The Actors Center Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, July 2010
Interview with Fran Dorn
Franchelle (Fran) Dorn, the Virginia L. Murchison Regents Professor in Fine Arts and Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Theatre and Dance, heads the Acting Program at The University of Texas at Austin, where she has taught since the spring of 2000. She is also continues to act. She has been a member of the Shakespeare Theatre Company in Washington, DC portraying such characters as Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra, Maria, Portia, and Paulina and where she will return next season as The Queen in CYMBELINE. She has also performed with the Yale Repertory Theatre, the American Conservatory Theatre, and Arena Stage in Washington among others. She has taught drama courses at Princeton University, Georgetown University, and the University of Maryland. She holds a B.A. in Theatre Arts from Finch College and an M.F.A. from Yale School of Drama.
Philip Carlson: Fran, you have worked at many theatres with ‘Repertory’ as part of, if not their name, certainly their reputation. Have you ever had what you feel is a true repertory experience as an actor?
Fran Dorn: One of the few benefits that come with age is having been around during the “golden age” of repertory theater. I was fortunate enough to have been hired into the American Conservatory Theatre company in San Francisco under the artistic direction of the renowned William Ball, right out of graduate school. The members of the company laughingly referred to it as “theater nirvana.” There were forty full-time actors in the company along with six resident directors, four resident designers and a union shop and crew. The theatre also had at its disposal the talent of 50-75 professional conservatory students and approximately 200 children’s conservatory students. We did ten fully produced plays in revolving rep at the 1600-seat Geary and another half dozen plays at the smaller Marines’ Memorial Theater space. The thrill of being fully employed as an actor in one of the most amazing artistic centers in the world usually performing in 3 different plays per week, was beyond anything I could have wished for. I was there for two and one-half seasons.
Thinking lightning could not possibly strike twice in one spot, I was surprised and delighted to find myself in two other companies after moving to Washington, DC. The Shakespeare Theatre under the artistic direction of Michael Kahn became my artistic home for more than fifteen years. Although we performed straight runs there, I remained part of the core company of approximately seven actors performing in four to five plays per season. I did the same at Arena Stage for a couple of seasons. Neither of those companies offers seasonal contracts for actors on a regular basis any longer, but when the Shakespeare Company opened the new Harman Center for the Arts in 2007, they produced a revolving repertory of two plays which gave twenty actors contracts for almost six months. I understand that the theater has attempted to continue that practice each season.
Aside from Oregon Shakespeare, I’m not aware of theaters offering a number of season long contracts to actors. In the seventies and eighties, almost every theater had a resident company and developed an audience intrigued with watching the same group of actors tackle myriad characters, plays and styles. Unfortunately, my students, for the most part, will not have such opportunities.
PC: Wow. I hadn’t realized the glory days under Bill Ball included revolving rep. Does the knowledge that your students will not have those opportunities for such complete artistic exploration and growth at all affect or inform your approach to teaching?
FD: The truth is that I know only one way to act, and one way to teach it. The technique has evolved over time because I continue to evolve as an artist but it basically remains the same. What I try to provide for my students are alternative approaches and skill sets that I don’t know well or feel unqualified to teach. These might include: acting for the camera, Laban, Viewpoints and most importantly solo performance technique and collaborative process. Given the current economy, the lack of apprenticeship programs and diminishing fund for most theaters, it is imperative that emerging artists learn to develop and produce their own work or in collaboration with small groups. Perhaps it is indicative of the town I live in, but the “garage band” mentality of theater is alive and well. In some ways, current theater trends mimic the “happenings” of the sixties. At that time, theater developed in reaction to the status-quo and altered the way the general public eventually viewed popular entertainment. “Hair” was a natural outgrowth. Today, the public is still looking for alternative theatrical venues and small experimental theater groups and theater festivals provide the outlets. “New work” is the name of the game. Actors simply can’t afford to stand by and wait to be hired.
Perhaps I should rethink my disappointment at the demise of classical repertory theater. My students are better equipped to handle the mercurial nature of the career. They benefit from classical training (able to tackle “the well made play”) and are ready to improvise in any number of genres and under varying conditions. They are theatrical entrepreneurs, ultimately playing many parts – not only characters written by someone else, but also writer, director, designer, producer and dramaturge for their own work. Their repertory is the volatile nature of theater itself.
PC: That sounds to me like an extraordinarily positive and well- articulated response to the woeful state of employment possibilities for actors out there. Not just some feel-good rationalization. Still, I can’t help but think a National Theatre, or a number of National Theatres would restore actors and audiences to the “theatre nirvana” that you experienced in San Francisco. Why do you think we don’t have such an entity in this country? What do you feel are the obstacles?
FD: Hmmm. The hard fact is that no one wants it (a National Theater). This is an amazingly innovative and entrepreneurial society. If it were possible to create a national theater, it would have been done by now. The country is huge with extraordinary diversity. What would “national theater” mean in this country? Would it be “nationalized”? Does “national” imply ownership or viewership? Who would determine the quality? How would it be regulated? How would it be funded? Where would it be and who would decide location(s)? Who would run it? The organization of the beast is mind-boggling. I haven’t read recent statistics, but I don’t believe audience attendance has increased noticeably per capita in years. It would probably be a hard sell for any administration to push for national public funding. The former glory of ACT or Arena Stage didn’t occur because the theater aimed at being “national” but because the theater provided an artistic center of enlightenment and entertainment, the community surrounding them needed and believed in them and supported them accordingly.
For several years, some partners and I attempted to bring regional theater to the internet. It was the only way I could envision a “national” theater. The premise was to web-cast live performances from fifty theaters around the country and archive productions for the general public, much like the Lincoln Center archives. The educational benefits alone were staggering. (Imagine being able to see/compare several productions of “Our Town” or The Brother/Sister Plays for your next paper!) We also designed a “national” new play development vehicle whereby actors around the country could join in reading scripts followed by critical conversation among audience, playwrights and actors. Our aim was never to have the internet replace live performances, but to reach people who have never considered going to the theater. If we got them hooked on their laptops, we could probably get them in the theater seats. (People still pile into the worst stadium seats to see sports events they could much easier watch on television.) The technology exists to do a pretty good job of web-casting and everyone we talked to was intrigued and excited by the idea—including individual theaters directors and producers. The biggest challenge was the unions dictating more hoops than we could possibly jump through. Revenue sharing is not a concept unions are currently willing to entertain. Without union support, investors became hard to attract, and…you can fill in the rest. The whole idea grew from the knowledge that I had friends and colleagues doing amazing work around the globe that I would never see because of time, distance and/or finances. Seeing them on line was certainly preferable to never seeing them at all.
At the end of the day, our “national theater” is already out there in every major city in the country. The theater’s job is to do quality artistic work that people find relevant to their lives and convince them to go see it. We can support that endeavor through a national forum to discuss innovations for increasing audience attendance, increasing funding and producing better quality theater while remaining fiscally responsible. We must push for more theater education in schools. There are already ways to give “national” exposure to specific plays. Since co-producing is now the norm, audiences in different parts of the country can often see the same production. And yes, the internet will increasingly play a role in providing revenue streams, enhancing the viewing experience and audience cultivation – not simply as an advertising/information vehicle. As long as theaters don’t get stuck in outmoded production practices or choose to exist solely as “play museums,” our form of “national theater” will thrive despite periodic economic vagaries. Being down doesn’t mean we’re out. Because of the many instantaneous modes of communication, I think we may have already moved beyond the concept of “national” theater and must now embrace “world” theater.
PC: It is beyond disheartening to hear that the unions were able to quash such an innovative and potentially productive idea. But I feel that people still flock to sports arenas for the same reason that (far fewer) people go to the theatre. There is no substitute for human beings behaving in the flesh. I personally want to live in a world where all that internet theatre-going has led to a resurgence of actual theatre going. (I realize we are dreaming here.) But let’s imagine the demand for a National Theatre has been met and become a reality. Let’s say you were put in charge of the training program for that theatre. Can you suggest a curriculum?
FD: My curriculum for the National Theatre Conservatory would be much like the curriculum for the program I head – with an expected up-tick in funding – and possibly on steroids. I think it is safe to say that western theater is still for the most part Stanislavski based. I would continue this practice with Meisner technique as the core. I would supplement the area with Alexander Technique, Laban and Viewpoints. Movement for actors would be supplemented with Pilates core strengthening, and various dance/movement techniques (ballet, jazz, modern, musical theater, acrobatics, African dance, Tai-chi, yoga). Masks and clowning skills would act as an addendum to movement/acting training. Voice and speech would, of course, be essential following a Rodenberg or Berry methodology. Language, accents and dialects would be part of the curriculum. Singing classes would be key. These courses would form the base of training in the program and prepare the students for a variety of theatrical forms.
Intellectually, students would embark on a rigorous study of contemporary plays along with theater history and forms—including diverse ethnic and cultural customs and innovative/new age/ alternative performance practices. A course in contemporary culture and society would make actors aware of the world around them. Collaborative work would include a thorough understanding and hands-on experience of how other theater practitioners (playwrights, designers, directors, dramaturges, choreographers and crew) contribute to the production.
The classics (Shakespeare, Restoration, Moliere, the Greeks) would occupy a major unit of the acting/voice/speech curriculum. Period movement/dance and stage combat would be necessary additions at this juncture.
Although “theater nirvana” would have reemerged, I believe I would insist that actors explore solo performance and the creation of new work. The “business” of theater would be covered by workshops and master classes with agents, lawyers, managers and theater producers. The actors would also have a thorough understanding of acting for the camera and contemporary media. Casual and structured conversations with guest theater professionals would be provided as often as possible.
I would devise a health and well-being course for the actors to follow. The exploration of other art forms (painting, sculpture, opera, music) would be encouraged. Actors would receive training so that they could go out into the community to teach and mentor various segments of the community and emerging artists.
Clearly, the curriculum would be a combination of classic theater pedagogy and more contemporary methodology. This would prepare the actor to live fully in the world, remain intellectually curious, socially responsible and be prepared for the rigors of contemporary and classical plays in performance. It would mean that actors could contribute to the evolution of theatrical forms and engage audiences in interesting and provocative ways.
Society would hunger for the exchange provided by the National Theatre and people would clamor for tickets (which would miraculously be FREE) and of course, be easily accessible to audiences world-wide on the web! It’s always hard for an artist to know where reality stops and fantasy begins.
PC: When you dream, you dream big. I am probably most struck (and heartened) by your inclusion of “a rigorous study of contemporary plays.” Young actors don’t seem to read anymore. Why is that, do you suppose?
FD: Young actors are the products of their time. They see lots of “new work” and few theaters produce the American classics like Albee, O’Neill, Miller or even Amiri Baraka. Young actors’ own friends/colleagues write many of the plays they’re cast in and their primary “theatrical” exposure is film, television AND the ubiquitous YouTube. Theater tickets are expensive and young actors (and audiences, mind you) remain unconvinced that the work being done in the regionals has anything to do with their lives. Unless they have enrolled in a dramatic literature course, they simply don’t know that some plays and playwrights exist.
Our attention spans have also decreased. I noticed that two of the award-winning straight plays on Broadway (“Race” and “God of Carnage”) are basically one-acts. It would be interesting to know how “Fences” is being received as a full-blown production (of course, making such productions “star vehicles” has its own rewards). Shakespeare is still popular but often with a gimmick or contemporary spin or is greatly abridged to make it palatable. Young actors sometimes appear uninterested in researching their theatrical “roots.” They certainly don’t want to read anything they cannot “Google.”
I remember one summer in college being obsessed with Dickens and reading novel after novel. Perhaps if I’d been of the Facebook/Twitter generation, I’d have been slightly less inclined.
None of these trends is reason to become exercised. Every generation has its own bias and period of distancing themselves from the previous generation. E-books and iPads may make accessing longer plays and books easier and therefore rekindle (no pun intended) interest. Artists/individuals eventually understand that the easiest way to understand today is through careful examination of yesterday.
PC: Maybe no pun was intended but I have to say that was awfully clever. Do you have a favorite performance? A favorite moment in that performance?
FD: You have to understand that I am basically a pushover. I cried at the last episode of LOST! The first Broadway show I ever saw was Angela Lansbury in “Mame”; the second was “Hello, Dolly” with Pearl Baily and Cab Calloway. I went to school with Meryl Streep and Lizbeth Mackay and I’ve worked with actors like Philip Goodwin, Pat Carroll, Robbie Sella and Patrick Stewart. I’ve had Tracy Thoms and Taraji Henson as students. Let’s just say I’ve seen some good work.
However, I must single out a life changing moment I experienced in the theater. It was around 1980 when I saw an actor whose work I didn’t know in a play called “Custer” at the Kennedy Center. He played the character of Benteen, a colonel and contemporary of General Custer. I won’t go into a synopsis of the play, but it was highly stylized with actors often entering a pretty bare stage and addressing the audience. John McMartin was the actor and he changed my understanding of what you could do on a stage. He was all graciousness as a steely southern gentleman. There was controlled fury and quicksilver wit. He was minimalist and mesmerizing. He brought every member of that audience forward in their seats and never raised his voice. I finally learned what the terms centered, grounded and focused meant. He was “living in the moment” personified.
When I later met John, I remember bursting into tears and babbling. He looked pretty horrified at my emotional assault. It was worth my embarrassment to have attempted to say ‘thank you.’
PC: It’s time to say ‘thank you’ to you for your very generous and thoughtful responses. I envy your students. Thank you.