University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An experimental study of audience responses to a play rehearsed with and without a play analysis by a professional psychoanalyst

(USC Thesis Other)

An experimental study of audience responses to a play rehearsed with and without a play analysis by a professional psychoanalyst

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF AUDIENCE RESPONSES TO A PLAY REHEARSED WITH AND WITHOUT A PLAY ANALYSIS BY A PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOANALYST by Jit L» Kapur A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA m Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Communication) August 1959 UNIVERSITY. Op. SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES 7, CALIFORNIA This dissertation, written by ............... J3T..L...KAPIJK............... under the direction of f±3.....Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements fo r the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y ........ si - ' Dean Date. AugUS.tt|L..1959. © Copyright by Jit L. Kapur I960 ACKNOWLEDGMENT j j The writer gratefully acknowledges his indebted- j ness to Chancellor Rufus 6* von KlelnSmid for providing j funds through the Clune Fellowship for his doctoral pro- | gram. The writer also acknowledges with gratitude the guidance given by his committee: Professor James H. | Butler, Professor Milton Dickens, Professor Herbert Stahl, and Professor William McCoard. i i This study would perhaps never have been bom had it not been for the original and ingenious idea of j ] Oliver McGowan. Largely as a result of his efforts a j professional theatre group was foxmed who contributed i freely of their talents and services in the production j i of a play under controlled experimental conditions. The [ i writer wishes to express his gratitude to Oliver McGowan | j and the professional theatre group: Mildred Gusse, j i I James McHugh, Jr., Barnet Sharrln, James Brittain, i | Kate Drain Lawson, Patience Cleveland, David Frankham, Ben Wright, Clive L. Halil day, Lillian Buyeff, Irene jTedrow, Marion Ross, Margaret Brewster, Cheerio Meredith, Barbara Girvin, Carol Ann Daniels, and Michael P&taki. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE j I. THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE * • • 1 j I The problem • • • • 1 i Introduction............. * ........... 1 j Statement of the problem • • ........... 3 Origin of the problem.............. • • » * + Significance of the problem............ • 5 I Definitions of terms................... 3 Review of the literature • #•••••••• 9 Organization of the remainder of the study • 15 II. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, PROCEDURES............. 16 Materials. ........................ 13 The play................ 18 The theatre. • ••••. ............... 19 Sets, costumes, props* lighting. • • • • • 19 Infra-red ray photographs. ......... 20 Magnetic tape-recording unit ......... 20 Letters of invitational inquiry. • • • • • 20 Admission tickets. ••••.••••••• 21 Invitations for the panel.............. 21 Cross-section audience questionnaire . . . 22 ill CHAPTER PAGE Professional expert questionnaire • • • • • 22 Actors1 questionnaire ....... ...... 22 Director** questionnaire................. 22 Infra-red ray photograph ballot I .... . 23 Infra-red ray photograph ballot II....... 23 Subjects. ............ ......... 23 Cross-section audience................... 24- Prof es si onal panel. • • ................. 25 The actors and the director ........... 26 Group I for infra-red ray photographs .. . 26 Group II for infra-red ray photographs. • • 27 Procedures........ ............... . . . 27 Conventional production .....••••• 28 Application of stimulus ........... 39 Experimental production •••••••••• 4-1 | Selection of the audience •••••..•• 4-2 f Techniques used to measure audience response 46 III. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA . . 62 The cross-section audience. ......... 64 Composition •••••. ......... •••• 64 Balloting on audience responsiveness. . . . 72 Panel of professional experts ••••••.. 93 Composition ......... 93 Balloting by the panel......... 94 iv CHAPTER PAGE Balloting by the director and the aotors • • • 102 Infra-red ray photographs....................105 Balloting for the infra-red ray photographs. 105 j i Auditory responsiveness on the tape recording. l l * f | IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. • • . Il8j j Summary of the problem and procedures. .... 118| Conclusions ........... .......... 121 i Implications.............. 1 2 * f ; Recommendations for further research • • • • • 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................... 130 APPENDIXES 133 j Appendix A. Synopsis of the Play. ••••••• 135; j Appendix B. Letter of inquiry for Cross- j Section Audience. .........139 1 Admission Ticket. ••••••••. 1^1 Invitation for the Panel...........1^3 Cross-Section Audience Question- j I nalre........... lH-51 j Professional Panel Questionnaire. • m-7 Actors' Questionnaire........... 1^9 Director's Questionnaire. • • • . • l5li ( Infra-Red Ray Photograph Ballot I • 153 \ Itafra-Red Ray Photograph Ballot II. 155 Program-BiU........... 157 Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H. Appendix J. Appendix K. Appendix L. v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Cross-section Audience Compositions Sex ... 65 II. Cross-section Audience Compositions Age Group 66 III. Cross-section Audience Compositions tional Level.............. • • Educa- 67 IV. Cross-section Audience Compositions Going Experience ..••••«.• Theatre- 69 V. Cross-section Audience Compositions Going Experience •••••••.. Movie- 70 VI. Cross-section Audience Compositions Habits for T.V. Drama. •••••• Vieving 71 VII. Cross-section Audience Compositions Seen the Play •*••••••.. Already 73 VIII. ! Cross-section Audience Compositions Play.................«••• Read the 7b IX. Cross-section Audience Responses Entertain ment Value •••.•••••••• 76 X. Cross-section Audience Responses Interest Value................................. 78 I 1 XI. Cross-section Audience Responses Interest Value— Significance of Shift in Categories . 79 vi TABLE PAGE XII* Cross-section Audience Besponses Evaluation of Cumulative Acting .*•*••• 81 XIII* Cross-section Audience Responses Intelligi bility of the Theme. •••••••••*•• 82 XIV* Cross-section Audience Responses Comprehen sion of Characters ...................... 85 XV* Cross-section Audience Responses Characters Properly Motivated •••*• ............ * 86 XVI* Cross-section Audience Responses Subject Balloting on Proper Character Motivation • • 87 XVII* Cross-section Audience Responses Emotional Itapact......... * ............... 89 XVII1* Cross-section Audience Responses Moved to Tears ••••• •••••• 90 XIX* Cross-section Audience Responses Zest on Facts about the Play .........••••• 92 XX* Professional Panel Compositions Profession* • 95 XXI* Professional Panel Responses Portrayal of the Theme* ••••••••*•• ......... 97 XXII* Professional Panel Responses Portrayal of Mood •••••*..................•••• 98 XXIII* Professional Panel Responses Enotlonal Effect 99 XXIV* Professional Panel Responses Entertainment Value................••*••*••*,* 101 vii TABLE XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. XXXII. ■ ■ ■ .. ' I PAGE I Professional Panel Responses! Portrayal of | Characterization .............. ...•• 103 Infra-Red Ray Photographs! Assigned Code ■ j Numbers.................. * .......... 107 Infra-Red Ray Photographs! Interest Evalua tion of Photographs................ 108 i i Infra-Red Ray Photographs! Significance of ! i Difference in Individual Categories. . . . 109; Infra-Red Ray Photographs! Interest Evalua- j tion from Corresponding Pairs. •••••« 111; mfra-Red Ray Photographs! Interest Evalua tion from Each Set for the Respective Performance. . . . ............ ••••• 112 Tape Recordings! Interest Evaluation from Laughs............. 115 Tape Recordings: Interest Evaluation from Applauses. • •• •.................... 116 viii CHAPTER X THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I, THE PROBLEM ISfrSPflUg&gR The lineal descent of the modern theatre director may he traced from the poet didaskolos of the Greek theatre, ma^tre du leu of the medieval theatre, or the actor- managers of the romantic theatre. But In the current sense of the term he Is of rather recent origin. It vas only In the late nineteenth century that the Duke of Saxe-Meinlngen through his manifold directorial activities gave artistic unity to the collective arts of the theatre. The director as reflected In the works of the Duke, vas a person "who could visualize an entire performance, and give it unity as an interpretation by complete control of every moment 1 of it. . . The nature of the director's work has been j I variously described by the scholars of the modern theatre. Whatever the divergence of opinion in other areas, they 1Lee Simonson, The Stage Is Set (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952), pp. 30*f-305. 1. . 2 agree that the first step In directing a dramatic produc tion Is the contextual Interpretation and analysis of the play* The director analyzes the personalities of the Individual characters as drawn hy the playwright* He further analyzes conflicts and motivations in the inter personal relationships of one character with another* He examines the complexities of the plot situations in an effort to assemble them as pieces of a mosaic* These activities entailed In the contextual Inter pretation of the play suggest that every director must be, to some extent, a psychologist* However, probably few directors have had systematic training in psychology or psychoanalysis* Instead, by and large, they have relied for analysis upon their general knowledge of human behavior or intuitive insight with no help from a professional expert in human behavior. m view of the Inexact practice, it was decided to have a qualified expert "psychoanalyze a play" in the first of a projected series of experiments* Such an experiment, it was believed, would afford an opportunity to find out if a professional director could use a psycho analytical interpretation to improve upon his own insight into the play, and at the same time use it as a short cut which might save valuable time in arriving at a valid interpretation* Statement of the Problem Pop the purpose of conducting a controlled experi ment the above ideas were stated in a problem form as follows: Given two performances of the same play before two matched audiences by the same cast directed by the same director, the first of which was rehearsed and presented in conditions typical of the professional theatre; while the second was rehearsed and presented after a profes sional psychoanalyst had given an interpretation of the play— what differences would be found when measured in terms of responses as provided in: 1* the questionnaires of a cross-section audience 2• the questionnaires of a panel of professional experts 3« the questionnaires of the participating actors 4 - . the questionnaire of the director 5* the visual indications of the audience Interest shown in infra-red ray photographs 6. the auditory indications of the audience inter est expressed on magnetic tape recordings. The study was explicitly confined to the contextual interpretation, as distinct from creative direction, of the play. Furthermore, there was no intention to extend the scope of it to the personal psychological problems of j the director, actors, or any other individual engaged in the experiment. Nor was there any intention to delve into theories of psychoanalysis or of any other school of psychology# Instead, it was specified at the very outset that the services of a professional psychoanalyst were to be used only for the purpose of providing a psychological interpretation of the play for the director. Origin of_the Eroblem In July, 1957, certain representatives from the theatre, motion picture and television industries met in a conference to discuss the possibility of conducting research involving the services of a psychoanalyst as an aid In play production. They believed that the psycho analyst, who ordinarily deals with the underlying emotions and motivations of real people, could similarly analyze the underlying emotions and motivations of fictional characters as presented in the manuscript of a play. In order to explore the matter further, an organization named the M-R Theatre was set up under the Charge of Oliver j McGowan. Other members elected to serve on his production j team were James McHugh, Jr. and Mildred Gussie. Barnet Sharrln, M. D., a practicing psychoanalyst, consented to work as a consultant. In the course of time as the plans took shape, selected experts in related fields accepted invitations to participate in the research. ~ “ . ~~5\ i The spokesmen of M-R Theatre approached representa tive faculty members of the departments of communicative arts at the University of Southern California, and apprised them of the plans for research* The faculty members were invited to develop the experimental design, particularly to devise and enforce controls, and select methods to measure the audience responses* Because of their experi ence in directing the work of Robson, the faculty members J thought that the proposal by the M-R Theatre group was j feasible* In 1951 Robson conducted experiments measuring audience responses to three successive performances of three plays before similar audiences; he found that night- to-night fluctuations of audience response were within the boundaries of chance* The faculty members Invited a group of students, including the present writer, to participate in the ven ture. When It became clear that co-operation among all parties was assured, the faculty members agreed that the experiment could, and should, be carried through with the scientific rigor of doctoral research* Significance of the. Problem j The problem of this experiment was thought to be significant for the following reasons: 1. Several literary interpretations of plays by noted psychoanalysts, including Freud, were extant at the time of this experiment. However, no report was found that any of these theoretical ideas had been tested experi mentally through actual production. 2. Within the confines of the theatre this study would emphasize the need for further experimentation in similar areas of inquiry. A logical extension of the experiment could be to test the effect of psychoanalytical interpretation of a play as a stimulus to the playwright and actors. 3. If psychoanalysis were found to be an effective tool for play directors, the several important implica tions might be applied to the field of educational theatre. For example, curricula for drama majors might well reflect Mitchell's prophecy that the day may not be too distant "when greater training in psychology will be deemed essen tial to the background of those who wish to direct [in the educational theatre]."^ Similarly, in the professional theatre psycho analytical interpretation of a play in the course of time might be adopted as an instrument-in-ald for gaining new | i insight into the deeper meanings of a play. The psycho- j j analyst might reveal a variety of interlocking strivings ^John D. Mitchell, "Applied Psychoanalysis in the Director-Actor Relationship," The American Imago. XIII (1956), 227. 7! t at different levels, which otherwise escaped the director. This was illustrated in a particularly perceptive review of the London production of T. S. Eliot's The Confidential Olerk. Martin Browne, director of the play, pleaded ignor ance of many of the following dimensions of the play: Many . . . must have been surprised at the humour of the piece, and lulled into supposing that very little lay hidden beneath the amusing and often ironic maneuverlngs of several illegitimate off spring and their too casual parents. But a dozen problems inevitably forced their attention upon even the most unwary playgoers: the problems of man's essential loneliness; the father-son rela tionship. divine and human; the desire of man for the ideal in parent and child and the bad effects of childhood insecurity. In a lighter vein. Eliot, it seems, will not have it that blooa is thicker than water.3 5# The use of a psychoanalytical Interpretation of a play, without being deleterious to the creative imagina tion, might curtail guessing, groping, and faltering for the meaning. The director might through the aid of such an analysis find a short cut which would save valuable time in arriving at a valid interpretation of the play. 6. The prevalent practices of testing a show for effectiveness prior to its public release might be amended to include the use of psychoanalytical interpretation as a reference point for prognostication of the nature of faults revealed in the show. 3"Edinburgh 1953,” Theatre World. Vol. XLXX, No. 35*f (October, 1953), P* 15* s I Definitions of Terms | The following terms used In the study seemed to need further expli cation* Intuition. The term "intuition1 1 was used to convey a judgment, meaning, or idea that occurs to a person with out any known cogitation or reflective thinking. Intellection. The term "intellection" was used for I such activity of the mind that leads to knowledge through I reason. Creative direction. The term "creative direction" meant the artistic process in terms of the nature of the medium "which enables the play as conceived by the author to pass from the abstract, latent state, that of the i f written script, to concrete and actual life on stage." Psychoanalysis. The term "psychoanalysis" as used in this study, refers to a school of psychology, origi nated by Freud, which deals with a broad framework for the study of human behavior through unconscious mental pro- ! i i cesses. j | Psychoanalyst. This term was used as the name for Jacques Copeau, "La Mise en Scene," Encyclopedia Francaise. Vol. XVII (Paris: Societe de geston 1*Encyclopedia Francaise, 1935), p* $• 9 a specialist who employs the theory and system of psycho analysis in the practice of his profession. He is required by the organized psychoanalysts in this country to hold an M. D. degree. Cross-section audience. The term, in this study, referred to two audiences, one for each performance, selected from mailing list of the Department of Drama, University of Southern California. j Panel of professional experts. The term was used here to mean the second segment of each of the two audi ences, which had been drawn from among experts in ten vocations and skills of theatre and allied arts. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In the last half century or so numerous plays have been subjected to psychoanalytical interpretations. Freud was fittingly the first to use the discipline for the analysis of such a standard drama as Sophocles' Oedinus i Rex. He viewed the destiny of Oedipus, all afresh, not i only as a fate determined by the rivalry between son and j ! father, but also by the son's unsatisfied longing for a * t t mother who had betrayed him.*' Ernest Jones interpreted - ’ Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by A. A. Brill (New York: Macmillan, 194-5). “ ' " 10 Hamlet's conflict as determined by his hidden and danger- ously submissive attachment to an idealized father. The play has been re-interpreted several times by eminent 7 8 psychoanalysts, such as, Wertham/ Maloney and Rockelein, 9 10 Sharpe, and Lesser. Prince Hal as he appears in Shakespeare's King Henry IV. Parts I and H and (as King 11 Henry V) in King Henry V. has been psychoanalyzed by Kris 12 and Bowling. Similarly Shakespeare's Othello vas 6 Ernest Jones, "A Psychoanalytic Study of Hamlet," Esg^rs in Applied Psychology (Londons Vision Press, Ltd., 7F. Wertham, Dark Legead^ A,Study in MuMer (New Yorks Duell, Shane, and Pearce, 1941). ®J. M. Maloney and L. Rockelein, "A New Interpreta tion of Hamlet," International Journal of Psychoanalysis. XXX (19**9), 92-107. ^E. F. Sharpe, "The Impatience of Hamlet," and "An Unfinished Paper on Hamlet," Collected Papers on Psycho analysis (Londons The Hogarth Press, Ltd.). 10Simon 0# Lesser, "Freud and Hamlet Again," The American Bnago. Vol. XII, No. 2 (1955) * pp. 207-220. Ernst Ktis. "Prince Hal's Conflict," Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art (New Yorks International Uhlverslties Press, Inc., 1972). Bowling, "The Wild Prince Hal in Legend and Literature," Washington StudiesT Humanist Series. Vol. XIII. 1^ I interpreted by Wangh, J and Pericles by Feldman. These j and other similar interpretations were essentially liter ary and, therefore, enriched the discipline of psycho analysis. None of them were professed to have been written specifically to be used by a director in producing the plays. Then, in the area of audience research for the com munication media of radio, television, and to a lesser degree motion pictures, a rich collection of writing was accessible. Researchers like Frank Stanton, Paul Lazarsfeld, John Dollard, and Carl Hovland have gained eminence for the experimental studies conducted from time to time. Some of the instruments used by these and other researchers to record audience responses for the experi ments were discussed by Handel. He enumerated at length the relative merits of Lazarsfeld-Stanton analyzer, the Cirlin Reactograph, the Hopkins elective televoting 15 machine, and the Schwerin system. ^M. Wangh, "Othello: The Tragedy of lago," The Psychoanalytic Quarterly. XIX (1950), 202-212. llfBronson Feldman, " Bnaginary Incest: a Study of Shakespeare's Pericles," The American Imago. Vol. XII, No. 2 (1955), PP. 117-1557 ■^Leo A. Handel, Hollywood Looks at Its Audience (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1950;, pp. 46- oO. 12 As previously mentioned, Hobson conducted an experi- I mental study of fluctuations of audience responses to sue* j cesslve play performances* He collected data on the responses of homogeneous audiences to three selected one- act plays performed on three successive nights. The statistical analysis of the data showed that the fluctua tions among successive play performances remained within 16 the limits of chance expectancy. Krestinger contended that the devices explained by Handel provided for conscious reactions, and, therefore, might represent what the subject considered to be the "acceptable" rather than his true responses. He developed an electromagnetic movement meter by which the responses of the subjects In a relatively uninhibited audience situation could be, measured. The device was based on the burglar-alarm principle; it entailed concealed wiring of each seat which created an electromagnetic field, and bodily movements made by the occupant in this field were recorded by a converted Ink-writing voltmeter. Krestinger found through the use of this device that the gross body movement could be taken as an Index to the audience j interest.1^ . - ^John I. Robson, "An Experimental Study of Fluctua tions among Successive Play Performances" (unpublished dis sertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. August, 195D. ^E. A. Krestinger, "An Experimental Study of Gross Lyle followed Krestinger with a study in which he investigated the discriminatory potential of the electro magnetic movement meter. More specifically) he sought to answer three questions: (1) Can the meter distinguish between continuously diminishing degrees of interest? (2) What is the best method for quantifying the movement meter tapes— length of line, amplitude, or frequency of i line? (3) Are there characteristic shapes or patterns on I I the movement meter tapes which might reveal estimates of ! degrees of attention on a continuously diminishing con tinuum?^ Mabie stated that a device called the Meier Recorder has been effectively used to register audience responses j in the theatre research done at the State University of Iowa. He enumerated four doctoral studies which made use i of the recorder. In a pilot study Hayes inquired into the uses and limitations of the Meier Recorder. He attempted to answer some of the basic questions, namely, whether the recorder will yield results valuable for investigations in the Movement as an Index to Audience Interest" (unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, August, 1951)• ^Harry Mason Lyle, "An Experimental Study of Cer tain Aspects of Electromagnetic Movement Meter as a Cri terion to Audience Attention" (unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, April, 1952). _ _ ..... ..... theatre; what methods and procedures would be required to make the resulting data meaningful) how the data should be | treated and analyzed, et cetera, in the second study Paul used the device In an investigation of responses to new j i plays produced from the manuscript for the first time, as j compared with responses to plays which had been produced professionally and had been commercial successes* The i third study in which the device was employed examined the j differences between the responses made by men, and the j responses made by women* The fourth study in the series j I was done by Clark, who investigated the variations in | 19 1 responses recorded by different age groups of audiences* j Xh another article Yrleze said that he employed the ! i Meier recorder in an experimental study of the Influence of occupation on the audience responses in the theatre* He r gathered the data by exposing important episodes from | different plays to audiences classified into fifteen repre-j sentative occupational groups* The hypothesis he had pos- j tulated was not sustained by the statistical results, and ! therefore he concluded that occupation did not influence the interest of the audience in their response to ^£* C. Mabie, "The Responses of Theatre Audience, ( Experimental Studies," flpeech^Monograuhs. XIX (November, 1952), 235-2>f3* i ' 5 20 dramatic stimuli. III. ORGANIZATION OP THE REMAINDER OP THE STUDY Chapter II deals with a descriptive enumeration of the materials, subjects, and procedures utilized in the experiment. Chapter HI is limited to the presentation of statistical data accompanied by its interpretation. Chapter 17, the concluding chapter, contains the summary, conclusions, implications of the experiment, and recommen dations for research in this and allied areas. The appen dixes contain the synopsis of the play and the sample ballots used in the experiment. po J. W. Vriezej "An Experimental Study of Occupa tion and Its Influence on Audience Response in the Theatre," Dissertation Abstracts. State University of Iowa, XIII (1953)>3^53-3^5^*.... CHAPTER II MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND PROCEDURES The design of the experiment, in general, consisted of the production of an illustrative play for two perform ances given under controlled conditions. The two perform ances were presented before two matched audiences by the same cast directed by the same director. The first perform ance was rehearsed and presented on June 6, 1958 under conditions typical of the professional theatre. Following this, the psychoanalyst analyzed the play Including the characters for the director. The series of changes suggested by him were incorporated by the director in additional rehearsals. Exactly a week later, that is, on June 13, 1958, a second performance of the play was given. On both occasions the following techniques were used to secure quantitative measurements of both the play per- i formances and audience responses: 1. The responses of the respective audiences were recorded by means of: j a. questionnaires to the cross-section audience b. questionnaires to the panel of professional experts 16 _______________ 17 c. infra-red ray photographs d. magnetic tape recordings 2* The responses of the actors and the director were recorded hy means of: a* questionnaires to the actors b. questionnaire to the director 3* The responses of the respective audiences as shown in the infra-red ray photographs were quantitatively appraised by a panel of select judges and recorded in: a. Ballot I for infra-red ray photographs b. Ballot IX for infra-red ray photographs i f * The responses of the respective audiences as recorded on the magnetic tape were quantita tively appraised by means of: a. the number, volume, and duration of laughs b« the number, volume, and duration of applause The data obtained by means of the above techniques were statistically analyzed for the purpose of observing j if there was a significant difference in favor of either of| the two performances* The foregoing methodology will next be described in detail under the -heads of materials, subj ects, and procedures* I. MATERIALS In line with the stipulation of conducting the experiment in environmental conditions typical of the professional theatre, it was decided to strive for facili ties and materials in the closest approximation of such an environment. However, the lack of the customary budget for a professional production made it mandatory to draw more upon ingenuity than a financial reservoir. The materials and facilities employed in the experiment were as follows. £he_glag Several plays were carefully considered, but for reasons discussed later "Table Number Seven," second of Terence Rattigan*s Separate Tables* * - was selected for the experiment. It comprises two scenes, which have a running time of approximately seventy minutes. There are eleven characters in the plays three males, and eight females. A motion picture version of Separate Tables, which was presented a few months subsequent to the experiment, received the "best actor," and the "best supporting actress" awards for the year 1958 from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Terence Rattigan, Separate Tables (New Yorks Random House, 1955)• .......... 19 The Theatre Both the performances were presented at the "Art Linkletter Playhouse" at 1228 N. Vine Street, Hollywood, California. The theatre is located in the heart of the entertainment world and is conveniently accessible by different means of transportation. It was originally built as a legitimate theatre, but was subse quently converted to serve as an art movie-house. Still later it was acquired by Art Linkletter and John Guedel who were currently using it as an audience-participation tele vision studio. It has a maximum seating capacity of 379 distributed into three sections with two dividing aisles. The rehearsals, with the exception of those on June k - and June 5 were held in a hall of the city recrea tion center known as the "West Hollywood Park," North Robertson Boulevard, West Hollywood. Sets. Costumes, Props, and Lighting The play called for two stage sets, namely, the lounge and the dining room of a small' unpretentious hotel in West Hampshire, England. The sets, costumes, and light ing were designed and executed under the supervision of the art director, Hate Drane Lawson. She was also responsible for the props employed in the play. Every effort was made to keep the sets, costumes, props, and lighting constant during the two performances. 201 Infra-Red Ray Photographs Visual records of the, audience were obtained through a series of infra-red ray photographs. A "Nikon" 35 mm camera mounted on a tripod was placed in an advantageous but unobtrusive position on the down left end of the stage. Ten photographs for each performance were taken at pre determined points during the progression of the play. The invisible flash for the photographs was provided by a set of standard photography infra-red bulbs. In order to keep an accurate record of the points at which the photographs were taken, a second 35 mm camera manned by a photographer in the audience simultaneously took photographs of the action on the stage. Magnetic Tape-Recording Jfoit An auditory record of the performances, audience responses, and other sounds, was made on a double-play 1200 feet magnetic tape manufactured by the Irish Corpora tion. The recorder employed was a "Wollensak *+00" which was placed on an elevated platform at the back of the i house. J Letters of Invitational.Inquire Letters of invitational inquiry (for sample see Appendix B) were mimeographed on the stationery of the Department of Drama, University of Southern California. 21 i ! In all, 2,^50 of these letters were sent to the names and addresses appearing on the department's mailing list* The letter was designed to find out if the recipient desired to attend either of the two performances. If he indicated that he was Interested in attending, he was requested to write his name, address, sex, age group, educational level, and average theatre attendance on a postpaid reply card which had been enclosed with the letter* He was also requested to indicate if he had a preference for either of the two dates* He was further requested to return the completed card to Dr* James H* Butler, Chairman, Department of Drama, University of Southern California* Admission Tickets From among those who expressed a desire to attend either or both of the performances and furnished requisite information, 163 were invited to attend the performance on June 6, and 167 were invited to attend the performance on June 13* They were mailed admission tickets mimeographed on postcards* (For sample see Appendix C.) The date of I the performance was written on each ticket* Also the invited guest was requested to bring the ticket and present it at the door. Invitations for the Panel Letters of invitation (for sample see Appendix D) " , ' 7 '" " . ; 22 j enclosing two tickets for each of the two performances j ' ) were sent to experts drawn from ten vocations and skills of the theatre and allied arts. The experts were requested to serve on the professional panel, and, there fore, to attend both the performances. Cross-Section Audience Questionnaire At the end of the respective performances each mem ber of the cross-section audience was given a question naire, writing board, and pencil. (For sample see Appendix E.) Professional Expert Questionnaire Similarly each expert serving on the professional panel was given an appropriate questionnaire to fill in after each performance. For convenience he was provided with a pencil and a writing board. (For sample see Appendix F.) A c t o r s Q o e s lp ip i^ lT ^ At the end of the second performance each member of the cast was given an appropriate questionnaire. (For sample see Appendix G.) Director's Ouestinnnalpa The director was requested to fill in an appropriate questionnaire after the second performance. (For sample see Appendix H.) Infra-Red Ray Photograph Ballot I This ballot was designed to register the responses of the subjects to the Interest of the audiences shown In the individual photographs on a five-step scale, (For sample see Appendix J.) The subject was furnished with fourteen ballots stapled together, one for each photograph. Infra-Red Rav Photograph Ballot II This ballot provided three alternatives to the sub ject, (For sample see Appendix K.) He could indicate whether the audience interest in the set of photographs taken on the first night was more than the audience inter est in the set of photographs taken on the second night of performance, or the other way around, or the audience interest during both performances was about equal. II. SUBJECTS The subjects for the experiment were the cross- section audience, the panel of professional experts, the participating actors, and the director of the play. Two more groups of subjects were drawn from the graduate classes of the Communication Division, who registered their reactions to the infra-red ray photographs. A detailed account of the method adopted for the selection of the subjects is given in the third part of this chapter, namely, procedures. Various classifications 2^1 ! of the subjects, however, are briefly discussed below. Cross-Section Audience The terms of the experimental design spelled out the selection of two different but matched audiences, one for each of the two performances. The mailing list of the Department of Drama, University of Southern California contains the names and addresses of persons culled over a period of several years of regular theatre-goers, and therefore is reasonably representative of the cross-section theatre audience. Letters of invitational inquiry were sent to 2,*f50 names that appeared on the above list. Each letter was accompanied by a postpaid self-addressed reply card on which the recipient was asked to write his name, desire to attend either of the two performances, occupation, age- group, educational level, and average theatre-going experience. It was explicitly pointed out that the letter ' was only a preliminary inquiry, and was in no case to be treated as an invitation. I From among the replies received two audiences num bering 163 and 167 respectively were selected for the two performances. They were matched by sex only. It was, however, envisaged that in view of such a large number of subjects for each performance there would be certain marginal cases of those who inadvertently might not come, " 7 7 . 25 and those who might crash In without an Invitation. Finally, complimentary admission tickets, mimeo graphed on post cards were mailed to those selected by the above process. From among those invited, 153 guests attended the performance given on June 6, and 155 guests attended the performance given on June 13* Professional Panel The second set of subjects was a panel of profes sional experts. These experts were drawn from the follow ing ten vocations and skills of theatre and allied artss 1. Producers 2. Directors 3* Writers h. Directors 5* Critics 6. Drama teachers 7# Qualified psychologists, psychoanalysts, and psychiatrists with drama orientation 8. Casting directors 9. Actors' agents and talent scouts 10. Observers The members of the production team were requested to submit names and addresses of persons in these classi fications who might be interested in serving on the panel. It was stipulated that the experts who accepted the 26 r | invitation had to agree to attend both of the performances | so as to be able to give a critical appraisal in a com parative frame of reference. It was thought desirable to have at least five mem bers from each of the above ten classifications serve on the panel. For this reason selected persons from among the names submitted for each profession were contacted. Finally, letters of confirmation were sent to those who agreed to attend the performances. Of these^ sixty attended; the conventional performance, and fifty-eight attended the experimental performance. t The Actors and the Director The participating actors and the director of the play were considered as subjects, and were required to register their reactions to the rehearsals, conventional performance, experimental performance, and other phases of the study. They were provided with appropriate question naires for this purpose. Group I for Infra-Red Ray Photographs j i The infra-red ray photographs of the audiences for j i the two performances were mixed at random and shown to j thirty-four subjects drawn from two graduate classes of the) Communication Division. The subjects indicated their responses on a five-step interest scale provided in a ......... 27 I j separate ballot for each photograph. j Group II for Infra-Red Ray Photographs The second group of subjects was similarly drawn from fbur graduate classes of the Communication Division. ; They judged the interest of the audienoes as shown in the two separate sets of photographs, one set for each per formance. The subject indicated his preference on a three-| i choice ballot, that is, as to whether the interest shown | i by the audience in the set of photographs taken during the j first performance was more than that shown in the set of | photographs taken during the second performance, or vice versa, or if it was just about equal for both perform ances. III. PROCEDURES As already explained the experiment was conducted in two phases, the phase before the application of stimu lus and the phase after the application of stimulus. In the first instance the customary procedures of the profes- j sional theatre were followed in the production of the j selected play. The play was presented before 158 members of the cross-section audience and 60 professional experts. The responses of the subjects were variously recorded. Then, the independent variable was introduced in the form of a psychoanalytical interpretation of the play ~ 28 ! ■ I and characters for the director. In light of such an ! interpretation the play was further rehearsed by the director* Exactly a week from the first performance a second performance of the play was presented before 155 subjects comprising the cross-section audience and 58 professional experts* The responses of the subjects were variously recorded* The responses of the two groups of the subjects were statistically analyzed to examine the effect of the stimulus. J I The following pages contain a detailed account of the procedures adopted in the conduct of the experiment. Conventional Production The producer. In the American professional theatre the producer performs a multitude of tasks. He is the person who is ultimately responsible, for the choice of the play, the stage director, the scene designer, and the cast. He has to raise money for the production, control the budget, select the theatre, criticize the staging, deal i with the union regulations, arrange publicity and promo- j i tion, and superintend the box office receipts. In this experiment it was apparent that someone should have been Invested to function with the centralized authority of the producer not only for the smooth operation of activities, but also to promote conditions representative of the professional theatre. Oliver McGowan, who is credited with originating the idea of the study, progressively assumed the obligations and responsibilities of the producer. His experience as i actor, director and producer in the media of theatre, | radio, television, and motion pictures amply qualified him for the position. He decided to seek assistance from a j production team composed of Millie Gusse, and James I McHugh, Jr. But he was well aware of the fact that even though the production team members were available for | i i advice, the ultimate responsibility for decisions was entirely his. For his own guidance he prepared a brief manifesto which in essence said: 1. The director, actors, production department heads and assistants were to function in accord ance with the established practices of first- rate professional theatre. 2. The actors and stage assistants were selected in consultation with the director, who was also afforded the opportunity to replace any actor on grounds of unsuitability. 3. The director was given complete authority in staging the play, but was required to consider the producer's suggestions. 30: i j The plav. It was realized at the outset that the j things that might be accomplished with any one play could j hardly be claimed to be duplicated with other plays. The j selection of the play for the experiment was thus a com- plex task. In the circumstances, however, the selection ! of a play that had common characteristics with many other plays in the field could be defended on the grounds that it was illustrative, even though not representative of a trend in the modern theatre. ! Also, as already pointed out, it was decided that for optimum results a play of more than forty-five minutes and less than seventy-five minutes duration should be selected. For, in an experimental situation, audiences i were normally expected to be exposed for more than forty- five minutes to the performance stimulus to be able to give proper responses. On the other hand, plays of more than seventy-five minutes duration were not considered as they were likely to set in the fatigue factor and distort the results.2 Accent on Youth by Samson Raphaelson,^ an early choice of the producer, was abandoned on this count. From the professional experience of the production ^Milton Dickens and Lee E. Travis, "Experimental Method," mimeographed, n.d., p. 20. 3 “ 'Samson Raphaelson, Accent on Youth (New York* Samuel French, 1935)• ~ ”.... ".'.""..'..“ 31 | team, it was considered expedient for a production such as | j was envisioned to select a play with a cast of approxi mately ten characters. The psychoanalyst suggested that for reasons of validity there should be as far as possible an equal distribution of roles among male and female characters. l i The Browning Version by Terence Rattigan was con sidered for a time as a possible selection in light of the above stipulations. But, subsequently it was abandoned to give way to Table Number Seven, the second of the two one- act plays entitled Separate Tables, written by the same author. In two scenes the play unfolds an incident which serves as an aid in the attainment of emotional maturity by the leading characters. The innate psychological implications coupled with other characteristics are illustrative of the general trend in plays of the modem theatre. The play also had the favorable qualities of having a cast of eleven, and a running time of approximately seventy minutes. A synopsis of the play is given in Appendix A. 1 The director, the cast, art director, and the pro- i duction personnel. 1. The Director, m accordance with the standard **Terence Rattigan, Browning Version in B. A. Cerf, editor, Twenty-four Favorite One-Act Plays (1958). ............................................... 3 2 ; i procedure of the professional theatre, the producer sought a suitable director for the production. This was no easy task, for the study called for a man with professional experience, who in effect should typify many other direc tors engaged in the stage, television, or motion picture industries. However, due to the lack of financial resour ces, there was no way to pay for his services. Also he was expected to be receptive to the projected experiment without being fettered by prejudices for or against the use of psychology. It was, therefore, considered desirable that he should not be adept in the discipline of psycho analysis. The producer in consultation with his production team considered a number of possibilities, namely, direc tors such as Don Taylor, Alan DeWitt, Henry Eoster, Richard Morris, Jack Tyler, Jus Addis, and Lewis Milestone. But a variety of circumstances prevented any one of them from assuming directorial responsibility. Meanwhile, Henry Eoster had suggested the name of James Brittain, who was engaged in directing television programs for the Metro Goldwyn Mayer Company. After several consultations Brittain was invited to become the director. He was exhaustively briefed on the design of the experiment. 2* The Cast. The next step was the selection of the cast. The director submitted an analysis of the 33 1 characters in the play. The producer and the director were ably assisted in the arduous task by two members of the production team. They were Millie Gusse, casting director of Hill, Hecht, and Lancaster (an organization well known for motion picture activities), and James McHugh, Jr., owner of the Artists Management Corporation (formerly vice-president of the Music Corporation of America)• For the extraordinary nature of the experiment it was agreed by the above to employ these criteria in the selection of i the actors: a. Name actors were to be avoided as the personal popularity of any one of them might unduly affect the audience responses. b. Only highly qualified professional actors active in commercial theatre, television or I motion picture industries were eligible for selection. c. The role had to be within the physical and emo tional range of an actor. d. Only such actors were to be selected who collectively would typify a bulk of profes- | sional actors. e. As the usual methods of discipline were not available to the producer, "the troublesome type” of actors were to be avoided. ' ' ..' '. .... " ..““.... 3 1 1 - In light of these criteria the production team pre pared a tentative list which provided potential names for each part* In the specified order of preference, individ ual actors were approached and briefly told of the experi ment* Those who showed Interest were invited to read at the try-out* Finally, the following actors were selected for the respective roles stated before their names: Jean Stratton ••••••• Patience Cleveland j Charles Stratton ....... David Frankham j Major Pollock........... Ben Wright Mr* Fowler •••••••• Clive L* Halliday Miss Cooper * * ....... Lillian Buyeff Mrs. Railton-Bell • • • • • Irene Tedrow Miss Railton-Bell....... Marion Ross Lady Matheson........... Margaret Brewster Miss Meacham ••••••• Cheerio Meredith Mabel ................... Barbara Girvin Doreen ........... Carol Ann Daniels 3* Art Director. The producer in the meantime had met Kate Drane Lawson socially. At that time she was I i I employed to design "the Bob Hope Show" for television* He j i was familiar with the reputation that Miss Lawson had earned earlier for her work as a stage designer with the New York Theatre Guild. After consulting other members of the production team the producer invited her to partici pate in the experiment as the art director* She agreed to ' ..... “........ 35 become responsible for the sets, costumes, lighting and props. The art director prepared a floor plan of the two scenes which met with the approval of the director and the producer. In these plans she had ingeniously allowed for the dual use of the flat sections from Scene I to Scene II through simple reversal and re-assemblage. As these sections and the adjoining platforms were to be mounted on casters, they could be maneuvered easily from the arrangement of Scene I to the arrangement of Scene II within a short span of time. Next she proceeded to have these sets constructed according to the plans. She drew freely upon the facilities of the Department of Drama, University of Southern California. She prepared plots for costumes, furniture, and props. In the execution of her plots she once again availed of the resources of the Department of Drama. The Art linkletter Playhouse which housed the performances was fully equipped with lighting fixtures, which were deftly used by her in the creation of lighting designs. j The art director worked under the explicit instruc tions that the designs she created for the first night of performance must be held constant for the second night of performance. They were reviewed to prevent accidental emendations that might give advantage to one performance ................... " . '... 36 over the other. | I i f . Other Production and Technical Personnel. The Department of Drama furnished from among the ranks of Its students the production and technical assistants, such as the stage manager, the house manager, property manager, et cetera. They worked under the authority of the respec tive production heads. Some of them also served as under studies and hit players. I Conventional rehearsals and performance. On com pletion of the preliminary work the production moved into the next phase of activity. It was decided to start rehearsals for the conventional performance which was scheduled to be presented on June 6, 1953* Just as in other phases of the production, emphasis was placed on the fact that rehearsals should be planned and executed in conformity with practices representative of the profes sional theatre. The producer was requested to exercise strict vigilance on the conduct of rehearsals in order to avert lapses that might render the conventional perform- j j ances atypical. It was pointed out to the director and i the actors that in the preparation of their work they must j not permit interference of personal bias in favor of either performance, or else the validity of the experiment would be reduced. Every effort was made to attain optimum quality in the first performance so that it could serve ... ; .... 37i * as a reference point for measuring possible changes In the second performance induoed by the stimulus of psycho analytical Interpretation* The producer made arrangements with the proper j authorities of the County of Los Angeles to hold rehearsals; ! In one of the rooms at the West Hollywood Park, | i 67*+ N* Robertson Boulevard, Vest Hollywood* Since all 9 f participants were busy during the day with business obli- j gations, it was necessary to schedule the rehearsals in I the evenings and on week-ends* The producer, therefore, in the beginning called rehearsals from 7 to 10 p*m* on i i luesdays and Thursdays* However, he said that additional j j rehearsals might be held as the pressure of work increased*; i Carol Ann Daniels was commissioned to keep a complete i written log of the activities of the rehearsals* The first rehearsal was held with a formal reading | I of the play from 7 to 20 p*m* on April 25, 1958* In the following three rehearsals the play was blocked In terms of the floor plans prepared by the art director* Normal progress was made by the director with his cast during the first three weeks of rehearsal* The number of rehearsals ! was increased from the week beginning Hay 26; consequently | eight rehearsals were held in the period between the said j day and the day before the conventional performance* The production was transferred to the Art Linkletter Playhouse on June * t , 1958* The sets had in the meantime been furnished by the art director* A technical rehearsal i was held from 8:30 to 10:00 p.m. An additional rehearsal was ordered9 and as the stage was already set with Scene II it was decided to hold the rehearsal in the reverse order* Consequently, Scene II was rehearsed from 10*00 to 10*30 p.m., and Scene I was rehearsed from lOx^+O to midnight. On the following night, June 5j the dress rehearsal was held and repeated. Total rehearsal time was fifty-two ■ t hours spread over seven weeks. On the night of the conventional, or control per- formance— June 6, 1958“"the house was opened at 8 p.m* for the audience by the House Manager, William White* He had already obtained a clearance from the stage manager* The guests were received by members of the production team and also by James H* Butler and Milton Dickens, faculty members of the Division of Communication, University of Southern California. The ushers drawn from among the students of the University of Southern California gave each guest a copy of the play program (for sample see Appendix L) and j escorted him to his seat. Meanwhile, suitable recorded music was being played backstage* At 8:50 p.m. the music * ■ was faded out and the producer stepped on the stage from behind the front curtain* In a brief speech he extended a welcome and explained the general purpose and procedure 39 of the experiment to the guest audience* He requested the audience to follow the normal practice in regard to curtain calls, et cetera, but after that to remain in their seats* He retired from the stage at 8:55 The house lights were dimmed, the stage lights turned on, and the curtain raised. The performance in its entirety lasted for sixty- nine minutes and the final curtain was timed at 10:04* p.m. Application of Stimulus The experimental design now called for the introduc-j tion of the experimental variable, namely, an oral inter- j pretatlon of the play and its characters by a professional psychiatrist. To choose a psychoanalyst who could be described as representative or typical of a majority of all psycho analysts, did not seem feasible. Therefore, the experi menters decided that the choice should be a psychiatrist in active practice who had unquestionable professional qualifications. At the suggestion of James McHugh inquiries had been made about Barnet Sharrin, M.D., a psychoanalyst practicing! in Beverly Hills. Dr. Sharrin was found to be a 1934* graduate of the American University at Beirut, Lebanon, who had passed the examination administered by the National Board the same year. He was licensed to practice in California in 1948. He holds a Fellowship at the ' >0 ! Menninger Foundation and is an active member of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Associa tion, and the Los Angeles Society for Psychoanalysis. He was invited to serve as the specialist, and he accepted. On June 7, the day following the conventional per formance, a conference was held at the psychoanalyst * s office at 12:30 p.m. The participants at the conference were the psychoanalyst, the director, and the producer. A graduate student of the Department of Drama was present to make a tape recording of the conference. The psycho analyst encouraged the director to ask questions at any time. He, then, surveyed the basic principles of the dis cipline of psychoanalysis. After this he proceeded to apply these principles in an interpretation of the play. At 3:00 p.m. he adjourned the session. The tape recording of the conference was two hours and sixteen minutes long. On June 8th the meeting reconvened at 12:10 p.m. at the same place with the same persons in attendance. The psychoanalyst picked up the thread of his remarks from i where he had left off the day before. He systematically ! I ' • psychoanalyzed" the plot and the characters in the play. | He further elucidated some points in answer to questions j from the director and the producer. The psychoanalyst told the director that in the next phase it was entirely up to him— the director— to ........................ " . bl ■ I translate the interpretation into theatre idiom for the j actors* This was done in line with the experimental design which stipulated avoidance of direct exposure of the actors to the psychoanalyst and his analysis of the play# The intention was that the stimulus should be applied only on one level} namely} the director} who was to serve as a link between the psychoanalyst and the actors# The emenda tions suggested by the analysis were to filter through the director so as to reach the actors in the familiar terms ofi stage directions# The conference adjourned at 2:20 p#m# and the tape recording of the proceedings was two hours and two minutes long. Experimental Production On the evening of June 9} the first additional rehearsal following the conventional performance was held at the West Hollywood Park rehearsal room* It was attended by the cast, the director, the producer, James H# Butler, Millie Gusse, James McHugh, and the pro duction assistants# The director endeavored to convey in i a few words what he had learned in conferences with the ! ! psychoanalyst, but the actors raised so many questions that the director requested the psychoanalyst to discuss i the new interpretations directly with the cast; the analyst did so# This procedure was a departure from the original experimental design# The following day the director incorporated the changes suggested by the psychoanalyst and additional rehearsals were held for six and three-fourths hours dis tributed over three days. All these rehearsals were con ducted at the West Hollywood Park rehearsal room. The experimental performance was presented on the evening of June 13, exactly a week after the presentation of the conventional performance. The play ran from 8:39 to 9 P«m. (compared with 8:50 to 10:0*f the week before). Except for minor discrepancies thd procedures followed during the evening were identical to those followed during the conventional performance. First, there was a slight change in Sybil's costume. It had been necessitated in light of the psychoanalyst's interpretation of her charac ter. And in the second place, the producer encouraged by the amount of applause on the night of the conventional performance, erroneously issued instructions to increase the number of curtain calls from two to five. Otherwise, various factors such as sets, furniture, props, lighting were held constant with the performance a week earlier. Selection of the Audience In the matter of audience selection for the two performances several factors were taken into consideration. To begin with, in order to exercise any measure of control it was found necessary that admission to the two ' ' >3 performances should be by Invitation only. It followed as a corollary that the persons who accepted the Invitation should not be charged any admission price. The restriction, however, contained an inherent danger of perverting the responses by giving the audience a feeling of an artificial laboratory set-up. This was sought to be corrected through the extension of invitations to a large assortment of persons that would normally repre sent a homogeneous audience at a professional performance. It was also thought that care should be taken to conceal the mechanics of the experiment with the hope that even if some members of the audience were conscious of the unusual situation, they would lose subh consciousness during the first few minutes of the performance. Next, it was envisaged that due to inadvertence of circumstances some of those who had accepted the invita tion might not be able to attend$ also that some might come to the performance without an invitation. The marginal tolerance of the large samples of the audience was expected to allow for the discrepancies. j As already listed under the "Subjects" (see page 23) the audience consisted of the cross-section audience, and the panel of professional experts. The following account briefly recapitulates the methodology of their selection: Cross-section audience. Two separate but matched groups, one for each performance, of the cros3-section audience were to be selected* With this end in view 2,^50 letters of invitational inquiry were mailed to persons whose names and addresses had been furnished by the mailing list of the Department of Drama— this list reasonably represents a normal theatre clientele found in Los Angeles, California* A postpaid card was enclosed with each letter on which the recipient was requested to indicate his preference of dates of the two performances of the play and i information in regard to sex, occupation, age group, educa tional level, and average theatre-going experience. In spite of the availability of this information from the replies received, it was found impractical to match the two groups in advance on all the variables* The experimenter believed that the two groups were drawn from a homogeneous population, that the samples were large, and that consequently they would probably be rather closely matched by randomization* This belief was later substan tiated by the statistical evidence* Thus 163 members— 82 males and 81 females— were invited for the conventional performance, and 167 members— 8* f males and 83 females— were invited for the experimental performance. Of these 158 attended the control performance and 155 attended the experimental performance. For statis tical convenience, and also in order to match the two ~ “■ " “ ' " V audiences more closely on age and educational level, eight subjects were removed from the control group and five from the experimental group, making a total of 1?0 subjects in each audience. Panel of professional experts. The purpose in planning to have the panel of professional experts as part of the audience was to obtain a comparative appraisal of the two performances by experts in the theatre and the i allied art3. The participants in the experiment were requested to submit names and addresses of the persons who might qualify as experts in these ten classifications of the professions 1* Producers 2. Directors 3. Actors Writers Critics 6. Drama teachers 7. Qualified experts in psychology with drama orientation 8. Casting directors 9* Talent scout3 and actors' agents 10* Observers From among the names submitted, selected persons from each of the above classifications were invited to attend. They were sent letters of invitation enclosing two free tickets of admission for each performance. In spite of prior acceptance only forty-eight attended hoth the performances, and, therefore, this number was used as a sample for statistical analysis. As will be noticed in the next chapter the sample was unevenly dis tributed over the ten classifications. Nevertheless, there appeared to be a sufficient number of persons in each classification to make the sample valid for use in the experiment. Techniques Used to Measure Audience Responses Questionnaire. For purposes of brevity, question naires for cross-section audience, professional panel, actors, and director were referred as questionnaires. Actually, as may be seen from the samples in Appendixes, the mimeographed materials included questionnaires, tests and rating scales. Immediately after the curtain calls at the end of each performance, James H. Butler, Chairman of the Depart- ! i I ment of Drama, appeared on the stage. He explained briefly! the proceedings that were to follow. He told members of ! i the cross-section audience that the ushers would furnish ! questionnaires— one to each member— specifically designed to elicit their reactions to the performance they had just witnessed. He requested them to fill in the questionnaires * * 7 as completely as possible and to return them to the ushers before leaving the house. Similarly he requested the experts on the professional panel to fill in the question naires that had been specially designed for them, and return them to the ushers. The ushers had been instructed in their duties by the House Manager. Each usher was assigned a certain sec tion of the house with the responsibility to provide a blank questionnaire to each member of the audience in that section, and to collect the questionnaire after it was duly filled in. In addition to the cross-section audience question naires and the professional panel questionnaires, there were separately designed questionnaires for the participat ing actors and the director of the play. An account of the various questionnaires is given below. 1. Cross-section audience The ques tionnaire consisted of six mimeographed pages of 8 1/2 x 11” paper which were stapled together. At the top of the questionnaire was a note to the effect that it was not j i necessary for the members of the audience to affix signa- ! I tures. Obviously this was done to encourage candid com- j ments from the subjects by affording them anonymity. The note was followed by a statement similar to Or. Butler's observations, namely, that the member of the audience had just witnessed.a performance of Table Number Seven by Terence Rattigan as a part of an experimental study, and that he should fill in the questionnaire to the best of his ability. The subject was requested to furnish biographical data in the appropriate columns. The first three columns were provided to elicit information on his occupation, sex, and the date on which he had witnessed the perform ance. The next column contained four age groups, and the subject had to indicate his age in the appropriate age group. The last group in this part of the questionnaire asked the subject regarding his educational level. The remainder of the questionnaire was divided into five sections. These sections, specifically consisted of interest and attention inventory, and an emotional rating scale. The questions in Section I were aimed at obtaining Information on the subject's interest responses. He was requested to state first his familiarity with the play, and then in light of such familiarity to appraise this particular performance. These questions were followed by Section II which provided a five-step rating scale for each question, and the subject was asked to indicate his preference on the scale in answer to the particular question. The top three ..........' " " ~ " " ' **9 of the five questions in this section dealt with the fre quency of the subject's exposure to dramatic shows on the stage, television, and motion picture screen, while the last two questions asked for his appraisal of the perform ance • Section III was devoted to questions designed to take the interest inventory of the audience. The first question was included to test the comprehension of the theme of the play by the subject. He was given five alternate themes (such as multiple-choice question), from which he was to indicate one that in his estimation best described the play. Theme "B" was the correct answer, but subsequent to the experiment it was felt that theme "C" was in close approximation to the correct answer. This was substantiated by the statistical evidence. The two themes were thus phrased: B. Tolerance for those whose approach to life differs from the accepted norm. C. A plea for tolerance of those who are adults i but are still immature. In the next question the subject was invited to j i show by encircling the names of as many characters as he fully understood in the performance. The third question was written in two parts. In the first part the subject was given an opportunity to judge proper motivation of the characters collectively in terms of his understanding of human nature. If, however, he felt that some characters were not properly motivated individually, he was to indicate that in the second part of the question by encircling the names of such characters. In answer to the last question of this section the subject was requested to state the order of preference in the matter of self identification with the characters by rating them from one to eleven. There were only two questions in Section IV of the questionnaire. The first question was, "Did you find the play emotionally moving?" A five-step rating scale was provided for the answer. In answer to the second question he was asked to state if he had been moved to tears, and if so at which points of the performance. Section V consisted of twenty-five objective test type questions which specifically Inquired details of events delineated by the play. The first seven questions sought answers in "Yes, no, or don't remember," while questions 8 to 21 (inclusive) asked for particular infor- j i mation, and the last four were multiple choice questions. 2. Professional panel questionnaire. As explained, the same set of professional experts was Invited to attend both the conventional and the experimental performances • It was thought that their professional experience should 51 > ! enable them to adjudge the two performances with a minimum i of bias* The questionnaire to obtain their reactions was, therefore, designed differently from that for the cross- section audience* Here the emphasis was on a comparative appraisal of the two performances* The questionnaire contained seven mimeographed pages of 8 1/2 x 11" paper which were stapled together* The questionnaire started with a note stating that the sub-: ject, at will, could use an alias in place of his name, ! but he must make sure that he used the same alias on both nights of performance* Then there was space provided for the date of performances, subject's name (or alias), and his profession* Following this, there were directions saying that the subject should write his reactions to the performance he had just witnessed in appropriate columns provided in the questionnaire* - Section I dealt with the subject's own responses to the theme and mood of the play* In order to find out if i ! he had properly understood the theme of the play, he was i requested in the first part of Question 1 tell it briefly in his own words* The second part of the question inquired, in effect, whether the theme of the play was conveyed better on the second night of performance in com parison with the first night of performance* This part of .................... """"" . n the question naturally was to be answered only after the subject had seen both the performances. The next question requested the subject to state briefly in his own words the mood of the play; and after the second performance to give his opinion as to whether the mood was established better on the second night than on the first. As it was, Section II offered a rather hazardous task for the subject to answer, for the questions here did not ask for his direct responses to the performance; instead, they inquired regarding his estimation of the emotional impact of the performance on the audience, as also the entertainment value of the performance for the audience. The answers here, just as in the following section, were to be indicated along a continuous five-step rating scale. The remainder of the questionnaire, which comprised Section III, dealt with the subject's evaluation of charao-j terization as delineated in the performance by individual • r i members of the cast. For each role he had to state, by i marking a five-step rating scale, how well the particular j characterization was conceived and how well it was por trayed by the actor. 3. Actor's questionnaire. There were only eleven characters in the play. Two of them, namely, waitresses ” 53 Mable and Dorren, were bit roles, and were, therefore, of minor significance* The remaining nine roles were too few for statistical analysis* Consequently, the questionnaires for the participating actors were designed to record qualitatively their reactions to the nature of the experi ment • The actors were requested to fill in the question naires on the night of June 13 after the second perform ance was over. Ten questionnaires were filled out and returned the same night, while the eleventh was filled out and returned by mail a couple of days later* On the first page of the questionnaire, the subject was required to write his name, the role he played, and a brief account of his theatrical background* Section I included three questions, in answer to which the subject was expected to state his estimation of the responses of the audience to the second performance as compared to the first performance* The first two of the three questions were couched in similar words to those in Section II of the professional panel questionnaire. The answers were to be marked along a continuous five-step rating scale* Nine questions were posed in Section II which the subject had to answer in his own words. The first three questions dealt with the changes, if any, caused by the 51 * stimulus of psychoanalytical interpretation. For instance, the first question asked the subject if any change occurred in his conception of the role between the first and the second performances. He was expected to state in answer to the next question if he had gained deeper insight into the characterization of his role between the two perform- ances. He was then asked if in his opinion the director had gained deeper insight into the meaning of the play. The fourth and fifth questions respectively j inquired from the subject if he thought he had gained or lost anything between performances 1 and 2, The sixth question asked the subject if he had experienced any difficulty in understanding and putting into operation any of the ideas given to the director by the psychoanalyst. The next question was directly derived from this question as it specifically asked about the changes, if any, in his blocking between the two perform ances , The eighth question was worded to obtain the sub ject's opinion on whether a properly trained psychoanalyst working with the director and actors during rehearsals would be of any help. The last question invited him to write additional comments, if any. In the questionnaire there were five mimeographed pages of 8 1/2 x 11" size. Each page was alternated with 55 a blank page of the same size thus providing additional space for lengthy answers. All these pages were stapled together. Directors questionnaire. The questionnaire contained ten pages of 8 1/2 x 11H size which were held together by a staple. It was designed to elicit such information from the director that was reflective of his experience with the experiment. There were nine questions followed by an invitation to write additional comments. The first two questions asked if the psychoanalyst's advice in any way had hindered the work of the director and the actors respectively. In answer to the next question the subject had to state the major changes accomplished between the two per formances, He was then requested for his opinion on whether the psychoanalyst's assistance helped the play as a whole} or, specifically, Just individual actors. The fifth question inquired the extent to which new charac terization given to the subject by the psychoanalyst forced i a change in staging. The sixth question asked the subject if there was any disagreement between his and the psychoanalyst's general interpretation of the play, and, if so, to describe the disagreement. In the next question he was further asked if there was any disagreement between his and the 5 6! psychoanalyst's interpretation of the characters, and, if so, to describe the disagreement. The eighth question was evaluative in nature since it posed the problem as to whether as a professional director his skill could be improved by working with a qualified psychoanalyst prior to directing a play. Or was it too confusing, the last question asked, to have a psychoanalyst working along with him as he directed a play? Tnfra-red rav photographs. Robson had reported the successful use of infra-red ray photographs as a technique for measuring audience attention to a play. Robson secured infra-red ray pictures of audiences during certain play performances, and later submitted the photographs to groups of judges who rated the pictures in terms of degrees of audience interest shown. This same basic procedure was used in the present study. The virtues of this -technique are that photographs can be taken in total or partial darkness without the audience's awareness, and that the | costs of such photography are relatively small. Procedural details for the present study were as follows. The photographer was given a cue sheet that showed ten verbal cues during the progression of the play at which moments the photographs were to be taken during the conven tional and experimental performances. As a further check . ' " “ 57 on his accuracy another photographer was placed In the front row of the audience and commissioned to take photo graphs exactly at the same points of action on stage. The photographs taken by this photographer were subsequently matched for the two performances. The photographer arrived in good time before the audience on each night In order to arrange the equipment. He placed the camera on the down left side of the stage in such a way that a good part of it stayed hidden behind the curtain and thus he could unobtrusively take photographs of the audience. The necessary adjustments of film and camera were made in the interval before shooting each successive new photograph. The limited range of efficacy of the flash equip ment attached to the camera necessitated that an extension be placed In the auditorium, so that the two of them worked synchronously. In all, ten photographs were taken during each of the two performances. The first three photographs on June 6 were inadvertently spoiled. It was, therefore, decided that the first three photographs of the experimen tal performance should be left out, and a set of seven photographs for each performance should be used for the study. The two sets of seven photographs each were mixed - - - 58 together in a random order regardless of the performance, code numbered, and shown for interpretation to judges. The interest shown by the members of the audience in these photographs was taken as the fundamental factor for evalua tion. The judges were, nevertheless, requested to state the mood of the audience in each photograph as one of anger, sadness, fear, merriment, pity, passion, or none. The ballot was mimeographed on a page of 8 1/2 x 11" size, and was meant to be used one for each photograph. A set of fourteen ballots numbered from one to fourteen was given to each judge. In verbal instructions it was requested that each judge should state his name, major field of study, and sex only on the top ballot, even though such space was provided on all fourteen ballots in the set. Also that the judge should indicate his preference on a five-step rating scale. There were thirty-five students drawn from two graduate classes of the Division of Communication to serve as judges. One student happened to attend both the classes. His ballots were, therefore, counted only with one class, and that brought the number of judges down to thirty-four. The judges were told briefly about the experiment. They were then shown a few photographs to establish a frame of reference. Each judge was then * requested to examine one picture at a time and write his ""......... ..“.. ‘.' .""...’ ' " 59 opinion on the ballot that bore a number corresponding to that on the photograph. The ballots were collected after they had been duly filled in. As the next measure, it was decided to procure judgment on the interest of the audience shown in the set of seven photographs taken during the conventional per formance as compared to the set of seven photographs taken during the experimental performance. The photographs were sorted out by the performance, and each set was mounted on a separate cardboard in the successive order in which the photographs were shot. The two sets were put on view of a new group of thirty judges drawn from four different classes of the Division of Communication. Each judge was given a newly designed ballot in which he wrote his preference between the two sets of photographs. Tape recording. The experimental design included a third measuring technique, that is, preparation of a record of auditory responses of the audience for quantita- i ! tive analysis. The danger of audience distraction in ] ! preparation of such a recording was negligible. Also it I Involved only small expense and was well within the means of the allocated budget. At the same time, as demonstrated by Robson's study, it had the potential of providing valuable information of the audible responses of the __________ . . _ ___________ i 60 5 audience during the two performances. A compact and reasonably efficient recording machine of the trade name "Wollensak ^KJO," along with a special sensitive non-diractional microphone was borrowed by arrangement with the Department of Speech. A graduate student with sufficient experience was given the responsi bility of installing and operating the equipment. Two reels, one 1200' and the other 300* long, 1/2” wide, of “Scotch” brand magnetic tape were used for recording the performances. Well ahead of the arrival of audience for each per formance the operator installed the equipment on a raised platform, ordinarily used for mounting a television cameraj in the rear of the auditorium. He placed the microphone at a vantage point so that it could pick up sounds of the audience with maximum efficiency, as well as those of the performing actors and any special effects. The controls of the equipment were set at points which were maintained throughout both the performances. This was absolutely necessary as both the volume and duration of laughter and j j applause were later to be measured for comparison of the ^John L. Robson, "An Experimental Study of Fluctua tions among Successive Play Performances" (unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, August, 1951), p. 97 • ' " ' 61; I i two performances. The operator replaced 1200' recorded reel with a 300' reel during the scene change. For making the subsequent analytical study, the playback equipment— same "WcEensak ^fOO"— was set up in a medium sized room of good acoustical quality. The controls of the equipment were set at points which insured good reproduction quality in the room, and were maintained throughout at the same points until all the necessary data had been obtained. A meter was used to measure the com- i parative value of laughter and applause, and a stop watch was used to measure the duration of laughter and applause, In the first play-through careful note was made of the volume of each laugh and applause as measured with the meter. Some sections of the recording were played over to cross-check the data. A similar procedure was adopted to measure the duration of each laugh and applause. Thus the volume and duration of each laugh as well as each applause was obtained. The duration of each perfoxmance was also measured from the recordings and checked with the log book of the stage staff. CHAPTER IH PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OP THE DATA This study, as previously stated, undertook to dis cover differences, if any, between two performances of the same play with the same producer, same director, same actors, same theatre, same setting, and same costumes* The responses of two matched audiences were measured by a variety of techniques* The first performance was produced and directed in accordance with standard practices of the professional theatre* The second performance was given one week later after the producer, director, and actors had heard a "psychoanalysis" of the play and its characters by a professional psychiatrist* Two principal statistical procedures were used in processing the data* They wereX2 (chi square) and the t test for significance of differences*1 The statistical procedures were used to test null hypotheses. A null hypothesis states that the differences between two sets of measures could have occurred by chance 62 * ' 631 I alone. If the null hypothesis is sustained, it means that j the experimenter is not justified in attributing observed differences to other than chance factors. But if the null hypothesis is rejected, then the experimenter is free to suggest other possible explanations of the observed differ- 2 ences. The usual procedure of evaluation of sampling statistics was followed for the interpretation of the t test and the chi square test. A small size of the t or the chi square meant that chance variation alone could explain the difference between the two samples. But if the size of the t or the chi square was large, then the difference was considered as significant and attributed to some factor other than chance. Exact meanings of t and chi square were determined by the U3e of standard statistical tables. If the tables showed that the difference could have occurred by chance less than one time in one hundred, it was considered very significant (V.S.); and if the differ ence could have occurred by chance less than five times in i one hundred, it was considered significant (S). The two j standards were designated as 1 per cent and 5 per cent j i levels of confidence. When the probability factor accounted for more than 5 per cent but less than 10 per cent ,r „ 2J• G* Peatman. Descriptive and Sampling Statistics (New York: Harper, 19^7), p. 384-. It Indicated a trend (Ir). A difference with probability | value in excess of 10 per cent was considered as not sig nificant (N.S.). I. THE CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCES ffig g ttaS lttfitt The letters of Invitational Inquiry elicited infor mation from the prospective members of the cross-section | audience In regard to sex, age group, educational level, and theatre-going experience* It was, however, found unwieldy to match in advance the two independent groups, one for each performance, by all these variables* Conse quently, sex was the only variable employed for advance selection of the two groups* That is to say, the number of men and women invited for the conventional performance was the same as that for the experimental performance* In order to determine comparability of the sample of 150 members for each performance, the data obtained from the cross-section audience questionnaire were statistically! analyzed* Chi square was applied separately to the compos ition of the audience by sex, age group, and educational level to find if there were any significant differences* The results have been presented in Tables I, II, and HI* 1 The small chi square and large probability value in each case pointed to the fact that the two audiences were TABLE I CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITION: SEX , Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Men Women No answer Total 62 83 5 67 76 7 150 150 N'S, - ) TABLE II [ v O I 1 1 i i i CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITIONS AGE GROUP Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Below thirty years old 38 32 Between thirty and forty-five years old 65 71 Above forty-five years old b2 ¥f No answer * Total 150 150 N.S. 1 67, TABLE III CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITIONS EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ; i Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference High school and below 27 23 Above high school 118 122 No answer 5 5 Total 150 150 N.S* i i ” j ~ 7 . . ~ 6 a closely similar with respect to sex, age group, and educa tional level. Chi square tests were also applied to the two audiences in the matter of variables of theatre-going experience, movie-going experience, and viewing habits of television drama. The data for these characteristics were procured in answer to Questions 1, 2, and 3, Section II. The frequencies in certain polar steps of the rating scale for the three variables were of small size. Also, it was thought that perhaps the discriminatory division of the categories was overly fine, and that a three-step scale might have served the purpose as well. The frequencies of steps 1 and 2, and steps and 5 were respectively com bined. The data for each variable were separately sub jected to the chi square test, and the results are given in Tables IV, V, and VI. Tables IV and V Indicate that the differences for the variables of theatre-going experience and movie-going experience between the two audiences were not significant. On these two scores the audiences were considered well matched. In Table VI, dealing with the viewing habits for television drama a trend was observed to favor the audi ence of the conventional performance. More specifically, the first group of audience saw more television drama, 69! j i i TABLE 17 CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITION: THEATRE-GOING EXPERIENCE Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Once a month and more 52 66 Two to four times a year 71 67 Once a year and less 23 16 No answer i f 1 Total 150 150 N.S. ' t TABLE V CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITION: MOVIE-GOING EXPERIENCE Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Once a month and more 90 82 Two to four times a year > * 0 k9 Once a year and less 18 19 No answer 2 - Total 150 150 N.S. i i i i i i * > 3 H TABLE VI CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITION: VIEWING HABITS FOR T.V. DRAMA Attribute * * i » Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Two hours a week and more b7 29 Four hours a week b2 W • Less than four hours a week 58 70 No answer 3 3 Total 150 150 Tr. i ' ' ....... ...... 721 and may, therefore, have gained through experience a more mature appreciation of the subtleties of dramatic struc ture. Next, the two groups of audiences were matched on the familiarity with Table Number Seven. The first index consisted of the data on the number of persons in each audience who had seen a performance of the play prior to their participation in the experiment. The data in Table VII showed that there was no significant difference on this account between the two audiences who respectively attended the conventional and the experimental performances. In Question 3 of this section inquiry was made as to how many persons in each audience had read this play. The data in Table VIII showed that there was no significant difference for this variable between the two audiences. Since the two cross-section audiences showed only insignificant differences on sex, age group, educational level, exposure to drama presentation in the three major entertainment media, and familiarity with Table Number Seven the two groups appeared to have been sufficiently i ! matched to justify experimentation. | ! i Balloting on Audience. Responsiveness The controversy on the true function of drama is almost as old as is the art of drama itself. Some have contended that the function of drama is didactic; others, 73 TABLE VII CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITION: ALREADY SEEN THE PLAY Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Had seen the play 130 12? Had not seen the play 18 22 No answer 2 3 Total 150 150 N.S. 7* TABLE VXXI CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE COMPOSITIONS READ THE PLAY Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Read the play 129 127 Not read the play 16 20 No answer 5 3 Total 150 150 N.S. ..." .... '... 75| i that drama finds Its fulfillment in persuasion of audi- ! ences; that the function of drama is primarily to enter* tain. Almost everyone would probably agree, however, that a drama must get and hold the attention and interest of the audiences. Therefore, the questions that directly or indirectly sought information on responses of the audiences to the interest value of the performances could well be considered of the most vital importance in the entire questionnaire. m Question Section I, the audiences were asked if they found the respective performances entertaining. According to the data given in Table IX an Identical number of persons voted each of the two performances as entertain ing. And yet in answer to Question Section II, the audience responses for the performances were found to be apparently different. A request was made in this question to each audience to indicate the "interest value” of the respective performance. i The hypothesis tested here was that the difference in the interest value between the conventional and the experimental performance could be due to chance alone. The audiences indicated their preferences on a five- step rating scale. The frequencies in steps k and 5 > were small, and were combined for statistical purposes. 76 i TABLE EC CROSS-SECT ION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: ENTERTAINMENT VALUE Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance . Difference Entertaining 1*K> 1U0 Not entertain ing 7 7 No ansver 3 3 Total 150 150 N.S. T ' ' " " ■ 77 The large chi square of 8.75 and small probability value of .021 shown in Table X rendered the hypothesis untenable. In other words, there was a significant differ ence in the interest value in favor of the experimental performance over the conventional performance. It was observed from Table X that the largest shifts occurred in the categories of "average" and "somewhat above average." The differences were given the t-test, the results of which are shown in Table XI. The probability values of .01 and .02 established that the shifts in both categories were significant. Since the shift in the "aver age" category favored the conventional performance, and the shift in "somewhat above average" category favored the experimental performance, the two shifts were interpreted to mean that there was a favorable shift from "average" for the conventional performance to "somewhat above aver age" for the experimental performance. The discrepancy between the answers to Question Section I, and Question *f, Section II, was explained in the following way. Two audiences were asked to register their gross responses in answer to Question *f, Section I, where the choice afforded to them for having found the respective performance entertaining was "Yes" or "No." Differences were insignificant. But when the same two audiences were requested to make a more discriminatory 78 TABLE X CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSES INTEREST VALUE Attribute i Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Chi square Probability Difference Far above average 29 33 ■ ( Somewhat above • , average 57 79 About average **9 31 Below average 10 6 No answer 5 1 Total 150 150 8.75 •021 3 i I 79! i t TABLE XI CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: INTEREST VALUE SIGNIFICANCE OF SHIFT IN CATEGORIES Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance ■p Probability Difference Total Sample 150 150 Average **9 31 2.55 .013 V.S. Somewhat above average 57 79 2.1*1 .02**! S i ! i I “ “ ' " " * 80 response in answer to Question b, Section XI, on a five- step rating scale, they balloted differently* The latter data showed a significant difference in favor of the experi-j mental performance over the conventional performance* Also the principal shift was from '•average” to "somewhat above average*” The next question in Section II requested the sub jects to indicate their estimation of "the general over-all acting” of the respective plays* Differences between the ! two audiences were statistically insignificant in terms of average scores* When the frequencies of steps b and 5 were combined (because they were small in size) the data in Table XII showed that there was a shift in the category of "somewhat above average” in favor of the second per formance* Also the chi square test applied to frequencies in the remaining categories showed a trend consistent with the findings favoring the experimental performance* The data shown in Table XIII were obtained in answer to Question I, Section III* This was a multiple- choice question which provided an opportunity to the audi ences to select one answer that in their estimation best reflected the theme of the play* The rationale behind the question was that a measure of efficient portrayal in each performance might be commensurate with the intelligibility of the theme* However, the differences between the 8lj TABLE XII CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE ACTING Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Far above average 36 bz Somewhat above average 66 81 Average **0 23 Belov average b 3 No answer b 1 Total 150 150 Tr . 82! TABLE XIII CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: INTELLIGIBILITY OF THE THEME Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Choice "B« 98 89 Choice "C" 35 Others 12 12 No answer 5 2 Total 150 150 N.S* ------- : ."----- 83 audiences were insignificant. Hindsight suggested the possibility that the ques tion on theme of play was poorly worded. Choice nB, t was supposed to be the correct answer. Analysis of audience ballots indicated that perhaps the wording of "C" was too similar to that of "B,” and that the choices "A,” , , D,W and "E" may have been too obviously false. Further research upon this technique of audience measurement j seemed indicated. m Question 2 of this section the audiences were requested to indicate as many characters as they fully understood in the respective performances. The hypothesis set up here was that the variance in the number of charac ters fully understood in the conventional as compared with the experimental performance was due to chance. Question 3 v&s intended to seek almost the obverse information. The respective audiences had to mark the characters that were not properly motivated in the per formances. The hypothesis stated that the frequency difference between the two performances in respect to the characters that were not properly motivated could be attributed to chance explanation. The t-test of differences between percentages was applied to the data obtained in answer to these two ques tions. it was recognized that each subject had the : .............. " ' “ " " ' 8b potential of casting ballots for any number of characters j up to a maximum of nine--the two minor roles were not counted* In other words, the sample of 150 for each per formance had a maximum potential of casting 1350 ballots* Prom the results given in Tables XIV and XV, it was appar ent that the t value for both questions was too small to make the difference significant at 5 per cent level of confidence* The two hypotheses were, therefore, accepted* The hypothesis of the third question was put to a further test* It was reasoned that had each subject exer cised nearly maximum available potential, it would have taken only a relatively small number of subjects to cast the total number of ballots* It might, therefore, be of value to compare the number of subjects who thought all the characters were properly motivated— reversely, those who thought one or more characters^ were not properly motivated— in the conventional performance and the experimental per formance* The new percentages were given the t-test on the basis of already stated hypothesis* The results given in ■ t Table XVI showed that the difference between the two per- ! i formances was almost and yet not quite significant at 5 per cent level of confidence* The hypothesis was, therefore, confirmed* Nevertheless, the trend observed here was con sistent with other shifts in favor of the experimental performance* 8 5 i TABLE XIV ! CROSS-SECT ION AUDIEN COMPREHENSION OF C CE RESPONSE; BARACTERS Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Total Potential Choiees 150x9 * 1350 150x9 « 1350 Number of Charac ters fully com prehended 831 82* f N.S* ( 86 TABLE XV CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: CHARACTERS PROPERLY MOTIVATED Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Total Potential Choices 150x9 =1350 150x9 = 1350 Number of charac ters not properly motivated 105 75 N,S. 87 TABLE XVI CROSS-SECT ION AUDIENCE RESPONSE} SUBJECT BALLOTING ON PROPER CHARACTER MOTIVATION Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Total sample 150 150 Subject Ballots on Characters not properly moti vated 88 10*f Tr. Section IV of the questionnaire dealt with the emo tional effect of the performances* According to the hypothesis for the first question any difference in the emotional impact of the conventional and experimental per formances could he explained as chance* The preferences were stated on a five-step rating scale* Due to small frequencies in steps 1 and 5} the former was combined with step 2, and the latter with step b, The difference between the two performances for this characteristic as shown in Table XVII was found to be not significant* The lack of significant difference in the emotional impact could be explained in more than one way. One way was that the play was too short for valid comparisons of this type of variable* The duration of the play was approximately seventy minutes; in comparison with a full- length play of about two hours Table Humber Seven would provide much less time and opportunity to arouse emotional responses* Another possible interpretation was that the play was Characterized by the usual British understatement. The plot situation wa3 somewhat alien to the American audiences, who for that reason might not be as emotionally sympathetic as to a situation more kindred. The data for the next question are included in Table XVIII* The audiences were asked if at any point 89 TABLE XVII CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: EMOTIONAL IMPACT Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Above average 61 71 Average 57 56 Belov average 27 21 No answer 5 2 Total 150 150 £ . < N.S. 90 TABLE XVIII CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSE: MOVED TO TEARS Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Moved to tears 17 Not moved to tears 128 126 No answer 7 7 , Total 150 150 N.S. ■ ' “ " " " “ ' 91 | during the performance they had been moved to tears* It ; would be apparent that the weaknesses of the preceding question were equally applicable to this question* In addition, many members of the audience from sheer embar rassment might not admit that they were moved to tears* The t-test was used, and the difference between the two performances was not significant* j The last section of the questionnaire comprised | twenty-five factual questions about the content of the play, the stage set, et cetera* This test was thought to be a new type of measurement for audience attention* The rationale was that an audience's ability to remember cer tain details about a play might provide an index as to how attentive the audience was* Questions were formulated with that rationale as the criterion* Table XIX shows, however, that differences between the audiences were not significant* i Table XIX also indicates an astonishingly large percentage of correct answers* An obvious interpretation was that the questions were too easy; that the experimen ters underestimated the audience's ability* For example, the experimenters thought that one difficult item was a question on whether there was a television set in the hotel (the setting of the play)* No television was in sight on stage and there was just one incidental mention 92| TABLE XXX CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE RESPONSES TEST ON FACTS ABOUT THE PLAY Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Correct answers 2887 2932 Wrong answers 707 677 Do not remember and no answers 156 Ihl Total 3750 3750 N«S« ■ """ “ ' " " *93 of It in the entire dialogue* Nevertheless,77*6 per cent of the combined audiences answered the question correctly* Hindsight suggested (1) that the questions should have been much more difficult, and (2) that the questions should have been screened by a "dry run" or pilot experiment with a special audience at a dress rehearsal* Further experimen tation with the technique seemed indicated* Summarizing the results of the ballots of the two matched cross-section audiences, significant differences atj the *013, *021, and *02*t levels of confidence were found for the rating scale data on interest value of the play; trends were found on over-all evaluation of acting and on character motivation; all of the foregoing differences were in favor of the experimental performance over the control* Insignificant differences were found for entertainment value, intelligibility of theme, comprehension of charac ters, motivation of characters, emotional impact, and reten tion of facts about the play; the data suggested that at least two of these measurement techniques involved errors ! in the construction of the tests, and this experiment | indicated how such errors might be avoided in the future* II* PANEL OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS Composition I Five professional experts from each of the ten I selected vocations and skills of the theatre and allied r ' ' 9 ¥ I arts were invited with the stipulation that they would attend both the performances. But as it turned out each performance was attended by experts in excess of the number invited. Only forty-eight attended both the perfoimances, but these were unevenly distributed over the ten classifi cations. None of the guests in the "casting director" classification responded to the invitation. From those j invited in the "critics" classification only one person j ! attended both the performances. Table XX shows that the other classifications were better represented. j j B a i t i n g j The panel of professional experts was invited to participate as a part of the audience in order to evaluate the performances comparatively. Their professional experi ence was thought to qualify them to witness and to rate both performances with a minimum of prejudice. Question naires to the panel were answered after the experts had witnessed both performances of the play* The first question in Section I of the question- j i naire was with regard to the theme of the play. The j experts were invited to state quantitatively whether the theme came through more clearly in the first or the second performance, or if it came through about equally well in both performances* The experts had been asked to write the theme in TABLE XX PROFESSIONAL PANEL COMPOSITIONS PROFESSION Profession Number of Participants Producers ....................... 3 Directors.................... 5 Actors ..•••••••••••• 12 Writers •« ........ • •••... if Critics ......................... 1 Drama teachers. .... .......... 5 Qualified experts in psychology • • 5 Casting directors, talent scouts and actors1 agents. ......... 2 Observers ..... ............. 11 Total if8 ......... — ..-... . ..■ — ...... 96 j their own words before they tackled the quantitative part | of the question* The expectation was that by the time they got around to answering the quantitative part of the ques tion they had already deliberated upon and refined their I understanding of the two performances* Table XXX shows that the ratings by the panel on theme were overwhelmingly in favor of the second perform- I i ance— the t-ratio was ^*32 which was significant well j beyond the *01 level of confidence* i The experts were requested to state in their own words the mood of the play, and then to compare quantita tively its portrayal in the two performances* Table XXII shows that the t was 3*83 and the proba bility value less than 1 per cent* This very significant difference was in the direction of the experimental per formance* Section II contained two questions* 2h the first question request was made to the experts to indicate what they thought was the emotional effect of each performance t on the respective audiences* The frequencies of steps 1 and 2 were combined as they were small in size* For the same reason frequencies for steps b and 5 were combined* j i In the latter case the total number still remained below ten* The compensatory statistical correction did not have to be applied as the results shown in Table XXIII placed H3 O et P U • a H ( D £ c l ef H* O' ff «f © O ' Conventional Performance B Experimental Performance H 00 About the Same for Two Performances u> 1 0 w OH i n Probability Difference PROFESSIONAL PANEL RESPONSE* PORTRAYAL O F THE THEME TABLE XXI vo| >3| Total sample M3 Attribute >3 Conventional Performance • f i 3 Experimental Performance ¥ About the same for both Performances T 1 ■ ' “ " 1 3.83 t Below •01 Probability < • CO • Difference PROFESSIONAL PANEL RESPONSE: PORTRAYAL O F MOOD t a H M NO 00 99 TABLE XXIII PROFESSIONAL PANEL RESPONSE: EMOTIONAL EFFECT Attribute Conventional Perfoimance Experimental Performance Difference Above average Zb 25 t Average 19 18 Belov average b b No answer 1 1 Total bQ bS N.S. 1 _ _ „ _ _ 100 . the difference between the two performances on a "not sig nificant" level. Next) the experts were asked to evaluate the inter est value of the two performances for the members of the audience. Again, frequencies of steps 1 and 2 and steps b and 5 were combined because of small size. The compensa tory correction did not have to be applied as the data con tained in Table XXIV revealed no significant difference between the two performances. Each of the eleven questions in Section III requested the experts to appraise how well the respective characterization had been conceived by the actor who played the role; and secondly, how well the actor had por trayed the characterization. However, several of the experts complained that within the framework of the study they had no means at their disposal to evaluate the first part of the question, namely, how well was the characteri zation conceived by the actor. Consequently, only the second part of the question was used for statistical com putations. Also, answers to the last two questions were not used since they concerned only minor characters. That brought the number of questions in this section down to nine. The experts indicated their response to each ques tion on a five-step rating scale. Due to small size, 101 i j I i TABLE XXIV PROFESSIONAL PANEL RESPONSE: ENTERTAINMENT VALUE Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Above average 30 32 Average lb 8 Belov average b 5 No ansver - 3 Total bS bQ N.S* ' " 102| frequencies of steps 1 and 2 were combined; and likewise steps b and In some cases the total number of frequen cies even in two combined steps remained below 10, but compensatory correction did not have to be made as the results showed no significant shifts* For details, see Table XXV* In summary, the judgments by the panel of experts j > showed very significant differences favoring the experimen-j tal performance on the scales measuring portrayal of theme j and of mood* The panel judgments showed insignificant differences regarding estimated emotional and interest values to the audiences, and regarding the individual actor1s portrayal of Character. Ill* BALLOTING BY THE DIRECTOR AND THE ACTORS As pointed out in the last chapter a quantitative analysis of reactions by nine actors and one director was considered to be infeasible* Therefore, the actors' and director's questionnaires were analyzed only by Inspection and description* As was expected, the comments by the director and j the actors ranged widely and varied greatly* It seemed justified, however, to report three majority trendss (1) Most of them stated that the psychoanalytic interpre tation of the play should have been given prior to the TABLE XXV PROFESSIONAL PANEL RESPONSES; PORTRAYAL OF CHARACTERIZATION Character Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Above Average Average Below Average Above Average Average Below Average Jean Stratton 9 22 17 13 18 12 N*S« 'Charles Stratton 22 22 3 23 19 2 N*So Major Pollock t 37 9 2 37 5 1 N.S. i iMr. Fowler i 17 22 8 19 22 2 N.S. Miss Cooper 29 16 3 28 12 3 N.S. i Mrs* Railton-Bell 28 lb 6 2*f 15 5 N.S* Miss Rallton-Bell b2 b 1 ho 2 1 N.S, Lady Matheson 25 18 b 2b 16 b N.S. Miss Meacham 35 7 b 36 5 2 N.S* ' ' 10^! first performance, not withheld until the last few hours of rehearsal prior to the second performance. (2) Almost all of them stated that the psychoanalyst should have given his interpretation to the director only9 allowing the director to transmit the interpretation to individual actors in theatre idiom* Both the questionnaires and the tape recording of the rehearsal seemed to show marked hos tility by some of the actors toward the psychiatrist*s direct presentation to them* (3) A majority of the actors thought that the second performance had been less effective with the audience than had the first* One reasonable interpretation of the above reactions from the director and from the cast9 was that the psycho analysis of a play, by its very nature9 must result in hostile reactions from participants! and that such hostile reactions may be good for the play. The experimenter was inclined 9 however9 to favor a second interpretation* In planning the experimental design for this study9 the experimenter had to proceed almost without precedents* Be had no way of knowing9 for instance* whether to confine the psychiatrist's work to the director or to extend it to the whole cast. The latter choice was made9 and the experimenter later decided that it was an inferior choice. This, and other probable weaknesses in the experimental design9 led the investigator to the belief that this new psychoanalytic approach had been tested under adverse conditions* In a sense the experimenter felt that the dice had inadvertently been "loaded" in favor of the control performance and against the experimental one* IV. INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPHS Infra-red ray photographs of the audiences were taken during the two performances and were evaluated by judges drawn from the graduate classes of the Division of Communication of the University of Southern California* A cue sheet was prepared for the guidance of the photographer who was instructed to take photographs at the exact indi cated points during the progression of the play on each of the two nights of performance. Thus for every photograph taken at a certain predetermined moment during the conven tional performance, there was a corresponding photograph taken at exactly the same moment during the experimental performance* In all, two sets of seven pictures were taken for the respective perfoimances* The photographs were submitted for appraisal to ; i judges who had neither seen the performances, nor other- ! wise participated in the experiment* Also, to increase j I maturity of judgment, judges were drawn only from the graduate classes of the division. flaUv.ttnK . . f o r . . , Etfra-Rgd, Ray..?i)p.tographg To begin with, the fourteen photographs for the two ' ' ~ 106; performances were mixed at random and assigned code numbers which are given in Table XXVI. A total of thirty-four judges drawn from two graduate classes gave their opinions of the Interest-value reflected by the facial expressions and body positions of the audience in each photograph. Each response of each judge was recorded on a five- step rating scale. In retrospect it was thought that the j five-step rating scale might have requested too fine a sense of discrimination* Consequently} the instrument was translated into a three-step rating scale by combining the frequencies of steps 1 and 2, and steps b and 5} respec tively. Table XXVII shows the results of a chi square com parison of frequencies in the above categories— there was a significant difference at about the *0^ or *05 level of confidence in favor of the experimental performance* The same data were submitted to a t-test of differences between percentages} and Table XXVUI shows that the results sub stantiated the previous findings. i As a further test of the hypothesis it was decided to compare directly the ratings for corresponding pairs of photographs* The ballot for each photograph of the conven tional performance was compared with the ballot for the corresponding photograph of the experimental performance. The percentages thus obtained were put to the t-test* The TABLE XXVI INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPHS: ASSIGNED CODE NUMBERS Sequence in Which Photographs Were Taken Assigned Code Numbers Conventional Performance Experimental Performance 1 7 13 2 lb 10 3 l 6 b 5 2 5 11 b 6 3 9 7 12 8 108! i i TABLE XXVII INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPHS* INTEREST EVALUATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS I Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Chi Square >> • p S 3 3 1 *4 c u Difference Far above average m- 27 Somewhat above average 86 107 Average 109 78 Below average 29 26 Total 238 238 11.70 Below V.S. •01 109 TABLE XXVIII INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPHS: SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE IN INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES Attribute i Conventional Performance Experimental Performance + > * •H pH j o 1 h 0 « Difference Far above average 1*+ 27 2 .OW S Somewhat above average 86 107 2 •0»+8 S Average 109 78 2.9 •OMf S ~ ~ " ' " “ no: category of "equal Interest" was considered neutral* The low probability value shown In Table XXIX made the hypothe sis unacceptable. The very significant shift in favor of the experimental performance was attributed to the experi mental independent variable. Next) it was thought that the set of seven photo graphs for the conventional performance should be cumula tively evaluated in comparison with the set of seven photographs for the experimental performance. The two sets of photographs were separately mounted on boards in sequen tial order, and submitted for appraisal to a new group of thirty judges. These judges were drawn from four graduate classes of the Division of Communication. They were requested to indicate one of the three given choices: first, that the interest shown in Set I was superior to the interest shown in Set II; second, that the interest shown in Set II was superior to the interest shown in Set I; and third, that there was about the same measure of interest in Sets I and II. t The new percentages were put to the t-test and Table XXX shows the results. The low probability value I rendered the null hypothesis untenable. The very signifi cant difference at less than 1 per cent level of confidence between the two performances was attributed primarily to the independent variable. o H Conventional Performance Superior NO H Experimental Performance Superior 00 About the ON Same to • 00 - n3 t t r r O H HO * Probability v.s. Difference l - l Conventional o Performance Superior Experimental £ Performance Superior About the O ' Same u > • t U i t x t • < D OH Probability HO < < • Difference C O • INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPHS: INTEREST EVALUATION FROM EACH SET FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERFORMANCE TABLE XXX i j ! | i H H W ii3| Further analysis of the infra-red ray photograph ballots showed that the very significant shift in audience interest in favor of the experimental performance, was from the category of "average” to the categories of "above average," and "far above average," Also, a comparison of the corresponding pairs of photographs taken during the two performances showed that a "very significantly" larger number of judges voted for the superior audience interest value during the experimen- j tal performance than the conventional performance, | f And for a cumulative evaluation of the two sets of photographs taken during the respective performances, there were "very significantly" more ballots cast in favor of the experimental performance in comparison with the conven tional performance. Furthermore, in light of Robson's study even though the photographs mirror the audience response only at cer tain predetermined points, they would in general be repre sentative of the over-all audience responses, throughout the performance of the play, which normally would fluctuate j r from performance to performance only within the realm of j I 3 chance. In this study the fluctuations were found to be 3John L. Robson, "An Experimental Study of Fluctua tion among Successive Play Performances" (unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, IosAngeles, California, August, 1951), p. 95. significantly larger than the expectancy value, and, there fore, could have been caused by the independent variable* V. AUDITORY RESPONSIVENESS ON THE TAPE RECORDING In order to examine the differences in auditory audience responses both the performances vere recorded in entirety on magnetic tapes. The recordings Included the audience noise signals, the actors' noise signals, and | I special effect noise signals. Of these signals only variables of audience laughs and audience applauses vere used for comparison betveen the tvo performances. Three indices each vere used for laughs and applauses. They vere the number of laughs, the average volume of laughs, and the average duration of laughs in each performance. Simi larly, they vere the number of applauses, the average volume of applauses, and the average duration of applauses; The Indices naturally vere prepared by analysis of the tapes as they vere played back. Table XXXI gives the data on the number, average volume, and average duration of laughs. Insignificant differences favored the conventional performance. Table XXXII presents the data on the number, aver age volume, and average duration of the applauses. Differ ences vere not significant. The validity of auditory impressions as an index of 115 TABLE XXXI TAPE RECORDING: INTEREST EVALUATION FROM LAUGHS Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Number of audience laughs ko 37 N.S. Average duration of eadh audience laugh 2*35 secs. 2.66 secs. N.S. Average volume of each audience laugh 6.72 8.1*0 N.S. 116: TABLE XXXII • TAPE RECORDING: INTEREST EVALUATION PROM APPLAUSES Attribute Conventional Performance Experimental Performance Difference Number of audience applauses 5 5 N.S. Average duration of each audience applauses 19.90 secs* 19*80 secs* N*S. Average volume of each audience applauses 18*90 18.70 N.S* - 117 audience responses has often been questioned on the ground that these can be artificially controlled. For persons planted in the audience might start a laugh or applause at will and chances are that the audience will follow the * lead. Similarly) these responses could be evoked by arbitrarily inserting phrases of sentimental connotation. Furthermore, the volume of laughs and applauses depended on the point at which the microphone was located. With the best of intentions an alteration of its placement in relation to persons with low threshold of excitation | would affect the volume index from one performance to the other. Such a lack of consistency was, therefore, likely to distort the results and render the technique unreliable. CHAPTER XV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS I* SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM AND PROCEDURES The problem of this study was: what differences would be found In audience responses to the performances • { of the same play acted by the same cast, directed by the same director, if the first performance were rehearsed and presented under conditions typical of the professional theatre, while the second performance were rehearsed and presented after a professional psychoanalyst had given an Interpretation of the play* The Interpretation was to be j provided to the director as an aid In the Intellection— as distinct from creative direction— of the play* The research method for the study was experimental* It was based on.the assumption that all variables save one were held constant for rehearsals and presentation of both • ! the conventional and the experimental performances, so that the concomitant variations affected by the independ ent variable could be measured with a given degree of confidence. The design of the experiment provided for the _ ............................. * ...118 ......... _ ...... _ ................ 119 production of a selected play Illustrative of many plays In the field, in light of this, Table Number Seven from Terence Battlgan's Separate Tables was selected for its inherent psychological overtones. Two performances of the play were given before two audiences by the same actors, and directed by the same director. For the first of the two performances, Oliver McGowan, producer of the play, followed the standard pro cedure of the theatre, and selected a director with profes sional experience. Subsequently, in consultation with the director he selected a professional cast. He further com missioned an experienced art director to design and execute sets, costumes, lighting, et cetera. The play was rehearsed for seven weeks, and a performance was given on June 6, 195&, at the Art Linkletter Theatre, Hollywood, under conditions typical of the professional theatre. Following this performance Or. Barnet Sharrin, a practicing psychoanalyst, explained orally his interpreta tion of the play to the director and these remarks were recorded in entirety on a magnetic tape. The changes j suggested by the psychoanalytic interpretation were incor porated by the director during additional rehearsals for six and three-quarter hours distributed over three days. Other factors, such as the design of the sets, costumes, and lighting were held constant. A second performance of ! 120 i ! the play was presented at the same theatre on June 13, 1958. The subjects for the experiment comprised members of a cross-section audience, and the experts on the pro fessional panel. The composition of the audiences was controlled since admission was by invitation only. The names and addresses of the subjects invited as members of the cross-section audience were drawn from the regular mailing list of the Department of Drama, University of Southern California. They were, however, invited in two independent groups, one for each performance, matched on several variables suCh as sex, age, theatre-going experi ence, and audience-size. From an attendance of 158 on the first night, and 155 on the second night of performance, a sample of 150 for each performance was used for statistical analysis. The experts on the professional panel were selected from ten skills and crafts of the theatre, and only those were invited to participate who consented to attend both the performances. A total of forty-eight attended both times, and provided data for statistical analysis. The responses of the audiences on the two nights of performance were variously recorded. Dnmediately after i each performance both the members of the cross-section audience and the experts on the professional panel were “ " 121; asked to fill In respective questionnaires. The set of questionnaires for the cross-section audience sought to elicit information on the measure of interest and atten tion. The set of questionnaires for the experts on the professional panel sought similar information, hut in a comparative frame of reference of the two performances. The comments made by the actors and the director were also duly recognized, though not quantitatively. The audience responses were also recorded on a series of infra-red pictures taken at predetermined inter vals during each performance. These pictures were subse quently evaluated by groups of judges in terms of visual signs of interest and attention. Similarly, both performances in entirety, that is to say, the actors' sounds, sound effects, and sounds of the audience were recorded on tape. These were later analyzed for audible signs of interest and attention. XI. CONCLUSIONS ! i In the matter of interest value of the play the cross-section audience ballots indicated a significant shift at 2.1 per cent level of confidence in favor of the j experimental performance over the conventional performance. The significant shift was from "average" for the conven tional performance to "somewhat above average" for the 122? experimental performance* In the evaluation of cumulative acting In the play, the cross-section audience ballots shoved a trend In favor of the experimental performance in comparison to the con ventional performance* The number of subjects among the cross-section audi ence Who considered all the characters properly motivated was larger for the experimental performance them for the conventional performance. The difference, statistically speaking, showed only a trend in favor of the experimental performance* The professional panel ballots showed a very sig nificant shift in the comprehension of the theme of the play in favor of the experimental performance over the con ventional performance* There was a very significant shift in respect to portrayal of mood in favor of the experimental performance over the conventional performance, as balloted by the panel of professional experts* The cross-section audience ballots showed statisti cally insignificant differences with regard to (1) enter tainment value, (2) intelligibility of theme, (3) compre hension of characters, ( * * ) motivation of characters, (5) emotional impact, and (6) retention of facts about the play. 123 The professional panel ballots showed statistically Insignificant differences regarding estimated emotional and interest values of the two performances to an audience, and regarding the relative effectiveness of character por trayals by the individual actors. Comparisons of infra-red ray photographs presented to judges in random order, showed a very significant shift with respect to audience interest in favor of the experi mental performance over the conventional performance. The shift was from "average" for the conventional performance to "somewhat above average," and "far above average" for the experimental performance. Comparisons by another group of judges of the cor responding pairs of photographs taken at the predetermined points along the progression of the two performances showed that a very significantly larger number of judges voted for the superior audience interest during the experimental performance than the conventional performance. For a cumulative evaluation of the two sets of photographs taken during the respective performances, there was a very significant shift in the number of ballots cast in favor of the experimental performance in comparison with the conventional performance. III. IMPLICATIONS 1 2 * f r As the above conclusions have shown, all the statis tically significant shifts were consistently in the same direction, namely, in favor of the experimental perform ance. This was in spite of certain weaknesses that occurred in details of the experimental design. The experimenters, for example, believed that the study suffered from the following weaknesses! 1. The director of the play probably should have measured up more closely in professional experience to the requirements of the assignment. 2. The psychoanalyst should have worked only through the director. In addition to impairing the design of the experiment, his direct contact with the actors caused a sense of divided authority. This was evidenced in the actors* questionnaires. The right approach through the director might have saved a great deal of hostility shown by the actors. 3* There was insufficient rehearsal time between i ; the conventional performance and the experimental perform- i ance. k* The producer was, at times, a little over anxious, and this, in turn, influenced the experiment. 5. There were certain flaws in the questionnaires. 6. There was a flaw in selection of the play. ' “ . ” ~ 125 Table Number Seven is one of the two one-act plays that were designed to realize fall meaning only if played in succession to each other* Consequently, the director, the psychoanalyst, and the actors were forced at times to go outside the framework of Table Number Seven to understand the play fully. 7. The number of curtain calls as planned by the producer varied from two for the conventional performance to five for the experimental performance. 8. Environmental conditions for rehearsals were less than desirable. 9. Environmental conditions of the theatre were poor as (a) there was lack of air conditioning$ (b) the house had to be vacated at a certain early hour, as a result some members of the audience were hurried in record ing responses in the questionnaires. An analysis of the weaknesses suggested that most of them probably penalized the experimental performance. In other words if these weaknesses had not occurred, logically the difference favoring the experimental perform ance would have been more decisive. The over-all conclusion was stated, with reason, that in this particular experiment the services of the psychoanalyst improved the performance. Only by implica tion, however, can the foregoing conclusion be generalized -- - - - - - — - 126 1 to other plays, directors, et cetera* This Implication certainly has more evidence to support It than the opposite Implication. The above conclusion was resolved In detail so that It could be Inferred that the interpretation made by the trained psychoanalyst vas useful as an aid to the director in comprehension of the play. The hidden complexities of motivation In the plot situations and Interpersonal rela tionships of Characters were spelled out for him for crea tive purposes. Thus the maximal explication made available to the director was apparently conducive to a higher qual ity of work. It is, however, entirely possible that a superior director by intuition might have arrived at an interpreta tion identical to the one given by the psychoanalyst. Still, even in such cases, a trained psychoanalyst would have enabled the director to arrive at the interpretation in a minimal period of time. It would be of interest to test in future research ithe measure of success of these results in the allied fields of motion pictures and television. An efficient i application of psychoanalytical interpretation ifc directing a play of merit for the theatre, and possibly motion pic tures and television, may result in economy of time and effort; in addition, the play may be more effective in presentation. 127 IV, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This study In the use of psychoanalysis as an aid in the selected £hase of the theatre activity points up diverse areas for further research* 1. There were no signposts to follow in setting up the design of the experimentf as it was the first known attempt at research in the field. As a consequence, it inadvertently suffered from certain errors of omission and commission. The results, however, are encouraging and warrant that the experiment should he repeated under a variety of other circumstances. 2* The experiment emphasizes research in the methodology. It should be investigated, for instance, if filmed versions of the respective performances shown to numerous groups of subject-audiences will lead to different results. Also, more efficient techniques for recording audience responses should be tested. It may be interesting1 to develop a device along the lines of the electro-magnetic 1 meter used by Krestinger with the difference that the new device should do away with actual wiring of the seats, and Elvood A. Krestinger, "An Experimental Study of Gross Bodily Movement as an Index to Audience Interest" (unpublished dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, August, 195>1)» P* 23* " ' “ “ 128! create electro-magnetic field for each subject electroni cally by remote control. 3. It may reasonably be expected that as In this experiment, the effectiveness of psychoanalytical inter pretation as a stimulus to the playwright at work should also be tested. ) f . The same stimulus, namely, psychoanalytical interpretation of the text of a play, may be applied to the actor, and consequences investigated. j i 5. Further experiments should be conducted to observe the effectiveness of the contextual psychoanalyti cal interpretation of a play in the allied media of tele vision and motion pictures. 6. This study also points up the need of research in the interdisciplinary areas of the theatre on one hand and physiology, neurology, and psychology on the other hand. The experiments in these areas may lead to an entirely new physio-neuro-psychological rationale for i acting. Further research based on such a rationale may be conducted to find if certain stimuli could Induce predict able behaviors on the stage or in the audience. I I BIBLIOGRAPHY I ! I I 'I j i BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Copeau, Jacques. „ Paris: Socle 1935. The interpretation ofpraama. Transl 11. Hew Yorkt Macmillan, 19^5. 600 Freud, Sigmund. J by A. A. Bri Translation > • 600 pp. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., Handel, Leo A. Hollywood Looks at Its Audience. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1950.2*0 pp. Jones, Ernest. Hamlet, with a Psychoanalytic Study. Londons Vision Press, Ltd., 19*7*ISO pp. Kris, Ernst. New York:International Universities Press, Inc., 1952. 358 pp. Phillips, William. Art and Psychoanalysis. New Yorks Criterion Books, 1957*552 pp. Raphaelson, Samson. Accent on Youth. New Yorks Samuel French, 1935* 126 pp. Rattigan, Terence. Browning Version. In B. A. Cerf, editor, 2*f Favorite One-Act Play. 1958. - „* Separate Tables. New York: Random House, 1955* Reik, Theodor. Listening with the Third Ear. New Yorks Farrar, Straus and Company, 194b.51* pp. pp. Peatman, J. G. New Yorks Harper, 19*7*577 PP* 177 PP 130 Schneider, Daniel £• f l l f t PffYtflfrpnelyat and 131 Haw York! Farrar ,Strausand Company, 1950* 306 pp• Sharpe, E. Freeman. Collected Papers on Psychoanalysis. London* The Hogarth Press, Ltd., 1950*200 pp. Siegel, Sidney* gcnpftrsmtalV frtaUPttgg■ ?ev York* McGraw-Hill Book Company, mo., 1950* 312 pp* Simonson. Lee. The Stage Is Set. Hew Yorks Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952.585 PP* Wertham, F. Dark Legend, A Study in Murder. Hew Yorks Dnell, Sloane, and Pearce, 19M-1.270 pp. B. PERIODICAL ARTICLES Bowling, Q. "The Wild Prince Hal in Legend and Literature, " WflghlPKtaa Stirtl9g> vol. xiii. "Edinburgh 1953.” Theatre World, Vol. XLIX, Ho. 35^ (October, 1953)« PP* 15*16. Feldman, A. Bronson. "Imaginary Incests A Study of Shakespearejs PerigLes^Jh? AffprlttftaJCME9 > Vol. XII Lesser, Simon 0. "Freud and Hamlet Again," The American Imago. Vol. XU, HO. 2 (1955) | PP* 207*226. Mabie, E. C. "The Responses of Theatre Audiences, Experi mental^ Vol. XIX, Ho. b Maloney, J. M., and L. Rookeleln, "A Hew Interpretation of a> Mitchell, John D. "Applied Psychoanalysis in the Director- Actor Relationship," aw.flftfgiJHffl flBftKVi XIII (1956) 223-239* Vrieze, J. W. "An Experimental Study of Occupation and Its Influence on Audience Response in the Theatre," Dis sertation Abstracts. XIII (1953)^3, *53-3^5l v. Wangh, M. "Othello*; 3he Trogedy of Jftf-PAXShg- w^yfcia ouart?fiYf Vol. XIX, Ho. 2 (1950) , pp. 202- 132 C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Dickens, Milton and Lee E. Travis, "Experimental Method," n.d. (Mimeographed*) Krestinger, Elwood A* "An Experimental Study of Gross Bodily Movement as An Index to Audience Interest*" Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, August 1951* 121 pp. Lyle, Harry Mason. "An Experimental Study of Certain j Aspects of Electromagnetic Movement Meter as a Cri- j terion to Audience Attention." Unpublished disserta- ! tlon, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, April, 1952. 193 PP* Robson, John L. "An Experimental Study of Fluctuation among Successive Play Performances." Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, August, 1951* 157 PP* APPEND I X E S \ APPENDIX A SYNOPSIS OF THE PIAY SYNOPSIS OP THE PLAY TABLE NUMBER SEVEN BY TERENCE RATTIGAN The first scene opens on Charles Stratton, who is busy studying in the lounge of the Bouregard Private Hotel, near Bournemouth, England* His wife, Jean, walks in making baby talk with their young son* Charles is annoyed at this, and suggests that they leave him to his work* Mean while, they hear the approaching jovial voice of Major Pollock, and Jean rushes out with the perambulator, fearing that if the Major sees the baby he will talk for hours* The Major strides in. He looks the very essence of a retired officer of the army* He interrupts Charles in his studies by enumerating his own experiences at Sandhurst in the days prior to his joining the Black Watch* He shifts his attention to old Mr* Fowler as Charles escapes the agony of his chatter* Miss Cooper, the manager of the hotel, brings the Major a copy of the West Hampshire Weekly News* She com plains of the dull quality of the provincial journal, at which the Major inquires if anybody else in the hotel ever | 3Ub3cribed to it* He is informed that Mrs* Bailton-Bell, a boarder, reads it every week. The Major hurriedly scans through the paper when he is left alone, tears out a certain page and hides it in his pocket* He then proceeds to look for Mrs* Railton-Bellfs {copy of the paper* Mrs* Railton-Bell walks into the lounge followed by her timid daughter* The Major asks if he may borrow her paper and starts to leave the room* Mrs* Railton-Bell notices the copy that the Major had ;dropped and suggests that he should take this one and give her copy back* He picks up his copy and is about to leave !for a stroll when Miss Railton-Bell asks if she may join him* He puts her off with the excuse that he is going to jcall on a friend while he is out* After the Major leaves, Mrs* Railton-Bell nags her daughter for throwing herself at him* A little later she sends Sibyl— Miss Railton-Bell— off to fetch her glasses, and peruses the paper* Lady Matheson comes in and is requested by tfrs* Railton-Bell to read aloud a certain news item* ...- - .......... -135-..— ..■ . : ------- y . ........... 136 According to the Item a David Angus Pollock of the Beauregard Hotel had pleaded guilty to a charge of insult- ing behavior In a movie house* He was reported by a police Inspector who had been summoned by the management, to have changed his seat five times In order to attempt familiarity with different females seated next to him* His lawyer had requested leniency on account of his war record which showed that he had risen from the ranks to be a second lieutenant* The judge sentenced the Major to probation for the period of one year* This Is enough to shock Mrs* Railton-Bell* Sibyl returns with her mother's glasses but Is told to go to her room* When she Insists on knowing the reason why she Is being ordered to leave, Mrs* Railton-Bell explains that she Is holding a meeting of the regulars to discuss the expul sion of the Major* The mother hands over the paper to her and points out the article* Sibyl reads It, takes off her glasses and just sits* Unknowingly she twists and breaks her glasses, and slightly cuts a finger* Charles Is one of the first regulars to arrive; he notices the injury and tends to It* As the other regulars arrive Mrs* Railton-Bell informs them of the news item and then suggests that they collectively demand the expulsion of the Major from the hotel* Charles objects on the grounds that what the Major had done did not justify his expulsion* His wife, Jean, vehemently takes the opposite view* Miss Meacham. the horse player, just does not give a damn as to what the Major has done* Mr. Fowler faintly votes with Mrs* Railton-Bell, while Lady Matheson is prodded to do the same* This leaves Charles in a minority of one, but he asks Sibyl to voice her own opinion instead of being taken for granted by her mother* Sibyl says that the whole thing has made her sick, and in her excitement | suffers a hysterical fit* The mother leads her from the room. Charles explains to the others that he had resorted to this measure in order to give Sibyl a chance to dis agree with her mother once in her life and save her soul* The assembly disperses, and each goes his own way* The Major returns to the empty lounge and furtively looks through Mrs* Railton-Bell's pile of papers* Sibyl comes In and tells him of the futility of his search as all the regulars had already read the news, and her mother had gone to Miss Cooper to demand that he should be expelled* This knocks the swagger out of his gait* and he becomes old, weary, and beaten* He relates that he has always been afraid of everybody, particularly women, and that the only I ■ ' ; ■ ■ ■ ■ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i37| way he could come close to a woman was In the dark* There is a rapport between Pollock and Sibyl, two frightened people in sympathy with each other* As he prepares to leave the hotel, Sibyl offers to lend him some money,* Miss Cooper enters and asks to see the Major in her office* The Major says that there is ho need of that as he Is about to leave the hotel* At this, Miss Cooper tells him that she means to tell him that he is perfectly at liberty to stay* The Major, however, feels j that he must go, and requests for information about a London hotel run by the Beauregard group* He leaves to make a phone call for a reservation* Sibyl and Miss Cooper are thus left alone in the lounge* The former says that she despises the Major not for what he did, but for what he said about their likeness in being frightened* She walls for being a freak and wishes she were ordinary, as she once was when she sold lampshades in a department store* Miss Cooper suggests that she run off, get a job, and live on her own* The Major arrives ana is invited again by Miss Cooper to stay on, but he confesses that after what had happened, he could hardly take su<sh a course* As he goes to pack the scene comes to a close* i At the beginning of the second scene, all the resi dents* except the Major, are seen busy with the evening meal in the dining room* The Major enters and a freezing silence descends upon the people. He goes to his table, and orders his dinner* Charles is the first to break the ice with a friendly greeting* Miss Cooper comes in and affably exchanges a word* Mrs* Railton-Bell, feigning a draft, shifts her chair so as to turn her back on the Major*1 But this does not deter others from engaging in a conversa tion with the Major* Mrs* Railton-Bell in annoyance rises from her chair and orders Sibyl to accompany her out of the room* Sibyl declines to obey because she says she has not finished her dinne#. She ignores a second sharp and firm order from her mother* Mrs* Railton-Bell leaves in a huff* Sibyl addresses the Major and pleasantly suggests that after dinner they all should go out and look at the new moon* This inspires confidence and gives new strength to the Major who decides to live and face the life in this very hotel. APPENDIX B LETTER OP INVITATIONAL INQUIRY FOR CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE Name.......................................................................................................................... Address....................................................................................................................... I would (be happy to attend) (will be unable to attend) a performance of TABLE NUMBER SEVEN at the Art Linkletter Theatre, 1228 Vine Street, Hollywood on June 6th.............. and/or June 13th .......................... ■ If you would like to attend, please complete the following: Sex.................................Occupation................................... ........................ AGE GROUP 15-30....... :............... 30-45....................... 45-60...................... over 60... EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Grades.............................. High School ....................... College.............. AVERAGE THEATRE ATTENDANCE Once a week.................. month..................... ......... 3 months.......... 6 months.......................... year................. .......... less than once a year. . Please return to James H. Butler,'before May 26th. Thank you kindly. 139 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES 7 Department of Drama May 16, 1958 Dear Patron of the Department of Drama, University of Southern California Be our guest, please. You have been selected to receive an invitation to attend a performance of the second half of "Separate Tables," a set of two one-act plays by Terence Rattigan, to be performed by a cast of professional actors. This perform ance is in the nature of an experiment in the field of Communications, which experiment has been devised and is being conducted Jointly by the Department of Drama of the University of Southern California and a group of individ uals from the professional theatre. There is no admission charge of any nature attached to this invitation— all we ask is your participation as an interested audience member. Please understand, however, that the seating capacity of our theatre limits the number of guests we can accommodate, so that your promptness in completing and returning the enclosed postal card questionnaire to me will enable us to give you greater consideration. We will not be able to accommodate all that might wish to attend; therefore, we will select a representative number from those answering our postal card questionnaire and send them Invitations. Two performances only of this play will be given at the Linkletter Playhouse, 1228 Vine Street, Hollywood, one on the evening of June 6th; the other on June 13th. Curtain time 8:30. ^ a 'James H. Butler, Chairman Department of Drama enc JHB:gh APPENDIX C ADMISSION TICKET 141 ix -i* * .-+ v u . « ; •-- / > - i ? i. . J . - , i \ ■ -■ ■ !■ -t ■ • ; * : ■ . •*:•. / , . ' r s v f , •, ii .- / »h\ Yi/-'f -:r.-r *.•./< ' rh, r hi I V ” , ' ' 1 ,< ‘.1 ‘ * ‘f ^ } i t t ' A " ; II , > ' h " t'L- ^ >r . ' sf,al Yf , * ' THE M-R THEATRE in association with THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA extends this invitation to you to he our guest at the production of "TABLE NUMBER SEVEN," from SEPARATE TABLES by Terence Rattigan Art Linkletter Theatre 1228 North Vine Street Hollywood, California Performance evening of June^ Curtain time 8:30 P.M. Admit (_ ) PLEASE PRESENT THIS INVITATION AT THE DOOR s'rTV'hlV a p p e n d i x d INVITATIONS FOR THE PANEL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES 7 Department of Drama May 28, 1958 You have been selected and contacted to attend two perform ances of the one-act play "TABLE NUMBER SEVEN" (from Separate Tables) by Terence Rattigan, to act as a member of a professional panel. The play is being produced by the M-R Theatre, a group of professional theatre people working in cooperation with the Department of Drama of the University of Southern California. The production is to be given at the Art Linkletter Theatre, 1228 N. Vine Street, Hollywood, on Friday June 6th and Friday June 13th, curtain at 8:3° p-m. This presentation is in the nature of an experiment in commu nication between actors and their audience. Your reaction to the performances will be recorded on an evaluation sheet which you will be asked to complete at the end of each of the two performances, which will subsequently be tabulated, analyzed, and recorded. We are grateful to you for your willingness to contribute to this experiment. In addition to the members of the professional panel, there will also be a "cross section" audience of average theatre-goers of some two hundred persons each night. Sincerely yours, James H. Butler, Chairman enc. Department of Drama JHB:gh P.S. Attached to this letter are two tickets for the June 6th performance and two tickets for the June 13th performance of "TABLE NUMBER SEVEN." APPENDIX E CROSS-SECTION AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE l**5i AUDIENCE EVALUATION (Your signature is not necessary) This evening you have witnessed a stage performance of the play: "TABLE NUMBER SEVEN" written by Terence Rattigan. We would appreciate it very much if you would fill out this form to the best of your ability. We might explain, that by doing this you are participating in an unusual experiment In the field of communication. We hope the findings will prove helpful to those in the entertainment world. Audience Interest and Attention Inventory and Emotional Rating Seal■ . Occupation:_____________________________________________________ Da te ; Sex______________________________ Age Group: 15-3°:____ 3°-^5:_____ ^5-60:______Over 60:__________ Educational Level:__Grades:__________High School:______College:____ SECTION I 1. Have you ever seen a performance of this play before? (Circle your answer): YES NO 2. If the answer is yes, please state where and when you saw it: 3- Have you ever read this play? (Circle your answer): YES NO 4. Did you find this performance of the play entertaining? (Circle your answer) YES NO Comments, if any:___________________________________________ SECTION II Below you will find five (5) Rating Scales. Please circle the number in each scale which you feel best answers the statement given. FOR EXAMPLE: In Scale number one, if you have attended stage plays about once a month you would circle number 2. - 1 - i THEATRE GOING EXPERIENCE: I would estimate that I have attended stage plays (as distinguished from movies) with approximately the following frequency: 1_______________ 2__________3___________4__________ 5___________ More than once Ahout once Two to four About once Less than a month a month times a year a year once a year MOVIE GOING EXPERIENCE: I would estimate that I have attended movies with approximately the following frequency: 1______________ 2 3_______ _ 4__________5_____________ About once a About once Two to four About once Less than week a month times a year a year once a year TELEVISION VIEWING OP DRAMATIC SHOWS: I would estimate that I watc' dramatic shows on television about: 1 2 3________ 4___________5____________ More than About 2 hours About 4 hrs Less than Seldom watch 4 hours a day a day a week 4 hours a them week INTEREST VALUE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PLAY: In my opinion the Interest value of the performance of "Table Number Seven" which I have Just seen was: 1__________ 2__________3_________4_________ 5_______________ Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average EVALUATION OF THE ACTING IN THE PLAY: In my opinion the general overall acting in "Table Number Seven" was: 1_____________ 2 ___________3_________4_________ 5__________ Far above Somewhat About Somewhat; Far below average above average below average average average SECTION III I felt that the theme or message of the play: "Table Number Seven" was: (Draw a circle around the-appropriate letter which you feel best describes the theme of the play): Mark only one: A. A man who behaves in socially unacceptable ways is to he condemned. B. Tolerance for those whose approach to life differs from the accepted norm. C. A plea for tolerance of those who are adults but are still imma ture. D. A middle aged single man Is liable to ge t into trouble with women. E. Mothers should not continue to shelter their daughters beyond a certain age. • - Section III, cont‘d: Comments, if any: Circle the names of as many of the characters in this play, as you felt you fully understood as presented in this performance: Jean Stratton Charles Stratton Major Pollock Mr. Fowler Miss Cooper Mrs. Railton-Bell (Sybil) Miss Railton-Bell Lady Matheson Miss Meacham Mabel Doreen Comments, if any: 3> Did you feel that the characters in the play were properly motivated in their acting and behaved according to your own understanding of human nature? (Circle your answer): YES SOME Np If you felt that some of the characters were not properly motivated in their acting would you please circle their names below Jean Stratton Mrs. Railton-Bell (Sybil) Miss Railton-Bell Charles Stratton Lady Matheson Major Pollock Miss Meacham Mr. Fowler Mabel. Miss Cooper Doreen Comments, if any: Section III, cont’d: 4. Usually in a play there are certain characters you are able to identify yourself with better than others. Please place a number 1 to 11 in the vacant blanks before the character names in the play. Please put number 1 before the name of the character for which you felt the strongest identification. Put number 2 before the next, etc.: _____Jean Stratton _____Charles Stratton Major Pollock ____ Mr. Fowler Miss Cooper Comments, if any? SECTION IV 1. Did you find the play emotionally moving? (Draw a circle around the appropriate number which describes your reaction): 1_________ 2 3 __________________ 5__________ Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average Comments, if any: 2. Were you moved to tears at any time during the performance: (Circle your answer): YES NO If the answer Is yes, please state the point or points In the play Mrs. Railton-Bell [(Sybil) Miss Railton-Bell Lady Matheson Miss Meacham Mabel Doreen SECTION V The following questions are to he answered•by YES, NO, or DON'T REMEMBER. (Please circle what you believe to be the correct answer for each): 1. Was there a TV set in the hotel where the play takes place? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER 2. Has Miss Sibyl ever held a job on her own? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER 3. Was Major Pollock a graduate of Sandhurst? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER 4. Had Major Pollock ever before committed the offense for which he was arrested? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER 5. Did Major Pollock express, to the police, his regrets for his actions in the cinema which caused his arrest? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER 6. Does Miss Cooper at any time ask Major Pollock to check out of the hotel? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER 7. Does Sibyl (Miss RailtcnriBell) ever use the word "sex" during the play? YES NO DON'T REMEMBER The following questions are to be answered by writing in a word or short statement in the space provided: 8. What did Mr. Fowler teach? 9. What was the actual statutory offense for which the major was cited? • O H How did Miss Sibyl cut her hand? • H H When Mr. Fowler corrected Major Pollock's pronunciation, was Major Pollock speaking Latin, or Greek? 12. Has Miss Sibyl ever attended a school or was she educated at home? . 13. Has Charles Stratton already obtained his Doctor's Degree, or is he still a student? 14. Was Charles Stratton for or against Major Pollock's expulsion from the hotel? . 3-5 ■ Was Mr. Fowler for or against Major Pol look's expulsion from the hotel? 16. What was Miss Cooper's advice to Miss Sibyl? Section V, cont'd. 17. What nickname did Major Pollock use for Miss Sibyl?_____________ 18. What was Miss Meacham's sports hobby?____________________________ 19. How long has Major Pollock been staying at the hotel?____________ 20. What is the age of the Stratton baby?___________________________ 21. What kind of literature does Miss Meacham r e a d ? ____________ The following questions or statements are multiple-choice. (Please circle what you think is the correct answer): 22. The publication that carried the account of the major's offense was a: DAILY NEWSPAPER WEEKLY NEWSPAPER MONTHLY MAGAZINE 23. The name of the hotel where the play takes place is: MORGAN CRESCENT HOTEL BEAUREGARD PRIVATE HOTEL BOURNEMOUTH HOTEL 2^. Which character in the play tells Major Pollock that the facts of his arrest are known to all of them? MRS. RAILTON-BELL MR. FOWLER SIBYL MISS COOPER 25. Mr. Fowler at one time taught: SCIENCE CLASSICAL LANGUAGES MATHEMATICS APPENDIX P PROFESSIONAL PANEL QUESTIONNAIRE PROFESSIONAL PANEL EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PLAY: "TABLE NUMBER SEVEN" (Attention, please, Panel Members: If, for any reason, you do not wish to sigh your own name to this evaluation sheet, please feel free to use an alias but be sure to use the same alias both nights, in order that we may keep the study valid!) Date : Name :_____ , __________; ______Profession:^______ Directions: Please record your reactions to tonight’s performance of the play, "Table Number Seven" in the appropriate spaces below. SECTION I 1. THEME. Please state briefly in your own words the theme of the play To be answered only after the second performance. Did the theme of the play come across better in this second performance than it did in the first? (Circle the answer): YES ABOUT THE SAME NO Comments, if any:_______________ ____________________________ _ 2. MOOD. Please describe briefly the mood of the play: To be answered only after the second performance. Was the mood of the play better portrayed in this second performance than it was in the first? (Circle the answer): YES ABOUT THE SAME NO Comments, if any:_______ . SECTION II 1. EMOTIONAL EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE. Please evaluate tonight's performance In terms of what you think was its emotional impact upon the audience. (Please check a point along the scale which mos nearly expresses your conclusion): Z Par above average / Somewhat above average About average z Somewhat below average Z Par below average Comments, if any: ENTERTAINMENT VALUE. Please evaluate tonight's performance In terms of Its interestingness, ability to hold the audience's attention. (Please check a point along the scale which most nearly expresses your conclusion): L_________/ /_________L__________ L Far above average Somewhat above average About average Somewha t below average Par below average Comments, if any: SECTION III CHARACTERIZATIONS: Please rate each of the actors on the scales provide below. Please check a point along the scale which most nearly expresses your conclusion. Brief additional notes or comments would be appreciated. 1. JEAN STRATTON: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? Z Z Z Z Somewha t About Somewhat above average below average average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? Z Par above average / E a r above average Somewha t above average z z Far below average z About average Somewha t below average Par below average Comments, if any: 2, CHARLES STRATTON: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / _ _ _ _ _ _ _Z _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l_ _ _ _ _ _ L____ __ L_ _ _ Par above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average fb) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? /____/ /_________________________/ / Par above Somewhat About SomewhatPar below average above average below average average average Comments, if any:__________________________________________________ 3. MAJOR POLLOCK: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / / / / / Par above Somewhat About Somewhat Par below average above average below average average a ve ra ge (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? / / _ / .............../ . / Par above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below . average above average below average average average Comments, if any: - 3 - w \ 4. MR. FOWLER (a) How / well conceived was / this characterization? / / /, Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average a ve ra ge average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? / / / / / Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average Comments , if* any; 5. MISS COOPER: (a) How well / conceived was / this characterization? / / / Far above Somewhat About Somehwat Far below average above average below average average average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? / / / / / Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average Comments, if i any: 6. MRS.. RAILTON-BELL: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / / / / / Far above Somewhat average above average . About average - 4 - Somewhat below average Far below average lb ? MRS. RAILTON-BELL: (cont'd) (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? /_________ / A / __________ L______ L____ Par aboveSomewhatAboutSomewhatPar below average above average below average average average Comments, if any:______________________________________________ (SYBIL) MISS RAILTON-BELL: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / / / / / Far above Somewhat average above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? / / _A / / / Far above Somewhat average above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average Comments, if any: 8. LADY MATHESON (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / / /___________/ Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? _ / / _ . / / / A Far above somewhat About Somewlnat Far below average above average below average average average - 5 - 1M7\ LADY MATHESON, cont'd* Comments, if any:_ 9. MISS MEACHAM: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / / / / _4 . Par above Somewhat About Somewha t Par below average above average below average average average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? / / / / / Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Par below average above average below average average average Comments, If ; any: MABEL: (a) How well - / conceived was _ / this characterization? _ / / / Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? - / / / : / / Far above Somewhat About . Somewhat Far below average above average be low average average average Comments, if « any: i -6- DOREEN: (a) How well conceived was this characterization? / - /__c_______L________ L_______L____ Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average (b) How well was this characterization actually portrayed? _______ L_______L_____ L___ Far above Somewhat About Somewhat Far below average above average below average average average Commentsj if any: APPENDIX G ACTORS* QUESTIONNAIRE ACTOR'S EVALUATION To be filled out by each actor from the cast of "TABLE NUMBER SEV EN" following the performance of June 13, 1958. Name_________________________ _______Role__________________ Give a brief account of your theatre background: SECTION I EMOTIONAL EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE. Please evaluate both performances of the play In terms of what you think was its emotional impact upon the audience. (Please check a point along the scale which most nearly expresses your conclusions) June 6, 1958: Far above Somewhat average above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average June 13, 1958: - / / / / / Far above Somewhat average above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average 2. ENTERTAINMENT VALUE. of the play In terms to hold the audience1 Please evaluate both of its Interestingness s attention. performances , ability June 6, 1958: / / / / / Far above average Somewhat above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average June 13, 1958: / / / / / Far above average Somewhat above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average 3. RAPPORT WITH THE AUDIENCE. Please evaluate both per formances of the play In terms of your rapport with the other actors you played scenes with during the performances. June 6, 1958: / / / / / Far above average Somewhat above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average June 13, 1958: / / / / / Ear above average Somewhat above average About average Somewhat below average Far below average Comment s, If any : SECTION II Did your conception of your character change between performances #1 and #2. Explain in detail. Did you gain deeper insight into your characterization between performances #1 and #2? Explain in detail. SECTION II, page 2. Did you feel that the director gained insight Into the play1s meaning and in character conceptions between performances #1 and #2? What do you feel that you gained between performances #1 and #2? SECTION II, page 3. What, do you feel you lost between performances #1 and #2? Did you have any difficulty in understanding and putting into operation any of the ideas given to Mr. Brittain by Dr. Sharrin? I*f9 SECTION II, page 4. 7. Did you find any of your blocking changed from performance #1 to #2? Explain in detail. 8. As an actor, do you feel that a properly trained psychologist and analyist working with the director and actors during rehearsals would be helpful? SECTION II, page 5. Additional comments: APPENDIX H DIRECTORS * QUESTIONNAIRE THE EXPKRHtEHT Director^ Questionnairea (To be Tilled out by Hr* Brittain following the performance* June 13* 1956.) 1. Did you Teel that the psychologist *s advice In any way hindered your work; as a director? The Experiment* page a 2m Did the peyohologiet *a advice in any may hinder the work ot the actore? The Experiment, page 3* 3* What major changes mere accomplished between performances #1 and #2 The Experiment* peso ^ Old the psychologist*s assistance help the play more as a whole or specifically Just individual actors? The Experiment, page 5 5w To what extent did the new characterizations given by the psychologist to the director force a change in staging? The Experlement, page 6* 6• Vae there any disagreement on the part of the director with the psychologist regarding the general Interpretation of the play? If so* describe* The Experiment, page 7- 7* Was there any disagreement on the part of the director with the psychologist regarding character interpretations? If so, state them* 151 The Experiment, page 8. 8* So you Teel that aa a professional director your skill could be improved by working with a qualified psychologist before directing a play? The Experiment, page 9 9* Bo you think It would be too confusing to have a psychologist working along with you as you directed a play? The Bxperlmant* page 10. 10, Additional oommentst APPENDIX J INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPH BALLOT I PICTURE ANALYSIS BALLOT Picture Number Name______________________ Major__________________ Sex_____ Please give your estimate of the amount of interest of the audience in the picture numbered on the top right hand side of this ballot. Far above average__________ Above average_______ Average____ Below average____________ Far below average _______________ Also, please give your opinion of the mood which is predominant in this picture (check one) ________________ Anger ______________ ____ Pity Sadness Passion Fear None Merriment APPENDIX K INFRA-RED RAY PHOTOGRAPH BALLOT II PICTURE-SET ANALYSIS BALLOT Name Major Sex Please give your estimate of the measure of Interest of the audience as In Picture-Set I in comparison with Picture-Set II. Superior audience interest in Picture-Set I ___ Superior audience interest in Picture-Set II Some measure of interest In Picture-Set I and Picture-Set II APPENDIX L PR0GRAJ4-BILL THE M-R THEATRE in association with THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA presents "TABLE NUMBER SEVEN" -;a one-act-play from "Separate-Tables" ' by TERENCE RATTIGAN--- ■ Directed by • • JAMES BRITTAIN ' Art Linkletter Playhouse' Hollywood, California CAST (in order of appearance) Jean Stratton......................Patience Cleveland Charles Stratton.................... J.......David Frankham Major Pollock......... ..v.........Ben Wight Hr-, Fov/ler ... .............. t. .Clive L. Halliday Miss Cooper ................| Lillian Buyeff I ] Mrs. Railton-Bell.............. ..Irene Tedrow Miss Railton-Bell. .,..........Mamon Boss Lady Matheson .. .Margaret Brev/ster Miss Meacham ....... ..Cheerio Meredith " A r ’ ' Mabel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Barbara Girvm Doreen............................Carol Ann Daniels The action takes place in the Beauregard Hotel, Bournemouth/ a seaside town on the south coast of England. ’ Time: Summer, , Scene 1: Lounge, after Tea Scene 2: Dining room, dinner No Intermission between scenes FOE THE M-R THEATRE Oliver* McGowan. ......... .Producer James Brittain..............................,..Director Barnet Sharrin, M.D....... ii: .... .Consultant Kate Drain Lawson................ .Art Director Mildred Gusse............ .Casting Consultant James.McHugh Jr.......................General Assistant FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' Dr. Milton Dickens, Chairman;, Division of Communications Dr. James H. Butler, Chairman, Department of Drama Dr. William Michael, Chairman, Testing Bureau PRODUCTION STAFF Assistant to the Director................Michael Pataki • Stage Manager. ....................... Jit Kapur Production Assistant ......... Buckley Norris Production Coordinator .....Carol Ann Daniels Lighting Assistant ........... .Tom Costello Properties ............. .Barbara Girvin Taping. ............ .William Harmegneis Infra-red photography.......i...........Filis Lapenieks Ushers............Students in the U.S. C* , Department of Drama House Manager ;.. , ' U • • *.. .. - -.......William C. White Assistant. ...... .'............... .Anthony Borgese AND TO THESE, MUCH THANKS For the use of the Art Linkletter Playhouse, to Mr. John Guedel, Mr. Art Linkletter- and members of their staff, Mr. Irvin Atkins, Mr, Henry Gilbert, Mr, Oscar E. Elm, Mrs. Sylvia Atkins. . . . ■ The .Department of Parks & Recreation of Los Angeles County. John Puckett for stereophonic music. Ushers, errand boys and girls; all of them students at U. S. C., who gave of themselves and their time vnllingly. Panel members and audience - without you whom would we play, to? . . ... . . . • • ' . • Good Luck on this new experiment. , . Tam’s Books Inc. 1 725 1 7 . Jefferson Blvd. , Los Angeles 7, .Calif . .

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An experimental study of the effect of "human interest" factors on listenability

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Influence Of Subliminal Cue Words On Audience Responses To A Filmed Speaker'S Sincerity, Effectiveness, And Subject Matter

PDF

A history of the broadcasting of daytime serial dramas in the United States

PDF

A Survey And Analysis Of Current Attitudes Toward Censorship Of The Legitimate Theatre In The United States

PDF

A descriptive study of dramatic dialogue in six plays for children by the application of formulas for readability

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Retention And Comprehension Of Poetry Resulting From Silent Reading And From Oral Interpretation

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Characteristics Of Acting During The Restoration Period In England (1660-1710)

PDF

A Historical Study Of Speech Education At The University Of Southern California (1880 Through 1950)

PDF

An Empirical Study Of Self-Feedback During Speech Communication

PDF

A Historical Study Of Gilmor Brown'S Fairoaks Playbox: 1924-1927

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Belasco Theatre In Los Angeles And The Forces That Shaped Its History: 1927-1933

PDF

A critical study of the film musicals of Vincente Minnelli

PDF

A History Of The Development Of Professional Theatrical Activity In Los Angeles, 1880-1895

PDF

An Empirical Study Of The Behavioral Characteristics Of Sincere And Insincere Speakers

PDF

The effects of estradiol-17B on cleavage, nucleic acid metabolism, and protein synthesis in embryos of the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Effects Of Interest And Authority Upon Understanding Of Broadcast Information

PDF

Becket's chameleon character: an analytical study of the universal appeal of Thomas Becket's dramatic character

PDF

Content Analysis Of Fifty-Three High School Basic Speech Texts, 1899-1969

PDF

An experimental study in fluctuations among successive play performances

PDF

A Re-Evaluation Of The Major Works Of George Kelly

Asset Metadata

Creator Kapur, Jit L. (author)

Core Title An experimental study of audience responses to a play rehearsed with and without a play analysis by a professional psychoanalyst

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Degree Conferral Date 1959-08

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,theater

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Dickens, Milton (committee chair), McCoard, William B. (committee member), Stahl, Herbert M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-60711

Unique identifier UC11357590

Identifier 6002071.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-60711 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6002071.pdf

Dmrecord 60711

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kapur, Jit L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA