughters. To keep paying the bills* the
Company Theatre had rented its facilities to the Insurgent
Theatre group from California State University at Los
Angeles and its production of Bertolt Brecht's A Man1s a
Man. The show played for three weekends in October and
November but was never considered a "Company Theatre show."
It did* however* bring into the Robertson Playhouse
designer Russell Pyle and others.
Steven Kent's production of In White America by
Martin B. Duberman had been wall received in the package of
plays that the University of Southern California presented
in Scotland in the summer of 19^7• Pleased by the play*
Kent and the cast felt that it made valid criticisms of the
treatment of racial problems in the United States. Since
it possessed satisfying content and a minimal cast (seven)*
the play was revived for presentation by the Company The
atre. There was no set* and the cast was identical to the
summer's* so it was produced quickly and kept the Playhouse
alive. The advertising fliers capitalized on the fact that
the play was already successful: "What it has meant* for
two centuries* to be a black man . . . DIRECT PROM THE
EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL. " 3 Although more satis
fying to the ensemble in theme and artistry than the pair
41
of Jewish plays, In White America failed to attract much
critical attention because it was no longer new or differ
ent. The group felt that it had to reach out for the
extraordinary in order to survive as a producing group.
Johnny Johnson
One of the cast members of In White America, John
Joyner, a student at both the University of Southern Cali
fornia and Puller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Cali
fornia, was chosen to chair a Sunday afternoon meeting
discussing the future of the Company Theatre. On that day,
several major decisions were made: a repertory company
should be formed, the "commercial" element represented by
Sanford Yaras (who was hoping to make money off of his
investment of his father’s insurance money) was voted down,
the "artistic" element represented by Steven Kent was voted
in, and the next production was to be a play that appealed
to all camps: the anti-war spectacle by Paul Green and Kurt
Weill, Johnny Johnson.
The casting demands of this musical virtually
guaranteed that everyone involved would be in the play.
This inclusion solidified all the groups into one producing
team, and Marcina Motter called Johnny Johnson "the first
real Company Theatre show." It was a natural choice.
Daily Variety pointed out that even though the play was
written in the 1930s about- World War I, it "retains inter-
42
est because of relevance to the U.S. Involvement in Vietnam
.4
today. Los Angeles Free Press described the plot:
The story concerns Johnny's misguided, but sin
cere, participation in war in order to end War. He
tries to halt the carnage around him in various
naive and fatally trusting ways, and is eventually
thrown into a lunatic asylum so that his pacifism
will not infect the rest of the world.5
The play presents difficulties: the Brechtian
style, chopped into fifteen scenes, is discursive, and, as
Steven Bach noted,
. ' . . the music is usually gratuitously introduced
and more commentative than dramatically functional;
the melodies have a 3-PermY flavor that sounds odd
in the mouths of, say, American cowboys; the
Brechtian devices are all tacked on; the play's
philosophy is naive, simplistic and soggy. The
whole thing must be a director's nightmare. 6
Yet the strengths of the Company Theatre began to emerge
with its very first production: the acting was praised,
especially Gar Campbell in the title role; the lighting was
frequently noted; the music was well integrated (played on
the piano by Kent himself); and the direction was highly
touted:
The current production chooses instead to emphasize
the satirical elements, giving the play a kind of
updated comic strip vigor which is fast, funny and
pointed rather than poignant. . . . Playing the
satire so broadly with such wham-bang techniques
was a risky decision, but the play works because
of the moderating, calming, thoughtful focus that
director Steven Kyle Kent maintains on the title
character, thus pulling the evening back from the
edge of burlesque into the realm of meaning and
reflection.7
Several of the reviews mentioned the attempt made to update
the play by having "grotesque representations of Churchill,
43
Stalin* Eisenhower* and DeGaulle for Green's intended* hut
forgotten* leaders of World War I." Russell Pyle* in his
first design outside of school* except for A Man1s a Man,
created traditional flats for the set. Although simple*
the set pieces were impossible to change when it rained*
so one night when the weather was bad and only five people
from Santa Barbara showed up* the cast just sang the songs
and refunded the patrons' money.
Thus* in its first major production* the Company
Theatre achieved a notable degree of success. The content
matched the mood of the country; the theatricality appealed
to the critics and audiences alike. The play ran for three
months* encouraging the group to begin building a true
repertory.
Antigone
In deciding what repertory works to include* the
group determined to select something old and something new.
The old turned out to be Anouilh's Antigone* directed by
Stephen Bellon. However* this aesthetic avenue proved
both unsatisfactory and unsuccessful. Bellon later said
that performance of the classics would have to wait:
We didn't have the experienced actors in the
group necessary in order to do a play in the classic
vein properly. Our actors are still in self-
exploratory stage of development. They are far too
young and inexperienced to be able to handle the
acting requirements inherent in period works. I
must say that we have two or three brilliant actors
who can do anything* really* and do It now. But*
44
on the whole, the others aren't ready. Most of them
are still at the point of exploring themselves, and
so, improvisational forms tend to appeal to them
more than structured works which demand more tech
niques than they have to give.9
Others In the group concurred that classic pieces
of theatre were- not the correct direction for the Company
Theatre to pursue. William Hunt noted, "Antigone was a
bust; we had no real concept of what It should have been."
Jack Rowe felt that Antigone was absolutely wrong for
"where this theatre was going." Thus, in one fell swoop,
classics were banished from the Company Theatre repertoire.
It was not until nine years later (after the split) that
the group once again wrestled with the classic mode.
Two by Terry
Opening within two weeks of Antigone was the "new"
direction chosen by the Company Theatre, an evening of two
one-acts collectively called Two by Terry. Directed by
Steven Kent, Megan Terry's two plays, Comings and Goings
and Keep Tightly Closed in a Cool Dry Place, received
immediate interest and acclaim. Gene Youngblood, in the
Los Angeles Free Press, lavished praise on the evening:
I never thought it would be possible to say this,
but the best of the arts currently in Los Angeles is
not a movie. It is two one-act plays by Megan
Terry. . . .
I cannot describe the revelation that it is to
experience these brilliant theatre events. Not since
Jean-Claude Van Italie's "America Hurrah" in New York
last year have I seen theater to compare with this.
^5
With "brilliant economy of movement, gesture, panto
mime, word description, parody, and satire, the "game"
[Comings and Goings] proceeds through a kaleidoscopic
variety of situations, scenes and problems drawn from
the theater, movies, and domestic life. . . .
One is left wondering how anything could follow
this bravura display of theatrical expertise, but
"Keep Tightly Closed in a Cool Dry Place" is theater
of such incredible intensity and genius— and it is
staged here so brilliantly-~that at the end of the
evening, one has almost forgotten "Comings and Goings."
• • •
Mr. Kent and Mr. [Alden] Rogers [choreographer]
have achieved here what must be the most important
theatrical event to grace Los Angeles in years. They
.and every member of their cast--especially Lance
Larsen and Dennis Redfield--deserve our deepest grati
tude for bringing theater to Los A n g e l e s .10
Other critics followed suit, with special praise for the
acting: "Acting on all counts, through both performances
was excellent, which is entirely in keeping with the
Company's policy.""^ And it is no wonder. These one-acts
are hardly more than exercises designed to show off the
virtuosity and flexibility of the performers:
"Comings and Goings," the opening exercise, is
a series of interchangeable sketches performed by
actors called to the stage at will by the director
and selected members of the audience. . . .
It is a step beyond the improvisational battle
grounds of method studio course material. . . .
Although the performance is much like an intel
lectual's vaudeville, it does serve as a showcase
and display for raw talent.12
Although Comings and Goings may be seen as a theatrical
version of musical chairs with actors jumping in to finish
scenes begun by previous performers, it represents an
important aesthetic exploration for the Company Theatre.
It is a work that is asking for a modern expression of what
46
theatre is or can be. What differences appear in a play
each night when different actors take part? Successful
performances never mimic the preceding ones. Keep Tightly
Closed in a Cool Dry Place is similar to Comings and Goings,
but it is more structured. The three men in prison are
subjected to probes of their psyches. Although they always
represent a specific identity, they can change identities
at will, but not with one another.
These two plays immediately became a staple part of
the Company Theatre's repertory, and its first contact with
"transformational theatre" brought astonishing success.
Jack Rowe confided, "We were a little bit embarrassed by
the rave reviews." These acting exercises, shared with an
audience, were an important step in the Company's seeking
out the nature and promise of modern theatre. As Gene
Youngblood suggested in his review:
Like all truly great works of art, Megan Terry's
plays move beyond the What of theatre to embrace the
Why. That is, they transcend the surface and the
immediate (the What of the play itself) and confront
the timeless source (the Why of theatre in general),
questioning the very basic elements of the form:
what does actor" mean; what does "characterization"
mean; what does "drama" mean; what is "reality," and
how does it relate to "story" or "plot?"13
This search for a theatre aesthetic was richly
rewarded. Megan Terry herself came to see the productions
at the Company Theatre and affirmed that she had never seen
better renditions of her works. Designer Russell Pyle
added that he felt these one-acts for the first time made
47
lighting an integral part of the ensemble. The simplicity
of the boxes for Comings and Goings and three beds for Keep
Tightly Closed in a Cool Dry Place increased the importance
of the lighting. He felt that its import transcended visi
bility and mood and emerged as a unique Company Theatre
virtue. It was clear that the Company Theatre would con
tinue to explore current theatre trends and abandon its
search for a classic aesthetic.
Coney Island of the Mind
With Comings and Goings and Keep Tightly Closed in
a Cool Dry Place firmly entrenched in the Company Theatre
repertoire, the group continued to explore the aspect of
"form" for Its theatrical aesthetic. At Stephen Bellon's
suggestion, the troupe resurrected Steven Kent's dramatic
j
adaptation of Lawrence Ferlinghetti's poems, Coney Island
of the Mind. First presented at Edinburgh in the summer of
1 9 6 6, it was one of the major hits at the Festival in the
British and foreign press. (Another was Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead by the young, then-unknown playwright
Tom Stoppard.) According to Winfred Blevins of the Los
Angeles Times,
Kent's adaptation gained such renown that NBC--
surprise of flabbergasting surprises--decided to
offer the student production to the nation on TV.
The apple turned to ashes quickly, though. NBC,
probably confident that Ferlinghetti's language was
too strong for the American public, doctored the
scripts--and, according to author and adaptor,
48
castrated, the play. Kent argued so strenuously for
the, integrity of the poet's text that he was locked
out of the studio. Later, an incensed Ferlinghetti
withdrew all permissions for staged performances.14
Kent, having secured the rights previously when he met
Ferlinghetti in a Berkeley bookstore, now went to San Fran
cisco again to spend three days talking to the poet.
He explained to the poet that he did not have control
over the television production, promised respect for
the poems, and boldly argued that the poems find
their real effectiveness on the stage.15
Ferlinghetti relented, and the Company Theatre proceeded to
restage Coney Island of the Mind. The choice is doubly
significant: First, it was a return to a successful past
production. Second, the choice reflects further searching
into the proper form for theatre. In White America could
be seen as a stop-gap measure to keep the theatre in pro
duction, but choosing Coney Island of the Mind shows the
insecurity of the group in its retreat to the known. The
piece is, of course, a turning to a sister art, poetry, and
transforming it for the stage.
The presentation again received a positive response.
It utilized strobe lights, songs, live music, choral speak
ing, chanting, and dance. Although the actors were
praised, the direction and ensemble effort received most
attention. Speaking of Kent, one reviewer said, "He uses
his young players in a swirl of choreographed brilliance to
16
evoke the sensual pleasures of life." According to
Harvey Perr In the Los Angeles Free Press:
________________________________________________________________ 49
Kent's production is so beautiful and so vital
that It has convinced me that good theatre Is good
theatre, regardless of the source. . . . It Is an
Imaginative display of ballet and songs; It Is a
series of human encounters; It Is a cry of pain and
of joy; It Is a brilliantly paced, cleanly devised,
and ultimately a fully realized work for our times,
clearly dedicated to the theory that the compelling
factor in Ferlinghetti's poetry is its urgency, its
immediacy, its brutal and colloquial imagery (which
impels us to listen and to make utter sense out of
its fragmented words), its despairing cynicism
(which reflects the times in which we live).17
Such praise for the director, although helpful at the box
office, also raised the question of a value system: what is
most important, the script, the performances, the direction,
the special effects, or the overall effect? Most of the
Company Theatre personnel felt that Coney Island of the
Mind was satisfying on all these counts.
Sir!
As a companion piece to Coney Island of the Mind,
the Company Theatre voted to do an original work, Sir! by
Winston Bradley, one of the co-founders of Join for the
Arts, Inc.. Sir! was a significant step for the group,
because it marked the first time that a playwright had
worked in residence with the director and actors.
In many ways, Sir! is similar to Comings and Goings,
the Company Theatre's previous experience with transforma
tional theatre. Although there are over fifty-six charac
ters introduced in the hour-long play, all of them are
50
played by two actors, In this case, by Lance Larsen and
Dennis Redfield. A Boston Globe review described the
premise r
The core characters, Boss and Grunt, stand in the
relation of master and servant. By the end, Grunt
has succeeded in the psychic annihilation of Boss and
has reversed their roles.
The "real" Boss and Grunt appear at the beginning
and end as well as a couple of times en route, but in
most of the "action," their relationship, with vari
ations on it, is projected in terms of a fantastic
series of pairings, king and fool, therapeutic bar
tender and drinker, mother and child, lovers of vari
ous ages and sexual persuasions, comic strip hero and
seientist-villain, man and beast, and so on.
The situation is never resolved in any of these
episodes because just at the.moment of crisis, a
visual pun transforms scene and characters: The
middle-aged wife trying to arouse her yawning husband
suddenly turns into the dry-voiced doctor, "Now turn
your head and cough"; what suggests Balanchine's Dark
Angel leading Orpheus into Hades we see a moment later
as two straphangers on the bus to Pasadena.18
The workshops conducted at the Company Theatre used the
same techniques employed in Sir!, and Sir!, in one sense,
grew out of them. Although Winston Bradley had devised the
scenarios, Larsen and Redfield actually wrote the script by
means of long sessions of improvisation recorded by Red-
field's wife, Toby Coleman. This process complete, Steve
Kent "directed" the play by adding the final touches.
Sir!, a tour-de-force for the two actors, held up its half
of the evening:
The exuberant inventiveness of "Sir!" is beguil
ing, and so is the performance, brilliantly directed
by Steven Kent, played with virtuosic athleticism
and highly developed sense of timing and ensemble by
Lance Larsen (who plays a leading part in "Coney
51
Island") and Dennis Redfield, a baby-faced young man
with a mop of blond curls who commands powers of self
transformation that are quite uncanny.19
And thus, two more experimental plays were successfully
added to the Company Theatre's growing repertoire.
Icarus' Mother
It Is clear that in less than a year the Company
Theatre had overcome Its first hurdle: it had attracted a
following and achieved critical acclaim. By the summer of
1 968, the ensemble felt confident of its "form": its acting
was praised, its major director was hailed as a genius, and
its production values were appreciated. The search for
"content" began in earnest with the addition of four new
plays to the repertoire.
However, the first play, chosen and directed by
Stephen Bellon, provided murky content at best, as John
Mahoney in the Hollywood Reporter clearly recorded:
Sam Shepard's "Icarus's Mother" raises questions
aplenty, but in keeping with contemporary theatre
philosophy and the sort of artful dodging which
plants ambiguity where commitment might root and
avoids the criticism that specificity might breed,
It is left to the audience to phrase its own ques
tions and wrestle its own answers. The harder you
In the audience work, the better Shepard b e co m e s .20
The Los Angeles Times also attested to the necessary search
for answers In Fredric Milstein's review:
Find the meaning, demanded Sam Shepard's "Icarus'
Mother" in its West Coast premiere as the first of
two one-acts at the Company Theatre. Although the
answers resided in one's own collective unconscious,
52
and the playwright's symbolic guideposts remained
obscure, his poetic trip proved worth the effort.
Five young animals have gorged themselves on a
Fourth of July picnic. They bask on a beach, belch,
watch a jet plane write circles in the sky, and sing
arias of alienation to one another. Scientifically
cold Howard and Bill play Albee-ish one-upmanship
with fat Pat, who decides to take a walk down the
beach with pretty Jill to "settle your stomach,
empty your bladder, loosen your legs."
Sensitive Frank goes his own way, while the sci
entific malevolen'ts perform a strange smoke-signal
■ rite with the barbecue. Like Icarus whose wings
melted when he went too close to the sun, the jet
falls. Frank returns In anguish at the sign, the
girls yell, "Gome and see!" Howard and Bill 'join
hands mysteriously.
Suspenseful questions run rampant: Why does the
jet suddenly write.the atomic question? "I'm not
going to miss the fireworks display* They get better
every year," says Pat, to further the metaphor of
dehumanization.
While the play, written like a controlled narcotic
"high," expresses no single theme, the happening on
stage is dramatic experience enough. Marcina Hunt,
Michael Stafani, Barbara Grover, and especially
Michael Carlin Pierce and Gordon Hoban as Howard and
Bill hypnotize with their disciplined concentration
and Stephen Bellon's choreographic direction is
superb.21
This production, which generated more questions than it
resolved, did not seem inconsistent for a group attempting
to find its own "voice," but not yet finding what it wants
to say. Designer Russell Pyle said that no new technical
ground was broken by Icarus' Mother either. "There was no
set, and the lighting was all in the script; we created no
new images."
The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey
In its search for "content," the Company Theatre
turned for the first time to a non-American writer for the
53
companion piece to Icarus' Mother. Steven Kent chose to
direct Slawomir Mrozek's The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey,
translated by Nicholas Bethell. Unlike the ambiguous
Shepard play, The Martyrdom of Peter Ohey expressed an
extremely clear message:
"Peter Ohey" is a play of message rather than
vision. A tiger has taken up residence in the water
pipes of a family bathroom. A succession of offi
cials, dignitaries, men of learning and art disrupt
the life of the family in every way imaginable. The
idea is that human life and happiness— seen as purely
personal individual things--are easily trampled by
the impersonal concerns of bureaucracy, state affairs,
science, education, the entertainment business, and
so on. 22 -
While this theme of "loss of privacy" spoke too explicitly
for most reviewers, the imagination of the director and
set designer made the play a solid addition to the reper
toire :
Mrozek has had the good sense to make an exuber
antly funny satire out of his message-bearing play,
if not great art it is first-rate theatre.
What makes the play go in this production is the
inventiveness and irresponsible energy of Steven
Kent's direction. All the caricatures are done with
style and flair. Nothing is tentative; the director
and his actors continually are taking chances, going
whole-hog into whatever they try.
There is, for instance, a circus scene recreated
with a dazzling enthusiasm and sense of joy, full of
the clowning fun of the circus.
The company Theatre continues to establish itself,
with the addition of two new productions to its
rotating repertory, as the center for avant-garde
theater in Los Angeles.23
This triumph of style over content was significant in the
development of the Company Theatre's aesthetic outlook,
54
because it was the first attempt to use "environmental
theatre."
Designer Russell Pyle had fixed standard flats for
the walls of the family's apartment., so the first act
appeared to reflect-standard theatre practice. However, a
circus moves into the apartment during the second act, and
at this point the transformation takes place. A circus
tent sporting a trapeze appeared over the audience; white
and red ribbons unrolled on the surrounding walls, encom
passing the patrons on all sides; popcorn sellers moved
throughout the crowd. Although these devices were Pyle's
Ideas, Kent took to them happily. According to Pyle,
I usually had to prove things to Steve [Kent], but
he loved this. This was, by far, the most elaborate
set we had done to date. We found that our first
environmental experience was a happy thing for both
us and for the audience. We had always complained
before about the close proximity of the playing area
to the audience; now we found that it was a joy to
get in and among the people.
Thus, in Its search for "message," the Company Theatre dis
covered a new "form." This beginning exploration of the
breakdown between audience and performer eventually led to
one of the group's greatest achievements half a year later:
a tactile, sensual, theatrical experience.
The Empire Builders
Stephen Bellon, described by Company Theatre member
Barbara Grover as "the intellectual, cerebral director of
.,24
the group, went back into the 1950s for his next produc
55
tion. Boris Vian's The Empire Builders, translated from
the French by Simon Watson Taylor, is an avant-garde study
of alienation heavily influenced by Sartre's existentialism.
Daily Variety described the story:
Briefly, the plot has a family of three plus maid
in a constant retreat to smaller and higher apartments
in order to escape the eerie sound of death that keens
in on them at intervals. That the only human act that
could stop it is their caring about each other never
enters the minds of the parents until much too late.
Daughter and maid, clued in, but impotent, leave in
disgust.
In the meantime there is always the Schmurtz.
Swathed in green, with bloodstained splotches where
the genitals have been ripped out and putrefactions
whipped in, he is compassionately onstage constantly,
victim, hate-object, love force, saying it all with
his mute, eloquent endurance. His final defeat and
death at play's end is a chilling, moving moment.
Jack Rowe portrays him stunningly, unforgettably.
. . . Bellon blocks and motivates his cast well,
showing excellent sensitivity to timing, and, of
course, understanding of the script. His handling
of the Schmurtz displayed fine awareness.
Russell Pyle's set, Gladys Carmichael's lighting,
and other tech credits are pro.25
The above review mentioned the two items that drew the most
attention in the play: the costume of the Schmurtz, which
was designed by Steven Kent, and the abstract realism of
the set designed by Russell Pyle.
In summing up the theatre year for 1968, Harvey
Perr of the Los Angeles Free Press singled out Russell
Pyle and The Empire Builders for "Best Set Design in a
Little Theatre," as well as Pyle's lighting for Coney
Island of the Mind. Pyle had purchased a hydraulic
system which allowed him to raise the center section of the
stage floor. Each time the beleaguered family moved
56
"upstairs* '1 the center of the floor would be lifted even
higher. Pyle indicated that it was the "most involved set*
so far."
Despite the attention given to the set* the produc
tion of a philosophical* foreign-originated script did not
seem to have contributed to the artistic advances of the
Company Theatre. Indeed* several of the reviews indicated
that such a constricted* tightly ordered play dampened the
spark of the troupe. It appeared clear to the group that a
Sartrean philosophy without a redeeming humor or theatri
cality impeded rather than furthered their peculiar gifts.
Barry Opper recalled it this way: "The Empire Builders was
relatively successful* it was avant garde and intellectual*
but it really wasn't who we were."
The Sport of My Mad Mother
By early 1969* the Company Theatre had a clear
image in the mind of the critics: they were a dynamic
group* well-trained* energetic; they were also important
experimentally* always worth watching; they seemed best in
unstructured* semi-improvisational pieces--somewhat less
effective in traditional* scripted shows; they were highly
theatrical and technically innovative. The Company's own
concept of themselves as an organic group-instrument was
clearly transmitted to others. Harvey Perr singled out his
favorites of 1 9 6 8:
57
1. Best All-Around Theater Experiences: The Company
Theatre productions of Lawrence Ferlinghetti's
Coney Island of the Mind. , Megan Terry1 s Comings
and Goings and Keep Tightly Closed In a Cool Dark
Place, , Slawomir Mrozek's The Martyrdom of Peter
Ohey, Winston Bradley's SirI
2. Most Versatile Director: Steven Kent (Company
Theatre).
The democratic structure of the group seemed to be working;
all of the pieces In the repertory were presented each week
and each garnered Its share of the audience.
With the addition of Ann Jelllcoe's The Sport of My
Mad Mother to the repertoire, the Company Theatre felt It
had come of age. As ensemble member Jack Rowe put It,
"Sport was the first mature show we did. It had style,
content, and Its own 'truth.'" Director Steven Kent also
felt It was an important milestone in the group's history
for a variety of reasons: the angry, violent action was
palatable to the audiences because of the vivid theatri
cality of the production; the cast had felt free to change
the ending of the play so that it remained a "dark" wofk;
modifications had been made so that the play became presen-
tational--the cast actually spoke to the audience; it was
the Company Theatre's first multimedia play--films of
flames were used to suggest the small campfire; it was the
first production to successfully integrate rock music into
a non-musical play; lighting was used to "paint with color";
it was more "environmental" than ever before--a cargo net
covered the audience, actors crawled on overhead pipes,
58
newspapers were thrown at the patrons, a plastic sheet was
lowered over the spectators, etc. This play brought the
group its first rave review in the national press, the
27
Village Voice in New York.
Kent and Candace Laughlin had seen a production of
Sport of My Mad Mother at the Royal Court in England.
Wanting to make it relevant to American audiences, Kent
changed the setting of Guy Fawkes Day to Halloween, the
Teddy Boys to Hell's Angels, and the British colloquialisms
to American slang. The content appealed particularly to
the young people of the Company Theatre:
This new offering of the Company Theatre comes on
as a mind-blowing melange of vaudevillian olios that
turns the theatre into a psychedelic circus for the.
first two acts. In the third and final act, it set
tles down to a cogent statement on how the revolu
tionary youth element fits into (or outside of) the
total society. 28
The production made it impossible for the audience not to
experience the raw emotions of the angry script:
Under Steven Kent's direction, the play assaults
all the senses— everyone in the audience is in the
middle of the action with players crawling through
the aisles, climbing overhead and literally envelop
ing the audience in a plastic sheet. Three rock
musicians play amplified music to underscore the
action, at times reaching ear-piercing volume, at
times joyously liberating the action, accompanying
the players in an uninhibited dance.29
All the actors garnered fine notices too. These
general plaudits were evident in Larry Taylor's plot
synopsis:
59
The action takes place in the slum alley hiding
place of two violent young hoodlums, Fak and Cone,
played most effectively by Dennis Redfield and Wiley
Rinaldi. They are at each other's throats playing
their sadistic games in the company of a young girl,
Patty, attractively played by Louise Piday. They
pass the time waiting for Greta, the one who can
bring some purpose into their being.
Greta, tall and foreboding, in her long swooping
black cape, is a ruthlessly domineering presence as
performed by Lynn Brown. Lashing out at Fak with
chains, ravishing Cone sexually, ordering everything
about her in mad abandon, she is the archetypical
earth mother life force, creating and destroying at
the slightest whim.
Earlier, before Greta arrives, the group is
Joined by two interlopers, Gar Campbell as the philo
sophic Dean and Candace Laughlin as the timid, inno
cent DoDo. Miss Laughlin gives another one of her
masterful performances— her face a joy to watch as
she plays her childlike games, her shrieks heart
rending as she cowers before the brutality around
her. Campbell, pleading that "We must bring order
and love to life," falls before the irrational Greta,
symbolic of every attempt to bring order to the
chaotic world.30
Like Johnny Johnson in 19^7^ Sport of My Mad Mother
was a happy fusion of the taste and talent of the Company
Theatre personnel with a script written from without that
expressed the concerns of the members within. Although
Comings and Goings and Keep Tightly Closed in a Cool Dark
Place had achieved equal success, they were of more inter
est to performers who were asking what theatre should be
than they were to’ a general audience there to see what
theatre had to offer. This concern for the audience
reached its height in the next production.
60
James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre
Despite the fact that seven plays were being per
formed in repertory each week, the Company Theatre members
found time to participate in the intensive laboratory/
workshop sessions conducted by Steven Kent. Although dues
were no longer necessary, the demands were still high.
Several members of the ensemble participated in a workshop
in Santa Cruz which culminated in an experiment known as a
"sensual maze." An'outgrowth of acting exercises known as
"trust builders," this happening proved very popular. When
the Company, was asked later to participate in a fund
raising drive, it chose to return to the maze concept and
develop it more fully. Despite an ill-conceived minstrel
show which followed the maze, the ensemble managed to draw
crowds of 400 people a night for three nights in the
Pilgrimage Theatre, an outdoor bowl in Hollywood. Business
Manager George ReBell saw the financial possibilities and
insisted that the "event" be turned into a production.
Eleven rehearsals later, under the direction of Kent, the
James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre was born. Lance
Larsen, a Company member, had named it after the stream of
consciousness technique used by the Irish author. This
theatre event proved so popular that it remained sold out
every Sunday evening for over two and one-half years.
Altogether differing from the violent, angry Sport
of My Mad Mother, James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre
61
typified the attitude of peace and love of the 1960s. Warm,
gentle contact with each individual member of the eighty-
person audience was the norm., since audience participation
was solicited and received. It was a new exploration by
the Company Theatre into what the nature of theatre was to
become.
The James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre, at the
Company Theatre * breaks down the distinction between
audience and actors; the performance depends on the
interaction between them. It is both a tactile ex
perience, much of the time the performance takes
place with the eyes closed, and a visual participa
tory event in which the audience joins the actors
in dance and mime. The total result is transforming
and exciting.31
Patrons obviously enjoyed being cared for, for they
returned again and again. Dan Sullivan said in the Los
Angeles Times,
I rather enjoyed the experience, both for its
own sake and for the odd flashback to early child
hood it'provided--this, I remembered, was exactly
how it felt to be picked up in the middle of the
night by your father and led to the bathroom. 32
The "event" not only changed over the course of years, but
even changed weekly, depending upon the needs of the audi
ence. Basically, however, there were always three distinct
parts to the evening:
The "Liquid Theatre" begins with The Maze. You
are led into a small anteroom. Asked to sit on
cushionable 'sacks of grain. Given warm, pungent
mint tea to drink. A spirit of casual abandon
enters the room, without entirely driving away
lingering wisps of anxious anticipation. A guide
explains that you are about to enter a sensory ex
perience. A gentle funhouse of the body.
62
Individually* one by one* you are led into the
maze. You are asked to close your eyes. Soft voices*
hands* bodies surround you* guide you* embrace you*
caress you* support you* protect you. You are com
manded to eat. A bit of pineapple* its taste--like
the ambrosia Alice sips down in the rabbit hole--
oddly confused. You are asked to touch. You are
led through a kind of dance. You are asked* to the
accompaniment of a kiss* to open your eyes again.
. . . Mostly* I think* you're apt to be surprised
by your own reservoir of trust. The "Liquid Theatre",
is a chance to place yourself in a childlike state of
dependence and incomprehension. Its sensual aspects
are probably somewhat overbilled. It hints at the
senses* rather than overwhelming them. Like a waking
dream* it's over before it's been there. At maze's
end* a slight rush of relief and gratitude. Just a
pinch of ecstasy to counter preceding insecurity.
. . . The "Liquid Theatre" is most conventional
in its second segment* during which the members of
the company reenact something akin to the creation
of the world. Because the audience has been reduced
to such a pliant and receptive state* it works sur
prisingly well.
Section three is introduced by a trading ses-
slon--evidently the world has come of mercantile
age--and then it's back to trust games in which
everyone is urged to take part. The private experi
ence of The Maze gives way to the communal realiza
tions of the games. There is chanting* dancing and
more chanting. You're lifted aloft and tossed in
the air. It all ends in the confusion of a rock
beat and a strobe light's pulse.33
When the audience is finally dancing* the members of the
Company Theatre edge over to the sides of the playhouse
stage and suddenly applaud the "performers*" the members of
the audience.
This reversal of actor and audience roles was
wildly popular with the paying customers. Indeed* word-of-
mouth advertising alone kept Sunday nights filled to
capacity. Ironically enough* the success of James Joyce
Memorial Liquid Theatre triggered the first serious morale
63
problem within the ensemble,, for those members of the
Company Theatre who were primarily performers grew increas
ingly dissatisfied with the lack of specific roles.
Statements from Lance Larsen, who had titled the show,
characterized an attitudinal shift:
How did we convince thousands of people that they
were special? In the beginning, we had great affec
tion for our audience. That climate of affection, in
which all of us bathed, gratefully and happily, made
an easy birth for Liquid Theatre.
We lived the role for the first eight months.
Then technique came to the theatre with us on Sunday
nights. Technique came in the form of Care. We
cared for the people. They could feel the care we
took for them and they trusted us. We had learned
what we had-to do to elicit trust.
Why did we get rid of the show? There are 28 of
us and 28 different reasons. No concrete reasons.
But when the show came up for a full Company vote
during a Monday night meeting, people decided that
Liquid Theatre's time had come. . . . After the vote
had been tallied and the outcome was clear, we gave
a cheer, stamped and applauded.34
In their search for a balanced aesthetic, the Company The
atre came up with a new form ("the first of the feelies,
according to the Village Voice) and a simple new content
("Close your eyes, Trust us, Welcome, Hmmmmm! 10 ) which was
extraordinarily successful with the audiences but not
fulfilling to the group as a whole.
Red Cross
Stephen Bellon, pleased with his production of
Icarus' Mother, was delighted to find another play by Sam
Shepard that appealed to him, and the Company voted to
64
produce Red Cross. Although the plot is unpromising, the
Company Theatre managed to make It a satisfying 25-minute
work:
"Red Cross" is set in what appears to be a cot
tage or motel. It is inhabited by a young couple.
. . . The third character is a maid. . . . Something
is evidently wrong between the couple. The wife
soon departs, and the action resolves into a duologue
between the young husband and the maid. It is Pinter-
esque in quality, being mostly concerned--on a sur
face, anyway--with a discussion of body lice, from
which the young man believes he suffers.37
A bemused Dan Sullivan chronicled the play's surprising
success:
"Red Cross" is a puzzling yet oddly satisfying
play. On first seeing it in New York a couple of
seasons ago I silently berated it for not adding up.
On a second viewing, the irresolution contributes
to the spell. . . .
Meaning . . . ? "Red Cross" won't tell. Like a
Pinter play, it is haunted by a Secret that refuses
to materialize but is palpably there, in the death
imagery, in the hospital decor. Like a shape seen
out of the corner of the eye at night, it disappears
when you look for it straight on but dances back the
minute you look away.
The effect should be frustrating. In fact, it
is tantalizing. You think of a magic-realist land
scape: everything in it seems solid enough (Shepard's
people are familiar types, we understand what they're
talking about), but there is something creepy about
the perspective.
The task of the players is to behave as if they
didn't know they were haunted, and Toby Coleman
(Carol), Gordon Hoban (Jim) and Barbara Grover'(the
Maid) accomplish this with ease and kooky humor.
(Besides being weird, "Red Cross" is also funny.)
Steve Bellon's direction and Russell Pyle's design
are appropriately noncommittal. The secret sits in
the middle and knows.38
Although Red Cross broke no new aesthetic ground for the
Company Theatre (it is basically a repeat of Icarus'
65
Mother with its questions and sense of dread), it was a
successful addition to the repertoire:
"Red Cross,f:is that artistic rarity, with every
thing working for a brilliantly cohesive whole. The
all white set by Russell Pyle suggesting the steril
ity of modern life, perfectly complements the poetic
humor of Shepard's line [ sic ] which attempt to get
at the ludicrous terror behind everyday happenings.
In a series of graphic images, the crabs which
suck the life blood of the hero, Jim, correspond to
his living off the disadvantaged maid, which in turn
leads up to the final searing picture when the
whiteness of everything is broken up by blood red.39
Voyages
Much more important developmentally to the Company
Theatre's growing aesthetic awareness is the companion
piece to Red Cross, Voyages. Sheer accident forced Stephen
Bellon out of the sterility of merely directing another
man's script, Christopher Columbus, by Michel de
Ghelderode, and instead into presiding over the bloody
birth of the first "Company-created" show. Voyages,
"devised by the ensemble," came about without warning when
the rights for de Ghelderode's play were withdrawn, prob
ably because of the impending opening of the new musical
about Columbus, 1491.
Only three weeks remained between the time the
Company had been informed that the rights to Christopher
Columbus had been withdrawn and the scheduled opening. ^
Maureen O'Toole's thesis at UCLA described Bellon's
desperate and creative rescue operation: c
66
o
What Steve did was salvage some of the short
improvised sections that had already been prepared
for Christopher Columbus. One of these was the
scene in which the hero is being interviewed by the
press upon return from his trip of discovery, the
other was that of the sea journey itself. In the
latter scene, the hero crosses over a dangerous sea
and must contend with threats of mutineers and vir
tual starvation. Neither of these scenes were
actually described in detail in de Ghelderode's play;
they were the invention of the Company.
Finding himself without a text, Steve first ana
lyzed what it was that Columbus was implying and then
went to a source he felt would give him material that
would support that same implication.^-0
He felt that the hero in Columbus represented all dreamers,
all men who become mythic heroes. He lifted great amounts
of material from an archetypal study of myths, Joseph
Campbell1s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Campbell's
book, richly footnoted, led to the Egyptian Book of the
Dead, which was the largest single source of the poetic
material used in Voyages. The realization of the indi
vidual sections (birth, rejection, sea voyage, meeting the
monster, coming to terms with it, and finally becoming a
"hero" to others) was less of a problem than the creation
of the dramatic transitions to link those sections:
But as the ensemble became more and more familiar
with the material and began to more fully understand
what they were dealing with, they began to imple-
ment--through improvisation--the already structured
portions furnishing fresh solutions from which Steve
could choose the most appropriate.^!
Despite the harried circumstances surrounding the
creation of Voyages, it was well received. The Los Angeles
l±p
Times called it "pretty pretentious," but Bill Edwards of
67
Daily Variety saw in it a statement of the Company The
atre's philosophy:
Program notes state the journeys of every man
"prove very simply that all men are linked through
time by the search for peace * out of the endless
cycle of life, love, fear, death and the hope of
rebirth." They further state that the play "is an
affirmation of the belief that the theatre is a cele
bration of life."
"Voyages" certainly attempts that. Through a
sort of Living Theatre approach, actors create ef
fects from which the world was made, with body move
ment and an assonant chant depicting a chaotic
upheaval; roaring winds and calming breezes over a
desolate landscape; movement and sound of ocean
waves, and the glory of childbirth. Intermixed is
the voyage of Columbus, Galileo's excursions into
science to prove his theory and the inevitable anti
war statements.
Using a continuing seaman's theme, at one point
the main character is queried, "What is the land that
the voyage sails to?" He answers, "The land beyond."
Question: "How do you chart your course?" Answer:
"I dream."
Within the framework of the simple but interesting
play, a deeply religious note arises, albeit it is a
negation of the strictly formulated Christian doctrine
and a challenge to the established religiou.s mores.
Company Theatre seems to be saying that it would like
a godhead in which it could believe, but that person
or symbol should have a logical authority.^3
Voyages afforded the Company Theatre the thrill of hearing
its own voice by creating its own show. They knew the show
had weaknesses, however. According to Jack Rowe, "It was
done too quickly; this made it sophomoric." But, according
to Steven Kent, "The nineteen people in it were completely
devoted to it." The confidence arising from the ability to
create a show from scant material helps to explain the
aesthetic direction that the Company Theatre took with its
next two productions.
68
The Emergence
Like Voyages, the Company Theatre's next production
began with a script written by an outsider. Also, like
Voyages, it evolved into another Company Theatre-created
work. A San Francisco poet named Ama Giesta Fleming was a
friend of Company member Lynn Brown. Through her, he sent
the Company a charming 15-minute fairy tale called The
Emergence. Planned as a companion piece to a work by Sir!
author Winston Bradley, it eventually grew into a 75-minute
production which Dan Sullivan called "the most spectacular
,.44
divertissement since 'Hair.' His review pointed out
clearly that the script was not the important thing; it was
the imagination of the Company Theatre that turned this
into one of its biggest successes:
This one [play], laid in a rather campy version
of the Middle Ages, is about a king, a jester, a
wayward queen, her lover, a noble who does everything
wrong, a witch who cackles, and various other people
with odd names like Normal Degree of Decorum.
The story, which begins long after the production
does, and forgets to finish, is about how the king
found out that the queen was having a love- affair with
his squire and what he did about it. (Nothing.) The
story is not where it's at.
The dialogue is in the wide-eyed style of a chil
dren's book . . . with occasional flights of philoso
phy. . . . One scene is in Estrellan, which sounds
like Berlitz in concert. The dialog is not where it's
at.
Where it's at is Steven Kent's smashing produc
tion. . . . Orchestrating bodies, voices, costumes
(including nudity) and lights . . . like a wizard,
Kent produces some effects that deserve to be called
magical. . . .
That most of "The Emergence" is stage tricks, I
full admit. That many of these tricks are a little
ridiculous also is true. But the sense of delight
69
and play so often missing from our stage,, the foolish
extravagance that people used to go to the theatre
for. Is here.^5
According to Company member Barbara Grover, "The
Emergence was the high point of the Company Theatre; every
one was doing everything and morale was high." The entire
ensemble contributed: the Redwing Soldiers used old USC
walking patterns for humorous effect; Russell Pyle, who had
been influenced by Marshall McLuhan's ideas of cool and hot
media, decided to use five slide projectors, a mirror ball,
cut-outs of owls' eyes, a strobe light, and a magnificent
laser-like effect at the end made from ammonium chloride
and a simple bathroom heater; Kent devised a special trick
which made the audience feel that they were at the bottom
of a well into which the characters of the play were peer
ing; involvement with the audience was established by the
passing out of food beforehand and the many Soldiers' trips
through the aisles looking for the queen and squire.
The Emergence admittedly possessed little substance,
but the production clearly established the Company Theatre
as a troupe, that could overcome any script deficiencies, as
Lewis Segal attested:
If Fleming believes "All things are possible in the
• spectrum of the universe," and Kent has the master
plan for a dazzling demonstration, it's the Company
Theatre cast which fuses both medium and message
into something beyond trickery and leaves the audi
ence not only entertained but enraptured. And where
else today--north of the border--can you get a
mystical hallucinatory experience for only four
bucks ?^-6
TO
As another critic., Winfred Blevins, said,
As it stands now, "The Emergence" is an astonish
ingly impressive dramatic experience. By any standard.
It is one of the better examples of the Company's work,
and confirms that the Company Theatre is one of the
best theatres in this country.
I can think of theatrical groups with more polish
in their acting, but none with as much vitality. I
can think of groups with a stronger social and politi
cal commitment, but none with anything more crucial
to say. And I can think of no group which displays
such consistent theatrical flair, or such fecund
imagination. . ... The theatrical effects in this
play ar.e dazzling, and highly original.^7
With the dazzling success of The Emergence, the
Company Theatre established itself as an important ensemble.
In fact, the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle awarded three
of its annual awards for 1969 to the group, primarily on
the basis of The Emergence: one for Steven Kent for Dis
tinguished Achievement, Direction; one to Russell Pyle for
Distinguished Achievement, Sets and Lighting; and one to
the Company Theatre itself for Consistently Fine and
Inventive Ensemble Effort and Achievement. The last was
the only regular award given by the Circle to a producing
organization. Winfred Blevins of the Los Angeles Herald-
Examiner regretted the lack of further awards to the
Company, but "some Circle members felt that honoring indi
vidual actors at the Company Theatre conflicted with
honoring its ensemble effort."
This loud acclaim after scarcely two years brought
into focus one problem which had not been anticipated.
Dennis Redfield, who played the Fool in The Emergence, got
71
an offer to appear in an episode of the popular television
show, Hawaii 5-0--a filming scheduled in conflict with a
performance of The Emergence. For the first time, the
question of ultimate loyalties arose. Should a Company
Theatre member subjugate himself to the will of the group
or does he have the right to seek theatre success else
where? This incident was mentioned so often in interviews
that it clearly indicates that some problems were coming to
the surface, even in the midst of such a wonderfully suc
cessful theatrical unit.
Such As We Are for as Long as It Lasts
Planned as a companion piece to The Emergence, Such
As We Are for as Long as It Lasts encountered problems that
eventually made It stand alone as a new production. The
problems stemmed from a lack of unifying vision for the
play, as the program notes for Such As We Are for as Long
as It Lasts indicate:
. . . developed and finished in workshop rehearsal
from a partial script of the same title by Winston
Bradley. The play is a product of the actors and
directors interacting with Bradley In an effort to
create a truly ensemble production.^9
Although Bradley had written part of the script, director
Steve Kent and his cast made so many changes that Bradley
grew discouraged, and after one all-night ''temper flaring"
meeting, left the project. Barry Opper wrote the
Pirandello-ish ending in which the performers revert back
72
to "actors” and announce to the audience that "basically it
has been fooled--what is reality anyway? The other theme
is old hat too: that the world is mad and only the insane
are pure in heart. Dan Sullivan said., in the Los Angeles
Times, that it had "overtones of Pirandello, Grand Ole Opry,
and 'You Can't Take It With You.’"^ Cast member William
Hunt called it "pretty stupid; on a par with [television
situation comedy] Gilligan's Island." Hollywood Reporter
included a plot synopsis:
"Such As We Are" is a kind of human comedy. The
setting is an honor farm, as some prisons are called
today. It develops that the staff has long since
discharged the last honoree, and has turned the place
into a happy farm where the former staff members live
at peace. Things are threatened by the arrival of a
new prisoner. It turns out, of course, that he fits
in just fine with the other inhabitants.51
Despite the fact that Such As We Are for as Long as
It Lasts did not contribute anything positive in the
Company Theatre's search for an aesthetic, by this time
there was a "halo effect” around their work which impelled
statements such as this from the Los Angeles Herald-
Examiner:
With virtually every opening, the Company Theatre
solidifies its reputation as the most interesting
producing unit in Los Angeles.
"Such As We Are for as Long as It Lasts" will
enhance that reputation.52
The production also might have colored the ensemble’s
jaundiced viewpoint toward working with playwrights. In
73
the next few years there would be more conflicts and nega
tive feelings towards playwrights audacious enough to work
with the Company Theatre.
Narrow Road to the Deep North
By the beginning of 1970, wide support, a federal
grant of $10,000, and the patronage of the National Reper
tory Theatre encouraged the Company Theatre to find a
unique style. The first play of the year, Edward Bond's
Narrow Road to the Deep North, returned to a tight English
script. Stephen Bellon had wanted to do Bond's Saved, a
play in which a baby was stoned to death, but the rights
were unavailable. Unlike Ann Jellicoe's Sport of My Mad
Mother, Narrow Road to the Deep North had a studied, almost
Noh theatre, quality which obviated the notable theatrical
tricks of the Company.
The cast members themselves felt they performed the
play well, although critics were divided. Dan Sullivan
said, "The vibrations are very good at the Company Theatre
these days";^ the same day Larry Taylor wrote, "Despite
several scenes which show their brilliance, the Company
Theatre is finally defeated by the tedious, confused
script of Edward Bond's play."-^ In general the play was
regarded as stiff, serious, and rather formal. It traced
the 10-year struggle for enlightenment by the seventeenth
•4
century Japanese poet Basho, who continually asked the
question, "What is the responsibility of each of us?" In
74
general the acting and technical aspects were praised, but
James Powers perhaps typifies criticism of the production
in relation to proven capacities:
I think they are losing some of their steam in
plays that seem to allow them to repeat exercises
they have already demonstrated. They remain the
most engaging group in town but sheer charm is not
enough.55
No important artistic advances were made with this show.
Children of the Kingdom
'Company Theatre member Gar Campbell had found an
interesting Chicano script which he felt should be produced
by the ensemble. It told of an Aztec ritual depicting a
primal mythic theme in which a young man was chosen each
year to reign as a god., and was sacrificed as the year
ended. The writer's agent refused to grant production
rights to Pyramids of Ignacio Perez, so the Company Theatre
secured a grant to write an original work from the Office
for Advanced Drama Research. Campbell, Jack Rowe, Barry
Opper, and Opper's brother Don set to work writing a rock
musical. The Altamont killing had just occurred, and the
group felt that rock music (or theatre or fame) had a way
of setting up innocents for the slaughter. Later on, they
felt that the ending'of Children of the Kingdom was
"morally correct" because, according to Rowe, it was borne
out in' the deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin.
75
Children of the Kingdom was very significant in the
history of the Company Theatre for several reasons: it was
the first time that someone else besides Steven Kent or
Stephen Bellon directed a play; it was the first pure rock
musical that the group had done; it was a scripted play
written by members of the group; and it signaled the start
of a "women’s consciousness" group within the theatre.
Rowe directed the musical and Russell Pyle and
Donald Harris designed it in a naturalistic style that
contrasted well with the whimsical Emergence still in the
repertoire. Pyle and Harris transformed the entire theatre
into a realistic "rock arena"--the sound booth became a
recording studio with egg crate walls to enhance the sound,
etc. Jay Ross described the story:
"Children" covers a harrowing two days in the
on-and-off-stage life of a top rock group, Ace
Hannah. Leader Peter Corman is stifled by a para
noic realization that he has absolute control over
his fanatic audiences and could lead them to de
struction if he wished. The responsibility over
whelms him, and he quits in mid-concert.
The group sees its position as the culmination
of its dreams and resents what they believe to be a
cop-out, though a few members try unsuccessfully to
understand. Their anger turns against their promoter,
whom they see as a cold-hearted bloodsucker, and they
almost murder him.
But senseless violence is a part of our present
lives, and it comes from another source in a spine-
chilling ending.5©
Critics marveled at the quality of the music in the produc
tion :
76
What ensemble other than the Company would have
the chutzpah to stage a rock concert, compose the
songs, play and sing them--and bring the trick off
neatly? . . .
Considered together, and with the Company's three
years of work, they bespeak an artistic ensemble of
astonishing technique, skilled eclecticism, inven
tiveness, expressiveness--plus the boldness of their
exploration of the possibilities of theatre.57
The success of Children of the Kingdom changed the attitude
inside the Company. Although Steven Kent had arranged the
music for the show and. played one of the parts in it, the
production had been "created" by someone other than the
Artistic Directors. A new-found feeling of maturity pos
sibly generated a spark of rebelliousness.
This rebelliousness certain could be seen in the
female segment of the group. For quite a while, there had
been rumblings that female parts were not as good as the
male parts in the plays that had been chosen for produc
tion. One of the reasons for the creation of Children of
the Kingdom' was that it would provide satisfying roles for
Company members. Instead, the female parts were mostly
window-dressing— groupies and back-up singers. The women
held a special meeting to talk about it, and later casti
gated Rowe for letting it happen. The new phenomenon of
open criticism would certainly flower more fully during the
next original production.
77
The Plague
The critical success of James Joyce Memorial Liquid
Theatre, Emergence. , and Children of the Kingdom, true
ensemble works, for the first time allowed Company Theatre
members to ask themselves what they ''wanted" to do,
according to Charter Member Dennis Redfield. The struggle
for recognition was over. Now they had to ask, What was in
it for each of them? Into this period of questioning was
introduced a production that, with its rigorous demands,
literally forced people to leave or stay. Steven Kent had
long been fascinated by the subject of the plague. When he
was in England on the way to the Edinburgh Festival of the
Arts, he investigated the 300-year^old documents from the
period. Equally fascinated by Antonin Artaud's theory in
Theatre and Its Double that the purpose of modern theatre
is to create a plague, he attempted to combine these two
ideas (and at the same time following the format of the
Roman Catholic mass). He worked on his production of The
Plague for over seven months, during which time, nine
people gave up on "the vision" and left the Company.
Others who stayed, like Lance Larsen and Gar Campbell,
remained aloof and dispassionate unless given definite
assignments. Emotionally, it was a low point for everyone.
As Barry Opper put it, "There was a real plague at the
Company Theatre."
78
Kent attempted to create an environment to sweep
the audience into the play as it had been in past produc
tions. Designer Russell Pyle turned the theatre into a
seventeenth century mill, and asked the audience to sit on
grain sacks on the floor and in the lofts. Pyle called it
"the ultimate in environmental approach." When the plague
breaks out in the mill, the audience is warned that, unless
they leave immediately, they will be quarantined with the
rest of the people. Emphasizing the effect, the doors were
then locked and not re-opened until the end of the play,
when one of the characters asks everyone to leave so that
he may die peacefully. None of this artifice worked. The
cast had been so despondent about the play that they
insisted that Kent call in some help. Sam Eisenstein, a
visiting professor of creative writing at Los Angeles City
College and a friend of Redfield and his wife, Toby •
Coleman, offered to help. Unfortunately, the professor's
strength was fiction, not playwriting. He is, however, to
this day given script credit along with the Company Theatre
Ensemble, although the production was "conceived" and
directed by Steven Kent. To help make this clear, thirty-
one pages of material were handed out to each audience
member at each performance. This did not help.
The previous reputation of both the Company Theatre
and of Kent muted the best reviews to "polite." In gen
eral, however, most critics responded negatively. Martin
79
£ - O
Gottfried experienced "disappointment."-5 Jay Ross
regretted "this temporary lapse.Milton Klamen called
The Plague "an undisciplined work that gets high A's for
intent and sincerity hut also calls for a few gentle
60
spankings for self-indulgence and pseudo-cutesy schticks."
6l
Craig Fisher termed The Plague "theatre out of control."
Bill Edwards called for "a plague on the house of the
Company Theatre for one of the most pretentious and boring
62
productions in many a moon."
Although the Office for Advanced Drama Research had
also assisted with financial support in the development of
this script., it did not get its money's worth. Dorothy H.
Rochmis in The California Jewish Voice clearly expressed
the hostility that the production aroused in the audience:
I'm tired. Very, very tired of a contrived
involvement that Company Theatre seems to design
for its.various productions in their dedication
towards doing their thing. I stop right here . . .
unwilling to continue to be pulled, pushed, manipu
lated by the Company Theatre. I love them, admire
them, support them fully, lauding each of their
departures from the "norm" (whatever that is)--
but after "The Plague," I must call a halt. They
seem to be taking advantage of my permissiveness
(and when I say "my" I include all those who are
followers and fans of the Company).6 3
Unfortunately, the Company Theatre had lost the feeling of
an ensemble during this production. The rehearsals went on
too long, the vision was too complex and unfocused, the
members too disgusted, and the critical reaction too nega
tive for the first time. One person's obsession is not a
80
basis on which to build either a production or an aesthetic
philosophy. Perhaps Dan Sullivan summarized it best as an
unfruitful "private" conversation:
At any rate, one feels "The Plague" to be a false
turning for the Company, praiseworthy in its serious
ness and ambition and frequent beauty, but also frus
trating, rather wordy, more significant for them than
for us.6^
Out of Town-Experiences
For the first time in the four years of its exis
tence, the Company Theatre personnel had been told they
were not doing everything correctly. At this low point in
its history, there were further blows. The group took its
popular Ernergence on tour to San Francisco and received
less successful reviews than expected. They then went to
New York with James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre and "were
questioned seriously about their view of theatre.
The company's vote to take Erne rgence on tour to the
Bay area led to an unexpected phenomenon: the group had to
live commune-style at Mills College. For the first time,
24-hour "togetherness" generated unexpected differences in
life styles and even usually amiable people felt less
comfortable with each other. Elinor Graham, who has since
left both the Company Theatre and the Provisional Theatre,
labelled the trip an eye-opener: "The San Francisco
Emergence gig was a nightmare. No one realized before the
different value systems within the group."
8l
What Is more., the Northern California papers were
not kind to Southern California's darlings. Daily Variety
of San Francisco effectively reduced the already belea
guered travelers:
Still, it's interesting to look In on some of
the childish nonsense that passes for popular among
the tender-aged hip set. Good example is "The Emer
gence, " brought here for a brief run by the Company
Theatre, much praised before for avant efforts in
Los Angeles. A prominent eastern critic once
hailed "The Emergence" as a meeting of the Marx
Brothers and J. R. R. Tolkien. But the show is
really more "Three Stooges Meet Abbott and Costello
on the Road to Bali," without the talent or imagina
tion to match any of them. 65
The San Francisco Examiner echoed the label of "puerility,"
also managing a cosmopolitan Northern thrust at Southern
California provincialism:
The Company Theatre,-of Los Angeles, which Is
visiting here for three weeks, pays obeisance to
the avant-garde with a tepidly psychedelic fairy
tale called "The Emergence."
Ama Giesta Fleming's play Is sheer trivia, like
a pre-adolescent hippie "Camelot" ornamented with
cliche nudity and drenched with slapstick clowning
that could only appeal to devotees of the Three
Stooges.
Yet this is a highly acclaimed troupe, whose
experimental productions have received national
attention. . . .
Maybe it's something rare in Los Angeles. But
in San Francisco, "The Emergence" is silly, unso
phisticated stuff, most of which is hardly up to
the level of children's theatre.^
Even college students, who had always loved The Emergence
(one of the most successful performances had been at
Pomona College in Claremont), remained impassive. Don
Tollefson wrote in The Stanford Daily:
82
Two weeks ago I thought that nThe Beard” would
be a sure winner as the "worst theatrical material
of.the summer” seen by this reviewer. But believe
It or not, another serious contender for that award
has emerged.
The Company Theatre., a dramatic group from Los
Angeles which was founded In 19^7 by a group of stu
dents, most of them dropouts from USC, can be thanked
for making It a two play race with their production
of "The Emergence.”67
Although unnerved by the response, the Company felt they
would again be acclaimed in New York with the perennial
favorite, James Joyce Memorial Theatre.
Brooke Lappin, the controller for Hair and a gen
eral manager for the National Repertory Theatre, had seen
James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre in Los Angeles and was
instrumental in funding the production to be performed at
the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York in October of
1971. Steven Kent went in advance to New York and helped
pick the cast to be trained by the Company Theatre to take
over the show when the Company members returned to Los
Angeles. He declared that he was appalled at the commer
cial aspects of Broadway, yet, despite his feelings, he
selected a cast to be trained. Back in Los Angeles, there
was vigorous debate over who should be allowed to go and
who should not. Some people, tired of the show, did not
want to be in it again; others wanted a "New York experi
ence." Still others were upset because they felt that
Kent was getting undeserved credit for an ensemble effort.
83
When the members did arrive in New York* they felt
that the whole experience was "strictly commercial" and "no
big thing," according to Musical Director Jack Rowe. The
crowds numbered 250 each night., and the Los Angeles group
felt little rapport with the New York cast. The show
garnered excellent reviews, and the group of forty-two New
York actors kept it going for seven months, which was the
longest time that the Museum was available. Many critics,
however, made slighting comments on the value of James
Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre as "theatre":
Q. Is "The James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre"
(at the Guggenheim Museum) really theatre? A. No.
But water-beds, backrubs, vanilla fudge ice cream,
puppy-dogs, hot baths, and playing post-office
aren’t theatre either.68
But that this should be labeled "theater" rocks
me back. It is not new, of course, for theater to
serve as a pulpit for inspiration or as a soapbox
for social criticism. But what is new is that it
should Jettison all traditional forms, and func
tion, however superficially, as an antidote for
social alienation and a therapy center. 69
"Liquid Theatre" came to New York from Los
Angeles, an example of southern California exotics
that bears little relation to theatre and no rela
tion whatsoever to James J o y c e .70
The "James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre" is a
combined Happening, sensitivity encounter, and rumpus
room, and comes, of course, from Southern California.
Some of it is pleasant enough, but none of it has
much to do with theatre.71
The debate over the definition of theatre did not deter the
crowds. And even critics who worried about the form
enjoyed the experience:
84
"But tell me, Mr. Barnes, properly speaking, is
this thing here, theater?" "No baby, it’s not the
ater— it's liquid theater. And by the way, what a
great way to use the old Guggenheim at night."72
Most professional commentators have been quick
to point out the non-theatrical!ty of the "Liquid
Theater." They say its children's and group-
encounter games, physical contact with the actors,
and audience participation (individually, severally,
and en masse) isn't theater at all. The point may
be arguable. What counts is that it is at least
being argued. And so the gently courteous young
people of the Los Angeles Company Theatre are a
hit.73
Although the New York trip was a unique experience for the
Company Theatre members, it was scarcely the exhilarating
experience that many anticipated. It was the New York cast
that went over to train the Paris cast and the London cast
rather than any of the originators of the piece. Although
royalties did come to Los Angeles, "the complaints started
as we began to pay people for four-hour work periods,"
according to Barry Opper. Even commercial success cannot
always bring happiness.
Caliban
For awhile, the Company Theatre had toyed with the
idea of returning to a classic scripted play. The one most
often mentioned was Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe.
(Perhaps the idea of the price a man must pay in order to
have a rich life appealed to the group.) Although the play
was already cast, a move was made to substitute The Tempest
by William Shakespeare (the power of magic, the sweetness
85
of love over revenge). Barry Opper's political sensitivi
ties would-not allow him to participate in The Tempest
because he felt that Caliban, the noble savage, had been
oppressed unfairly by the invaders of his island. He was
talking about this concern one night with Michael Monroe,
the philosophy student and painter from USC who was a
friend to many of the Company members. Monroe agreed to
write a "sequel" to The Tempest showing what happened after
Prospero and Miranda leave the island and Caliban is a free
man once again. The result was the Company Theatre's next
production, Caliban.
The performers were happy, once again, to have
specific roles in a play. Both the writing and acting were
praised, but many of the reviewers pointed out that three
hours playing time was entirely too long. Even those
critics who enjoyed the play mentioned that there were
adjustments to be made and problems to be ironed out.
Larry Taylor indicated:
As with everything they do, the hallmark of the
Company Theatre's new production, "Caliban," is
freshness and creativity. However, one of the
hazards of continually working with new materials
in adventurous ways is that not everything jells
all the time, and this is the case with this world
premiere of Michael Monroe's play.7^
Leslie Aiseman wrote, "The current production is a reason
able mixture of successes and failures, while Winfred
Blevins complained, "I found the trip pleasant and enter-
86
talning, but I was disappointed. Where is the really
dazzling magic?' In this instance, the Company Theatre's
past glories were overtaking and hurting it. On the other
hand, Dan Sullivan commended them for their mature choice:
It's novel and welcome to see a Company Theatre
show chewing on questions of substance and not
solving everything with a puff of smoke and a chant
to the effect that we are all one. And It Is heart
ening to see them discovering the pleasures of the
long line, the metaphor that says It exactly, the
click of good words used well.
I'm stressing what is new, in the context of the
group's past work, about "Caliban." What is not new,
but remains a joy, is the wizardry of director Steve
Kent and his colleagues in just such matters as
smoke puffs and magickal (the "k" seems especially
right for this show) effects. Inner as well as
outer.77
Russell Pyle designed a set with multi-levelled
water and island images. Monroe had requested metallic
colors, but Pyle attempted to make them warmer. Since the
platforms were supposed to appear as if they were floating,
black legs hidden by black backgrounds supported the silver
platforms. Pyle regretted one aspect of the set, however:
the use of a new building technique employing laminated
egg crates, putting plywood on both sides, and then fiber-
glassing the whole. This technique so over-weighted the
set that It took 2 1/2 hours to put up and another 2 1/2
hours to take down. So bitter were Company Theatre members'
complaints that they demanded payment for placing and
striking the set.
87
Caliban included only two women’s roles* another
poor choice as far as the distaff members of the Company
were concerned. Thus* 1971 ended with a mixture of happi
ness and unhappiness* and a genuine concern about the
future of the Company and its plans.
88
NOTES
^Beverly Hewett, "Fashions--Russian Style," Califor
nia Apparel News (Los Angeles)3 13 October 19§7.
2Ibid.
^"In White America," unpublished advertising flier,
November 1 9 6 7.
^Beig., "Johnny Johnson," Daily Variety (Hollywood),
15 January 1 9 6 8.
^Steven Bach, "'Johnny* is Peace Musical," Los
Angeles Free Press, 26 January 1 9 6 8.
6Ibid.
^Ibid.
®Ben Pleasants, "'Johnny Johnson' at Robertson
Theater," Los Angeles Times, 2 January 1 9 6 8.
^Quoted in O'Toole, "Company Theatre," p. 15♦
10
Gene Youngblood, "Megan Terry," Los Angeles Free
Press, 12 April 1 9 6 8.
"^Ben Pleasants, "Company Presents Two Terry Plays,"
Los Angeles Times, 11 April 1 9 0 8.
12
x Ibid.
"^Youngblood, "Megan Terry," p. 11.
14 ,
Winfred Blevins, Steven Kent--Apostie of Relevant
Repertory," Los Angeles Times, 23 June 1 9 6 8.
15Ibid.
16
Larry Taylor, "Adaptation of Poem Restores
Wonder," Orange County Evening News, 17 September 1 9 6 8.
"^Harvey Perr, "A Coney Island of the Mind," Los
Angeles Free Press, 5 July 1 9 6 8.
1 P>
Michael Steinberg, "Young Man in Stifling Little
Room," Boston Globe, 30 January 1 9 6 8.
89
20
John Mahoney, "Icarus's Mother, The Martyrdom of
Peter Ohey, Company Theatre," Hollywood Reporter, 6 Septem
ber 1 9 6 8.
pi
Fredric Milstein, "Two New Plays at Company The
atre," Los Angeles Times, 27 August 1 9 6 8.
22
Winfred Blevins, "Stage Avant-Garde at Company
Theatre," Los Angeles Herald-Examlner, 2 September 1 9 6 8.
2 3Ibld.
2 4
Interview with Barbara Grover, 17 July 1978. All
subsequent statements by Grover quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
23Esse., "The Empire Builders," Daily Variety (Holly
wood), 28 October 1 9 6 8.
Harvey Perr, "L.A. Theatre for 1 9 6 8: A Summing Up,"
Los Angeles Free Press, 31 January 1 9 6 9.
23Robert Pasolli, "Off-Off-Broadway: Out of Town,"
Village Voice (New York), 20 March 1 9 6 9.
oQ
Bill Edwards, "The Sport of My Mad Mother," Daily
Variety (Hollywood), 13 January 1 9 6 9.
2^Larry Taylor, "'Sport of My Mad Mother' Best to
Date for Company Theatre," Orange County Evening News,
15 January 1 9 6 9.
30Ibid.
3^Liza Williams, "Theatre Report," Los Angeles Free
Press, 22 August 1 9 6 9.
32Dan Sullivan, "Company Presents Theatre-of-Touch,"
Los Angeles Times, 15 April 1 9 6 9.
33Gregg Kilday, "in the Joycean Slipstream," Los
Angeles Times, 9 September 1971*
3^Lance Larsen, "Liquid Theatre," The Drama Review,
Summer 1971> PP. 96-97.
33Julius Novick, "A Kiss is Still a Kiss," Village
Voice (New York), 21 October 1971*
90
^Leo Mishkin, "'Liquid Theater' in Art Museum,"
Morning Telegraph (New York), 13 October 1971.
James Powers, "Red Cross; Voyages," Hollywood
Reporter, 9 June 1 9 6 9.
Dan Sullivan, "Two Plays by Company Theatre," Los
Angeles Times, 19 May 1969.
-^Larry Taylor, "L.A. Group's One-Act Plays 'Out
standing,'" Orange County Evening News, 20 May 1969.
^O'Toole, "Company Theatre," pp. 101-2.
Z|1Ibid.
42
Dan Sullivan, "Two Plays," Los Angeles Times,
19 May 1969.
^Bill Edwards, "Voyages and Red Cross," Daily
Variety (Hollywood), 19 May 1 9 6 9.
44
Dan Sullivan, Company Theater Staging 'Emergence,'
Los Angeles Times, 15 September 1 9 6 9.
46
Lewis Segal, "The Emergence," Entertainment World
(Los Angeles), 10 October 1 9 6 9.
47
Winfred Blevins, "'Emergence' Improves with Age,"
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 7 November 1 9 6 9.
48
Winfred Blevins, "Critics Name 1969 Awards for
Theater," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 4 January 1970.
^9"Such As We Are for as Long as It Lasts," unpub
lished program, October 1 9 6 9.
-^Dan Sullivan, "'Such As We Are' Two-Act Melodrama,"
Los Angeles Times, 3 November 1 9 6 9.
El 1 1
James Powers, Such’As We Are for as Long as It
Lasts," Hollywood Reporter, 14 October 1 9 6 9.
^2Winfred Blevins, "'Such As We Are' Back Country
Joy," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 17 October 1 9 6 9.
-^Dan Sullivan, "'Narrow Road' Presented," Los
Angeles Times, 10 February 1970.
91
•^Larry Taylor, "Company Theatre Defeated by Tedious
Bond Script," Orange County Evening News, 10 February 1970.
^James Powers, "Narrow Road to the Deep North,"
Hollywood Reporter, 18 February 1970.
-^Jay Ross, "Company Theatre Advances Art, Involving
All Senses and Emotions," Advocate (Los Angeles), 19 August
1970.
57 i t
-^Winfred Blevins, ’Kingdom': Shattering Experi
ence," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 22 July 1970.
-^Martin Gottfried, "The Theater," Women's Wear
Daily, 21 April 1971.
~^Jay Ross, "What Do You Say to a Naked Soothsayer?"
Advocate (Los Angeles), 14 April 1971.
60
Milton Klaman, "Critic at Large," Singles Critique
(Los Angeles), 1 March 1971.
61
Craig Fisher, "The Plague," Hollywood Reporter,
16 March 1971..
^2Bill Edwards, "The Plague," Daily Variety (Holly
wood), 12 March 1971.
^^porothy H. Rochmis, "The Plague," California Jewish
Voice (Los Angeles), 19 March 1971.
64
Dan Sullivan, "Drama on London Plague," Los Angeles
Times, 16 March 1971.
^^Har., "The Emergence," Daily Variety (San Fran-c
cisco), 9 July 1971.
66
Stanley Eichelbaum, "Silly Psychedelic Fairy Tale,"
San Francisco Examiner, 9 July 1971.
67
'Don Tollefson, "'The Emergence' Should've Stayed in
LA," Stanford Daily (Calif.), 9 July 1971.
^Julius Novick, "A Kiss is Still a Kiss," Village
Voice (New York), 21 October 1971.
^Tom Prideaux, "Lie Down, the Show's Starting,"
Life, 10 December 1971, p. 8 7.
70
Sege., "The James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre,"
Daily Variety (New York), 27 October 1971.
92
^John Simon, "Theatre," New York, 18 October 1971.?
P. 43.
72
Clive Barnes, "Stage: Joining the Odyssey of the
Liquid Theatre," New York Times, 12 October 1971-
John Beaufort, "Well, Well, Well!" Christian
Science Monitor, 23 October 1971.
74
' Larry Taylor, "Production is Fresh, Creative,"
Orange County Evening News, 22 December 1971.
^Leslie Aisenman, "Caliban," Los Angeles Free Press,
14 January 1972.
^Winfred Blevins, "'Caliban*: World of Fantasy and
Wit," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 17 December 1971.
^Dan Sullivan,- "' Caliban'--The Bard Would Be
Pleased," Los Angeles Times, 14 December 1971.
93
CHAPTER IV
A HOUSE DIVIDED: 1972, THE SPLIT,
AND THE COMPANY THEATRE
THROUGH 1979
The years 1967 to 1971 were clearly a time of the
atrical exploration and innovation for the Company Theatre:
theatrical games, transformational theatre, environmental
theatre, theatre-of-touch, audience participation, foreign
and domestic scripts, original scripts, collective creation,
special effects, painting with lights, working with play
wrights, rejection of the classics, Improvisational tech
niques, continuous training workshops, touring, the use of
poetry and music, presentational relationship to audience,
an original musical, use of Oriental sensitivities (Narrow
Road to the Deep North), fairy tales and philosophy, beyond
Shakespeare (Caliban), and even a brush with Broadway.
However, in 1972, the Company Theatre was forced to
suspend its search for a successful aesthetic philosophy.
Instead, It needed to concentrate on two internal matters:
bow to meet the needs of the Individuals within the group
and how to recapture the past success that seemed to have
disappeared during 1971.
94
This chapter will examine the course of the strug
gles which led to the formation of two distinct groups by
the end•of the year. The chapter will then consider the
aesthetic 'choices ma$e by the new Company Theatre, the
crisis caused by the loss of the playhouse on Robertson
Boulevard, and the aesthetic principles which guided this
new group through its next seven years.
1972
Because of the personal unhappiness within the
Company Theatre and the breakdown of open interpersonal
relationships, organizational-structural matters became an
important business item for the group. At its regular meet
ing on December 13^ 1971* the Board of Trustees had voted
in an elaborate set of "Company Theatre Foundation By-
Laws." At the semi-annual meeting of the Members of the
Company Theatre Foundation (the general membership) on
January 16, 1972, the bylaws were ratified and became the
governing document for the group. Each person's "member
ship classification" was clearly spelled out, so people
knew their legal rights within the group.
In an attempt to please the women of the ensemble,
Michael Carlin Pierce (who had not directed before) agreed
to stage Arthur Kopit's one-act play. Chamber Music, which
had roles for eight women in an insane asylum. As in Such
As We Are for as Long as it Lasts, the theme was the diffi-
95
culty of distinguishing the sane from the insane. In a
surprise move., two of the female parts were played by men
in the Company (William Hunt and Lance Larsen). However,
the truly significant factor to the group was that it
marked the first time Gladys Carmichael had performed In
stead of worked on lights. The show garnered uniformly poor
reviews, which usually blamed the failure on the "slack’'
direction of Pierce.'*'
Steven Kent turned to Megan Terry once again for a
companion piece to Chamber Music. The Gloaming, Oh My
Darling was in the same book as the other Terry scripts
which had engendered Company success previously, and since
it was also set in a hospital, It provided a logical link
to the Kopit play. Due to the excellent performances of
actresses Trish Soodik and Candace Laughlin as geriatric
patients, The Gloaming, Oh My Darling got better reviews
than Chamber Music. In general, however, the two one-acts,
billed under the title of Duet, broke no new theatrical
ground. The Los Angeles Times summarized it as follows:
It!s amusing and appropriate that Michael
("Caliban") Monroe's next script for the Company
.Theatre Is to be a serial. The group's artistic
development is itself a serial, and I wouldn't
miss a chapter of it. But some chapters are of
more interest than others.
The Company's newest show, seen Thursday night,
is one of the others. It is a brace of one-acts by
Arthur Kopit and Megan Terry, and well performed.
But by Company Theatre standards it is a rather
ordinary evening.
9 6
Duet was added to the repertory along side of The
Emergence and Caliban. , but the repertory still did not al
low everyone to participate. (James Joyce Memorial Liquid
Theatre had been voted out by this time. According to
Marcina Motter, "We were all pretty sick of it.") William
Hunt, although one of the Artistic Directors, was primarily
a performer and initiated the idea of doing short plays in
which anyone could come up with small projects and "do
them." Gar Campbell gave it the title, and in this way
The Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill, Volume 1, came into
being.
Although the original concept was that many people
would choose to direct, the first evening of one-acts which
opened in March featured four projects directed by Steven
Kent (Balls, Intersections 7j The Cherub, and The Meatball)
and one directed by Larry Hoffman (Passion Play). For the
public, the program carried this statement of the purpose
of The Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill:
This is the first in a series of "experimental"
evenings at the Company Theatre, to be presented each
Sunday at 8:00. Every four or five weeks the bill
will change.
But what's "experimental"? To the members of the
Company theatre it does not mean that we will be doing
the newest and most "avant-garde" plays available to
us. It means that we are affording ourselves and our
audiences as much variety and change as possible.
In other words, we're still growing. . . . Our
audiences, then, will be discovering the Company The
atre Ensemble as we discover ourselves in new form
and expression.3
97
Only Michael McClure's The Meatball pleased the Company
Theatre personnel:
Highlight of the evening Is McClure's second con
tribution, the expressionistic "Meatball," In which
the universe is reduced to a pound of hamburger.
While two motorcyclists hilariously analyze the in
gredients of their hamburger-universe a clown in the
background patiently attempts to rebuild the world
out of enormous blocks.^
It, along with The Cherub, introduced the group to
McClure's work, which became significant later when they
turned again to his plays for work to produce:
"The Cherub" is a visually impressive piece that
looks like a fluorescent cartoon. Kent's direction,
Russell Pyle's design, and Roger Barnes's puppets
are all top-notch,' but Michael McClure's play rambles
around, making little sense.5
The other three playlets, also decidedly experimental in
nature, made very little impact on the Company or the
critics, as Daily Variety attested:
Paul Poster's "Balls" is a garbled voice-over
exchange between two seafarers from the beyond with
a lot of sea noises in the background. All that is
seen on stage are two balls swinging like pendulums.
Paul Epstein's "Intersections 7" has five thesps
march on stage with music stands, position themselves
and do a chorus of vocalized noises, none with any
meaning. Total lack of communication.-
Stephen Foreman's "Passion Play" is offensive in
that it is obvious from the time the nun walks into
the saloon to find directions that she will be the
victim of two revelers under the supervision of the
bartender whose grotesque mask covers a hideous
countenance all his own.®
The reactions ranged from negative ("Thank goodness this
first experimental evening is for a few weeks' run. We
hope the next production is up to the usual engrossingly
98
7
creative standards of this youthful group")' to the patron
izingly encouraging:
What did the evening add up to? Not a lot pos
sibly, but not every evening in the theater has to.
It is Amusing, it is far-out in the Company tradi
tion and it shows the group sticking to a text in
stead of throwing it away and writing its own.°
Two months later, in May, the Company "served" the
second course of The Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill.
Since Steven Kent had been criticized as receiving all the
credit for .the first volume and because he was now involved
in staging the Company Theatre's next full-length produc
tion, he chose not to direct any of the five short pieces.
Instead, Michael Carlin Pierce (who had directed Chamber
Music) chose three short, slick Broad»way-style sketches by
Sally Ordway: East Coast, West Coast, and Crabs; Larry
Hoffman (the director of Passion Play) chose another one-
act by Arthur Kopit, The Conquest of Everest, concerned
with two travelers who are affected by the lack of oxygen
as they climb the peak; and Dennis Redfield (who had not
directed a Company show before) chose John Millington
Synge's classic tale of female survivors in an Irish fish
ing village, Riders to the Sea. Arthur Allen, the unoffi
cial historian of the Company Theatre, found that, without
exception, the plays were disappointing:
The second set was horrible. The productions
looked worse than college productions. There was
no leadership; it was a case of anarchy at its
worst.* No one was in charge; no one had any vision.
It was an experiment that failed and hurt our feel
ings . 9
99
Critics., too, found nothing of interest:
There are times when reviewing can be painful,
and this is one of those times. . . .
In the years since The Company's inception in
1967 we have come to expect more than a minimal
level of competence from our only repertory theatre,
and I have been delighted and moved by some truly
fine performances, interesting explorations, and
strikingly executed conceptions. None of the offer
ings on the current bill rises above the mundane,
and most is amateurish tripe.10
Even so, there was some awareness on the part of reviewers
of the crisis within the"group. Witness an excerpt from
the Los Angeles Free Press:
All of this comes hard. Despite the Company The
atre's lack of a clear perspective in their work, be
it an artistic, political, or philosophic one, Los
Angeles does need them. Whether or not I believe
their work would benefit from a purposeful direction
and function, they have brought us worthwhile experi
ences in their eclectic way.
And the ever-receptive Dan Sullivan, in the Los Angeles
Times, put it this way:
"The Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill, Volume
Two"--which is the title of the evening of short
plays--is the Company Theatre trying out other peo
ple's styles to see how they feel in them; and, more
important, to see what use can be made of them.l^
"Trying out other people's styles" did not lead anywhere,
however, so there was never a Volume III of The Los Angeles
Art Ensemble and Grill.
The play designed to restore critical glory to the
Company Theatre was Mother of Pearl, a "musical tragidity"
by Elaine Edelman, a playwright from New York. The women
of the Company were pleased by the choice since it provided
100
an equal number of men and women's parts. A diatribe
against American motherhood, consumerism, and the "packag
ing" of daughters to present them to "gentlemen callers,"
Mother of Pearl seemed an ideal choice to show'off the
"Company Theatre touch." The ending alone promised to be
spectacular: the "daughter" turns out to be the American
male's dream, a well-stocked refrigerator boasting all the
latest conveniences. Although certain Company Theatre per
sonnel chose not to work on the production (Gar Campbell
was a notable example), many others pulled out all the stops
to make it a success: Designer Russell Pyle changed the
entire environment of the theatre to resemble a television
studio with side stages for dancing and French windows that
blossomed with striking light patterns, Director Steven
Kent and Richie Vetter composed original music for the
fourteen songs in a variety of styles ranging from Kurt
Weill to acid rock, non-cast members devised consumer ques
tionnaires to be answered by audience members before the
show began, and the leading roles were handled by two of
the most accomplished performers in the ensemble, Candace
Laughlin and William Hunt.
Unfortunately, the production was unsuccessful.
Although the sets, music, and staging received good reviews,
the pilay did not. Dan Sullivan, Los Angeles Times, re
ported: "Musically and visually 'Mother of Pearl' is
together. But eventually we get to Elaine Edelman's script,
101
]_o
which is not." Hollywood Reporter put it this way:
The Company Theatre has put its usual seemingly
boundless talent and energy into its latest produc
tion of Elaine Edelman's "Mother of Pearl.," which is
billed as a musical tragedy. Unfortunately,-the mate
rial does not seem worthy of the effort.^
Kent admitted, in retrospect, that it was a poor choic.e of
material:
On the surface, Mother of Pearl was funny and appeal
ing. The problem was that there was nothing under
neath. Although the play has more lines than
[Shakespeare’s] King Lear, it was a vacuum of ideas.
Most of us were sorry it didn't work, but there were
a few who were saying, "I told you so."
The last show of the original Company Theatre en
semble awakened everyone to the need for a balanced aesr.
thetic approach to theatre. Obviously form alone was not
enough--the Company was a master of that; content, too, was
important; but the unanswered question was "What do we want
to say?" This was the major problem leading to the split
up of the group}: "To what kind of theatre do I want to
commit myself?" Lloyd Steele wrote a fitting epitaph to
this portion of Company Theatre history:
Watching it [Mother of Pearl], you will be over
whelmed by a single and very sad irony: The produc
tion is to be their swan song as a group, but it is
sung by sirens, the lure of whose theatrical voice
. is irrestible to anyone with an ear for what theatre
at its most dynamic can be. . . .
One other irony I forgot to mention: quite by
chance, this, their last play, is a compendium of
everything they've done in the past five years.
There are resonances in it of Coney Island of the
Mind,.Sport of My^Mad Mother, In the Gloaming,
Children of the Kingdom, The Emergence, et al.
(You remember et al. It" was one of their best shows.)
Thus, those of you who have never been to the Company
102
Theatre* and who have no idea why this small group
has come to national prominence in the theatre, have
two reasons to see Mother of Pearl before it closes
in early October.^5
A Separation
For the first time in the five years of its history,
the Company Theatre planned to take a month's vacation.
June was going to be devoted to rehearsals and fund-raising
for Mother of Pearl. (A series of "auditions for backers"
aroused enthusiasm for the show, but yielded only $1,500
in contributions, far less than the $6,730 hoped for.)1^
Mother of Pearl would be previewed throughout July, August
would be a vacation, and Mother of Pearl would reopen in
September.
It was during the August vacation that the first
word of trouble reached the press. Sylvie Drake of the
Los Angeles Times broke the news to the public:
Bad news doesn't always travel fast, but it will
out one way or another; and the most unsettling item
to reach us over the weekend is that a serious rift
has occurred among members of the Company Theatre
which will probably culminate in a definite split
within the group by October. . . .
It seems . . . that the Company . . . has been
sitting on well-concealed ideological differences
for some time now. Though the reasons for these
differences are complex and, at present, not en
tirely clear, they are understood to be rooted in
divergent artistic philosophies. . . .
Present indications are that about nine members
will be leaving the Company, among them Steve Kent,
Barry Opper, Bill Hunt and Candace Laughlin.
Certainly It would seem as if the Company as we
have known it will become a thing of the past. How
shattering or regenerating the split will be in the
long run--and for which faction— is impossible to
determine.77
103
These ideological differences (mentioned as they came up
in the previous chapter) manifested themselves in the July
meeting of the membership. A series of votes clearly
showed that the group had serious disagreements about pri
orities and plans for the future. The four agenda items
were as follows: how the $30,000 grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts should be spent, whether or not the
Company should go on tour extensively as planned by Mark
Hall Amitin of Universal Movement Theatre Repertory of
New York, whether or not the Indo China Peace Campaign
should be allowed to show slides in the Company's playhouse
during August, and whether or not Jerry Hoffman should be
granted theatre membership.
On each matter, the issue devolved upon the primacy
of-the' group or of the individual needs. The N.E.A. grant
could be used either for salaries or plowed back into pro
duction costs. Touring appealed only to those members who
were not tied to family or work commitments in the Los
Angeles area. Making strong political statement might
jeopardize future grants. But the final showdown came dur
ing the vote on Jerry Hoffman's membership. He had replaced
Wiley Rinaldi in Caliban and had appeared subsequently in
The Cherub, Intersections 7, The Conquest of Everest, Riders
to the Sea, and Mother of Pearl, but there were members who
wanted him to wait six more months before he was admitted
to membership, so that they could fully evaluate his com-
104
mitment to the Company Theatre ideals. On the first vote,,
Hoffman did not see the necessary 2/3 majority. There was
lots of verbal disagreement afterwards. Barry Opper de
scribed subsequent events:
Although many of us had talked together about
our unhappinesses, none of us had ever spoken about
leaving. In fact, we were hoping other people who
had different ideas would leave instead, because we
felt that a split was imminent. After the controver
sial vote on Jerry [Hoffman], I suggested that anyone
who might be contemplating leaving go outside and a
re-vote be taken with those who stayed inside. To my
surprise, ten or eleven members went outside, and it
was our first consciousness of "a group." It was a
real relief to see who was on that side. Needless to
say, Jerry Hoffman was voted in by the others.
Opper and the faction that had decided to leave
fulfilled all their commitments through the run of Mother of
Pearl on September 30. (The philosophy of that group will
be explored.in the next chapter.) The remaining members of
the Company Theatre saw the departure of the discontented
simply as people leaving. As Sylvie Drake pointed out,
Because of this vastly different view of the
events, the group remaining at 1024 S. Robertson Blvd.
has a decided psychological and material edge over the
one that Is leaving. The Company Theatre, this group
feels is and will continue to be the Company Theatre,
minus a few members. They're sorry to see them go,
but it's a fact of life. And life goes on. °
And, pragmatically, life did go on. Opper's role as admin
istrator was filled by Lance Larsen, artistic matters were
referred to Gar Campbell, Barbara Grover took over the
bookkeeping, Marcina Motter became the secretary, and
Russell Pyle was in charge of technical matters.
105
A Professional Theatre
At first, the "new" Company Theatre seemed to func
tion very much like the "old" Company Theatre. The play
house., the repertory, the name, the bank balance, and all
the equipment remained the property of the Company Theatre
Foundation and its newly elected Board. Ray Loynd, in the
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, reported the one major thrust
that was new: .
[Lance] Larsen said the re-grouped Company Theatre
will hire an administrator trained in UCLA's Manage
ment for the Arts program. "We are going to break the
habit of not making money off an 80-seat theater," said
Larsen. "The answer lies in moving in diverse direc
tions. We hope, for example, to place more shows in
New York-. " - .
"But you can feel the energy now coming from both
groups. It's like in the old days; both are excited.
And, as for Los Angeles theater, now there will be two
theaters instead of one."^9
Thus, the 1972 Company Theatre personnel set out to find
financial and commercial success using two specific means:
encouraging diversity and hiring professional management.
The goal of diversity was evident in the first pre
sentations of the reorganized group. Because of the loss
of critical personnel, it was impossible to present any of
the productions which had been In the repertory at the time
of the split. As a stop-gap measure, an evening of three
pre-existing one-woman shows was mounted. Ironically, one
of them, Nancy Hickey's impersonation of Chautauqua artist
Elinor Lincoln, had been part of the 1967 U.S.C. presenta
tion at Edinburgh along with In White America, which was
106
the first "stop-gap" presentation at the Robertson site.
Two friends of Hickey’s joined her to make up the rest of
the evening: Louise Dungan portrayed French actress Sarah
Bernhardt, and Kres Mersky interpreted dancer Isadora
Duncan. The show received a positive critical response of
which Sylvie DrakeJ s review was typical:
The triple serving they offer, labeled as "Bern
hardt, Duncan, and Lincoln" is a highly palatable dish
with very different actresses each giving strikingly
differing portraits of other prominent performers.20
The success of the program depended strictly on the skill
of three actresses, two of whom were completely outside the
Company Theatre.
Not until Samuel Beckett's Endgame, directed by
Gar Campbell, opened in November could any judgments be
made about the true nature of the "new" Company Theatre.
Like Johnny Johnson, the first play of the "old" Company
Theatre, Endgame was a scripted play about 20 years old.
Dan Sullivan observed this similarity:
A philosophical difference about where the old
Company should be going was an important factor in
the divorce. The current productions of each group
may tell us a little about where each wanted to go.
"Endgame" at the Company is an avant-garde classic,
slightly tinkered with, but basically faithful to
Samuel Beckett's pre-existing text— a play, in the
old sense, rather than a theatre-piece.21
The "tinkering" in the set and concept, like the up-dating
of the world leaders in Johnny Johnson, was an attempt to
make the play more relevant. Lloyd Steele pointed this out
in the Los Angeles Free Press:
107
. . . Gar Campbell has been profane enough to mod
ernize a classic less than 20 years old. His Hamm and
Clow’ (which role he plays himself),, far from being sym
bols of God or Noah or Prometheus chained to the rock
of some critic off his rocker, are more like two rejects
from the Hell's Angels on an acid bummer In an air raid
shelter. When being pushed in his chair, Hamm turns
into a teenaged hot rodder varooming around the stage,
while Clov, on command, squeezes an ooga-ooga horn.
Hamm isn't writing his autobiography, he's filming it,
and the death mask he wears at the beginning and end
of the show is not a bloody handkerchief but a front
page of an issue of Daily Variety. . . .
Most remarkable of all about the production is the
set design of Russell Pyle (with a little help from his
friends). As "grey" and as granite as Beckett would
have wished it, the stage is unmistakably an army pill
box, with massive stone walls and two metal gun slits
for windows, and is obviously meant to suggest the
aftermath of a nuclear explosion. But Pyle's serious
tongue is also in his satiric cheek. The ash cans in
which the legless parents live are instead discarded
television cabinets, and the front curtain (I think
this is the first time that one has been used at the
Company) is a flimsy cotton drape on which the word
Asbestos has been stencilled. 22
Other critics followed suit. According to Rocky Behr, "The
Company Theatre is alive and well despite their recent se-
O O
cessionist movement." David Russell said, "The Company
oil
Theatre has a definite success. Rick Talcove ended his
25
review with, "in all, a solid start for the new Company."
It is no wonder that the reception of Endgame encouraged
the current Company Theatre to continue its quest for com
mercial success. Lloyd Steele, writing in the Los Angeles
Free Press, named Gar Campbell best director of 1972 and
Endgame as best production of the year, stating further,
"I'm deliriously happy that the Company is still the company
2 6
in this city."
108
Secure in the knowledge that the public and press
still continued to support the Company Theatre., the group
voted to hire its first professional administrator.
Straight from the Management for the Arts program at the
University of California at Los Angeles., Peter Chernack
assumed Executive Directorship. One of his first actions
was to commit the group to a complete season of plays for
1973. They mailed out an attractively printed brochure,,
using phrases that other theatres had found successful.
Subscribe now--and save $6.00 on a pair of season
tickets.
Subscription benefits: Bonus Savings (four spe
cial discount coupons enclosed with every season
ticket order which you or your friends can use for
any performance date., subject to availability),
Exchange Privileges (for your convenience you may
exchange season tickets for any other available per
formance of the same play up to 24 hours prior to
curtain time), Guaranteed Seating (your season ticket
assures your place among the Company Theatre’s ex
panding audience), Convenience (save time, avoid
extra trips to the Box Office; your tickets will be
sent to you in the mail).
Special student rates, special group rates, give
a gift subscription.27
The flier listed the shows to be produced between January
and June as Michael McClure on Toast (four short plays by
the author of the previously produced The Cherub and The
Meatball), Mary Stuart (a new approach to the familiar
story by German playwright Wolfgang Hildesheimer), Hashish
Club (an original work by Lance Larsen and the Company
Theatre inspired by Theophile Gautier’s novella of the
same name), and Lear by Edward Bond (whose Narrow Road to
the Deep North had been a Company production in 1970).
________________109
Playwright Michael McClure came from San Francisco
to Los Angeles to supervise the direction of his four short
plays staged by as many directors. A non-Company member,
Tom Baker, directed Grabbing of the Fairy, in which two
tiny Tinker Bells try to shock each other with the vilest
images they can think of; Marcina Motter became the first
woman to direct a Company Theatre show with The Authentic
Radio Life of Bruce Connor and the Snoutburbler, a raunchy
spoof of after-school soap operas; Dennis Redfield, pre
viously director of Riders to the Sea, staged The Button,
where three children amuse themselves by acting out mother,
dad, and friend under the covers of the bed; and Lance
Larsen directed Gar Campbell in Spider Rabbit, an actor’s
tour-de-force as a man-eating hare who hates war. Although
the Los Angeles Times found the production "something charm-
28
ing and special," other reactions were more negative:
Four one-act plays by the author of- "The Beard"
might sound like a good idea, but in actuality it
comes off as a quadruple bore. Company Theatre has
fallen for the idea and give the four pieces far bet
ter production values than they deserve. But even the
magic of Russell- Pyle's design can't breathe life into
something that just isn't there.
Ray Loynd of the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner did not even
appreciate the Company Theatre "touch":
"Michael McClure on Toast" is a disappointing pro
duction because (l) the artistic standards of the
Company Theatre are not much in evidence, (2) the ex
pectations generated by the previous work of playwright
McClure are seldom in sight, and (3) despite the out
rageous and bizarre elements, the evening is not very
entertaining.3C
110
Thus, the 1972 Company Theatre had to come to grips with
its first set of negative reactions. Like the other food-
oriented title., Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill, Michael
McClure on Toast proved that good style could not overcome
lack of substance, or as the Hollywood Reporter put it:
The talented Company Theatre ensemble tries hard
to give interest to the four plays through good per
formances and excellent technical work but they just
can't overcome the material. It seems a shameful
waste of talent and energy because the plays are
usually dull and often offensive.31
Prior to the split, Roger Barnes, whose puppets
had graced such-shows as McClure's Cherub, had suggested
that the women of the ensemble write their own plays If
they wanted to get better roles. Marcina Hotter, one of
the original founding.members of the Company, had taken
that idea seriously and had adapted the legend of "Beauty
and the Beast" into a children's theatre production of The
Beauty and the Rose. This venture into children's theatre
had marked a first for the Company. With only fourteen
rehearsals after Endgame, Motter and her cast began per
formances of The Beauty and the Rose at 11:30 A.M. on
Saturday mornings. With this show, Motter became not only
the first woman director of a Company Theatre show, but
the first female author within the ensemble. No effort
was spared to make this a success: special music was com
posed by Skip Kennon. for the songs; Russell Pyle created a
slightly "psychedelic" set; slides were used as well as
puppets; and praise-worthy costumes were designed. Since
111
the play was designed specifically for children, the play
did riot receive much press coverage,, but the few reviews
were fine. Lloyd Steele "decided that this was still one
of the best shows he’s seen in a good long time. And he
02
should know, cause he's seen a lot of children's theatre.
Thus* the first excursion by the Company Theatre into chil
dren's theatre met with success. It seems surprising, but
this avenue was not explored again.
Stephen Bellon had not directed a Company Theatre
production since 1970, when he had staged Edward Bond's
Narrow Road to the Deep North. During the run of that show,
when Michael Dewell, his friend and one of the directors of
the National Repertory Theatre, had left, Bellon too had
stayed apart. However, he had discovered a play that in
terested him in the magazine published by the New York
Shakespeare Festival Public Theatre, Scripts. It was the
story of the last hour before the execution of Mary, Queen
of Scots; its title was Mary Stuart, and its author was
Wolfgang Hildesheimer. So, as the second show of the Com
pany Theatre season, Bellon directed the play's United
States premiere. Russell Pyle used rough-cut redwood to
warp the floor in the middle, and the seats were placed on
either side of the stage. For a group pursuing financial
and commercial success, this darkly German view of death
was a strange choice. John Allison of the Staff applauded
their daring:
112
I admire Company Theatre enormously. Even though
I personally didn't like Mary Stuart, Los Angeles is
in luck to have such a gifted company with the courage
to mount productions of foreign plays which would not
stand a chance of being seen in the hard-bitten world
of the commercial theatre.33
The two major Los Angeles newspapers were encouraging:
oh
Los Angeles Times called the play "fascinating, and Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner said., "It's a ripping production,
VC
expressive of the Company's past and altered present.
On the' whole, however, the response was unenthusiastic.
Carol Soucek, of the Evening Outlook, said, "this talented
36
theatrical ensemble should not have bothered." The
Singles Critique reported it this way:
Way over in the minus column, however, is the
Company Theatre's current offering . . . , Mary Stuart.
It is, to quote a recently released P.O.W. on the
subject of what it's like to spend 20 years in a Red
Chinese prison, "a crashing bore.'"37
Lloyd Steele, of Los Angeles Free Press, contrasted the
play's impact with the Company's past reputation:
Your final reaction when the lights have gone down is
something akin to "So What?" That is the deadliest
reaction an audience can have in the theatre and one
to which regular patrons of the Company will be wholly
unaccustomed.33
Nancy Hickey was generally admired in the title role, but
again, this was a production undone by the material, like
Michael McClure on Toast. Stephen Bellon was so disap
pointed that he drifted away from the Company for good.
The 1972 Company Theatre did not yet know what it wanted
to say, but it was going to find that out in the next
production.
French writer Theophile Gautier had written a
novella about a group of French intellectuals who met regu
larly in the 1940s in Paris to experiment with hashish.
Company member Trish Soodik read the work and felt that it
was an idea that could be transferred to the stage. Lance
Larsen wrote the basic script, and he and the other cast
members (Jack Rowe., Dennis Redfield, Michael Stefani, and
Gar Campbell) improvised and experimented until they came
up with the most personal work yet done by the 1972 Company
Theatre, The Hashish Club. In the version by the Company
Theatre, the characters are men of the 1960s experimenting
with hallucinogenic drugs, but the perspective is that of
the 1970s. Cast member Rowe explained the double involve
ment :
Everyone in the cast knew someone who was now a
vegetable because of the "peace and love" in the 6 0's.
Here we were, still actors, while a lot of people our
age were already in the 9 to 5 rut. Hashish Club was
our way of looking at where we had been when life
seemed easier. It was also our way of looking at the
Vietnam situation. Creating Hashish Club was easy.
We were those people.
The play, a series of theatrical "trips" with "highs" and
"bummers," was praised for both its ensemble acting and its
spectacular technical achievements. John Allison reported
on the performances:
I have myself been a member of the Royal Shake
speare Company, and I've seen over extended periods
the work of England's National Theatre, the Comedie
Francaise, and the Berlinner Ensemble, and I must
tell you that the level of ensemble playing achieved
114
in Company Theatre's current presentation, The Hashish
Club is comparable to any and all of them.39
Sylvie Drake called Russell Pyle's special effects "reminis-
40
cent of some of the things he did in 'The Emergence.'"
Larry Taylor also described them in a similar vein:
. . . the effects achieved by Russell Pyle are the
spectacular stars of the evening.
Smoke rolls around the theatre punctuating each
scene with Jeweled spotlights piercing through, put
ting us all in another world; lights glisten on the
walls in kaleidoscopic patterns; and the final bad
trip monster is beyond belief and description. This
group truly brings the sense of wonder back to the
theatre.
Once again the Company Theatre, by creating its own origi
nal work, had successfully melded form and content into a
satisfying theatrical experience for the‘participants and
patrons alike. This popular production had all the ear
marks of achieving what the present Company Theatre had
said it wanted: commercial and financial success.
«
Suddenly, with very little warning, the ensemble
suffered a tremendous loss: the playhouse on Robertson
which had been their home for six years was sold out from
under them. Lloyd Steele explained what happened in his
review of Hashish Club:
. . . it is the most dynamic, the most colorful,
the most flamboyantly theatrical thing being done in
Los Angeles right now. . It is not only proof of why
the.Company Theatre has consistently been the most
exciting small group in this city; it is a damned
gorgeous swan song.
Swan song?
I'm afraid so. At least in this location. The
small building at 1024 South Robertson in Beverly
Hills, the best physical plant in this city, with
115
the friendliest and most creative vibrations, will be
torn down in a few months to make way for one of those
businesses that have made Los Angeles the capital of
the kitsch kulture: a ''studio" to turn out plaster
reproductions of statues like the David (complete with
fig leaf., of course) for the tackier apartments and
gardens in town. ^2
With the loss of its birthplace, the Company Theatre never
again achieved the measure of success, commercially or ar
tistically, that it had earned while in the playhouse on
Robertson. It was a blow from which the Company Theatre
never fully recovered.
A Theatre in Exile
The theatre on Robertson had been for sale for
years and no one had purchased it, so it was a surprise to
be told to leave by June 8, 1973* Executive Director Peter
Chernack attempted to raise the money to find a new loca
tion, but it proved to be an impossible task. Although the
Company Theatre had a grant from the National Endowment for
the Arts, the terms specifically forbade any spending for
capital improvements. But Chernack and the five members
who had assumed leadership after the split (Russell Pyle,
Marcina Motter, Lance Larsen, Car Campbell, and Barbara
Grover) weathered this crisis also.
The first activity came six months later, when the
Company Theatre membership voted to rent the Odyssey The
atre and revive the one genuine hit of the curtailed season,
Hashish Club, with Jack Rose taking over the part formerly
116
played by Jack Rowe. The revival of Hashish Club opened In
December 1973; as before., it was well received. As the
Hollywood Reporter put it., "The Company Theatre, currently
homeless, has moved into the Odyssey Theatre for a revival
1|0
of their exciting and mind-blowing production." Although
the three-week run did not raise much money, it served the
purpose of exploring further commercial possibilities for
the show. Well-known actor Jon Voight was considering
sponsoring a showing on Broadway.
It took another six months before a new production
came into being, and the playhouse had been gone a year
before a new work was staged. Dennis Redfield chose to
direct a full-length play by his favorite playwright,
Michael McClure. The Company Theatre received a $2,500
grant from the Shubert Foundation and rented the Zephyr
Theatre on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles for the summer.
The Derby opened in June 1974. As in the case with Michael
McClure on Toast, The Derby was praised for its production
values and panned for its lack of content:
Dennis Redfield!s direction draws good perform
ances from a cast of eight and Russell Pyle's physi
cal design, Ted Shell's inventive costumes and Bob
Walter's fine original score (performed live with
assorted string and percussive instruments') effec
tively accommodate McClure's [play]. . . .44
Daily Variety said, "This new work is nothing more than
three acts of pretentiousness when only two would have
45
achieved the same effect." ^ Obviously, by retreating to
117
McClure, the homeless Company Theatre had not yet found
what It wanted to say to achieve commercial success.
While the summer show was a disappointment, the
members of the Company Theatre ensemble hoped for better
luck with a Broadway version of the one identified hit,
Hashish Club. Jon Yoight and co-producer Susan Bloom hired
Jerome Guardino (who had directed Voight in a successful
version of Streetcar Named Desire) to direct the original
cast in the 350-seat Bijou Theatre in New York. According
to Jack Rowe, the production was rife with difficulties:
We felt the director was too old to really under
stand what we were driving at in [Hashish] Club. It
was all geared to the sixties: peace signs, brother
hood, peace-consciousness, a commune experience; he
was not into that. The atmosphere of the theatre
wasn't good; it was much too big. The whole thing
was underproduced. We learned that Broadway was no
big deal.
The critics didn't appreciate the play either. Martin
Gottfried announced, "There is nothing to it except watch
ing some young men get stoned. This is as interesting as
46
watching drinkers drink." Douglas Watt reported, "Cali
fornia, where the nuts come from, has sent us 'The Hashish
47
Club. 1 Gregg Kilday let it be known that "the reviewer
from the Daily News walked out at intermission and dismissed
48
the play as just added proof of the West Coast's lunacy."
Very reminiscent of when one of the Company's biggest
Southern California successes, The Emergence, was not re
ceived well in Northern California was this disappointing
118.
Eastern reaction to one of the 1972 Company Theatre's most
successful productions on the West Coast. January 1975
was not a good time for the spirits in the ensemble, no
matter which coast they were on.
Almost two years after losing the Robertson prop
erty, the Company Theatre experienced the humiliation of
previewing a play for two weeks, running it for one, and
closing the show because of bad notices. Lance Larsen,
pressured-into directing a play when he returned from New
York, had chosen John Osborne's A Sense of Detachment.
Sylvie Drake reported why:
"It is" says director Lance Larsen, "the most un
typical Osborne play I've ever run across. This is
the Company Theatre vs. John Osborne. The actors
come on stage to reject everything about it--the
title, the play, and then construct an evening of
theatre against all odds, including interruptions
from the audience. Very strange. A sort of think
ing man's 'Hellzapoppin' with a play within a play
within a play. . . . "
"As I read it, " says Larsen . . . "I kept saying
to myself, 'this is us, this is the Company Theatre.'
We're doing it because it interests us. It's about
theatre. It's a kind of homage to actors and the.
stage and, at the same time, a sendup of it all."^9
Larsen's statements reveal the confusion surrounding the
artistic vision of the Company Theatre. A steady stream of
disappointments had caused many people who had formerly
been associated with the Company to leave. The cast of
A Sense of Detachment was, according to Dan Sullivan, "an
attractive mix of old friends (Larsen, Barbara Grover,
Arthur Allen, and Miss Soodik) and new ones (Parks, Milton
119
Earl Forrest., Roger Barnes, Alan Abelew, D. H. Reilley).
The play opened In May 1975 and was scheduled to run through
July at the Zephyr Theatre, re-rented for the summer. In
stead, director Larsen closed the. play himself after only
one week. Typical of the reviews was the reaction of Dan
Sullivan: "The stuff that they (and'we) are watching is
piercingly banal. Since the cast seems to think so too,
one wonders why we don't all go home--which I almost did
51
at intermission. This discouraging experience caused
Larsen to leave the Company Theatre permanently, and his
duties were taken over by Gar Campbell. According to
Barbara Grover, Larsen was the last person left in the
Company Theatre who believed that the theatre should sup
port its personnel financially. When he left, that goal
was never brought up again as a hoped-for policy of the
ensemble.
The failure of A Sense of Detachment at the Zephyr
Theatre was also a financially costly experience. Because
there was no money left in the accounts, Peter Chernack
resigned his position. Gar Campbell took over his respon
sibilities also. The group voted to hold a huge garage
sale of props and costumes during July weekends. Spirits
were low. Sylvie Drake reported one comment:
"I think that by being less active," the Company
Theatre's [Arthur] Allen volunteered, "we've lost our
following and we're going to have to do some serious
thinking about that in the future."52
120
In order to save on rent money., the group voted to share
its office (still located above the Robertson space) with
a newly formed organization, the Los Angeles Theatre Al
liance. Two theatre groups,, the League of Los Angeles
Theatre and the Professional Actors1 League, had decided
to merge in order to.develop funding for local theatres,
to implement programs for audience development, to create
a supportive environment for theatre through the dissemina
tion of information, and to promote public involvement and
the growth of Los Angeles theatre. Appointed as the
organization's executive director was Gil Laurence, an
actor-producer-director who was once editor of the defunct
Frontier magazine. When he moved into the Company The
atre's office to share it with them, no one realized what
a help he would prove to be to the group.
A Mew Space
When Gil Laurence began to share the office space
with the Company Theatre, he couldn't help but be aware of
its desperate search for new quarters. Since he had been
thinking of establishing a theatre as a tribute to his late
wife, Florence, he took out a five-year lease on a store
front at 1653 South La Cienega Boulevard, near Airdrome,
and promptly turned it over to the Company Theatre for use
in August 1975. Although the ensemble would be responsible
for paying the rent, they did not need any starting capital.
121
All Laurence asked In return was that the place be named
the Laurence Playhouse in honor of his wife. Immediately*
the membership began to make the necessary improvements.
G-ar Campbell was quoted as saying:
Gil’s given us a wonderful opportunity. . . W e ’re
putting it together now, dealing with permits, calling
the fire department, bringing the cement block struc
ture up to code. Ultimately it should be much nicer
than the place we had on Robertson. There’s more
room, higher ceilings--domed ones with beams and sky
lights --and although we've only been working on the
place a.week, it already is beginning to look very
good .
It took over four months to get its new home ready for the
first Company Theatre production to take place there.
Louie (Mary Louise) Piday, who had been a member of
the Company Theatre in its early years, had been away from
Los Angeles, but had returned during the period when the
group did not have its own performing space. She had seen
La Dispute, an eighteenth-century romantic comedy by Pierre
Marivaux, in Paris in 1973. Discovering that no English
version existed, she translated the play and brought it to
the Company's attention. According to a publicity release,
"through improvisation, adaptation of scenes from the orig
inal work and the writing of new scenes, the cast, director
and assistant to the director created the play which is
55
called Mirror to Mirror. Opening in January of 1976,
Mirror to Mirror received encouraging reviews. The Los
Angeles Times noted:
122
In summary, it's a pleasantly strange play mounted,
with enough authority to cast its spell, although a
certain blandness marks both Ms. Piday's staging and
the physical production by Russell Pyle (sets and
lighting) and Jerry Pojawa (costumes). "Mirror to
Mirror" displays both the Company's strengths and,its
weaknesses; used well, it should lead to growth.5©
As the Inaugural play of the Company Theatre's first season
in its new space, the Laurence Playhouse, Mirror to Mirror
was reflective of the philosophy of the group for the next
four years.
The operating philosophy of the current Company
Theatre appears to revolve about the concept of the freedom
of the Individual, the primacy of the needs of each person
over the primacy of the needs of the group. In the first
place, there Is no clear-cut authority;or leadership role.
Sylvie Drake reported in the Los Angeles Times that she
felt this concept came about in reaction to the split that
occurred in the group in 1 9 7 2:
[Steve] Kent's enormous influence as a leader and
artist was apparently both revered and resented.
Eventually, resentment overtook reverence. . . . Yet,
paradoxically, so powerful was his effect on the mem
bers of the Company that their present policy has been
largely dictated by their rejection of Kent's author
ity. . . .
’For one of the most significant residual features
of this rebellion is that the Company has no artistic
director and claims to want none.
"Each person who has a project," says [Russell]
Pyle, "must put him or herself on the line for the
duration of that project. Since there's no one to
* fall back on, we-'ve all become individually and
collectively more responsible. "57
New people are encouraged to come In and assist on the
projects. The stringent membership rules no longer apply.
123
Secondly., there is no established philosophy to guide ar
tistic endeavors. Drake's article gives more insight into
this area:
"We trust one another's excitements," explains
actor-director Gar Campbell. "Every time you do
something., you're taking a chance. And since this
theatre--in a very real sense--doesn't support us,
on the most pragmatic level., short of folding., it
doesn't matter what happens. ..."
. "We have a great deal of disagreement, but it
works out to be diversity rather than difference
of opinion.
As Jack Rowe put it, "The Company Theatre is moving in the
direction of 'whoever has the energy.'" Thirdly, there are
no external demands put on individuals by others. The
training sessions are a thing of the past. According to
Marcina Motter, "Any necessary training is done in re
hearsals only, and of course people can take voice and
movement from private teachers. But there are no such
things as Steve Kent's labs; they were not organic to what
we needed." There are no demands for ultra-commitment or a
change of life style. Barbara Grover put it this way:
"You are not looked down upon if you decide to do other
things: take a part in a movie, drop out to have a baby,
or just go a separate way." There are no pressures to
educate others about the work of the theatre. According
to Dennis Redfield, "We no longer go out to schools. We
are a professional company, and the students can buy a
ticket to see us anytime." The current Company Theatre
prides itself on its organic, eclectic, evolutionary
124
approach to each project. It feels that it has an environ
ment for diversity and flexibility. Although still main
taining its commitment to superdemocracy ("decisions that
affect everyone are made by everyone so there are no reper
cussions")^^ it has found it necessary to establish a five-
member executive council to cut through the unwieldiness of
the decision-making process.
In short, the current Company Theatre takes an in
dividual approach to each of its shows. The group is
molded to fit each production and there is no official
arbiter to review standards. As Arthur Allen said, "There’s
a lot less discipline now. Steve Kent used to impose that."
Because there is no single (or even group) vision of where
the ensemble should go, each production from 1976 to 1979
stands alone and cannot be evaluated with any general or
specific criteria. A brief listing will be made, however.
Mirror to Mirror was the first time that a woman
had directed a full-scale production for adults. This Is
in keeping with the philosophy that each person is in
charge of his or her own project. In this case, Louie
PIday happened to be a woman.
Bruce Schwartz, a puppeteer, was interested In ex
ploring puppet theatre for adults, so he, Marcina Motter,
and Jerry Pojawa began to present shows on Friday and
Saturday nights.
125
Dennis Redfield sent for more scripts of plays by
Michael McClure, and Jack Rowe liked them very much. In
March 1976, Redfield directed a one-act called Pink Helmets.
.("It is a gentle, unruffled spoofing, that leaves you smil-
60
ing, as opposed to laughing," according to the Los Ange
les Times.) It was teamed with The Masked Choir, directed
6l
by Rowe. ("It's a romp In McClureland.") The food imag
ery was again used, for the evening was titled Two McClures
Sunny Side Up♦
Because of the limitations of storage space in the
Laurence Playhouse, doing plays in repertory was difficult.
The Company Theatre abandoned its long-held policy of per
forming in repertory, and a new policy was born. If the
playhouse was not in use with a Company Theatre production,
the time between the closing of one play and the opening of
another would be free to rent out the theatre to other
groups. In May 1976, the Bear Republic Theater from North
ern California rented the theatre to perform Its men’s con-
62
sciousness raising play, Signals, as an example.
Gar Campbell, who was administering the theatre,
received a script of Mort Goldberg's Salt in 1973. He fi
nally decided to mount it as a salute to the Bicentennial
in June of 1976, since it concerned the second and third
63
American revolutions in the future. J As a cynical look
at the future of the United States, the production received
positive responses. Dan Sullivan saw it as a step forward:
126
This is the biggest, boldest Company Theatre show
in a long time., a turn from the miniatures they've
been offering lately to something rich and various
and ambitious., if sometimes contradictory.^
Campbell's directing skills., as they had been in Endgame,
were praised:
Campbell's staging., though it runs down (with the
script) toward the end, likewise has boldness and
total security about how to.use this particular space
for maximum theatre effect.®^
More and more the success of a particular production seemed
to be dependent upon the skill of its director and less
upon the ensemble nature of the group as a whole.
Stephen Downs had written music for Jack Rowe's
production of McClure's Masked Choirs. He had fallen in
love with a fourteenth-century legend of two star-crossed
lovers whose families were feuding, and he decided to turn
it into a contemporary musical. Aucassin and Nicolette,
directed by Rowe, opened in September of 1976 to good
reviews:
Anyone who remembers "The Emergence" years ago
•at the old Company Theatre on Robertson Boulevard
is going to find the Company's new offering, "Aucas
sin and Nicolette, " joyfully reminiscent of it in
flavor and texture.
Analogies stop there, but Stephen Downs' enchant
ing soft-rock musical . . . has much of the joy and
tongue-in-cheek humor of the earlier hit. If the
Company--and Downs--have the fortitude to scrap the
first half of the first act and start over, "Aucas
sin and Nicolette" could like "The Emergence" before
it, be one of the Company's most popular and durable
creations.
Pyle's unit set--a wonderful concoction of creaky
drawbridges, revolving thrones, scarlet carpeting and
natural wood surfaces reminiscent of the old company
127
headquarters on Robertson Blvd.--was having a bit of
difficulty on the night I attended.
Dan Sullivan’s penchant for reminiscing was misplaced.
Stephen Downs had been asked to join the Company Theatre so
that his play could be produced., and the male lead was
brought In for this production only* because no available
Company Theatre member had an appropriately trained voice.
Although there may have been shades of The Emergence in
Aucassin and Nicolette, most likely they were unconscious.
This production, like James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre,
went on to its own life outside the Company Theatre. Close
to two years later, its name was changed to Festival, and
it was given a professional production with television
actors Stephanie Zimbalist and Bill Hutton as the lovers
and Gregory Harrison as the troubador. Its run in 1978 at
San Francisco's Marines Memorial Theatre was decidedly un
successful, so the producers called in another writer,
director, and choreographer, changed the music to a harder
rock sound, and re-opened it at the Las Palmas Theatre in
Los Angeles, where it played for a month and a half begin
ning in January 1979
Edward Bond's Lear had been planned for the Company
Theatre's season in 1973 before the Robertson space was
lost. In March 1977j it was finally presented, directed by
Dennis Redfield. The Los Angeles Times found the produc
tion wanting and the Company's skills uneven:
128
In other words, the summer style that can be so
delightful when the Company does an "Aucassin and
Nicolette" doesn't Jibe with Bond's stern vision at
all. At best they seem to be spoofing the story,
at worst they seem simply unequipped for it. The
Royal Shakespeare Company would probably have trouble
getting this strange gnomic play to work, so it’s no
blame to the Company that they can’t. What's dis
turbing is the sense that they’re not aware of Just
how far over their heads they are. Blitheness Just
won't do with this one.
Russell Pyle’s major set piece is a set of pil
ings (no pun intended) that rolls around to reveal
a different face with each scene. The effort to
get it in place . . . slows the play’s progress
considerably.oo
Artistic vision for what the play needed was lacking, some
thing that was not true when the Company Theatre had put on
Bond's other play, Narrow Road to the Deep North, which had
been staged by Stephen Bellon, one of the Artistic Direc
tors .
Company Theatre member Trish Soodik had come up
with the original idea for the successful Hashish Club, but
she was not given credit for the script. In June 1977.5
Soodik's original script about the inside view of a women's
gym. Thighs, was staged by a new Company Theatre director,
Alan Abelew. The play was generally regarded as pleasant
but inconsequential. Sondra Lowell of the Los Angeles
Times reported on it:
. . . the simple relationships of gym members with
each other and with their own bodies are not enough to
involve an audience to any great depth. We get to
know something about each woman, bits about her rea
sons for coming to the gym and her life outside, yet
the stories are superficial and lack drama.^9
129
Gar Campbell,, who was proving himself as one of
the best directors within the Company Theatre,, chose August
Strindberg's classic Miss Julie to direct in October 1977*
His instincts were as sure here as in Endgame in 1972.
Sylvie Drake said, "If this is not a flawless 'Miss Julie,'
it is nonetheless an extremely absorbing one, and the po-
70
tential for total realization is well within its grasp."
At the end of the year, she listed Miss Julie as one of
the Notable Revivals of 19777 1 Although the vision is
inconsistent, the Company Theatre is still able to put on
an effective production.
The weaknesses that were evident in Dennis Red
field 's production of Lear were the same weaknesses that
exhibited themselves in the Company Theatre's A Man's a Man,
with Redfield as Bertolt Brecht's hero, Gayly Gay. The
Company Theatre could not escape its light-hearted style.
It could not manage to work up the anger of such shows as
Sport of My Mad Mother or Children of the Kingdom. The
Los Angeles Times gave this impression:
. . . the production, staged by Prank Condon, doesn't
give a convincing sense beneath its comic-strip fa
cade of what a naughty world this poor sap is up
against--though, God knows, everybody tries to look
evil. It's Brecht Is Good for You time. . . .
The approach is particularly ill-advised with
actors who simply don't have the technical equipment
to snap off a line like a broken knife. . . . Museum
theater isn't for them. 72
A Man's a Man had been the production of the Insurgent
Theatre that played at the Robertson site in 1967* It is
130
obvious that the. skill of January 1978 performers was not
as high. Perhaps this resulted from the lack of regular
acting exercises as a group. It was these very exercises
that were vividly recalled in the Company Theatre's next
production.
As in The Hashish Club, the concern with the demise
of the 1 9 6 0s and the need to deal with the 197 0s is evident
in But Don't Sell the Ranch, put together by the Ensemble
and Trish Soodik, one of the few remaining original members
from 1 9 6 7. It is a cathartic play for those involved be
cause it relives the time of the split in 1972. Laurence
Christon analyzed the very personal relevance that the play
has to its performers in his article in the Los Angeles
Times:
"But Don't Sell the Ranch" . . . ostensibly deals
with a theater troupe's struggle to keep afloat in
hard times, but it's about many other things besides,
including the end of a certain kind of innocence, and
with it, a way of life. . . .
Rehearsals get under way. This is an avant-garde
group which plugged into the techniques of theater
games, which include verbal rondos, improvisations,
yet another enactment of the dawning of evolution,
transformations, all those gestures and responses
that have made it an ensemble organism. . . .
"But Don't Sell the Ranch" is the Company The
atre's remembrance of things past. Once they were
the darlings of the Los Angeles avant-garde scene.
They were young enough to take chances, bright
enough to fashion a new theatrical vocabulary,
sensitive enough to crest the historical currents
of their time and unlike the frequently hostile rap
port between actor and intimidated audiences that
often characterized similar groups, wise enough to
be gentle. . . .
But there were schisms, which this production
tends to limit to personality--we see a bit of in
131
cestuous mixed doubles, the tiff's, defections, ener
vating self-doubts and the growing gap between those
who thought they were doing good work and those who
thought they were performing nonsense. And unremu-
nerative nonsense at that. . . .
We are treated to some of their miraculous crea
tions, not the least of which is a smoky stygian
scene in which Quasimodo swfeeps Esmeralda out from
under the hangman's noose (a reminder, too, that no
one would have gotten far without Russell Pyle's
extraordinary sense of design). The ending is a
shade mismanaged--but they have recalled real tri
umph . 73
Although this attempt to show some of what it was like was
a needed purgation for some members of the group, the play
itself was not able to stand on its own before the general
public. Although the technical effects were wonderful, as
usual, the needed artistic objectivity still eluded the
Company. Although the Company Theatre personnel knew
where they had come from, and did not particularly care for
it, they still did not know where they were going, as evi
denced by the last two productions covered by this disser
tation .
Andrew Parks, a relative newcomer to the Company
Theatre ensemble, actually went back to the 1960s to direct
Michael McClure's scandalous (at that time) The Beard, the
two-character mating dance between Billy the Kid and Jean
Harlow. Although the producer, director, and performers
were repeatedly arrested in the 19 6 0s, according to Lawrence
Christon, "All. it generates today is a big.yawn. . . . The
Company's in need of a clean shave. " 1 The acting by
132
original Company members Trish Soodik and Dennis Redfield
was severely criticized, and even the technical aspects,
75
usually a Company Theatre highlight, were below average.
This production demonstrated that the Company Theatre "can't
go home again." The l'960s are past.
Nor could the Company Theatre retreat even further
to the classics. Gar Campbell, who had had some notable
directing successes, chose to stage and play the title role
in William Shakespeare's Hamlet. The reviews were justifi
ably merciless. Lawrence Christon's in the Los Angeles
Times was a good example:
Prom the moment Campbell appears as a spaced-out
sad sack in a silly cape and black leotards that look
like long-Johns on his quixotic frame, the production
is done for. Instantly, the eye sweeps that little
stage for some evidence that the coming hours (very
nearly four, as it turns out) will contain some
token of authenticity, not to the Elizabethan con
vention necessarily but toward an artful concep
tion. . . .
It isn't as important that the conception doesn't
work as it is that Campbell is so painfully devoid of
classical training and technique--those subtle and
multifarious devices by which one chisels out the
contours of character. . . .
Campbell has directed as well, which leaves
things at further loose ends. . . .
People dropped things backstage a great deal the
night this reviewer was there, and when Gertrude,
Queen of Denmark, fell dead, it was to reveal a no
ticeable rip in the armpit of her dress. Not a sig
nificant detail in itself, but just another indication
of the poverty of mind and means that characterizes
this production.76
This "poverty of mind and means" make the future look dim
for the current Company Theatre. The problem stems from
133
the hit-or-miss policy in effect which calls for little
training, little discipline, and no consistent artistic
vision. The Company has lost its distinctiveness and
unique qualities, and, like dozens of other little theatres
in the Los Angeles area, offers a showcase for performers
and mediocre evenings of non-art. As it stands now, unless
something changes in a major way, the current Company The
atre does not seem to have any clues to meeting the chal
lenge of a balanced, viable theatrical aesthetic for the
1970s.
13^
NOTES
"^Samuel Birnkrant, "One on the Aisle, " Malibu Times
(Calif.), 11 February 1972.
2
Dan Sullivan., "Two One-Acts by Company Theater, "
Los Angeles Times, 22 January 1972.
3
"The Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill," unpub
lished program, March 1972.
4
Samuel Birnkrant, "One on the Aisle," Malibu Times
(Calif.), 5 May 1972. ■
Ron Pennington, "Company Theatre Goes Experimen
tal, " Hollywood Reporter, 31 March 1972.
6
Bill Edwards, "Legit Review," Daily Variety
(Hollywood), 4 April 1972.
Rocky Behr, "Ramblings of a Reviewer," Singles
Critique (Los Angeles), May 1972.
O
Dan Sullivan, "’Ensemble, Grill’ on Menu," Los
Angeles Times, 4 April 1972.
^Interview with Arthur Allen, 19 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Allen quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
■^Leslie E. Aisenman, "Company Theater," Los Angeles
Free Press, 19 May 1972.
1ILIbid.
12
Dan Sullivan, "Company Theater Playfest," Los
Angeles Times, 16 May 1972.
13
Dan Sullivan, "'Mother of Pearl' a Company Finale,"
Los Angeles Times, 12 September 1972.
14
Ron Pennington, "Company Theatre ’Mother of Pearl,'"
Hollywood Reporter, 13 September 1972.
■^Lloyd Steele, "'Mother of Pearl' at Company,"
Los Angeles Free Press, 15 September 1972.
135
16
Sylvie Drake, ''Company Theater Holds Auditions for
Backers," Los Angeles Times, 9 June 1972.
17
Sylvie Drake., "Rift May Break Up Company Theatre,"
Los Angeles Times, 16 August 1972.
18
Sylvie Drake, "Undercurrents Surface at the Com
pany, " Los Angeles Times, 27 September 1972.
19 > i
Ray Loynd, Company Theatre Splits Over Artistic
Viewpoints," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 27 September
1972.
20
Sylvie Drake, "Company Offers Three Ladies," Los
Angeles Times, 20 October 1972.
21
Dan Sullivan, "After the Split: A Progress Report,"
Los Angeles Times, 14 January 1973•
22
Lloyd Steele, "Endgame," Los Angeles Free Press,
1 December 1972.
23
Rocky Behr, "Ramblings of a Reviewer," Singles
Critique (Los Angeles), 15 December 1972.
24
David Russell, "Endgame Plays: In Good Company,"
The Staff (Los Angeles), 29 December 1972-4 January 1973.
25
^Rick Talcover, "Company Troupe Illuminates 'End
game, 1 " Van Nuys News (Calif.), 5 December 1972.
26
Lloyd Steele, "Theatre Happenings," Los Angeles
Free Press, 12 January 1973.
27
Company Theatre, "The Season 1973j" unpublished
descriptive brochure, January 1973.
28
Dan Sullivan, "Serving Up 'McClure on Toast,'"
Los Angeles Times, 9 February 1973-
^Bill Edwards, "Michael McClure on Toast," Daily
Variety (Hollywood), 6 February 1973*
30
Ray Loynd, "Company Theater Offers 'Michael McClure
on Toast,'" Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 8 February 1973.
31
Ron Pennington, "Michael McClure on Toast," Holly
wood Reporter, 6 February 1973•
32
Lloyd Steele, "The Beast and the Rose; Company The-
atre," Los Angeles Free Press, 23 February 1973.
136
•^John Allison., "Mary Stuart," The Staff (Los
Angeles), 30 March 1973.
34
Dan Sullivan., "Hildesheimer Play Premieres, " Los
Angeles Times, 15 March 1973•
oc
J^Ray Loynd, "Company's 'Mary Stuart': Wild, Interest
ing," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 15 March 1973-
36
Carol Soucek, "Theatre: A Review," Evening Outlook,
17 March 1973.
^Paul Russell, "Playhouse Reflections," Singles
Critique (Los Angeles), 1.April 1973-
o O
Lloyd Steele, "Company Presents 'Mary Stuart,'"
Los Angeles Free.Press, 23 March 1973*
■^John Allison, "Company Theatre," The Staff (Los
Angeles), 25-31 May 1973-
40
Sylvie Drake, "Revival of 'Hashish Club,'" Los
Angeles Times, 4 December 1973.
41
Larry Taylor, "Company Theatre Has Real Winner,"
Orange County Evening News, 4 May 1973.
Lloyd Steele, "Chemical Saints in 'The Hashish
Club,'" Los Angeles Free Press, 11 May 1973.
43
Ron Pennington, "The Hashish Club," Hollywood
Reporter, 14 December 1973.
44
Ray Loynd, "Company Theater Stages 'Derby,Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 3 July 1974.
^Bill Edwards, "The Derby, " Daily Variety (Holly
wood), 2 July 1974.
46
Martin Gottfried, "Play About Drugs at Bijou,"
New York Post, 4 January .1975.
47
Douglas Watt, "'The Hashish Club' Is Just a Bum
Trip," New York Daily News, 4 January 1975.
4R
Gregg Kilday, "Pot Luck for 'Hashish Club,'" Los
Angeles Times, 7 January 1975.
49
Sylvie Drake, "Getting Ready for Company," Los
Angeles Times, 24 April 1975.
137
^^Dan Sullivan, "Osborne's 'Detachment' at Zephyr,"
Los Angeles Times, 22 May 1975.
51Ibid.
■^Sylvie Drake, "Little Theater Licks Its Wounds,"
Los Angeles Times, 26 June 1975•
51
Sylvie Drake, "A Wise Alliance for Progress," Los
Angeles Times, 8 May 1975-
-^Sylvie Drake, "'A Ball that Has Begun to Roll,'"
Los Angeles Times, 4 September 1975.
55
-^Company Theatre, "Mirror to Mirror," unpublished
descriptive material, January 1976.
-^Dan Sullivan, "'Mirror' by the Company," Los
Angeles Times, 20 January 1976.
-^Sylvie Drake, "Home Is Where Their Art Is," Los
Angeles Times, 11 January 1976.
5 8Ibid.
^^Ibid.
60
Sylvie Drake, "Enchanted Evening at Company,"
Los Angeles Times, 10 March 1976.
6lIbid.
62
Sylvie Drake, "Stage News," Los Angeles Times,
9 May 1976.
61
Sylvie Drake, "Rubbing 'Salt1 Into U.S. Wounds,"
Los Angeles Times, 6 June 1976.
8^Dan'Sullivan, "1984 Played for Laughs," Los Angeles
Times, 30 June 1976.
6 5Ibid.
66
Dan Sullivan, "'Aucassin' by the Company," Los
Angeles Times, 21 September 1976.
8^Sylvie Drake, "Stage Notes," Los Angeles Times,
7 December 1978.
138
/TO
Dan Sullivan, "Bond's 'Bear' at the Company,, " Los
Angeles Times,, 29 March 1977*
^Sondra Lowell, "'Thighs1: A Slender Probe of Self-
Worth, " Los Angeles Times, 1 July 1977-
70
1 Sylvie Drake, "'Miss Julie' on a Tightrope," Los
Angeles Times, 13 October 1977.
71
Sylvie Drake, "Winsome Year With Some Losses," Los
Angeles Times, 29 December 1977*
72
Dan Sullivan, "Brecht Play at the Company," Los
Angeles Times, 24 January 1978.
73
Laurence Christon, "'Don't Sell' at Company The
atre," Los Angeles Times, 5 July 1978.
74
Laurence Christon, "Red Rover," Los Angeles Times,
7 March 1979.
^Ibid.
^Laurence Christon, "Hamlet as Pool at Company The
ater, " Los Angeles Times, 14 July 1979*
139
CHAPTER V
THE BEGINNINGS REVISITED: HISTORICAL
GENESIS AND FORMATION OF THE
PROVISIONAL THEATRE
The July 1972 meeting of the membership of the
Company Theatre was extremely significant in two ways.
First., the people who were going to leave the theatre saw
who they were and sensed that there would be the possi
bility of creating another theatrical group. Second* many
of these same people volunteered to do Janitorial work at
the playhouse on’ Robertson during August while political
activist Tom Hayden showed slides on behalf of the.Indochina
Peace Campaign. Each evening of slides would end with the
question* "What are you planning to do about these things?"
and by the time September came around* there were some
definite plans. Calling a press conference on September 25^
those departing the Company Theatre distributed a fact
sheet which attempted to clear up some of the motives for
departing and to give some idea of what would come in the
future. Ray Loynd reported the highlights:
1. Most leaving feel they are moving toward the
ideals of the Company Theatre rather than
abandoning them.
140
2. They hope their work will reflect their socio
political explorations. (Says Barry Opper: "We
want our life style to connect to our work. We
feel a common political consciousness.")
3. They desire a smaller ensemble group. (Says
Opper: "The company just got too large. Cer
tainly we had no right to ask people to leave
so our choice was going to another theatre.")
4. They "want an outrageous theatre." (Opper:
"We're going toward-our dream of the Company
Theatre. The future will be bolder, with less
compromi se s.")
5. They want more equal time commitments from
people with an equal vote. (Their dissatisfac
tion is not about art but about sweat.)
6. They never want to consider an actor's desire
for a "role" before the audience's need for
vital theater.
7. Finally, the paper said "that our past two years,
beginning with 'The Plague,' have been done 'in ^
spite of' rather than 'with the cooperation of.'"
Out of these seven tenets emerged the Provisional Theatre,
which Dan Sullivan, in the Los Angeles Times, called "one
of the most accomplished performing ensembles we have--
2
'we' meaning the United States, not merely Los Angeles."
This chapter will look at how the seven principles were
carried out by the Provisional Theatre, and the next chap
ter will examine the new group's aesthetic philosophy.
Company Theatre Ideals
Although the Company Theatre members who left had
to choose a new name, they were convinced that they were
"the heart and vision of the Company Theatre itself,"
according to Candace Laughlin. (At first, the name was
Provisional, so that "Pro" meant "for," with "Vision" its
l4l
object. Later., the ensemble felt the capital "V" was too
O
pretentious, so It became lower case Provisional Theatre. )
Not only did they keep the concepts of experimental the
atre, permanent ensemble, and rotating repertory, which
were present since 19^7^ but they increased the elements
of growth by training and educating others through work
shops .
Every member of the Provisional Theatre collective
is expected to be "the complete instrument," according to
Steven Kent. In this spirit, a large part of every day is
spent in laboratory work, Including those exercises which
were chided in But Don't Sell the Ranch by Trish Soodi,k -
and the Company Theatre ensemble. Kent admitted to freely
borrowing from any and all sources in establishing the
practice regimen:
We have been influenced by Grotowski, the Living
Theatre, Belgium’s Theatre Vicinal, Teatro Campesino,
Peter Brook, Artaud, the Kathakali dancers, Richard
Schechner, Tai Chi, Tibetan Buddhism, and probably
a lot more. ^
One of the brochures of the Provisional Theatre lists the
performance skills which they value:
RAW MATERIAL: voice, body, breath, space, time,
gesture, sound, rhythm, Inflection, intonation,
dynamics, intensity, relaxation, spontaneity, mim
icry, vocal technique, hard work, physical and vocal
preparation, Japanese exercises (Buddhish, Shinto,
Noh), yoga, tumbling, contact improvisation, manip
ulation of the instrument, will power, discipline.
CHARACTER/INTERNAL PROCESS: characterization,
memory, presence, consistency, awareness, manifes
tation, repetition with vitality, inspiration,
meditation, impulse, condition, taking criticism,
observing the self, gathering impressions.
142
ENSEMBLE: working together., game theory, scene
improvisation, group singing, choral speaking,
internal cueing, sensitivity training, transforma
tions, eurythmics, folk rituals and games, synergy.
EVENT: style; forms of theatre: epic, presen
tational, musical, documentary, guerilla, environ
mental; text exploration; use of language; character
study; scene study; ritual; overview; focus; being
observed and heard; staging; songs and music; appli
cation of technique; adjusting to performance condi
tions and variables.5
This comprehensive approach guarantees that each member of
the ensemble has ongoing training in the latest explora
tions of theatrical preparation.
Unlike the reorganized Company Theatre, the Provi
sional Theatre puts great stress on educating others about
theatre. This same brochure mentions the other skills that
the ensemble is willing to teach to students, other theatre
professionals, or whatever group requests them to come:
CREATING ORIGINAL THEATRE PIECES: collective
process, research techniques, improvisation, col
laboration, leadership and ultra-democracy, function
versus role, script construction, conceptualization,
realization, editing, form, perspective, sense of
humor.
ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS: booking, touring, becoming
incorporated, setting up a box office, organizing and
promoting events on limited resources, living on the
road, getting financial aid, the audience--findings
building-serving, bookkeeping, scheduling, budgeting,
meetings, criticism and self-criticism, distribution
of work, decision making, morale, community organiz
ing.
TECHNICAL THEATRE: design, construction, stage
management, packing and mobility, lighting, puppetry,
mask making, scrounging. 6
Thus, the Provisional Theatre sees itself as the continua
tion of the ideals envisioned for the original Company
Theatre. It has certainly attained its goal of being a
143
self-contained producing unit with continuous training*
rotating repertory* and an emphasis on educating' others
about the nature of theatre.
Socio-Political Exploration
When the Provisional Theatre first started* a
"common political consciousness" was not hard to achieve.
Most all of the members of the group had known each other
well and had been aware of each others' goals. The inci
dent at the Watergate Hotel had already occurred* but the
ramifications were not yet known. Most of the "60’s
generation" were distressed at the United States involve
ment in Vietnam and were actively campaigning for George
McGovern to be the next president of the country. This
concern for political and social issues continued to grow
in the Provisional Theatre.
The members of the ensemble are expected to read in
the political and social arena and are usually active par
ticipants in revolutionary study groups. The group is
expected to put its muscle where its concerns are. It
participates in rallies* houses and feeds other theatre
groups which share like concerns* and donates its services
to groups that need them. A letter dated November 22*
1 9 7 8* has a partial list of these involvements:
Currently giving active support to the Native
American spiritual encampment at Point Conception
(Ca.)* including fund-raising* food drives and
clothing collection* and participation in the
spiritual life there.
144
Produced, promoted and presented performances In
Los Angeles by the following: Kathakali dancer Krishnan
Nambudlrl from India; mime/dancer Wilson Pico from
Ecuador; Ric Grusczynski from Milwaukee; mime/music
troupe Nandyelli from Mexico City; classical guitarist
Alan Merian from San Diego; L.A. writer Margaret Rau
and her China slide show; and the Play Group from
Knoxville, Tennessee, and provided above artists with
all of their performance earnings after costs; also
provided free housing, transportation, dinners, and
tours of L.A. for all these people.
Taught a six-week acting workshop for men and
women inmates at Terminal Island Federal Prison.
Acquired the giant heater for El Teatro Campe-
sino's theatre space in San Juan Bautista.
Active membership in the Skyhorse/Mohawk Offense/
Defense Committee, including producing the Floyd
Westerman benefit and doing all the technical and
stage management work on the Buffy Sainte Marie
benefit.
Special performance and demonstration for the
Center for the Healing Arts.
Contributed our talents many times to productions
at KPFK, Pacifica Radio.
Helped build the Compton Arena, a center for
black artists and craftspeople.
Have performed and participated In dozens of
benefits and rallies for such causes as the anti-war
movement, the United Farm Workers, Bach Mai Hospital
Fund, Native American Issues, No Nukes, No on Proposi
tion 6, Free Joanne Little, No on Bakke, Pro-Choice
for Women, and Save the Earth.
Free a cappella singing concerts for the St.
Patrick's Day and Christmas Eve parties of the
retired members of the Amalgamated Clothing and
Textile Workers Union, Los Angeles.
Free one-week "organizational workshops" to
Teatro de la Gente, San Jose, and At the Foot of the
Mountain (a women's theatre), Minneapolis; and exten
sive organizational help to Teatro Urbano, East Los
Angeles; Lilith (a women's theatre), San Francisco;
Bear Republic Theatre, Santa Cruz; Public Works The
atre, Venice (Ca.); and Teatro Movimiento Primavera,
L.A.
Blood donation for Native American woman Pauline
Kanahu.
Frequent assistance to Women on Wheels (women's
culture producing group)--equipment loans, technical
assistance, and advice.
Invitational participation In the famed "Yoshi"
workshop In New York City and the subsequent passing
145
on of these valuable Japanese theatre exercises and
rituals to thirty Los Angeles artists in a one-week
"passing it on" workshop.
Several free performances for the Catholic Work
ers' Soup Kitchen, skid row, downtown L.A.
Built the stage and interior of the Odyssey The
atre for free.
The donation of our labor to many causes :so many
times that we can't remember any more.7
The list is a veritable reflection of the political and
social concerns of the activists of the 1970s. The rise of
concern for women and minorities is certainly obvious, as
well as the protection of the poor and the oppressed.
These activities have been carried on in addition to actual
theatrical production work, and they have influenced the
radical outlook of the stage pieces. Certainly the socio
political explorations of the group, on-stage and off,'are
an important aspect of the Provisional Theatre and its
impact.
Smaller Ensemble
Because of the difficulties caused by the differ
ences within the Company Theatre, the third major item of
concern of the Provisional Theatre personnel was that the
ensemble be smaller and more cohesive. In January 1973
the Provisional Theatre Foundation was created as a non
profit California institution, and the members numbered
thirteen: Gladys Carmichael, Michael Dawdy (formerly
Michael Carlin Pierce), Elinor Graham, Joe Hudgins, Bill
Hunt, Steven Kent, Darrell Larson, Candace Laughlin,
146
Michael Monroe, Barry Opper, John Sefick, Richard. Serpe,
g
and Norbert Weisser. This choice was not automatic; not
everyone who wished to become a member was accepted.
Several people who had helped with the first production
were not admitted to the group. By deliberate design.,
the number was kept small, and the criteria for selection
were not clearly spelled out. According to Elinor Graham,
Basically Barry and Steve did the choosing. They
chose some of the people who had been in the work
shops at the Company Theatre, but they rejected some
others, including the girls who had come out to ap
prentice with the group after Liquid Theatre in
New York. It was a very painful experience when the
"No" was delivered to some of these people. It all
happened In my living room.
Over the years, the core of the group has remained
similar. Of the original thirteen, seven eventually de
cided to leave the Provisional Theatre: Graham ("I found
the expected commitment level to.be much too high; there
was no room for personal freedom"), Hudgins, Hunt (one of
the original Artistic Directors of the Company, he was
with the Provisional for six years), Larson ("I couldn't
accept the party line; besides, the unrecognized power
structure contributed to lots of personal craziness"^),
Monroe ("I was never In on the decision-making process;
that got wearing"1^), Serpe, and Weisser. Only two people
have joined the group and left: Ricky Manoff ("The con
stant meetings for days on end to reach group consensus
drove me erazy""^) and Corey Fischer, who had agreed to be
147
with them for only six months before he signed on. Three
other people who became members of the ensemble are still
active in 1979‘ Susan Macy, Cricket Parmalee, and Larry
Hoffman. The complete group now numbers nine. The ideal
of a small ensemble has been carefully preserved; there are
no present plans to expand the troupe.
Outrageous Theatre
The stated goal of the members of the old Company
Theatre who formed the Provisional Theatre was for a holder
theatre with fewer compromises. In rebellion against
strong currents toward commercial success that they sensed
in the previous group,, the Provisional Theatre ensemble
deliberately keeps itself "poor," as a sign they have made
no compromises. They lack the permanent theatre space
which would entail a high, continual overhead; instead.,
they boast "rehearsal space" with office in a large room
behind Chatterton's Bookstore, l8l6 1/2 North Vermont
Avenue, Los Angeles. Fire Department regulations forbid
charging for any performances in this space. Instead, they
often hold "open rehearsals" offset by free-will offerings.
The once-fashionable Los Feliz area has deteriorated to a
low rent neighborhood. This lack of a theatre demands
that the Provisional Theatre "go out to where the people
are," according to Candace Laughlin. They are often
invited to perform at churches and colleges, and since
1 9 7 5s they have made eight major tours: four three-month
National tours, one extensive California small towns tour,
two Pacific Northwest tours, and one French tour. Com
mitted to a policy of non-compromise, the group refuses to
commit itself to a schedule for producing new works. In
stead, "we work until we've got it right, and then we
introduce it [a new piece] into the repertory," said
Steven Kent.
This "outrageous theatre" to which the Provisional
Theatre has committed itself recently acquired a name. In
September 1975 a new periodical titled Alternative Theatre
was introduced at the American Educational Theatre annual
conference. Alternative Theatre's associate editor, Ted
Hoffman, attempted to define what alternative theatre is:
As we observe the emergent alternative theatre,
we find some tendencies, characteristics, concerns
which impress us as genuinely alternative and elicit
our commitment:
1. The impulse toward collectives, groups with
out impressarios or exploitative producers, who
learn to share talent, energy, and decisions, whose
"leaders" are responsive, whose communality is based
on social and performance views and derives continu
ity from common life styles. . . .
2. Social roots. Theatres which locate within
selected communities and see their work as contingent
on the life and needs of their audiences; which shape
their work to community social action and relate to
concerned local educational, welfare, rehabilitation,
and cultural organizations.
3. Self-learning. Theatres committed to continu
ous disciplined workshop and rehearsal research of
their skills, rather than just putting on plays.
149
4. Mobility. Performance that is adjustable to
any space; that depends neither on elaborate fixed
scenery nor lighting; in which design that can in-
volve artists or designers not conditioned to conven
tional scenery evolves out of performance. Perform
ers who can adjust their work imaginatively to any
situation or audience. . . .
We're interested in performance groups who have
the talent and the operative skills to grow. We're
interested in the strategies of survival, the condi
tions of productive theatre life, the experience of
rooted experiment.
Hoffman, no doubt, was thinking of groups like the Provi
sional Theatre, since one of their theatre pieces was the
subject of an article in the same issue of Alternative
Theatre. It is clear that the "outrageous theatre" chosen
by the Provisionals is part of a growing theatre movement
in the 1970s.
Equal Commitment
The frustrations that arose in the Company Theatre
over how to get everyone to work equally hard gave rise to
the most controversial aspect of the Provisional Theatre:
the absolute primacy of group needs over those of the
individual. Some members of the ensemble left because of
this dogma; those that remain seem dedicated to this syn
thesis of life style and total dedication to the group
purpose.
Unlike the Company Theatre, where every issue was
voted upon and majority ruled, the Provisional Theatre
makes consensus decisions, formal and informal, on all
matters. Until the group can generate a decision that
150
pleases the entire body., no action may be taken. In an
effort to make the ensemble completely self-contained,
members are encouraged to learn skills as varied as mask-
making , Spanish, and car repair. In 197^* a communal
garden was begun, and the group ate three meals a week
together. With the Institution of extensive tours, every
one learned to live Intimately and harmoniously.
In 1976, the theatre was extensively restructured.
Before that time, members of the ensemble had been allowed
to participate mostly within their own areas of specialty
(administrative, performing, or technical). Since that
time, everyone has become part-administrator, part-
performer, and part-techniclan. Even the role of director
was apportioned out to the membership at large. All have
office responsibilities; all have artistic responsibili
ties. No one has commitments outside of the group; no one
can accept outside offers; no one can turn down responsi
bilities assumed by the group.
This all-consuming dedication to the theatre means
that the theatre must provide financial support. The
search for funds is constant. Not only do numerous
patrons give small amounts as donations to the group, but
fees are- charged for performances and workshops where
feasible. Yet, since the group's philosophy demands that
theatre be given to everyone, not Just those who can
afford it, many people enjoy free performances. The group
151
has been successful In securing underwriting for Its work
from several foundations and has been a part of the touring
program of the California Arts Council for several years.
Although finances cause a constant struggle* a recent
solicitation letter indicates that the fund-raising work
has paid off; the group is financially secure through
13
1979- There are plans to solicit a Community Board of
lii
Directors to help with the funding for the future. Thus*
the commitment demanded by the Provisional Theatre of its
members in turn makes a great demand on the Theatre
itself--support.
Performers1 Theatre
The people who formed the Provisional Theatre
intensely disliked the demand they had experienced in the
Company Theatre for choosing a play that had "good roles”
for specific people. Dan Sullivan* in the Los Angeles
Times* reported on how the Provisional Theatre planned to
get away from that problem:
The 'aim will be* as before* experimental theater.
But with "a stronger political conscience” than be
fore* Opper says* and with an increased emphasis on
"performers' theater” over "actors' theater."15
This dictum has been carefully preserved throughout the
history of the Provisional Theatre. "The production has
always been greater than the individual*" according to
Ricky Manoff. Barry Opper phrased it differently:
152
The procedure in the Provisional Theatre is always
to mold the production to the group,, and not vice
versa. It looks to us like the present Company The
atre does the opposite. Since each actor is a com
plete instrument, we do everything. The only thing
we really lack is a writer within the group. But we
would never invite an outsider to work with us because
we couldn't do it ourselves.
With such a high regard for the performer, one would think
that would lead to even higher regard for the director,
but there is no deliberate hierarchical pattern within the
Provisional Theatre. Sylvie Drake reported:
Steve Kent made the valuable distinction of the
director's role as one of granted leadership as op
posed to demanded leadership: "I see myself as a
lens for the group, a filter for a certain vision."
Thus, the Provisional Theatre refuses to accommo
date the showcase aspects of theatre. The entire ensemble
Is credited with all of the accomplishments. A tradi
tional "actor" would be frustrated by the strictures of
anonymity and collectivism. In the Provisional Theatre
tradition, no part can be greater than the whole. That
part of the credo is upheld In all regards.
Uoov perative Collective
The last major point of the "White Paper" pre
sented to the press in September 1972 mentioned a problem
felt by the founders of the Provisional Theatre: person
ality conflicts erupting in a non-cooperative atmosphere.
To avoid a repetition of this, the Provisional Theatre is
very slow to change any personnel. Their size, their
153
singleness of vision* their commitment demands preclude
accepting many people into the group. As William Hunt
stated* "We always looked for the human qualities along
with the talent." Lawrence Christon of the Los Angeles
Times imagined the recruitment campaign that would have to
take place if one were to he honest:
If the Provisional Theater were to run a want
ad* it would have to look something like this:
WANTED: Cultural Workers
Actors and Actresses looking for means
of expressing the American experience through
working in a theatre collective. Long hours*
low pay* arduous travel* little privacy* and
an uncertain future. Must be open and sensi
tive and theatrically skilled. Also tough-
minded* ensemble or group-oriented* and uncon
ventional. No commercial prospects. Call
664-1450 for further information.17
This is a far cry from the ad that might have been run by
the Company Theatre at its beginning. It is indicative of
the' nature of the Provisional company. What path its "art"
took will be examined in the next chapter.
154
NOTES
^■Ray Loynd, "Company Theatre Splits Over Artistic
Viewpoints," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 27 September 1972.
2
Dan Sullivan, "One-and-a-HaIf Cheers for ProVision-
als, " Los Angeles Times, 1 October 1974.
• 5
Laurence Christon, "'You Do Think of Having a
Family,1" Los Angeles Times, 10 July 1977.
4
Ibid.
5
Provisional Theatre Workshops," unpublished de
scriptive brochure, n.d.
^Ibid.
7
Provisional Theatre, unpublished solicitation let
ter, 22 November 1978.
8
Provisional Theatre Foundation, "About the Provi
sional Theatre," unpublished descriptive brochure, 1973*
9
Interview with Darrell Larson, 23 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Larson quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
"^Interview with Michael Monroe, 30 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Monroe quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
"^Interview with Ricky Manoff, 30 July 1976. All
subsequent statements by Manoff quoted in this dissertation
will be from this interview.
12
Ted Hoffman, "Describe, Inform, and Comment: Why
We're Here," Alternative Theatre (Baltimore, Maryland),
1 September 1975.
13
Provisional Theatre, unpublished solicitation let
ter, 1 June 1979.
14
Ibid.
18
Dan Sullivan, "Split--or Rebirth--in Company The
ater Ranks," Los Angeles Times, 24 September 1972.
155
pany,
16
Sylvie Drake, "Undercurrents Surface at the Com-
Los Angeles Times, 27 September 1972.
"^Christon, "'You Do Think of Having a Family.'"
156
CHAPTER VI
THE RENEWED SEARCH: THE PROVISIONAL
THEATRE THROUGH 1979
Whereas the beginning of the Company Theatre in
1967 was a reflection of the times and found an audience
readily* the Provisional Theatre began because of dissen
sion within a theatrical group. That dissension undoubt
edly resulted in many policies* but the most vital policy
of all* an aesthetic philosophy* remained to be carved out
through the creative process during the 1970s. By adopting
a narrow political stance* the Provisional Theatre Immedi
ately found an audience of a select few. But the question
remained* could the group find its way to a wider audience?
Through systematic experimentation and by artistic design*
the Provisional Theatre searched for a balanced aesthetic
where refined form and relevant content could be synthe
sized to create a satisfying theatrical experience. This
chapter will examine the growth of this aesthetic awareness
for the 1970s through a study of the Provisional Theatre's
six productions from 1972 through 1 9 7 9-
157
XA: A Vietnam Primer
Many of the founders of the Provisional Theatre
attended anti-war activist Tom Hayden's slide show at the
Company Theatre playhouse in August 1972. With their
consciousness challenged and raised by the presentation, a
group of them began voraciously to read information about
Vietnamese history and the role played by the United States
In that history. They fed their research to Michael Monroe,
author of Caliban, and he formulated the script. Elinor
Graham wondered at the speed:
The whole thing started to snowball. We would
rehearse in the Music Center Annex with 10 pages at
a time. We wanted to get it ready in time to influ
ence the November election, and so it only took us
three weeks to complete. We went wherever we could
get an audience, and we never charged anything for
putting it on. It lasted way beyond November.
Monroe remembered that the formulation process was swift
and smooth: "Somehow everything came together, even though
there were no bosses, and the whole process was anarchic."
He enjoyed being the writer for a theatrical group and
working with them to shape material. They began to call
themselves The October Collective.
The October Collective, with Michael Monroe,
fashioned a striking docudrama called XA: A Vietnam Primer.
Based on historical facts, actual quotations, and firm
documentations, it was called an "information piece."
William Hunt recalled that "its primary purpose was to
158
inform. Content took first place to form." That content
was summarized by Paul Dexter Lion:
The Vietnamese people have a 4000-year past, and
became a nation in the third century B.C. For a thou
sand years, between the second century B.C. and 937
A.D., China ruled Vietnam, defeating four rebellions
but losing the fifth and final revolution against
them. For the next five centuries, Vietnamese roy
alty, while fighting among themselves, manage to
conquer neighboring Indian and Cambodian provinces
and fend off Mongolian invasion. European nations
then try for two centuries to command commercial and
religious privileges in Vietnam. Finally, in 1917 *
France becomes the dominant power in Indochina,
losing it briefly during World War II and regaining
It after Japan's surrender. Ho Chi Minh, who began
the resistance against all foreign control in 1924,
becomes Vietnam's ruler In 1945. An agreement with
France for Vietnamese independence is abrogated by
France, and in 1946 the Indochinese war begins,
financed largely by the U.S. government. In 1954
the battered French quit Vietnam, but Ho accepts
temporary partition of Vietnam In return for the
promise of elections. The U.S. picks its own presi
dent of the southern zone, forbids partition, and
the war resumes, this time a civil war fought with
men, supplies, and money from the U.S. Cambodia,
Laos, and Thailand are drawn in with their own
American-equipped civil wars.l
The bibliography handed out by the October Collective to
show the sources from which XA was drawn lists twenty-
three references. Other material explained the title:
Xa Is the Vietnamese Ideographical sign for
"village." More specifically, it means "spirit of
the earth." The village represents the most funda
mental expression of traditional Vietnamese society.
Xa is also the name for a piece of information
theatre created by members of the October Collective
during three weeks In October, 1972. The work
attempts to present a brief narrative history of
Vietnam giving special emphasis to the Vietnamese
perspective. . . . The members of the October Col
lective are strongly opposed to the war In Indochina,
but we also believe that a simple review of some of
the history leading up to and Including American
159
Involvement may provide the most telling argument for
that opposition.
Therefore* the guiding principle was and is the
sharing of information. First* this required that
the performers be responsible for informing them
selves. Second* even while the piece was taking
shape* this served as a criterion in making formal
decisions. By breaking up the audience into "vil
lages" it was hoped that some of this Information
might be embodied in a more immediate* more vulner
able w a y . 2
Although the obvious purpose of XA was to Instruct and
illuminate* Hunt said* "We were also very careful that we
not disenchant." Many theatrical conventions were used to
make the history more interesting.
Some of the Innovative methods of presentation used
were as follows: the piece was played on a flat floor taped
into the semblance of a map of Vietnam* the audience was
divided into different "villages" presided over by an
assigned performer* audiences were participants in "buzz
sessions" concerning the issues as they came up* masks and
placards were used to represent different characters* songs
were sung in the course of the performance* narration was
broken up into short speeches for many performers* musical
Instruments were used for sound effects* ritual movements
were used to represent different important concepts* and
all the performers were barefooted and wearing blue jeans
so that they could play a variety of characters with no
physical or costume changes necessary.
Like the first true Company Theatre production*
Johnny Johnson* XA: A Vietnam Primer effectively combined
160
substance and form. It was presented in churches* schools*
and other institutions like Synanon* and it was well
received by its audiences. The critics* too* praised its
timeliness and grace. The Los Angeles Times reported:
XA looks outward* trying to give its audience a fresh
sense of some very particular flames--those consuming
a country called Vietnam--and asking that audience to
help put them out. . . .
XA wants to make something happen; it is a daring
work.
You leave grateful that someone who knows what he
is talking about has taken the trouble to share his
knowledge on this terrible topic in a quiet* reason
able way* rather than shrieking at you. . . . Monroe*
Kent and the company are to be honored for having
created it.3
Richard Toscan classified it as extraordinary political
theatre in his radio review on KPFK:
Written by Michael Monroe who has instilled in
the history the lyric 1*200 mile twine of Vietnam’s
geography and culture* XA is the only genuinely
successful example of political theatre I can point
to in the history of the American theatre* with the
exception of the Living Newspaper productions of
the 30's. . . .But the movement of the piece* the
purity of gesture bordering on dance* the poetic
flow of the language tie in directly to the cultural
flow of Vietnam--a flow invaders have attempted
unsuccessfully to atomize for centuries. . . . Even
if you have had all you can stand of Vietnam* you
should see XA because it exists as exciting theatre
and a compelling artistic achievement beyond its
subject. 4
Thus it was that XA* designed to be "quick and exportable*"
according to Monroe* proved to be a successful combination
of serious content with effective theatricality. This
lesson was not lost on the Provisional Theatre when it
161
turned back from its most unsuccessful experiment, Its next
"theatre piece."
Domlnus Marlowe/A Play on Doctor Faustus
The Provisional Theatre looked on XA_ as a combina
tion of Its own creation and a link between the Company
Theatre and its first "exclusive" play, Dominus Marlowe/
A Play on Doctor Faustus. The group described its forma
tion in this way:
In October of 1972, fifteen people with a myriad
of theatre skills and experience and with a collec
tive disinterest in the apparent direction of "com
mercial" American theatre formed a temporary alli
ance with the specific purpose of exploring immediate
forms of theatrical communication. . . . Throughout
the ensuing months as XA was performed throughout the
State of California, it became evident that there
existed within the group a desire to continue the
theatrical.investigations begun with XA_ and to extend
and explore the embryonic working relationships..
• • •
By January of 1973* the Provisional Theatre Foun
dation had been created as a federally tax exempt,
state chartered nonprofit corporation, and workshop
rehearsals had begun on its first work, Dominus
Marlowe/A Play on Doctor Faustus. With the energetic
direction of Steven Kent, . . . the conceptual aid of
performers Candace Laughlin, Michael Dawdy, and Bill
Hunt, the challenging input of poet Michael Monroe
. . . and the active participation of the remainder
of the ensemble, both Dominus Marlowe and the process
itself began to reflect an unyielding insistence on
human, decent "means" in addition to quality "ends."
The people of the Provisional Theatre subscribe to
a non-institutional, non-elitist approach to theatre
and communication.5
After the evening in the living room of Elinor Graham's
house when people were told whether or not they were to be
included, the business of forming a group began. Michael
162
Monroe suggested the name "Provisional Theatre*" and Barry
Opper arranged the legal formation of the corporation.
XA was a success* and the production was Invited to
many places. Discussion immediately began on what should
be added to the repertory. Marlowe's Faust, having been
discussed in the Company Theatre* was a possibility; how
ever* since the Faust legend seemed rooted in traditional
Western theology* the group rejected it. Michael Monroe
volunteered to do research on Marlowe himself and his
relationship to Doctor Faustus. The troupe thus turned
inward toward the psychological to find its next statement
after the political ideology of XA. The creative process
did not flow smoothly* as the group's own literature
records:
There was confusion and doubt. As script began
coming in more quickly* rehearsals and discussions
intensified. Disagreements* fights* ego traps*
emotional breakdowns all became part of the work.
Marlowe* his creatures* and the people in the
Provisional Theatre were all changing* learning from
and teaching each other.°
According to Monroe*
Steve [Kent] wasn't interested in any philosophy
at all. He just wanted an artsie piece. We never
came to any real center with the work. I finally
left* and Barry [Opper] finished off the play by
declaring "this is what it means." In the end* it
was an elegant corpse* looking good* but dead.
Even without Mpnroe* the ensemble presented the
work as a "work-in-progress*" and then finally as a com
pleted play. John Sefick* a member of the group* had
found the large room behind Chatterton's Bookstore which
163
had been used as a storehouse for record albums and
jewelry destined to be sent to discount houses. The owner,
William Iwamoto, rented the room to the Provisional Theatre,
but they had to clean It up. Although they performed
Dominus Marlowe nine time's in this space, the Fire Depart
ment closed It down as unsafe. The group secured the use
of the Odyssey Theatre by Installing a fire wall and bath
rooms. They put on Dominus Marlowe for two months there,
and then' toured with It wherever they could.
The creation of Dominus Marlowe had taken eight
months, and the process was somewhat reminiscent of the
Ill-fated Plague which had brought so much grief to the
Company Theatre. In this case, however, there were two
significant differences: the ensemble learned about them
selves during the process and many critics actually
praised the play. Kent described the group response:
Although it was a difficult time, we actually
learned a lot about the creative process. None of
us were actually too happy about the end result, but
the process taught us a lot of vocabulary and a lot
about what we needed to do to get ourselves ready to
do more work together as a group.
Comments from Lloyd Steele of the Los Angeles Free Press
illustrated the attitude of reviewers who liked what they
saw:
DOMINUS MARLOWE . . . is far and away and away
and away the best piece of theatre in Los Angeles
for a long time and probably for a long time to
come. If you've never seen a play, this should be
your first; if you have, this should be your next.
. . . [It] is an existential vaudeville, complete.
164
with song and dance, in which Mephistophiles, with
the help of assorted demons and angels, forces
Marlowe to watch and participate in his own play of
Doctor Faustus, puts him on trial for ever having
lived at all, and strips him of the silly, empty
illusion of a soul he never had to sell. I like
the theatre; I am overwhelmed by very little.
DOMINUS MARLOWE . . . is the standard by which all
other theatre in this city will have to be judged
for a while.7
The production was very physical, with touches of humor in
the character of Candace Laughlin. John Sefick designed a
portable set of steel girders which allowed the actors to
climb all over it and choose from many different playing
areas.
Even though the Provisional Theatre personnel felt
they "turned down the wrong alley" with Dominus Marlowe,
they were determined to stick together to further explore
the idea of working collectively on the creation of a
theatre piece. The recognition of perceptive critics also
encouraged them. So, after five months of performing, they
began another work.
America Piece
When the Company Theatre was in New York with the
James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre, its personnel had
seen the Open Theatre. When the opportunity came to work
with one of its playwrights, Susan Yankowitz, the Provi
sional Theatre people j'umped at the chance. Yankowitz had
received a grant to work with theatre groups across the
country, so she came to the Provisional Theatre ensemble
165
for six weeks, beginning in January 197^• In somewhat
similar fashion to Mutation Show, Yankowitz felt that it
would be interesting to explore the contemporary nature of
American "types." She fashioned the idea for eight repre
sentative characters on the American scene: the fragmented
person., the worrier, the self-punisher, the learner, the
self-lover, the drifter, the never-satisfied person, and
the cynic. Every day the performers who were to develop
these images played endless theatre games "in character."
Kent said that this type of work excited the group because
"it was a commitment to investigate something whose outcome
was not known."
Six months later, in July, the Provisional Theatre
invited some friends in to watch an open rehearsal. Critic
Dan Sullivan found the characters both funny and appealing,
but the piece did not yet go anyshwere:
And the problem of finding some significant
action for the piece is only just starting to be
investigated. But the Provisional is definitely
on to something here, and one awaits further devel
opment with interest. Impatience, in fact.”
Another idea that the Provisional Theatre had been toying
with was a work by Barry's brother, Don Opper, author of
Children of the Kingdom. He had attempted to show American
history in relation to critical appraisal of American
structures. The ensemble came up with the idea of com
bining the Yankowitz characters with Opper's theme. By
this time, the characters had been mastered, so the
166
ensemble began to work on the rest of the piece. As Barry
Opper, Candace Laughlin, and Steve Kent had been leading
study groups on American history, the influence of revi
sionist history is evident in the piece. As with Dominus
Marlowe, the group decided to adopt the policy of calling
America Piece a "work-in-progress." Two months after the
open rehearsal, they gave a public performance at the
University of California at Los Angeles. Dan Sullivan
enjoyed'the characters at the beginning and liked their
encounters with one another in the middle, but found the
last part (on America) to be "portentious ritual drama.
Five months later, in February 1975* he viewed it again at
Pomona College and found it "tighter and more precise with
out losing either humor or poetry.It had become
clearer (mostly through mime and gibberish) that the char
acters in the last part were forced to bear the burdens of
building America, only to have it repeatedly taken away
from them. By March, when it was performed at the Los
Angeles Inner City Cultural Center, the piece was declared
"finished." Sylvie Drake reported on the progression of
the piece:
"It's the most collective piece we've ever done,"
[Barry] Opper says. "We had to learn to communicate
with one another on totally new levels because we
had no vocabulary for what was happening. For the
first few months, in fact, Steve [Kent .-the director]
had to hang back and let the writers and actors feel
out the project. Only then was he able to step in
and mold the piece. "11
167
When she saw it, Drake declared that since she had seen It
eight months before,
. . . It had become extraordinary, operating much
like an out-of-focus camera that slowly fixes on Its
subject, eventually defining It.
But the ramifications of "America Piece" are
Immense and to describe them Is futile. They deserve
to be experienced as theatre. . . . It is performed,
as It was conceived, by the group as a whole under
the guidance of Steve Kent and with an Integrity that
Is the result of a point of view and months of pains
taking work.
More to the point, it Is the product of a similar
kind of artistic and philosophic unity for which there
are no substltutes.1 2
Such praise was gratifying to the Provisional Theatre. It
convinced them that further exploration was worthwhile.
From the inner, psychological world of Dominus Marlowe,
they had sought the wider society in America Piece. The
latter had seemed by far more satisfying to them, so they
were not going to let go of American history just yet.
They also discovered that "works-in-progress" can also be
appreciated by others. For this reason, they never quite
stop working on a piece, as they are convinced it can
always be a little better.
Voice of the People, Parts I and II
Once again, the work of the Provisional Theatre, as
it had been in the positive years of the Company Theatre,
was making strides forward, each production contributing
organically toward the aesthetic philosophy.' Almost a
year after America Piece had been declared "complete," the
168
Provisional Theatre presented another work, combining the
ensemble effort achieved in America Piece with the docu-
drama flavor of XA_. Like XA, it was factual but biased.
In February of 1976, part I of Voice of the People opened
(up to the Civil War) and in June of 1976, part II pre
miered (from the Civil War to the present).
Attempting to show the history of oppression of the
poor in this country, both pieces quoted extensively from
a variety of sources. A bibliography and who's who were .
given to the audience to show that the history presented
was accurate, although the emphasis differed from that
found in grade school history books. Demonstrating over
and over again that the Establishment has refused to let
people have a vision of their own united strength, the
plays treat as heroes such characters as Abraham Lincoln,
Eugene Debs, ^and Harriet Tubman. Unlike the stereotypes
in America Piece, these are real people.
For theatricality, the villain (Money) and his
henchwoman (Reason) are huge wheeled puppets, reminding one
of a medieval morality play. While the advertising bro
chures call Voice of the People "a spirit-filled and
sensible alternative history of the people of our land, a
hidden history, one that is not taught in our schools,
some of the critics, including Dan Sullivan, found the
message a bit heavy handed:
169
This is what Brecht called a teaching-piece and
the 193°'s agitprop. It is not designed to send
people to the barricades* but to send them home
thinking about what the central American tradition
really is* what phrases like "liberty and justice
for all" mean now* what they might mean. Equally*
it raises questions about the kind of socialism the
Provisional would like to replace the present eco
nomic system with* and what might happen to political
liberty under that. If the Bicentennial is a time
for contemplation rather than self-congratulation*
this is a superb occasion for it. It also reminds
you how much American history you don’t know.
Still* this is an important work. If the Provi
sional ’s impressionistic "America Piece" pointed to
some of our hangups* "Voice of the People" gets very
clearly at the roots.
By returning to roots and causes in Voice of the People,
the Provisional Theatre reached a wider audience than it
had with its more abstract America Piece. Although the
messages were the same* the audiences seemed to identify
more strongly with real people than they had with the
stereotypical characters of the other theatre piece. Voice
of the People became a staple part of the group's reper
tory* and they toured with it two summers* including a well
received trip to the New Theatre Festival in Baltimore*
Maryland. While there* they watched other alternative
theatre groups perform and made friends with other perform
ers. This commerce and their success with Voice of the
People led to the creation.of their latest work.
Inching Through the Everglades
A chronological study of the various productions of
the Provisional Theatre enables one to see a pattern
170
emerging; critics, like Lawrence Christon in the Los
Angeles Times, registered at least some indications of this
direction:
There is probably no theater group in America
that has given more single-minded attention to the
question who are we?" than the Provisional Theater.
Prom its inception as the Company Theatre in the
late ' 6 0''s (now a separate entity), it has tended to
focus on contemporary experience, sometimes satiri
cally, sometimes vehemently, sometimes with measured
calm, but always, it seems, with that central ques
tion in mind. Earlier the ensemble performed other
people's scripts, but of late it has been moving
inward toward its own continuously developing vision
of modern experience. The Provisional Theatre is not
a theatre in the conventional sense of doing shows
that feature stars. Instead, what theatre represents
to this group is a form of vocabulary, a dramatic
journal of time that has no predictable end.
But it does have chapters. "XA: A Vietnam Primer"
attempted to depict the historical and cultural real
ity of our mid-century "over there." "America Piece"
sought ways to personify the cynicism, fear and
anomie of "a society that breeds loneliness, aliena
tion, and powerlessness." "Voice of the People"
. . . is concerned about history. 15
The same search has gone on in the group to discover a
balanced aesthetic posture. XA was a piece that was docu
mentary in flavor and whose only emotional content was
situational. Dominus Marlowe sought inner, psychological
truth of a philosophical nature, and the group rejected it
as unsatisfying. America Piece viewed U.S. history through
the inhuman "humors" of the stage. Voice of the People
returned to causes and roots and was even better.
Finally, the latest work of the Provisional
ensemble focuses, narrows, and' transcends the others. It
deals with the American experience through vibrant beings,
171
real human beings with common names; in addition* Inching
Through the Everglades (subtitled Pie in the Sky and Some
thing on Your Shoe) uses humor* masks* original music* and
innovative lighting. Mostly put together by Candace
Laughlin* Michael Dawdy* and Barry Opper* it focuses on
Irene* a part-time supermarket checker* and Willie Ray* an
ordinary roofer come West to California from Texas. The
Provisional people themselves* as well as the critics* feel
this is their best work. Perhaps Dan Sullivan said it best
in the Los Angeles Times:
What* those kids who used to be with the Company
Theatre? One of the best performance groups in the
country?
It's true. And it's time we stopped thinking of
them- as kids. What you see in their new piece*
"Inching Through the Everglades*" . . . is maturity.
It's the lightest-handed piece the Provisional has
ever done* and the most affecting.
The Provisional has always been a political the
ater. Here* as before* it's concerned with the gap
between the America that the crowd sings about at the
ball game and the America that the crowd goes home
to* especially those without much money coming in
every week. . . .
What the piece says is that the Provisional is
so sure where it stands ideologically now that it
doesn't have to press the message. . . . If you've
been irritated by the didactic strain in their work*
"Inching Through the Everglades" will please you for
its finer grain* its humor* the contrariness of its
people.1 6
Thus* the Provisional Theatre has that wonderful combina
tion of content and form* substance and style* which will
help it reach a wider audience. Its systematic* sensitive
search for a theatre aesthetic for the 1 9 7 0s made the
172
Provisional Theatre become a group that is maturing., learn
ing., and finding a balanced approach to effective theatre.
April 1978 proved that. Inching Through the Everglades is
a harbinger of the good work that lies ahead for the Pro
visional Theatre.
173
NOTES
Paul Dexter Lion., "A Critical Study of the Origins
and Characteristics of Documentary Theatre of Dissent in
the United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1975)•
2
October Collective, "XA: Ground and Givens,"
unpublished descriptive material, January 1973-
^Dan Sullivan, "After the Split: A Progress Report,"
Los Angeles Times, l4 January 1973-
4
Provisional Theatre Foundation, Words about XA:
A VIETNAM PRIMER," unpublished descriptive material, n.d.
p r
^Provisional Theatre Foundation, "About the Pro
visional Theatre," unpublished descriptive material, n.d.
5
Provisional Theatre Foundation, "About DOMINUS
MARLOWE," unpublished descriptive material, n.d.
Lloyd Steele, "Dominus Marlowe," Los Angeles Free
Press, 1 August 1973*
8
Dan Sullivan, "Eight 'Humors' in Search of an
Action," Los Angeles Times, 4 July 1974.
^Dan Sullivan, "One-and-a-Half Cheers for Pro-
Visionals," Los Angeles Times, 1 October 1974.
■^Dan Sullivan, "ProVisionals Tighten Up 'Piece,'"
Los Angeles Times, 20 February 1975-
"^Sylvie Drake, "'America' in Finished Form," Los
Angeles Times, 27 March 1975-
12
Sylvie Drake, "A Search for Us in 'America Piece,'"
Los Angeles Times, 4 April 1975*
IS
“^Provisional Theatre, Solicitation Letter, unpub
lished, 2 September 1976.
"^Dan Sullivan, "'Voice of People' by Provisional,"
Los Angeles Times, 10 March 1976.
■^Lawrence Christon, "Latest Vision of Provisional,"
Los Angeles Times, 7 March 1976.
174
l_6
Dan Sullivan, "Two Faces in the Crowd," Los Angeles
Times, 22 August 1978.
175
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
It is clears that the Company Theatre., founded in
1967 by students from three colleges In the Los Angeles
area, became an. important national force in experimental
theatre in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It Is equally
clear that its offshoots, the 1972 Company Theatre and the
Provisional Theatre, chose widely disparate paths for the
1970s. The Company Theatre’s choice to seek commercial
success met with increasing artistic failure, while the
Provisional .Theatre's decision to become true alternative
theatre resulted in Increasing artistic success. This
chapter will summarize the artistic advances made by both
groups in their search to find a viable, balanced
aesthetic.
Contributions of the Company Theatre
The Company Theatre, begun in 1 9 6 7* was decidedly
experimental in nature and set out to explore new dramatic
materials and skills. It was to be a permanent ensemble
with rotating repertory, formed as a democratic unit where
the artists themselves could determine their own aesthetic
176
paths. Because the personnel of the Company Theatre so
closely mirrored the spirit of the times, they had no
difficulty finding an Immediate audience with such political
and social concerns as those expressed In Johnny Johnson
and In White America. Artistically committed, well-
trained, and aware of the pragmatic side of the theatre,
the group acquired the Robertson Boulevard playhouse that
served as the command post directing the search for a
balanced aesthetic.
In a search for critical acclaim, they attempted a
classic (Antigone) and an evening of modern theatrical
exercises (Comings and Goings and Keep Tightly Closed in a
Cool Dry Place). They abandoned the classics because of the
youth of the participants, but they were encouraged by the
critics in their exploration of current theatrical works.
Already seen as capable of excellent form, they began to
seek a voice. They turned to original improvisational work
(SirI) and a sister art, poetry (Coney Island of the Mind).
But, although recognized as a capable ensemble, they con
tinued to build their repertory with the statements of
others: Icarus/ Mother, Martyrdom of Peter Ohey, and
Empire Builders.
By 19^9j with a full repertoire of seven plays and
an effective training program under the direction of Steven
Kent, the group began again to explore new forms for
177
theatre. Sport of My Mad Mother was given a production to
match the content, with decided elements of environmental
theatre. James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre was the
ultimate breakdown of the distinction between audience and
performer. The patrons themselves were treated to a sen
sual maze, theatre games, and audience participation.
Voyages became the first "ensemble-created" show, with the
same techniques carried over into one of the most popular
productions, a slight fairy tale, The Emergencej which made
imaginative use of stunning technical effects and razzle-
dazzle directing techniques. When the group experimented
with working with a playwright on a work-in-progress (Such
As We Are for as Long as It Lasts) and was not pleased with
the results, they reverted to scripted material once again,
this time calling for a foreign style (Narrow Road to the
Deep North). Alternately accused of being either too good
for the material or not sufficiently good enough, the
ensemble spent 1970 finding a unique style and content:
Children of the Kingdom which reflected the loss of inno
cence of the 1960s, and The Plague, a forced environmental
theatre piece which offended the audiences and demoralized
the performers. After a short contact with Broadway com
mercial theatre (with James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre
in New York), the group returned to seeking out its own
voice in a play written by a friend (Caliban).
178
The quest for an aesthetic philosophy which cor
rectly balanced style with subject, form with content, was
abruptly dropped in 1972. Instead their efforts were
turned toward making individuals in the group happy with
satisfying roles (The Gloaming, Oh My Darling, Chamber
Music, and Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill Volumes I and
II) and a desperate attempt to recapture past glories with
all the past tricks (Mother of Pearl, with music,, light
shows., theatrical directing tricks., transformational pro
cesses., audience contact, environmental setting, and bold
performances). The magic did not work. By this time, a
clearcut division of philosophical directions for the
Company in the 1970s separated the group.
Since the differences centered on the debate of the
primacy of the group versus the primacy of the individual,
two different factions emerged. The personnel who felt the
primacy of group needs left and eventually formed the Pro
visional Theatre. The group that remained kept the name,
the playhouse, the assets, and made a new start. Since the
existent repertoire required some of the people who had
left, they began quickly to replace it with new pieces.
They staged a modern classic (Endgame), a set of contempo
rary comedies (Michael McClure on Toast), a contemporary
G-erman tragedy (Mary Stuart), an original children’s
theatre piece (The Beast and the Rose), and an original
179
ensemble piece exploring the 196 0s once again hut from a
more jaundiced view (The Hashish Club).
With the loss of the Robertson Boulevard space, the
Company Theatre also lost Its leadership in experimental
theatre. All of Its plays were poorly received in other
spaces (The Derby and A Sense of Detachment in rented
theatres and The Hashish Club on Broadway). Members
dropped away and morale declined. When the Company Theatre
relocated on South La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles, it
continued to search, not for artistry, but for1 /commercial
success. Since it no longer used a repertory format, it
no longer provided member training, and without the pri
ority of educating others about the nature of theatre, it
also lost a consistent artistic vision. Each production
since 1976 has been a hit-or-miss proposition; no play has
borne a relationship to the production before or after it.
The Company has lost its distinctiveness and is not making
progress on formulating an aesthetic for the 1970s. The
future looks dim.
Contributions of the Provisional Theatre
In strong contrast to the Company Theatre of 1972,
the Provisional Theatre is a "child of the 70's" making a
concerted effort to establish a viable aesthetic in and
for its time. Formulated as a self-contained, smaller
ensemble where each artist is a complete instrument, the
Provisional Theatre is committed to a radical political
180
philosophy. Their search for aesthetic certitude began as
a way of garnering a wider audience without compromising
their message.
Its first effort, XA: A Vietnam Primer, a docudrama
or information piece, made effective use of ritual, audi
ence participation, sound, music, and agitprop parapher
nalia (like placards, masks, and a map outline). The play
was presented free of charge in a variety of locations. In
reaction to the external nature of XA, the dompany explored
an internal process next. They intertwined the Faust
legend, Christopher Marlowe, and the internal psyches of
the ensemble in a deliberately literary approach to discover
"the process of creating theatre." The Provisional Theatre
people themselves quickly rejected this philosophical
approach and pursued it no further.
' With extensive training sessions using an eclectic
approach to exercises (ranging from yoga to Grotowski), the
group became interested in working with Susan Yankowitz on
a set of "humors" which were to represent modern America's
psychological characteristics. Combining this with other
ideas on American structure, the Provisional Theatre began
"open rehearsals" on its next work, America Piece. Con
tinuing to experiment on the piece by public performance,
they eventually polished it to a near-wordless but expres
sive plaint of the mistreated poor. However, as an arti
ficial attempt to tap into a wider society, the piece
181
suffered from abstraction. Learning from this unsuccess
ful attempt to universalize, the Provisional people
returned to roots and causes. They revisited American
history, not in search of abstract principles but human
principals. They Joined representative real heroes with
the perennial villains of Money and Reason to present a
carefully documented, predominately revisionist history
showing the struggle of the masses toward unity in order to
gain power, foiled at every turn by the power-holders.
Voice of the People I and II were important explorations
into theatre for the 197 0s.
Finally, the ensemble moved beyond representative
figures to specific human beings, Irene and Willie Rae.
Paradoxically, the narrowing to these specific human beings
generated the human quality which widened the Provisional
Theatre's appeal. By adopting a life style aesthetic as
well as an artistic one, the Provisional Theatre demands
total commitment (and in return, gives total support), a
common political consciousness, a performers' theatre, an
outreach to any listeners, rigorous training and explora
tion methods, a teaching role for everyone, a spirit of
cooperation and communality, and an "outrageous theatre."
In reality, the Provisional Theatre is one of the pre
eminent examples of the "Alternative Theatre" that is
working in America today. Its aesthetic provides a bal
182
anced outlook on theatre. Having overcome the apathy of
the 1970s, it shows no signs of future Irrelevance.
Implications
Throughout history the creative artist has always
sought to find the correct balance between form and con
tent, between style and substance. This critical search
for a balanced aesthetic is equally Important when the
artistic entity Is a performing/producing group. The
Company Theatre always had an abundance of theatrical
skills; the Provisional Theatre always had a commitment to
a message. Each group needed to seek out a satisfactory
aesthetic for Its time. The history of this search by
each group can be examined to reveal what factors are
required for the development of an aesthetic philosophy.
The original Company Theatre had no clearcut
aesthetic vision when it began, but it enjoyed a marked
level of group cohesiveness which was generated by both
internal and external forces. Internally, the group was
united by shared Interests, values, and life experiences.
The members were all young, middle-class, Southern Cali
fornia college students who shared the anti-establishment
outlook characteristic of students in that era. Their
academic training had been primarily in the arts, and none
of them had prior professional theatre experience. They
shared a desire to explore a wide variety of theatrical
183
styles, and their early productions ranged from classical
works to avant-garde pieces.
It was also, In part, the external force of audi
ence response which helped the Company Theatre define
Itself. Both critical reviews and box-office returns
favored Its avant-garde and technically spectacular produc
tions. When the group attempted scripted shows which
demanded traditional performance skills, the response of
the critics and box office were generally negative or
Indifferent. Consequently, the Company Theatre personnel
Increasingly accepted this external definition and began
to avoid any attempts at traditional theatrical genres In
favor of experimental forms and technical wizardry.
However, this group commonality of aesthetic
vision was more apparent than real. In time, both the
Internal and external forces which led to their cohesive
ness gave way. Because the group could not support Its
members financially, it was necessary for them to seek
outside employment. So after five years of existence,
Company Theatre members possessed a wide range of employ
ment experiences and various levels of economic success.
Some members had found employment as actors and had honed
traditional performing skills, while others had found
employment in business or civil service positions. The
common life style with which they had begun had given way
to divergent vocational, economic, and marital experiences.
184
There were., as well, Increasing differences In personal
goals within the membership of the Company Theatre. Some
members were concerned primarily with bettering their per
forming skills, while others were increasingly concerned
with content, with the political and social statements the
group could make. These represent, of course, the two
sides of the aesthetic coin: form and content.
The external forces which had contributed to group
cohesiveness also began to crumble after several years.
Productions which seemed to fit the Company Theatre formula
in the past were no longer well received by critics or
audiences. The Plague is a prime example of an avant-
garde, experimental theatre piece with innovative technical
aspects which pleased neither audience nor critics, and
perhaps partly because of this, was disliked by Company
Theatre people themselves. Furthermore, even when audience
and critical response was good, many members of the group
rejected that external voice as sufficient reward. For
example, the critical response to James Joyce Memorial
Liquid Theatre was warm and the audience adored the show,
but Company Theatre members became disenchanted and
refused to perform in the production. Women performers
began to decry the lack of satisfying female roles in even
their most successful shows.
Many of the most gifted individual performers
wanted the opportunity to "stretch" in a wider range of
185
works. Without the common goals* life experiences* and
positive audience response* the Company Theatre no longer
had the cohesiveness to engage in the search for an
aesthetic philosophy. In fact* it no longer had the
cohesion necessary to survive as an entity.
When the Company Theatre formally split in 1972*
one of the principal issues was* in fact* the importance of
group cohesiveness in the development of a viable theatre
aesthetic. The group which retained the Company Theatre
name argued that group cohesion was irrelevant and perhaps
even stifling* and that self-expression of the individual
performer was preeminent. Consequently* from this point
on* the Company Theatre has done little to insure group
togetherness. Instead* it has encouraged performers to
seek outside employment; no group training is offered; no
permanent roster is maintained; production choice is
dependent upon the initiative of individuals who wish to
direct; and concurrent repertory has been abandoned. Ini
tially* the damaging implications of this lack of cohesive
ness for the development of an aesthetic were not apparent.
After the split* the early productions like The Hashish
Club* Endgame* and Beast and the Rose were well received.
Within the time span of each production* the Company
Theatre was able to function effectively as a cohesive
unit; however* each of these productions reflected marked
differences in form* content* audience appeal* and
186
aesthetic vision. The skills., style* and audience developed
for one production bore no relationship to those required
for the next. Subsequent productions* after the loss of
the.Robertson Playhouse* failed to muster sufficient cohe
sion to produce even individually successful shows. There
is no consistent aesthetic vision* style* content* person
nel* or following. Without these* they are identifiable
only as a building (now on La Cienega Boulevard) and as a
name. From the experience of the Company Theatre* it
appears that the development of an aesthetic philosophy
cannot proceed in the absence of minimal group cohesion
persisting over a period of time.
The Provisional Theatre* however* which seceded
of* i f.p p^mphesl s °u the primacy of thp grnnpj has-
engaged in many activities designed to increase group one
ness: a communal life style* a shared socio-political
vision* discouragement of outside employment* a single
mandatory training program for all performers* decision
making by consensus* financial support for all members* and
strictly in-house development of its own theatrical materi
als. Furthermore* its works reflect constant aesthetic*
social* and political values which have helped build a
stable audience. Internal cohesion was reinforced by this
positive external response; the Provisional Theatre has
accomplished what the Company Theatre of 1972 could not:
187
it has the necessary framework to continue developing an
aesthetic philosophy.
Prom the evidence presented in this study, it
appears that there are three preconditions for developing a
viable aesthetic philosophy within a theatrical ensemble.
First, theatre is a communal art, and a theatrical aesthetic
requires cohesion within the ensemble. Second, theatre is
a temporal art, and a theatrical aesthetic requires con
tinuity of the ensemble. Third, theatre is a reciprocal
art, and a theatrical aesthetic requires the presence of an
audience whose values and concerns are addressed by the
performers. While these preconditions do not insure the
creation of a viable aesthetic, without these elements no
theatrical croup can hope to build a successful aesthetic.__
for its era.
188
SOURCES CONSULTED
SOURCES CONSULTED
Articles, Newspapers, and Periodicals
Aarons, Leroy. "The Arts." Washington Post, 20 April 1971*
Adler, Marlene. "The Last Act: Camelot Emerges . . . ?"
University of Southern California Daily Trojan,
19 October 1970.
Aisenman, Leslie. "Caliban," Los Angeles Free Press,
14 January 1972.
"Company Theater." Los Angeles Free Press,
19 May 1972.
_______ . "Duet Kopiterry." Los Angeles Free Press,
28” January 1972.
Allison, John. "Company Theatre." The Staff (Los Angeles),
25-31 May 1973.
"Mary Stuart." The Staff (Los Angeles), 30 March
T9T3D
"Save the Company Theatre." The Staff (Los
Angeles), 18-24 May 1973.
Astrachen, Anthony. "The James Joyce Memorial Liquid
Theater: Touching." Washington Post, 2 January 1972.
Bach, Steven. "The Empire Builders." Los Angeles Free
Press, 1 November 1 9 6 8.
________ . "Johnny is Peace Musical." Los Angeles Free
Press, 26 January 1 9 6 8.
Barber, Bob. "Company Theatre Offerings at UCSB Weird
Experience." Santa Barbara News-Press, 13 October
1967.
Barnes, Clive. "Stage: Insights in 'The Hashish Club.'"
New York Times, 4 January 1975.
________ . "Stage: Joining the Odyssey of the Liquid The
atre. " New York Times, 12 October 1971*
190
Barnes* Clive. "Theater Season: Strange and Tough." New
York Times, 30 December 1971.
"Theatre: Good Native Work Stirs in Los
Angeles." New York Times* 11 February 1970.
Beaufort* John. "Well* Well* Well.'" Christian Science
Monitor* 23 October 1971*
Behr* Rocky. "Ramblings.of a Reviewer." Singles Critique
(Los Angeles)* 15 January 1972.
_______. "Ramblings of a Reviewer." Singles Critique
[Los Angeles)* 15 May 1972.
_______. "Ramblings of a Reviewer." Singles Critique
[Los Angeles)* 15 December 1972.
Beig. "Comings and Goings: Keep Tightly Closed in a Cool*
Dry Place." Daily Variety (Hollywood)* 8 April 1 9 6 8.
_________. "Johnny Johnson." Daily Variety (Hollywood)*
15 January 1 9 6 8.
Bell* Arthur. "Chunks of Love in Liquid Arms." Village
Voice (New York)* 7 October 1971.
Berger* Alfred Paul. "Go and Touch." Irish Times
(Dublin)* 9 November 1971.
Bernstein* Sid. "Council Does Double Reverse on Art
Funds." Los Angeles Times* 1 August 1979*
Berry* Jay. "Roving Players Perform 'XA.'" Hollywood
Reporter* 24 November 1972.
_________. "Theatre." Canyon Crier* 24 January 1972.
"Theatre." Canyon Crier* 17 April 1972.
Billington* Michael. "Liquid Theatre." Manchester
Guardian* 14 July 1972.
Birnkrant* Samuel. "One on the Aisle." Malibu Times
(Calif.)* 11 February 1972.
"One on the Aisle." Malibu Times (Calif.)*
5 May 1972.
Blevins* Winfred. "Art Ensemble and Grill: Intriguing."
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 5 April 1972.
191
Blevins., Winfred. "'Caliban': World of Fantasy and Wit."
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 17 December 1971.
_________. "Company Staging 'Coney Island.'" Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 28 June 1968.
_________. "Company Theatre Given New Life." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 30 January 1970.
_________. "Company Theater's 'Plague': Complex, Impres
sive." Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 12 March 1971.
_________. "'Emergence'--Childish, Whimsical Masque." Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 17 September 1 9 6 9.
_________. "'Emergence' Improves with Age." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 7 November 1 9 6 9.
_________. "Engaging 'Duet' at Company." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 29 January 1972.
_________. "James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre." Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner,' 25 April 1969•
_________. "Kent, Moore Share Directing Honors: Circle-
Theatre.in 1 9 6 9." Los Angeles Herald-Examiner,
______ 4 January 1970.__________________ ________________________
_________. "'Kingdom': Shattering Experience." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 22 July 1970.
_________. "'The Plague': Bold, Creative Theater." Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 26 March 1971.
_________. "Powerful Parable Drama." Los Angeles Herald-
Examiner, 10 February 1970.
_________. "Stage: Avant-Garde at Company Theatre." Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 2 September 1 9 6 8.
_________. "Steven Kent--Apostle of Relevant Repertory."
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 23 June 1 9 6 8.
_________. "'Such As We Are' Back Country Joy." Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 17 October 1 9 6 9.
"Thing." Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 25 April
1969.
Byrne, Bridget. "Avant Garde 'Mother.'" Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 16 January 1 9 6 9.
192
Byrne, Bridget. "'Builders* Allegory of Joyless People."
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 30 October 1 9 6 8.
_______ "On Stage: A Company Experience." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner. , 20 March 1 9 6 9*
_________. "Theatre Offers Impressive Sport." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 22 May 1970.
_______ "Theatrical 'Games.'" Los Angeles Herald-
Examiner, 22 October 1 9 6 8.
Cameron, Susan. "Global Village: Liquid Theatre."
Manchester Guardian, 14 July 1972.
Christon, Lawrence. "Caveat Actor: Let Renters Beware."
Los Angeles Times, 27 May 1979-
_________. "Company Theatre's 'Caliban': Clever, Beautiful,
Funny--But Too Slow." The Staff (Los Angeles),
31 December 1971.
_________. "'Don't Sell' at Company Theater." Los Angeles
Times, 5 July 1978.
_________. "Eight Crazy Ladies Open 'Duet' at Company
Theatre." The Staff (Los Angeles). 4 February 1972.
_________. "A Getaway to Psychic Trails." Los Angeles
Times, 13 July 1978.
_________. "Hamlet as Fool at Company Theatre." Los
Angeles Times, 14 July 1979.
_________. "History and Heroes: Big Money vs. Working
Folk." Los Angeles Times, 29 June 1977.
_________. "Latest Vision of Provisional." Los Angeles
Times, 7 March 1978.
_________. "A 'Lear' Update at Company Theatre." Los
Angeles Times, 20 March 1977.
_________. "'Mother of Pearl1 at Company Theatre." Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 15 September 1972.
_________. "Partial Primer on Vietnam." Los Angeles Times,
20 November 1974.
"Provisional in Hard Times." Los Angeles Times,
23 July 1978.
193
Christon, Lawrence. "Red Rover." Los Angeles Times,
7 March 1979*
_________. "Theater That Strives in Flux." Los Angeles
Times, 3 October 1976.
"'Voice of the People' at LAAT." Los Angeles
Times, 24 June 1977.
_________. "'You Do Think of Having a Family." Los Angeles
Times, 10 July 1977.
Company Theatre. "Company Theater Holds a Dialog with
Itself." Los Angeles Times, 18 October 1970.
Coveney, Michael. "Liquid Theatre." Financial Times
(London), 15 July 1972.
Curtiss, Thomas Quinn. "Theater in Paris: Surrendering to
Liquid Theater." International Herald Tribune,
26 April 1972.
Drake, Sylvie. "'America' in Finished Form." Los Angeles
Times, 27 March 1975*
_________. "'Aucassin' by the Company." Los Angeles Times,
_ ______21 September 1976. ______________________________
_______"A Ball that Has Begun to Roll." Los Angeles
Times, 4 September 1975*
_________. "Company Offers Three Ladies." Los Angeles
Times, 20 October 1972.
_________. "Company Theatre Awhirl." Los Angeles Times,
9 January 1972.
_________. "Company Theater Holds Auditions for Backers."
Los Angeles Times, 9 June 1972.
_________. "Company Theater Playing Beckett." Los Angeles
Times, 28 November 1972.
_________. "Company Theater Set for New York Debut." Los
Angeles Times, 29 September 1971.
_________. "Company to Open 'Caliban.'" Los Angeles Times,
5 December 1971.
"Dominus Marlowe." Los Angeles Times, 1 August
1973.
194
Drake, Sylvie. "Enchanted Evening at Company." Los
Angeles Times, 10 March 1976.
"Getting Ready for Company." Los Angeles Times,
2ir April 1 9 7 5.
_________. "Home is Where Their Art Is." Los Angeles
Times, 11 January 1976.
_________. "Inching Through a Midlife Crisis at the
Provisional." Los Angeles Times, 4 February 1979*
"LAFSF Off and Running." Los Angeles Times,
19 June 1975.
________ . "Liquid Theatre.Back in Town." Los Angeles
Times, 9 November 1971.
________ . "Little Theater Licks Its Wounds." Los Angeles
Times, 26 June 1975.
________ . "'Miss Julie' on a Tightrope." Los Angeles
Times, 13 October 1977.
________ . "More Meat-Science from McClure." Los Angeles
Times, 19 June 1974.
________ . ” “"135 Groups Share $424,709 in CAC Grants. " Los
Angeles Times, 25 November 1974.
"Provisional Vox Populi." Los Angeles Times,
2F July 1976.
______. "Revival of 'Hashish Club.1" Los Angeles Times,
4~December 1973*
________ . "Rift May Break Up Company Theatre." Los
Angeles Times, 16 August 1972.
________ . "Rubbing 'Salt' into U.S. Wounds." Los Angeles
Times, 6 June 1976.
________ . "A Search for Us in 'America Piece.'" Los
Angeles Times, 4 April 1975.
________ . "Something for Everyone at GTF." Los Angeles
Times, 16 September 1975-
"Stage News." Los Angeles Times, 21 May 1972.
. "-Stage News." Los Angeles Times, 26 May 1974.
195
1 9 7 5.
"Stage News." Los Angeles Times, 29 February
1976.
• "Stage News." Los Angeles Times, 9 May 1976.
• "Stage News." Los Angeles Time s, 29 August 1976
"Stage News." Los Angeles Time s, 15 January
1978.
• "Stage News." Los Angeles Times, 7 December
. "Theater. 1 1 Los Angeles Times, 25 June 1972.
. "The Theater Year: A Slow March Toward Bland
ness?" Los Angeles Times, 24 December 1978.
. "27 Win Critics' Circle Honors." Los Angeles
Times, 20 March 1974.
"Undercurrents Surface at the Company." Los
Angeles Times, 27 September 1972.
"Winsome Year with Some Losses." Los Angeles
Times, 29 December 1977-
"A Wise Alliance for Progress." Los Angeles
Times, 8 May 1975*
Edwards, Bill. "Brenhardt, Lincoln, and Duncan." Dally
Variety (Hollywood), 16 October 1972.
"Chamber Music; The Gloaming, Oh My Darling."
Dally Variety (Hollywood), 24 January 1972.
"Company Theatre to Tour." Dally Variety
(Hollywood), 17 September 1971.
"The Derby." Dally Variety (Hollywood), 2 July
1974.
. "The Emergence." Dally Variety (Hollywood),
15 September 1 9 6 9.
. "The Emergence." Dally Variety (Hollywood),
25' February 1972.
196
Edwards* Bill. "Endgame." Daily Variety (Hollywood)*
27 November 1972.
_____. "How Long Could It Last?" Daily Variety
(Hollywood)* 26 March 1971.
________ . "James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre." Daily
Variety (Hollywood)* 15 April 1 9 6 9.
"Legit Review." Daily Variety (Hollywood)*
4”" April 1972.
_________. "Los Angeles Art Ensemble and Grill." Daily
Variety (Hollywood)* 4 April 1972.
. "L.A. Art Ensemble and Grill II." Daily Variety
XHollywood) * 16 May 1972.
"Mary Stuart." Daily Variety (Hollywood)*
12 March 1973-
_______. "Michael McClure on Toast." Daily Variety
(Hollywood)* 6 February 1973.
______ . "Mother of Pearl." Daily Variety (Hollywood)*
11 September 1972.
_______. "Narrow Road to the Deep North." Daily Variety
(Hollywood)* 10 February 1970.
"The Plague." Daily Variety (Hollywood)*
12 March 1971.
_______. "The Sport of My Mad Mother." Daily Variety
(Hollywood)* 13 January 1 9 6 9.
_______ . "Such As We Are for as Long as It Lasts." Daily
Variety (Hollywood)* 13 October 1 9 6 9.
_________. "Voyages and Red Cross." Daily Variety (Holly
wood)* 19 May 1 9 6 9.
_______. "Watts Towers Theatre Workshop." Daily Variety
(Hollywood)* 26 July 1 9 6 8.
Eichelbaum* Stanley. "Silly Psychedelic Fairy Tale." San
Francisco Examiner* 9 July 1971.
Eisenstein* Sam. "Stage." Coast, September 1972* p. 50.
197
Eisenstein, Sam. "Toothsome as Usual." Coast, June 1972,
p. 1 0.
Esse. "The Empire Builders." Dally Variety (Hollywood),
28 October 1 9 6 8.
Ewing, Jon. "Provisional Theatre: American Dream Arts."
Claremont Collegian (Calif.), 17 February 1979-
Feeder^ James. "Three-Woman Show at Company." Los Angeles
Heraid-Examiner, 20 October 1972.
Fisher, Craig. "The Plague." Hollywood Reporter, 16 March
1971.
Foley, Charles.. "Broadway's Stage Image Gets L.A. Chal
lenge." Denver Post, 25 October 1970.
Freemon, Bill. "Crazy Evening at the Theatre." San
Gabriel Valley Tribune {Calif.), 25 January 1972.
_________. "Mary Stuart Loses Her Head Nightly at 'Company
Theatre.' San Gabriel Valley Tribune (Calif.),
15 March 1973*
_________. "What's in a Name? Ask Caliban." San Gabriel
Valley Tribune (Calif.), 15 December 1971.
Germain, Sara. "McClure's 'Derby.'" Claremont Courier
(Calif.), 27 July 1974.
Gillard, Melody. "Liquid Theatre Exhilarates." University
of Southern California Daily Trojan, 20 February
1970.
Glover, William. "New Theatre Adds Touch, Taste." Newport
News Press (Va.), 26 April 1970.
_________. "The New Theatre is Sight, Sound, Taste,
Touch— ." Niagara Falls Gazette, 3 October 1971.
_________. "New York Tough Company Discovers." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 21 September 1971.
Glueck, Grace. "Poetry to Flip Out By." New York Times,
26 February 1 9 6 7.
Gottfried,. Martin. "The James Joyce Memorial Liquid
Theatre." Women's Wear Daily (New York), 12 October
1971.
198
Gottfried, Martin. "Los Angeles' Company Theatre." Women's
Wear Daily (New York), 21 April 1971.
_________. "Los Angeles' Company Theatre, 'Energy.'"
Vogue, 1 November 1970, p. 102.
_______. "Play About Drugs at Bijou." New York Post,
5~January 1975*
_________. "Theatre in Los Angeles: It Just Doesn't Hang
Right." Los Angeles Times, 13 February 1972.
_________. "The Theatre: The Company Theatre." Women's
Wear Daily (New York), 11 February 1970.
Gray, Beverly. "After the Ever-After with Caliban." UCLA
Daily Bruin, 13 January 1972.
_________. "Company Theatre One Acts." UCLA Daily Bruin,
27 January 1972.
_________. "Dining at the Company Theatre . . .Los Angeles
Art Ensemble and Grill. UCLA Daily Bruin, 6 April
1972.
_________. "Lighting Designers: Bright People, Well Con
nected." Los.Angeles Times, 28 January 1979*
Gussow, Mel. "Ambition and Spontaneity of Coast Troupe
Pays Off." New York Times, 8 July 1970.
Har. "The Emergence." Daily Variety (Hollywood), 12 July
1971.
Harford, Margaret. "Stage News." Los Angeles Times,
27 September 1970.
_________. "Stage News." Los Angeles Times, 18 April 1971.
_________. "$10,000 Grant for Company Theatre." Los
Angeles Times, 31 January 1970.
Hewes, Henry. "The Theater." Saturday Review 5M^-3)
(30 October 1971):14-19.
Hewett, Beverly. "Fashions--Russian Style." California
Apparel News (Los Angeles), 13 October I9 6 7.
Hillerman, Anne. "Voice." New Mexican (Santa Fe), 26
March 1976.
199
Hoffman., Ted. "Describe., Inform, and Comment: Why We're
Here." Alternative Theatre (Baltimore, Md.j 1
(September 1 9 7 5) ':1, l^-*
Holland, Jack. "Front Row." Newporter News (Calif.),
31 May 1972.
"Holland's Tunnel." Newporter News (Calif.),
12 April 1972.
Hunt, Robert. "Company Theatre's 'Sport of My Mad
Mother.'" UCLA Daily Bruin (Los Angeles), 19 Febru
ary 1 9 6 9.
Isenberg, Barbara. "Arts Grants for Southland Groups."
Los Angeles Times, 27 May 1977-
"State Arts Council Allocates $2 5 4,6 5 0." Los
Angeles Times, 14 January 1977.
Jack, Tom. "'Emergence' Lovingly Freaky Play." Palo Alto
Times (Calif.), 9 July 1971.
Jackson, Esther M. "American Theatre in the Sixties."
Players Magazine, Summer 1973* PP. 2 3 6-4 9.
J.K. "A Kiss in the Dark." Newsweek, 1 November 1971^
p. 19.
Jones, Welton. "A Mod Company of Actors." San Diego
Union, 13 June 1971.
De Jongh, Nicholas. "Global Village." Manchester
Guardian, 14 July 1972.
Kaufman, Edward. "On Stage." Westways, March 1972,
pp. 76-77.
Kelly, Stan. "The Lively Arts." Pico Post (Beverly Hills,
Calif.), 25 May 1972.
Kent, Steven. "Theater Does Not Live by Content Alone;
Play Must Be Total Experience." Daily Variety
(Hollywood), 27 October 1970.
Kerr, Walter. "Go On and Relax, You May Get Kissed." New
York Times, 17 October 1971.
Kilday, Gregg. "In the Joyc.ean Slipstream." Los Angeles
Times, 9 September 1971.
200
Kilday, Gregg. "Pot Luck for 'Hashish Club.'" Los Angeles
Times, 7 January 1975*
KIssell, Jack. "Ionesco Rides Again." Open City (Los
Angeles), 29 October 1968.
_________. "Two Plays." Open City (Los Angeles), 2 August
1 9 6 8.
Klaman, Milton. "Theatre: Critic at Large." Singles
Critique (Los Angeles), 1 March 1971.
K.N. "Theatre of Platonic Hugs and Kisses." The Daily
Telegraph (London), 13 July 1972.
Knapp, Dan. "Company Theatre Readies 'Plague.'" Los
Angeles Times, 3 March 1971.
_________. "Troupe to Take Breather in,S.P." Los Angeles
Times, 16 June 1971.
Kramer, Carol. "Liquid Theater 'Peels' Good." Chicago
Tribune, 17 October 1971.
Kretzmer, Herbert. "A Blissful New Experience." Daily
Express (London), 13 July 1972.
Lane, Sandra. "Sandra's Scene." Talent News (Hollywood),
1 January 1973.
Larsen, Lance. "Liquid Theatre." The Drama Review 15(32)
(Summer 1971):90-98.
"Love Play In Braille." Time, 23 February 1970, p. 8 7.
Lowell, Sandra. "'Thighs': A Slender Probe of Self-Worth."
Los Angeles Times, 1 July 1977.
Loynd, Ray. "Company Theater Offering 'Endgame.'" Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, 30 November 1972.
_________. "Company Theatre Offers 'Michael McClure on
Toast.'" Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 8 February
1973.
_________. "Company Theatre Splits Over Artistic View
points." Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 27 September
1972.
_________. "Company Theater Stages 'Derby.'" Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 3 July 197^.
201
Loynd, Ray. "Company's 'Mary Stuart': Wild., Interesting."
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 15 March 1973*
McKenzie, Madore. "A Good Group That Got Even Better."
Christian Science Monitor (Boston), 28 May 1976.
Mahoney, John. "Icarus's Mother; The Martyrdom of Peter
Ohey." Hollywood Reporter, 6 September 1 9 6 8.
"Play Review." Hollywood Reporter, 26 September
1968.
’ ________ . "Provisional In 'America Piece.'" Los Angeles
Times, 23 August 1975.
Mareman, Thomas. "A 'Company of 40 Directors' Who Double
as Stagehands." San Francisco Datebook, 18 July
1971.
Marienthal, Hal. "Towards a 'Theatre of Change.'" Coast
F.M. and Fine Arts, December 1 9 6 8, pp. 2 8-3 0.
Marvel, Bill. "At the Liquid Memorial Theatre, the Party
Grows Pretty Tactile." National Observer (London),
23 October 1971.
Miller, Chris. "'On Toast' Evokes Laughter." Los Angeles
Collegian, 16 February 1973-
Milstein, Fredric. "Company Theatre Offers 'Mad Mother.'"
Los Angeles Times, 20. January 1 9 6 9.
_________. "'Emergence' Offered by Company Theater." Los
Angeles Times, 19 February 1972.
_______. "'Empire Builders' in West Coast Bow." Los
Angeles Times, 31 October 1 9 6 8.
_________. "A Fairy Tale by the Company." Los Angeles
Times, 15 February 1973*
_________. "Two New Plays at Company Theatre." Los Angeles
Times, 27 August 1 9 6 8.
Mish. "The Hashish Club." Daily Variety (Hollywood),
1 May 1973.
Mishkin, Leo. "'The Company,' Avant Garde Theatre: A New
Theatrical Gold Strike." New York Morning Tele
graph, 23 July 1970.
202
Mishkin, Leo. "'Liquid Theatre' in Art Museum." Morning;
Telegraph (New York)* 13 October 1971.
Moore* Jim. "'Hashish Club': Tense Emotion." Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, 9 May 1973.
Morrow, Lance. "An Elegy for the New Left." Time,
15 August 1977* PP. 6 7-6 8.
Murphy, Mary. "Should State Support Art?: Hearings Open."
Los Angeles Times, 18 July 197^.
Murphy, Ray. "The Provisional Theatre." Boston Globe,
15 May 1976.
Murray, William. "Living on Love with the Company Theatre."
Los Angeles Magazine, May 1970, pp. 66-70.
Musco, Don. "The Empire Builders." Hollywood Reporter,
29 October 1 9 6 8.
Novick, Julius. "Alas, It's Not All Fantasyland." Village
Voice (New York), 21 February 197^.
. "A Kiss is Still a Kiss." Village Voice (New
York), 21 October 1971.
Oliver, Edith. "Stage." New Yorker, 16 October 1971*
pp. 1 0 1-1 0 2.
"Open Auditions." Hollywood Reporter, 28 July 19 6 7* p. 11.
Page, Don. "Bearded Director on Theatre 'March. 1 ,1 Los
Angeles Times, 25 February 1 9 6 7.
Pasolli, Robert. "Off-Off Broadway: Out of Town." Village
Voice (New York), 20 March 1 9 6 9.
P.D.M. "Keeping Up." Educational Theatre News (Los
Angeles) 17(5) (March 1970):5.
Pennington, Ron. "Company Theatre Goes Experimental."
Hollywood Reporter, 31 March 1972.
_________. "Company Theatre 'Mother of Pearl.'" Hollywood
Reporter, 13 September 1972.
_________. "Company Theatre Stages 'Caliban.'" Hollywood
Reporter, 17 December 1971.
________ . "Company Theatre's Stage Potpourri." Hollywood
Reporter, 19 May 1972.
203
Pennington* Ron. "The Derby." Hollywood Reporter* 2 July
1974.
_________. "'Emergence' is at Company Theatre." Hollywood
Reporter, 28 February 1972.-
_________. "Hashish Club." Hollywood Reporter* 3 May 1973*
. ______ . "The Hashish Club." Hollywood Reporter*
57T December 1973.
_________. "Kopit and Terry 'Duet' Staged." Hollywood
Reporter* 28 January 1972.
"Mary Stuart." Hollywood Reporter, 14 March
1973-
______ . "Michael McClure on Toast." Hollywood Reporter,
U~February 1 9 7 3.
Perr* Harvey. "Coney Island of the Mind." Los Angeles
Free Press* 5 July 1968.
_________. "The Empire Builders." Los Angeles Free Press,
1 November 1 9 6 8.
_________. "Far-Out Troupe Building a Respectable Audience."
Los Angeles Times, 8 June 1 9 6 9.
________ . "L.A. Theatre for 1 9 6 8: A Summing Up." Los
Angeles Free Press, 31 January 1 9 6 9.
________ . "Martyr Funny." Los Angeles Free Press,
30 August 1 9 6 8.
_________. "The Naked and the Bread." Coast F.M. and Fine
Arts* December 1969* p. 12.
_________. "Repertory Blues: Company Theatre: The Sport of
My Mad Mother." Los Angeles Free Press* 14 February
1969.
_________. "Sam Shepard's 'Icarus's Mother.'" Los Angeles
Free Press* 30 August 1 9 6 8* pp. 29-30.
________ . "Toward a Theater for Our Time." Coast F.M. and
Fine Arts* March 1970*
Pinkerton* W. Stewart* Jr. "Once More* With Feeling."
Wall Street Journal* 22 October 1971.
204
Pleasants, Ben. "Company Presents Two Terry Plays." Los
Angeles Times, 11 April 1 9 6 8.
_________. "'Johnny Johnson' at Robertson Theatre." Los
Angeles Times, 2 January 1 9 6 8.
Pottlitzer, Joanne. "Stages of Change: A Look at U.S.
Theatre." World Theatre 11-12 (December 1972):54-58.
Powers, James. "The Emergence." Hollywood Reporter,
15 September 1 9 6 9.
_________. "The James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre."
Hollywood Reporter, 2 June 1 9 6 9.
_________. "Narrow Road to the Deep North." Hollywood
Reporter, 18 February 1970.
_________. "Red Cross, Voyages." Hollywood Reporter,
9 June 1 9 6 9.
_________. "Such As We Are For As Long As It Lasts."
Hollywood Reporter, 14 October 1 9 6 9.
Prideaux, Tom. "Lie Down, the Show's Starting." Life,
10 December 1971, p. 8 7.
Roads, Suzanne. "Prodigal Son of 'The Beard' Returns."
UCLA Bruin, 22 February 1973-
Rochmls, Dorothy H. "The Plague." California Jewish
Voice, 19 March 1974.
Ross, Jay. "'Empire Builders' Explores a Family's Fears."
Los Angeles Advocate, 1 December 1 9 6 8.
_________. "Exciting Theatre Livens L.A." Los Angeles
Advocate, 1 November 1961.
_________. "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mother." Los Angeles
Advocate, 1 February 1 9 6 9.
_________. "What Do You Say to a Naked Soothsayer?" Los
Angeles Advocate, 14 April 1971.
_______ "You'll Never Be the Same: Company Theatre
Advances Art, Involving All Senses and Emotions."
Los Angeles Advocate, 18 August 1970.
Russell, David. "Endgame Plays: In Good Company." The
Staff (Los Angeles), 29 December 1972.
205
Russell., Paul. "Playhouse Reflections." Singles Critique
(Los Angeles), 1 April 1973-
Saturensky, Ruth. "Company Theatre: Callhan." Los Angeles
Star, 15 January-1 February 1972.
Schmidt, Sandra. "Diverse Congress Gathers to Aid Troubled
Theater." Los Angeles Times, 7 June 1974.
. "Some Fun Theater In Fun City." Los Angeles
Times, 13 October 1971.
Schultz, Bob. "The Strange Rites of the Company Theatre."
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 27 October 1 9 6 8.
Scigliano, Eric. "A. New Look at America." Rio Grande
Weekly (Santa Fe, N.M.), 16-22 April 1976.
Segal, Lewis. "The Company Theatre: L.A.'s Switched-on
Super-Rep." Coast F.M. and Fine Arts, July 1969*
pp. 2 2-2 6.
_________. "Emergence." Entertainment World (Los Angeles),
10 October 1 9 6 9.
. "From the Canvas to the Sketchbook." Los
Angeles Flyer, 3 February 1972.
_______ _. "Narrow Road to the Deep North." Entertainment
World (Los Angeles), 6 March 1970.
_________. "The Robertson Boulevard Beestie: Caliban at the
Company Theater." Coast, February 1972, pp. 11-12.
_________. "Stage: Catching Up With 'The Plague.'" Coast
F.M. and Fine Arts, July 1971* PP. 8-9.
_________. "XA." Stages: The Magazine of Little Theatre,
n.d.,.pp. 4-7.
Sege. "The James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre." Daily
Variety (New York), 27 October 1974.
Seidenbaum, Art. "Persuasive Propaganda." Los Angeles
Times, 19 December 1972.
Severson, Kim. "Production." Northfield Messenger (Minn.),
9 April 1976.
Shank, Theodore. "Collective Creation." The Drama Review,
June 1972, pp. 3-31.
206
Simon,, John. "Theater." New York, 18 October 1971, p. ^3.
Smith, Cecil. "Chilly Reception for Cool Plays." Los
Angeles Times, 22 May 1978.
_________.. "New Biography Series for NET." Los Angeles
Times, 15 July 1971.
Smith, Rod. "Company Theatre Mixing Metaphors the Beckett
Way: Nothing Can Come of Nothing." Spectrum (Los
Angeles), 29 November 1972.
Soucek, Carol. "Theatre: A Review." Evening Outlook,
17 March ,1973.
"Theatre: A Review." Evening Outlook, 5 May
1973-
Spiegel, Neal. "Festival Unbuckles Audience Seatbelts."
Los Angeles Times, 22 June 1975*
Steele, Lloyd. "The Beast and the Rose; Company Theatre."
Los Angeles Free Press, 23 February 1973*
_________. "Che’ mical Saints in 'The Hashish Club.'" Los
Angeles Free Press, 11 May 1973.
_________. "Company Presents 'Mary Stuart.'" Los Angeles
Free Press, 23 March 1973*
_________. "Company's 'Plague1 Out of Focus." Los Angeles
Free Press, 26 March 1971.
"Endgame." Los Angeles Free Press, 1 December
1972.
_________. "'Mother of Pearl' at Company." Los Angeles
Free Press, 15 September 1972.
________ . "Theatre Happenings." Los Angeles Free Press,
12 January 1973-
______ "Theatre: A Rave L.A. Company." Open City (Los
Angeles), 31 January 1 9 6 9.
Steinberg, Michael. "Young Man in Stifling Little Room."
Boston Globe, 3° June 1 9 6 8.
Sullivan, Dan. "After the Split: A Progress Report." Los
Angeles Times, 14 January 1973*
207
Sullivan., Dan. "'Aucassin' by the Company." Los Angeles
Times, 21 September 1976.
_________. "Bond's 'Lear' at the Company." Los Angeles
Times, 29 March 1977*
________. "Brecht Play at the Company." Los Angeles Times,
2F January 1978*
________ . "Brecht's 'Baal' by Actors Alley." Los Angeles
Times, 30 May 1975*
_________. "1 Caliban'--The Bard Would Be Pleased." Los
Angeles Times, 14 December 1971.
________ . "Company Presents Theater-of-Touch." Los Angeles
Times, 15 April 1 9 6 9.
"Company Theater Playfest." Los Angeles Times,
IF May 1972.
____ . "Company Theatre Starting 'Emergence.'" Los
Angeles Times, 15 September 1 9 6 9.
________ . "Curtain Calls for Theatre ' 7 6." Los Angeles
Times, 26 December 1976.
"Drama on London Plague." Los Angeles Times,
IF March 1971.
________ . "Eight 'Humors' in Search of Action." Los
Angeles Times, 4 July 1974.
"'Ensemble, Grill' on Menu." Los Angeles Times,
W~April 1972.
. "Highlights of a Healthy Year." Los Angeles
Times, 18 December 1977.
________ . "Hildesheimer Play Premieres." Los Angeles
Times, 15 March 1973*
________ . "The Humbug Awards for Theatrical Knavery." Los
Angeles Times, 4 January 1976.
________ . "Inside the Head under 'The Derby.'" Los
Angeles Times, 2 July 1974.
________ . "Instant Theatre vs. the Long Haul." Los
Angeles Times, 6 March 1977.
208
Sullivan, Dan. "it Hangs Right or We'll All Hang Sepa
rately." Los Angeles Times, 20 February 1972.
_________. "Live Sample of Wireless Drama." Los Angeles
,Times,* 3 March 1977*
. _____ . "L.A. Theater Basks in the Joys of Summer." Los
Angeles Times, 18 July 1976.
________ . "'Mirror1 by the Company." Los Angeles Times,
20 January 1976.
_________. "'Mother of Pearl' a Company Finale." Los
Angeles Times, 12 September 1972.
________ . "'Narrow Road1 Presented." Los Angeles Times,
10 February 1970.
"1984 Played for Laughs." Los Angeles Times,
30 June 1976.
________ . "One-and-a-Half Cheers for ProVisionals." Los
Angeles Times, 1 October 1974.
________ . "Osborne's 'Detachment' at Zephyr." Los Angeles
Times, 22 May 1975-
________ . "Provisional Drafting Blueprint for a Changed
Society." Los Angeles Times, 22 September 1974.
________ . "Provisional Theater Takes a Break." Los
Angeles Times, 10 July 1977-
________ . "Provisionals Tighten Up 'Piece.'" Los Angeles
Times, 20 February 1975.
________ . "'Puntilla' at the Group Repertory." Los
Angeles Times, 31 January 1978.
________ . "Recurring Fantasy on Small Theatre." Los
Angeles Times, 5 October 1 9 6 9.
________ . "Serving Up 'McClure on Toast.'" Los Angeles
Times, 9 February 1973.
________ . "Split--or Rebirth--in Company Theatre Ranks."
Los Angeles Times, 24 September 1972.
________ . "'Sport1 Offered by Company Theatre." Los'
Angeles Times, 16 May 1970.
209
Sullivan, Dan. "'Such As We Are' Two-Act Melodrama." Los
Angeles Times, 3 November 1 9 6 9*
________ . "Theater 1974--First, Let's Look at the Bright
Side." Los Angeles Times, 5 January 1975-
________ . "'Transformation' Plays Performed." Los Angeles
Times, 16 May 1 9 6 9.
________ . "Turning on for Old Times in 'Hashish.'" Los
Angeles Times, 2 May 1973-
_________. "Two Paces in the Crowd." Los Angeles Times,
22 August 1978.
_________. "Two One-Acts by Company Theater." Los Angeles
Times, 22 January 1972.
_____. "Two Plays by the Company Theatre." Los Angeles
Times, 19 May 1 9 6 9.
_________. "'Voice of People' by Provisional." Los Angeles
Times, 10 March 1976.
Swisher, Viola Hegyi. "The Company Theatre Phenomenon."
After Dark, February 1970, pp. 18-24.
Talcover, Rick. "'Caliban': Overpraised Play Now at
Company Theater." Van Nuys News (Calif.),
19 December 1971.
_________. "Company Troupe Illuminates 'Endgame.'" Van
Nuys News (Calif.), 5 December 1972.
Taylor, Larry. "Adaptation of Poem Restores Wonder."
Orange County Evening News, 17 September 1 9 6 8.
_________. "Company Theatre Deflated by Tedious Bond
Script." Orange County Evening News, 10 February
1970.
________ . "Company Theatre Has Real Winner." Orange
County Evening News, 4 May 1973-
________ . "Company Theatre Presenting Experimental One-Act
Plays." Orange County Evening News, 14 April 1972.
________ . "'Duet' on Stage at Company Theatre." Orange
County Evening News, 26 January 1972.
_____ . "'Liquid Theatre'--It Reaches Sensually."
Orange County Evening News, 20 April 1 9 6 9.
210
Taylor,, Larry. "L.A. Group’s One-Act Plays 'Outstanding.'"
Orange County Evening News, 20 May 1 9 6 9.
"'The Plague' Is Moving." Orange County Evening
News, 24 March 1971.
_________. "Play by Vian Lauded." Orange County Evening
News, 5 November 1 9 6 8.
_________. "Production Is Fresh, Creative." Orange County
Evening News, 22 December 1971.
_________. "Satire with a Message: 'The Emergence' Offers
Glimpse of Stage Magic." Orange County Evening News,
16 September 1 9 6 9.
_________. "'Sport of My Mad Mother' Best Date for Company
Theatre." Orange County Evening News, 15 January
1969.
________ . "Whips Establishment: Prison Farm Staff 'Drops
Out' in Play." Orange County Evening News,
14 October 1 9 6 9.
"Theatre." Playboy, July 1970, p. 20.
Tollefson, Don. "'The Emergence1 Should've Stayed in
L.A." Stanford University Dally (Calif.), 9 July
1971.
Tone. "The Hashish Club." Daily Variety (Hollywood),
4 December 1973*
_________. "James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre." Daily
Variety (Hollywood), 24 March 1970.
United Press. "A Frantic, Incoherent 'Hashish Party.'"
San Francisco Chronicle, 7 January 1975*
University of Southern California. Alumni Review. Los
Angeles, Fall 1 9 6 7.
1966 Festival Theatre Program. Los Angeles,
1 9 6 6. . :
1967 Festival Theatre Program. Los Angeles,
1967.
Wachsman, Bob. "Los Angeles Theatre Scene." Fillmore
Herald (Calif.), 30 April 1970.
211
Walter, Leda. "L.A. Art Ensemble and Grill." Los Angeles
Free Press, 31 March 1972.
Watt, Douglas. "'The Hashish Club' is Just a Bum Trip."
Daily News (New York), 4 January 1975-
_________. "Liquid Theater Offers Feelies at Guggenheim
Museum Show." Daily News (New York), 12 October 1971.
Weisman, John. "See-Me, Feel-Me, Touch-Me Theater: Broad
way's Changing, Folks." Detroit Free Press,
17 October 1971.
Williams, Liza. "Theatre Report." Los Angeles Free Press,
22 August 1 9 6 9.
Yaras, Sandy. "The Hashish Club." Los Angeles Free Press,
7 December 1973*
Young, Kae. "Emergence." Immaculate Heart College Comment
(Los Angeles), 14 October 1969.
Youngblood, Gene. "Megan Terry." Los Angeles Free Press,
12 April 1 9 6 8.
Zimmerman, Diane L. "The Guggy Tries a New Art Form."
Sunday News (New York), 10 October 1971.
Zucherman, Steve. "The Provisional Theatre's 'XA: A
Vietnam Primer.'" The Drama Review 19 (September
1975):73-74.
Books
Ballet, Arthur H. "Mine Eyes Dazzle: The Company Theatre."
Theatre 5- The American Theatre 1971-1972. New York:
Scribner's, 1973*
Beardsley, Monroe C. Aesthetics from Classical Greece to
the Present: A Short History. New York: Macmillan,
1966.
. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of
Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 195o'*
Beardsley, Monroe C.; Daniel, Robert W.; and Leggett,
Glenn. Theme and Form: An Introduction to Litera-
ture, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1962.
212
Biner, Pierre. The Living; Theatre. New York: Horizon
Press, 1972.
Brockett, Oscar G., and Findlay, Robert R. Century of
Innovation: A History of European and American
Theatre and Drama Since 1 8 7 0. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Brustein, Robert. The Third Theatre. New York: Knopf,
1969.
Croyden, Margaret. Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets: The Con
temporary Experimental Theatre. New York: Delta
Books, 1975-
Ferlinghetti, Lawrence. Coney Island of the Mind. Phila
delphia: New Directions, 1968'.
Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1 9 6 8.
International Theatre Institute of the United States, Inc.
Theatre 3* The American Theatre 1969-1970. New York:
Scribner's, 1970.
________ . Theatre 4: The American Theatre 1970-1971. New
York: Scribner's, 1972.
_________. Theatre 5: The American Theatre 1971-1972. New
York: Scribner's, 1973-
Kirby, Michael. Happenings. New York: Dutton, 1 9 6 5.
Kostalanetz, Richard. Theatre of Mixed Means. New York:
Dial Press, 1 9 6 8.
Malina, Judith, and Beck, Julian. Paradise Now: Collective
Creation of the Living Theatre. New York: Random
House, 1971.
Mantegna, Gianfranco. We, the Living Theatre. New York:
Ballentine Books, 1970.
Mason, Eugene, ed. Aucassin and Nicolette and Other
Medieval Romances and Legends. New York: Dalton,
1958. :
Neff, Renfreu. The Living Theatre: USA. New York: Bobbs-
Merrill, 1970.
213
O'Connor., John, and Brown, Lorraine, eds. Free, Adult,
Uncensored: The Living History of the Federal Theatre
Project. Washington, D.C.: New Republic Books, 197&.
Pasolli, Robert. A Book on the Open Theatre. New York:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1970.
Rader, Melvin. A Modern Book of Esthetics, 4th ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973*
Rosse-Evans, James. Experimental Theatre: From Stanls-
lowski to Today, rev. ed. London: Studio Viste,
1973-
Rostagno, Aldo. We, the Living Theatre. New York:
Ballentine Books, 1970.
Scherrill, James. Breakout]: In Search of New Theatrical
Environments. Chicago: Swallow Press, 1973-
Taylor, Karen Malpede. People's Theatre in Amerika [ sic ].
New York: Drama Book Specialists/Publisher's, 1972.
Williams, Jay. Theatre Left. New York: Scribner's, 1974.
Interviews
Allen, Arthur. Private interview, 19 July 1976.
Campbell, Gar. Private interview, 16 July 1976.
Graham, Elinor. Private interview, 22 July 1976.
Grover, Barbara. Private interview, 17 July 1976.
Hunt, William. Private interview, 9 September 1976.
Kent, Steven. Private interview, 4 September 1976.
Larson, Darrell. Private interview, 23 July 1976.
Laughlin, Candace. Private interview, 28 July 1976.
Manoff, Ricky. Private interview, 30 July 1976.
Monroe, Michael. Private interview, 30 July 1976.
Motter, Marcina. Private interview, 26 July 1976.
Opper, Barry. Private interview, 23 July 1976.
214
Pyle., Russell. Private interview* 26 August 1976.
Redfield* Dennis. Private interview* 21 July 1976.
Rowe* Jack. Private interview* 14 August 1976.
Shank* Theodore. Private interview* 11 August 1976.
Yaras* Sanford. Private interview* 24 August 1976.
Plays
Asch* Sholem. God of Vengeance* trans. Joseph C. Landis.
New York: Bantam Books, 1963*
Ballet* Arthur H.* ed. Playwright for Tomorrow: A Collec
tion of Plays* vol. 9. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press* 1972.
Beckett* Samuel. Endgame. New York: Grove Press* 1958.
Bentley* Eric* ed. Seven Plays by Bertolt Brecht. New
York: Grove Press* 1961.
Bond* Edward. Lear. New York: Hill and Wang* 1972.
________ . Narrow Road to the Deep North. New York: Hill
and Wang * 1969•
Duberman* Martin. In White America. New York: New
American Library* 1 9 6 4.
Epstein* Paul. Intersections Seven. New York: Shake
speare Festival Public Theater* 1971.
Poster* Paul. Balls and Other Plays. London: Calder and
Boyars* 1 9 6 7.
Green* Paul. Five Plays of the South. New York: Hill and
Wang* 1 9 6 3.
Hildesheimer* Wolfgang. Mary Stuart. New York: Shake
speare Festival Public Theater* 1972.
Jellicoe* Ann. The Sport of My Mad Mother. London: Faber
and Faber, 1964.
Kopit* Arthur. The Day the Whores Came Out to Play Tennis
and Other Plays. New York: Hill and Wang* 1 9 6 5•
215
McClure, Michael. The Beard. New York: Grove Press, 1967.
________ . Grabbing of the Fairy. St. Paul, Minn.: Truck
Pre s si 1978.
Mrozek, Slawomir. Six Plays, trans. Nicholas Bethell. New
York: Grove Press, 1 9 6 7•
Ordway, Sally. Three Short Sketches. New York: Shake
speare Festival Public Theater, 1971.
Osborne, John. Sense of Detachment. Salem, N.H.: Faber
and Faber, 1973*
Perl, Arnold. Tevya and His Daughters. New York:
Dramatist Play Service, n.d.
Shepard, Sam. Five Plays. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1967.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, ed. Willard Farnham. New
York: Penguin Books, 1957-
Sophocles. Antigone, trans. Michael Townsend. New York:
Harper and Row, 1 9 6 2.
Strindberg, August. Three Plays. New York: Penguin Books,
1958.
Synge, John Millington. Riders to the Sea. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Terry, Megan. Viet Rock and Other Plays. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1987' .
Vien, Boris. Empire Builders, trans. Samuel W. Taylor.
New York: Grove Press, 1 9 6 7.
Unpublished Materials
"Aucassin and Nicolette." Program, September 1976.
(Printed.)
Bradley, Winston. "Sir!" Playscript, n.d. (Typewritten.)
Company Theatre Foundation. "Amendments to the Bylaws of
the Company Theatre Foundation." 6 January 197^.
(Mimeographed.)
216
Company Theatre Foundation. "A Brief History of the
Company Theatre." N.d. (Mimeographed.)
_________. "Bylaws of Company Theatre Foundation."
13 December 1971. (Mimeographed.)
. California Arts Commission Grant Request.
12 January 197^-• (Typewritten.)
_________. "The Company Theatre: Immediate Needs."
Descriptive material* July 1 9 6 9.
_______. "Company Theatre Personnel Biographies." N.d.
[Printed.)
_________. "The Company Theatre: Relocation* Expansion."
Brochure* n.d. (Mimeographed.)
_______. "The Company Theatre: What Is It?" N.d.
[Mimeographed.)
_________. Complete files* including correspondence*
programs* solicitation letters* fliers.* brochures*
and photographs. Company Theatre* located at 1653
So. La Cienega* Los Angeles* Calif. 9OO3 5.
_________. Minutes of the Board. 1969-1979. (Type
written .)
_________. "Procedures for Membership In the Company
Theatre." N.d. (Mimeographed.)
_________. "Rules and Regulations Governing the Company
and the Company Council of the Company Theatre
Foundation." 22 April 1970. (Mimeographed.)
______. "The Season 1973." Brochure* n.d. (Printed.)
"Coney Island of the Mind." Television script* 6 February
1 9 6 7. (Mimeographed.)
Edelman* Elaine. "Mother of Pearl." Playscript* n.d.
(Mimeographed.)
_______. Private letters to Steven Kent* 1971-1972.
[Handwritten* typewritten.)
Eisenstein* Sam. "The Plague." Playscript* n.d. (Type
written. )
217
Fleming., Ama Giesta. "The Emergence." Playscript,, n.d.
(Mimeographed.)
Gottfried, Martin. '’ Private letter to Barry Opper.'
18 January 1972. (Typewritten.)
"inching Through the Everglades." Program, April 1978.
(Printed.)
Insurgent Theatre. Advertising brochure. N.d. (Printed.)
Kent, Steven. Director's notes on Balls, Caliban, The
Cherub, The Emergence, The Gloaming Oh My Darling,
Intersections J3 Meatballs, Megan Terry, Mother of
Pearl, The Plague. Santa Ana Workshop, n.d.
(Handwritten.)
_________. "Skeletal Stretches: Plastiques." N.d. (Mimeo
graphed. )
Lion, Paul Dexter. "A Critical Study of the Origins and
Characteristics of Documentary Theatre of Dissent in
the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1975-
McClure, Michael. "The Cherub." Playscript, n.d. (Mimeo
graphed. )
_________. "Meatball." Playscript, n.d. (Mimeographed.)
Messer, Brad. "Notes for San Francisco Report, KYA and
KOIT-FM." ' 12 July 1971. (Mimeographed.)
Monroe, Michael, and the Provisional Theatre Collective.
"XA: A Vietnam Primer." Playscript, n.d. (Mimeo
graphed. )
October Collective. "XA: Grounds and Given." N.d.
(Mimeographed.)
Opper, Barry. "Touring Questionnaire Responses." N.d.
(Dittoed.)
O'Toole, Maureen. "The Company Theatre." M.A. thesis,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1970.
Provisional Theatre Foundation. "About the Provisional
Theatre." N.d. (Mimeographed.)
_______. "Bibliography for Voice of the People." N.d.
(Mimeographed.)
218
Provisional Theatre Foundation. Complete files, including
correspondence, programs, solicitation letters,
fliers, brochures, and photographs. Provisional
Theatre files located at l8l6 1/2 No. Vermont Avenue,
Los Angeles, Calif. 90027.
_________. "The Current Struggle of Indian People to Keep
Their Land and How You Can Help." N.d. (Mimeo
graphed. )
. Letter to Company Theatre. 22 December 1972.
[Typewritten.)
_______ . "Voice of the People: Open Rehearsal/Demonstra
tion." N.d. (Mimeographed.)
_________. "The 'Open Rehearsal.1" N.d. (Mimeographed.)
Toscan, Richard. "Notes for KPFK Review of Caliban."
9 February 1972. (Typewritten.)
219
APPENDIXES
220
APPENDIX A
PRODUCTION HISTORY, COMPANY THEATRE,
1967-1972
221
PRODUCTION HISTORY, COMPANY THEATRE,
1967-1972
1. God of Vengeance by Sholem Asch, translated by
Joseph C. Landis (September 1 9 6 7).
Directed by Steve Lee (and Steven Kent), designed
by Chris Van Ness, costumes by Marcina Motter.
With: Marcina Motter, Milly Heilman, Lance Larsen,
Carol Brown, Jerry Hoffman, Toby Coleman, Ron Horn-
blower, Gerry Rusoff, Judith Byrnes, Joan Magness,
Judy Ascher, Chris Van Ness.
2. Tevya and His Daughters by Arnold Perl from the
stories by Sholem Aleichem (September 1 9 6 7).
Directed by'Sanford Yaras, designed by Chris Van Ness,
costumes by Marcina Motter.
With: William Hunt, Nancy Crawford, Judith Byrnes,
Sandra Morgan, Robert Klein, Paul Russell, Gar
Campbell.
3. In White America by Martin B. Duberman (November 1 9 6 7).
Directed and designed by Steven Kent.
With: John D. Adams, Tom Costello, Reveta Franklin,
Nancy Hickey, John Joyner, Joan Maguire, Judson
Powell.
4. Johnny Johnson by Paul Green (December 1 9 6 7).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle,
music by Kurt Weill, choreography by Joan Tewksbury,
Costumes by Steven Kent.
With: Dennis Hunt, Madder Lake, Candace' Laughlin,
Stephen Bellon, Richard Plantagenet, Gar Campbell,
Susan Linck, Paul Rucelli, Michael Moore, Gwen
Lockwood, Gary Krekower, William,Dannevik, Lance
Larsen, Gordon Hoban.
222
5. Antigone by Sophocles (April 1968).
Directed by Stephen Bellon, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Stephen Bellon.
With: Ann Dallenbach, Toby Coleman, Michael Stefani,
William Hunt, Judson Powell, Marcina Motter.
6. Comings and Goings by Megan Terry (April 1 9 6 8).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle,
choreography by Alden Rogers, costumes by Steven Kent.
With: Gar Campbell, Barbara Grover, Gordon Hoban,
Candance Laughlin, Susan Linck, Pllita Marks, Sandra
Morgan, Mike Moore, Dennis Redfield, Paul Rucelli.
7. Keep Tightly Closed in a Cool Dry Place by Megan Terry
(April 1 9 6 8).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle,
choreography by Alden Rogers, costumes by Steven Kent.
With: Lance Larsen, Paul Rucelli, Dennis Redfield.
8. Coney Island of the Mind from the poems of Lawrence
Ferlinghetti (June 1 9 6 8).
Conceived, adapted, and directed by Steven Kent,
designed by Russell Pyle, music by Charles R. Blacker,
choreography by Alden Rogers.
With: Michael Stefani, Gordon Hoban, Lance Larsen,
Michael Carlin Pierce, Judson Powell, Paul Rucelli,
Toby Coleman, Nancy H’ ickey, Candance Laughlin,
Polita Marks, Nina Carozza, Roxann Parker.
9. Siri by Winston Bradley (June 1 9 6 8).
Directed and designed by Steven Kent.
With: Lance La.rsen, Dennis Redfield.
223
10. Icarus1 Mother by Sam Shepard (August 1968).
Directed by Stephen Bellon, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Gordon Hoban, Marcina Hunt., Barbara Grover,
Michael Carlin Pierce, Michael Stefani.
1 1. The Martyrdom of Peter Chey by Slawomir Mrozek,
translated by Nicolas Bethell (August 1 9 6 8).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Dennis Redfield, Candace Laughlin, Thomas
Bullen, Polita Marks, Gar Campbell, George Drum,
Paul Rucelli, Lance Larsen, Bob Walter, Winston
Bradley, Toby Coleman, Edna Gipson, Nina Carozza,
Kerri Gillette, Jack Rowe, Patrick Meyers, Gordon
Hoban, Lynne Stewart, Barbara Grover, Michael Pierce,
Stephen Bellon.
12. The Empire Builders by Boris Vian, translated by
Simon Watson Taylor (October 1 9 6 8).
Directed by Stephen Bellon, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Stephen Bellon, Schmurtz costume by
Steven Kent.
With: Dennis Hunt, Barbara Grover, Candace Laughlin,
Susan Linck, Lance Larsen, Jack Rowe.
13. The Sport of My Mad Mother by Ann Jellicoe (January
1969) .
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle,
music by Lance Larsen, Jack Rowe, and Bob Walter.
With: Wiley Rinaldi, Lynn Brown, Dennis Redfield,
Patrick Harris, Louie Piday, Gar Campbell, Candace
Laughlin.
14. The James Joyce Memorial Liquid Theatre, created by
the Company Theatre Ensemble under the direction of
Steven Kent (March 1 9 6 9)*
Lighting by Russell Pyle, music by Lance Larsen,
Jack Rowe, Bob Walter.
With: Entire Company.
224
15- Red Cross by Sam Shepard (May 1 9 6 9).
Directed by Stephen Bellon, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Toby Coleman, Gordon Hoban, Barbara Grover.
16. Voyages, created by the Company Theatre Ensemble
under the direction of Stephen Bellon.
Designed, by Russell Pyle, choreography by Alden Rogers,
With: Suzanne Benoit, Lynn Brown, Gar Campbell,
Nina Carroza, Kerri Gilletee, Patrick Harris,
Nancy Hickey, Dennis Hunt, Marcina Hunt, Lance
Larsen, Michael Carlin Pierce, Dennis Redfield,
Wiley Rinaldi, Jack Rowe, Louie Piday, Trish
Soodik, Michael Stefani.
17. The Emergence by Ama Giesta Fleming (September 1 9 6 9).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle,
music by Kerri Gillette, Steven Kent, Wiley Rinaldi,
Jack Rowe, and Bob Walter, costumes by Steven Kent,
choreography by Alden Rogers.
With: Barbara Grover, Polita Marks, Jack Rowe,
Bob Walter, Michael Carlin Pierce, Dennis Redfield,
Gar Campbell, Michael Stefani, Trish Soodik, Lance
Larsen, William Hunt, Nina Carozza, Wiley Rinaldi,
Suzanne Benoit, Toby Coleman, Amy Langston, Marcina
Motter, Candace Laughlin.
18. Such As We Are For As Long As It Lasts by Winston
Bradley and the Company Theatre Ensemble (October
1969).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Candace Laughlin, Barbara Grover, Bob Walter,
Gar Campbell, Trish Soodik, Dennis Redfield, William
Hunt, Suzanne Benoit, Lance Larsen, Wiley Rinaldi,
Michael Carlin Pierce, Michael Stefani.
225
19. Narrow Road to the Deep North by Edward Bond
(February 1970).
Directed by Stephen Bellon., designed by Donald Harris,,
musical arrangement by Stephen Bellon and Lance Larsen,
costumes by Boyd Clopton.
With: William Hunt, William Dannevik, Sandra Morgan,
Michael Carlin Pierce, Lance Larsen, Jack Rowe,
Candace Laughlin, Richard Serpe, Gar Campbell,
Donald Harris, Dennis Redfield, Wiley Rinaldi,
Don Opper, Nancy Hickey, Bob Walter, Richard Serpe,
Louie Piday, Alexandre Nelson, Michael Stefani.
20. Children of the Kingdom by Don Keith Opper with the
Ensemble of the Company Theatre under the direction
of Jack Rowe (July 1970).
Designed by Donald Harris, music by Don Opper, Wiley
Rinaldi, Jack Rowe, and Bob Walter, music arranged
by Steven Kent.
With: Dennis Redfield, Donald Harris, Don Keith
Opper, Jack Rowe, Robert Walter, Michael Stefani,
Sandra Morgan, Wiley Rinaldi, Nancy Hickey,
Ann Langston, Steven Kent, Marcina Motter,
Bill Dannevik, Suzanne Benoit, Candace Laughlin,
Nina Carozza, Lance Larsen, Barbara Grover,
Michael Carlin Pierce, Larry Hoffman, Richard
Serpe, William Hunt, Trish Soodik, :Gar Campbell..
21. The Plague by Sam Eisenstein and the Company Theatre
Ensemble (March 1971).
Conceived and directed by Steven Kent, designed by
Russell Pyle, costumes by Steven Kent, music and
lyrics by Sam Eisenstein, George Herbert, William
Hunt, Steven Kent, Roxann Pyle, Jack Rowe, and
Daniel Sonneborn.
With: William Hunt, Jack Rowe, Larry Hoffman,
Michael Stefani, Dennis Redfield, Sandra Morgan,
Roxann Pyle, Nancy Hickey, Michael Carlin Pierce,
Candace Laughlin, Trish Soodik, Marcina Motter,
William Dannevik, Polita Marks, Arthur Allen,
Richard Serpe, Wiley Rinaldi, Gar Campbell,
Lance Larsen.
226
22. James Joyce Liquid Memorial Liquid Theatre, New York,
created by the Company Theatre Ensemble under the
direction of Steven Kent (October 1971).
Maze by the Company Theatre* lighting by Donald Harris*
music by Lance Larsen* Jack Rowe* and Bob Walter.
With: Arthur Allen* Gar Campbell* Gladys Carmichael*
William Dannevik* Donald Harris* Nancy Hickey*
Larry Hoffman* William Hunt* Steven Kent* Lance
Larsen* Candace Laughlin* Polita Marks* Sandra
Morgan* Marcina Motter* Michael Carlin Pierce*
Dennis Redfield* Wiley Rinaldi* Jack Rowe*
Richard Serpe* Trish Soodik* Michael Stefani.
And: Tony Barbato* Bruce Bouchard* Joseph Capone*
Carrotte* Doug Carfrae* Richard Cassese* Bob Cohen*
Tony Giambrone* Virginia Glynn* Jenny Gooch*
Margaret Goodenow* Scott Gruher* Oleta Hale*
Nancy Hart* Amy Hass* Michael Haynes* Sandy
Helbig* Nancy Heikin* Jonathan Hunter* Janis
Jablecki* Kathleen Joyce* Leigh Lanzet* John
Livosi* Constance Mellors* Vincent- J. Millard*
Roger Nelson* Steve Nisbet* Eilen Parker*
Cara Robin* John Roddick* Eileen Roehm*
Susan Saltz* Ervin Stiggs* Michael Thayer*
Gary White* Fritzi Winnick.
23* Caliban by Michael Monroe (December 1971)*
Directed by Steven Kent* designed by Russell Pyle*
costumes by Steven Kent and Marcina Motter* music
by Steven Kent* Michael Monroe* and Daniel Sonneborn*
additional staging by Joan Tweksbury Maguire.
With: Larry Hoffman* Michael Stefani* Michael Carlin
Pierce* Richard Serpe* Wiley Rinaldi* Arthur Allen*
Dennis Redfield* Gar Campbell* Bill Hunt* Trish Soodik*
Candace Laughlin* Barry Opper.
24. Chamber Music by Arthur Kopit (January 1972).
Directed by Michael Carlin Pierce* designed by
Donald Harris* additional staging by Stephen Bellon*
music by Daniel Sonneborn.
With: Marcina Motter* Roxanne Pyle* Bill Hunt*
Lance Larsen* Gladys Carmichael* Polita Marks*
Sandra Morgan* Nancy Hickey* Dennis Redfield*
Barbara Grover.
227
25* The Gloamings Oh My Darling by Megan Terry (January
1972).
Directed by Steven Kent* designed by Donald Harris*
additional staging by Joan Tweksbury Maguire, music
by 'Steven Kent.
With: Barbara- Grover, Candace Laughlin, Trish Soodik,
Michael Carlin Pierce, Bill Hunt, Lori Landrin,
Nancy Hickey, Danny Sonneborn, Marcina Motter.
26. Balls by Paul Poster (March 1972).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Bill Hunt, Dennis Redfield, Lance Larsen,
Sandra Morgan, Barbara Grover.
27. The Cherub by Michael McClure (March 1 9 7 2).
Directed by Steven Kent, designed by Russell Pyle,
puppets by Roger Barnes.
With: Arthur Allen, J. Thomas Hudgins, Jerry Hoffman,
Roger Barnes, Bill Hunt, Dennis Redfield, Michael
Carlin Pierce, Polita Marks, Larry Hoffman, Candace
Laughlin, Marcina Motter.
28. Intersections 7 by Paul Epstein (March 1972).
Directed by Steven Kent.
With: Candace Laughlin, Dennis Redfield, Nancy Hickey,
Roxann Pyle, Jerry Hoffman.
2 9. The Meatball by Michael McClure (March 1972).
Directed by Steven Kent, costumes by Ted Shell.
With: Lance Larsen, Michael Carlin Pierce,
J. Thomas Hudgins, Sandra Morgan, Roxann Pyle.
228
30. Passion Play by Stephen Foreman (March 1972).
Directed by Jerry Hoffman, designed by John Sefick,
choreography by Lori Landrin.
With: J. Thomas Hudgins, Bill Hunt, Richard Serpe,
Marcina Motter, Steven Kent.
31. The Conquest of Everest by Arthur Kopit (May 1972).
Directed by Larry Hoffman, designed by Gregg Olson.
With: Polita Marks, Lance Larsen, Jerry Hoffman.
32. Crabs by Sally Ordway (May 1972).
Directed by Michael Carlin Pierce, designed by
Russell Pyle.
With: Larry Hoffman, Trish Soodik.
33* East Coast by Sally Ordway (May 1972).
Directed by Michael Carlin Pierce, designed by
Russell Pyle.
With: Lance Larsen, Nancy Hickey.
34. Riders to the Sea by John Millington Synge (May 1972)
Directed by Dennis Redfield, designed by John Sefick,
costumes by Marcina Motter.
With: Polita Marks, Jerry Hoffman, Nancy Hickey,
Sandra Morgan, Lori Landrin, Fritzi Winnick,
Richard Serpe, J. Thomas Hudgins.
3 5. West Coast by Sally Ordway (May 1972).
Directed by Michael Carlin Pierce, designed by
Russell Pyle.
With: Sandra Morgan, William Dannevik.
229
36. Mother of Pearl by Elaine Edelman (July 1972).
Directed by Steven Kent., designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Ted Shell, choreography by James Penrod,
music by Steven Kent and Richie Vetter, visuals by
William Dannevik and Russell Pyle.
With: Bill Hunt, Arthur Allen, Jerry Hoffman,
Larry Hoffman, Joe Hudgins, Roxann Pyle, Richard
Serpe, Polita Marks, Fritzi Winnick, Trish Soodik,
Candace Laughlin.
230
APPENDIX B
PRODUCTION HISTORY, COMPANY THEATRE,
1972-1979
231
PRODUCTION HISTORY, COMPANY THEATRE,
1972-1979
1. Bernhardt, Duncan, and Lincoln by the Performers
(October 1972).
With: Louise Dungan, Kres Mersky, Nancy Hickey.
2. Endgame by Samuel Beckett (November 1972).
Directed by Gar Campbell, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Lance Larsen, Gar Campbell, Arthur Allen,
Nancy Hickey.
3. Michael McClure on Toast: Pour Plays by Michael
McClure (January 1 9 7 3).
Grabbing of the Fairy directed by Tom Baker, music
by Stan Levine, choreography by Roger Barnes.
The Authentic Radio Life of Bruce Corner and the
Snout Burbler directed by Marcina Motter.
The Button directed by Dennis Redfield.
Spider Rabbit directed by Lance Larsen.
With: Trish Soodik, Marcina Motter, Marcia Polekoff,
Patsy Sabline, Forrest Birnham, Arthur Allen, Michael
Dare, Mark Johnson, John Fletcher, Lawrence Cohen,
Gar Campbell, Lance Larsen, Jack Rowe, Barbara Grover,
Michael Stefani, Donald Harris, Harvey Kahn, Lynn
Brown, Jerry Hoffman, Polita Barnes.
4. The Beast and the Rose, an original adaptation of
"Beauty and'the Beast" by Marcina Motter (February
1973).
Directed by Marcina Motter, music by Skip Kennon,
designed by Russell Pyle.
232
With: Ray Vette, Roxann Pyle, Arthur Allen,
Nancy Hickey-Dannevik, Polita Marks, Gar Campbell,
Melissa Hubbert, Barbara Grover, Lori Landrin,
Michael Sheehan, Laurence Cohen, Michael Dare.
5. Mary Stuart by Wolfgang Hildesheimer, translated
by Christopher Holme (March 1973).
Directed by Stephen Bellon, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Marcina Motter, music by Michael Dare.
With: Nancy Hickey, Lance Larsen, Gar Campbell,
Mark Johnson, Arthur Allen, John Carlyle, Polita
Marks, Roxann Pyle, David Man, Robert Redding,
Stephen Vaughan, Oren Curtis, Jerry Hoffman,
Angelique Payet, Lori Landrin, Beverly Ross,
Judy Taylor, Michael Dare.
6. The Hashish Club, based on Theophile Gautier’s "The
Hashish Club," by Lance Larsen and members of the
Company Theatre (April 1973).
Designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Lance Larsen, Jack Rowe, Dennis Redfield,
Michael Stefani, Gar Campbell, Trish Soodik.
7. The Derby by Michael McClure (June 197*0*
Directed by Dennis Redfield, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Ted Shell, music by Bob Walter.
With: Trish Soodik, Sandy Morgan, Nancy Hickey,
Gar Campbell, Harvey L. Kahn, Lynn Brown, Marcina
Motter, Jerry Pojawa.
8. The Hashish Club, New York, by Lance Larsen with
Gar Campbell, Dennis Redfield, Jack Rowe, Trish
Soodik, and Michael Stefani (January 1975).
Designed by Russell Pyle, directed by Jerome Guardino.
■ With:- Lance Larsen, Jack Rowe, Gar Campbell,
Dennis Redfield, Michael Stefani, T. W. Blackburn.
233
g. A Sense of Detachment by John Osborne (May 1975).
Directed by Lance Larsen, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Andrew Parks* Trish Soodik* Lance Larsen*
Barbara Grover* Arthur Allen* Milton Earl Forrest*
Roger Barnes* Alan Abelew* D. H. Reilley.
10. Mirror to Mirror, based on Pierre Marivaux’s
"La Dispute" translated and adapted by Louie Piday
(January 1976).
Directed by Louie Piday* designed by Russell Pyle*
costumes by Jerry Pojawa* music by Lyn Murray.
With: Alexandra Morgan* Gar Campbell* Polita Barnes*
Paul Linke* Nancy Hickey* Michael Prichard* Trish
Soodik* Alan Abelew* Andrew Parks* Susan Gelb*
James DiAngelo* Dierdre Berthrong.
11. Two McClures Sunnyside Up: Two Plays by Michael McClure
(March 1976).
Pink Helmets directed by Dennis Redfield.
With: Milton Earl Forrest* Andrew Parks* Paul Linke*
Constance Mellors* Louie Piday.
Masked Choirs directed by Jack Rowe* music by Steven
Downs.
With: Constance Mellors* Louie Piday* Dierdre
Berthrong* Polita Barnes* Debbie James* Michael
Prichard* Lisa James* Carol Rusoff* Andy Dworkin*
Jack Rowe* Milton Earl Forrest* Trish Soodik*
Andrew Parks.
12. Salt by Mort Goldberg (June 1976).
Directed by Gar Campbell* designed by Michael Prichard
and Gar Campbell* lights by Russell Pyle.
With: Trish Soodik* Michael Prichard* Polita Barnes*
Lori Landrin* Dennis Redfield* Steve Downs* Lisette
Mellors* Andrew Parks* Nora Heflin* Nancy Hickey*
David Alperin* Harvey Gold* Elizabeth Palmer*
Laurence Cohen* Alan Abelew* Daniel Grace*
Sally Schutte* Louie Piday* Dierdre Berthrong*
Marcina Motter.
234
13. Aucassin and Nicolette, book., music, and lyrics by
Stephen Downs (September 1976).
Directed by Jack Rowe, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Karen Rivera, choreography by Dorothy
La Spina Turner, music arranged by Madison Mason.
With: Alan Abelew, Laurence Cohen, Nancy Hickey,
Madison Mason, Constance Mellors, Elizabeth Palmer,
Michael Prichard, Dennis Redfield, Trish Soodik.
And: Richard Rintoul, Rick Smith, Ardis Flennahen,
Stephen Downs, Milton Earl Forrest, Louie Piday.
14. Lear by Edward Bond (March 1977).
Directed by Dennis Redfield, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Karen Rivera.
With: Dan Grace, Barbara Glover, Louie Piday, Alan
' Abelew, ■ Nancy Hickey, Bruce McGuire, Dennis Redfield,
Michael Sheehan, Jerry Pojawa, Laurence Cohen, John
Brumfield, George Carter, Andrew Massett, Tony
DeFonte, Cris Capen, Jerry Hoffman, Michael Pritchard,
Andrew Parks, Polita Barnes, Jody Barnes, Trish Soodik,
Melissa Hubbert.
15* Thighs by Trish Soodik (June 1977).
Directed by Alan Abelew, designed by Donald Harris,
lights by Russell Pyle, choreography by Myrna Gawryn.
With: Melissa Hubbert, Susan Gelb, Polita Barnes,
Deirdre Berthrong, Lisa James, Jilly Hasey, Nancy
Hickey, Louie Piday.
16. Miss Julie by August Strindberg (October 1977).
Directed by Gary Campbell, costumes by Lynn Farrell.
With: Gar Campbell, Susan Berlin, Margo Ann
Berdeshevsky.
235
17- A Man1 s A Man Toy Bertolt Brecht, adapted by Eric
Bentley (January 1978).
Directed by Frank Condon, music by Stephen Downs,
costumes by Karen Rivera.
With: Dennis Redfield, Polita Barnes, Daniel Grace,
Alan Abelew, Trish Soodik, and others.
18. But Don't Sell, the Ranch by Trish Soodik and the
Company Theatre Ensemble (July 1978).
Directed by Dennis Redfield, designed by Russell Pyle.
With: Louie Piday, Alan Abelew, Polita Barnes,
Dierdre Berthrong, Milton Earl Forrest, Nora Heflin,
Andrew Parks, Dennis Redfield.
19. The Beard by Michael McClure (February 1979)*
Directed by Andrew Parks, designed by Donald Harris, •
music by Michael Dare.
With: Dennis Redfield, Trish Soodik.
20* Hamlet by William Shakespeare (July 1979).
Directed by Gar’Campbell, designed by Russell Pyle,
costumes by Karen Rivera, puppets by Jerry Pojava.
With: Gar Campbell, Jerry Hoffman, Fredric Cook,
Darlene Conley, Ian Abercrombie, Aseneth Jurgensen,
Mathew Andersen, Sandy Ingon, Terrance Evans,
John Rose, Melody Gillette, Lee de Broux, Alan
Abelew, John Carr, Tom Van Stitzel, A1 Strobel,
Eve Meier, Luke Meier, Dianne Evans, Ann Mikkola,
Muis.
236
APPENDIX C
PRODUCTION HISTORY, PROVISIONAL THEATRE,
1972-1979
237
PRODUCTION HISTORYj PROVISIONAL THEATRE,
1972-1979
1. XA: A Vietnam Primer by Michael Monroe (November 1972).
Directed by Steven Kent.
With: Gladys Carmichael, Marshall Clymer, Diane DeTar,
Debroah Dawson, Elinor Graham, Larry Hoffman, Joe
Hudgins, Bill Hunt, Oleta Hale, Michael Carlin Pierce,
Richard Serpe, Norbert Weisser, Fritzi Winnick.
2. Dominus Marlowe/A Play on Doctor Faustus by Michael
Monroe as realized by the Provisional' Theatre Ensemble
(July 1973).
Directed by Steve Kent.
With: Candace Laughlin, Bill Hunt, Michael Dawdy,
Norbert Weisser, Gladys Carmichael, Elinor Graham,
Larry Hoffman, Joseph Hudgins, Darrell Larson,
Richard Serpe, Daniel Sonneborn.
3- America Piece, script and idea by Don Opper, characters
devised by Susan Yankowitz, conceived and realized by
the Provisional Theatre Ensemble (June 1974).
With: Elinor Graham, Candace Laughlin, Ricky Manoff,
Darrell Larson, Norbert Weisser, Bill Hunt, Michael
Dawdy, Joe Hudgins.
And: Gladys Carmichael, Steve Kent, Barry Opper,
John Sefick, Richard Serpe.
4. Voice of the People, Part I by the Provisional
Theatre (February 197&).
With: Steve Kent, Barry Opper, Candy Laughlin,
John Sefick, Gladys Carmichael, Michael Dawdy,
Bill Hunt, Larry Hoffman, Cricket Parmalee.
238
5. Voice of the People, Part II by the Provisional
Theatre (June 1976).
With: Gladys Carmichael* Michael Dawdy* Corey Fisher*
Larry Hoffman* Bill Hunt* Steve Kent* Candace Laughlin*
Barry Opper* Cricket Parmalee* John Sefick.
Additional Research: Ruthie Gorton* Elinor Graham*
Doug Kremer* Darrell Larson* Tony Russon* Mark Wagner*
Norbert Weisser.
6. Inching through the Everglades by the Provisional
Theatre (April 197b).
With: Candace Laughlin* Michael Dawdy* Gladys
Carmichael* Cricket Parmalee* Larry Hoffman*
Barry Opper* Steve Kent.
239

Linked assets