WHO'S AFRAID OF EDWARD ALBEE?
Edward Albee has been a force for the stage for around half a century. But while his plays endure, the man himself is a bit dated, Laura Parker writes ...
Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE
In the 50 or so years that he has been writing plays, Edward Albee has
remained unchanged as both man and playwright. This, at least, is what he said in a rare public interview at the Sydney Theatre Company earlier this year. The talk was hosted by Jonathan Biggins, an Australian theatre personality, who spent two hours asking Albee questions in front of a live audience. Having never heard the great playwright speak before, I was eager for this rare glimpse at his genius mind. What I got instead was the sense that Edward Albee is an old fogey.
According to Albee, the problem is that the world of theatre has changed in ways he disapproves of. He is especially irked by the increasing importance of a director’s vision, which is now understood to be just as valuable as what is being directed. In interviews and public speeches, Albee has been vocal about his distaste for those who neglect his strict stage directions. In his eyes, directors who foist their own vision on a production are nothing but "interpretive types that think they know our work better than we do".
Albee’s formative years were bittersweet: adopted by a very rich family who owned and managed a chain of Vaudeville theatres, he was treated to the best education that money could buy (not to mention free trips to the theatre). But he hated his adopted parents, who were racist, anti-Semitic and, worst of all (to his mind), Republicans. So he up and left New York's suburbs for the city when he was 18, and began his education in the "serious" arts, as he called them.
Literature, art, theatre and music filled his eyes and ears until one day he found himself writing his first play, "The Zoo Story" (1958), in three weeks when he was 30. Although it was rejected by producers in New York, it was successful in convincing Albee that playwriting was what he wanted to do. And there’s no denying that he has done it well. His works are biting satires of modern life and the family unit, which lay bare the tribulations of social disparity and the negative effects of an ever-changing commercial world. All in all, an heroic contribution to theatre.
During his early years Albee (pictured right in 1987) was greatly inspired by Samuel Beckett, whom he continues to revere. Albee's affinity for Beckett goes beyond their similarly dark preoccupations with the human condition. Beckett also took a hardline view of adaptations of his works. He was notoriously meticulous in his stage directions, supervising rehearsals of his plays whenever he could. He would often sideline directors to tell actors their intonations were wrong, or they were not moving the way they should, or the lights were too bright, or not bright enough. He even tried to close down one or two productions when he felt his work was being misrepresented.
Following Beckett’s death, the playwright’s licenses and rights to perform his plays fell into the hands of his nephew, Edward Beckett, who has maintained an iron-grip on his uncle’s work. He is known for refusing to grant licenses for productions that do not strictly adhere to Beckett’s stage directions.
Albee is almost certainly plotting something similar for his own legacy. He has been a vocal critic of productions that take too many liberties with his plays, such as a 2007 production of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"(1961-62) at Sydney’s Belvoir Street Theatre. Staged by Benedict Andrews, a young and audacious director, this version was both terrifying and brilliant. It stripped away Albee’s stage directions and set requirements, and featured a much younger cast than the script calls for. The result was pure, alcohol-fuelled psychosexual warfare, played out on a stark and sleek stage surrounded by a glass cage. It made for a perfect example of how a director’s vision can breathe new life into an old work.
Albee didn’t see it that way. He denounced Andrews’s production, comparing such changes to musicians who tell the conductor they’re improving the piece by playing it differently. “I see and hear my play on stage in my mind when I write it,” Albee told Biggins. “I expect people to perform it that way.” He then recounted a sour experience witnessing a Bulgarian production of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" that ran without any intervals ("Bulgarians don’t like intervals," Albee explained). Large chunks of the play were cut. Albee was outraged.
Yet on the topic of stage adaptations of Shakespeare’s works, Albee suggested that a few of the Bard’s plays could do with a trim. “We have to accept that not all Shakespeare plays are as good as others. We all know that 'Hamlet' should end with Hamlet’s death. There’s no point or need for any of that other stuff afterwards. All productions of 'Hamlet' should end with his death, but for some reason they don’t.”
The problem is not only that Albee is selective with his dismay, but that his views are so dazzlingly out of date. Theatre is an ever-growing, ever-changing medium. No progress could ever be made if everyone stuck to the rules. To interpret a work from a single point of view (that of the person who created it) is to impose an unreasonable limit on that work. Meaning doesn’t lie with the creator, but with each reader, each observer. In theatre the roles of directors and actors are increasingly important, not just for the growth of theatre but for fresh takes on old works. Albee’s wishes for ceaseless loyalty are not only difficult to implement (how can a theatre company know exactly what was intended?), but disrespectful to those directors and actors who are driving innovation in theatre.
Biggins suggested these views to Albee, but the playwright was not interested. Instead he grew increasingly rude, occasionally cutting Biggins off or ignoring a question altogether. When Albee was asked what he thought of the enduring success of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", the playwright's best-known play, he responded that he hates it when people ask him what his plays are about. Instead, he chose to end the discussion by stating that, like all his plays, the Virginia Woolf characters were drawn from real life and did not require too much scrutiny. “It’s just a play about university professors and their wives.”
Perhaps the same can be said for Albee. Despite his enduring impact as a playwright, it seems best not to scrutinise him too closely.
Picture credit: Film still from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?", MDCarchives
(Laura Parker is a writer based in Sydney. Though soon after writing this piece, she found herself reconsidering her theory on overprotective playwrights.)
Article tools
Email this page
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Comments
Edward Albee
November 16, 2009 - 14:42 — Richard Stein (not verified)Knowing that Edward Albee was increasingly insistent upon directing major productions of his plays, I once asked him if he'd ever seen one staged by someone other than himself that shed new light on his work. His answer: no.
Like it or not, Albee's
November 16, 2009 - 17:54 — Visitor (not verified)Like it or not, Albee's success speaks for itself.
Disrespect
November 17, 2009 - 03:16 — WS Gregory (not verified)"...disrespectful to those directors and actors who are driving innovation in theatre."
So, no playwrights living then? No innovation coming from them? Well, gosh, that's a pity.
The next time some tyro director suggest a radical reinterpretation of a classic text because it isn't sufficiently contemporary in outlook-- what about this instead-- go get a playwright and commission a new play! There's a thought!
You're complaining that a living author is upset that his wishes are willfully ignored? Would you say the same to an architect-- that she shouldn't have control over the color of her building?
Don't you think maybe the playwright's specific directions are there for a reason? That maybe the job of the Director and Actors is to find that reason, to explore it, to bring it forward as the creative interpretive artist they are-- rather than toss it out?
It's not the playwrights who are showing disrespect in this situation.
Disrespect
November 17, 2009 - 03:56 — pharrer (not verified)Let me second the above. The article's author sees interpretation, free or otherwise, as a means of investing plays with new life, but is that life worth living? Would she propose setting Chekhov's "Cherry Orchard" in a slum or "The Three Sisters" in a space station circling the earth? Such ventures would be laughably absurd. Creative artists such as Albee have a right to maintain the integrity of their work when entrusting them into the hands of interpretive artists such as directors and actors.
Ed, Ben and Will
November 17, 2009 - 07:46 — BH (not verified)The only play I've ever seen of Edward Albee's that I remember as wonderful (though the production a bit ordinary) was 'Three Tall Women'. The later goat-fucking play was, I thought, ho-hum BUT the Benedict Andrews production of 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff' was benchmark pompous. Rather than making a very long and not so relevant as it once was play better, it registered, on me anyway, as uber-ambitious director's theatre at its nearly worst. His 'A Season at Sarsparilla' got even closer.
And re Shakespeare. No matter how wonderful a cutting edge production of 'Hamlet' can be, can it ever be more relevant or entertaining for an audience than it was to the one it was written for in 1601? Would seem hard, don't you reckon?
Interpretation and creation
November 17, 2009 - 13:54 — bibliophile (not verified)"The Cherry Orchard" set in a slum does seem absurd, but who's to say there isn't some directorial genius lurking out there who could pull it off? And conversely, the most respectful production in the world could easily be the most boring three hours you ever sat through. The devil is in the details.
And then there's the "de gustibus" issue--Laura Parker thought Andrews' "Virginia Woolf" was "brilliant"; BH calls it "benchmark pompous." Same production, different response. Who is "right"?
For Albee to insist on total fidelity to his intentions (especially when he thinks it's OK to fiddle with Shakespeare) is just plain silly.
A Substantial Difference
November 17, 2009 - 14:52 — WS Gregory (not verified)"..For Albee to insist on total fidelity to his intentions (especially when he thinks it's OK to fiddle with Shakespeare) is just plain silly."
May I point out the following:
1. There are no indications of Shakespeare's original intentions regarding the physical staging of his plays. The information we currently have is from various sources compiled after his death which had been filtered through the memories of various performers relating to various productions.
2. Edward Albee is alive and able to express his intentions for his work exactly.
There is a substantial difference in the two situations.
edward albee
November 17, 2009 - 23:42 — bruce norris (not verified)Dear Laura Parker: I'm a playwright. I live in New York, and, for the record, one of my plays is about to be directed here by one of Mr. Albee's frequent collaborators, the director Pam MacKinnon.
About a year ago, I was informed in a roundabout way that one of my plays (called "The Pain and the Itch") was being performed in Melbourne at the Red Stitch Theatre. I found out that the director had chosen to costume the actors for the duration of the play, start to finish, in their underwear. Needless to say, this was not what had been written in the script - which, by the way, is not a "classic" in any sense of the word. It's a brand new play which premiered in the US in 2006. But apparently, I am an "old fogey" like Mr. Albee, because I had to have my agents contact the theatre and threaten to withdraw the rights to the production if they refused to perform the play as written. Apparently - and I have no way of knowing for sure - they eventually costumed the actors as written, over the strenuous (and moronic and inarticulate) objections of the director, Gorkem Acaroglu. After reading your thoughts, I find out that there is another moron in Australia fomenting similar pitiful ideas.
If you are so vain, egotistical or simply addled to not know the proper place of the director in the hierarchy of theatre, then lemme let you in on a little secret: YOU DIDN"T WRITE THE PLAY. You are the servant of a text, precisely as a conductor is the servant of a score. There will ALWAYS be differences in productions, in interpretations of material, actors choices, scene design, etc. Theatre is always collaborative. These things are inevitable. But for you to have the audacity to think that whatever bullshit "concept" you yank out of your ass and slap across the work of the person who GENERATED the entire work which you now choose to whimsically deface is testimony to the paucity of your imagination. I've got a suggestion for you, Laura: Since you are apparently so gifted and creative, (after all, it's the directors and actors who are "driving innovation in theatre", so you say), let me suggest that you GO WRITE YOUR OWN FUCKING PLAY and stop trying to take credit for "improving" that which you are lucky enough to get to direct in the first place. Better yet, get a job as the one thing you are apparently qualified for: A CRITIC.
As an early career director,
November 18, 2009 - 13:49 — Visitor (not verified)As an early career director, one of the things I have been taught that has resonated the most with me has been the idea that the story being told on stage is the playwright's story. As such, the director, actors, and designers who are telling this story must do right by it. All of our ideas and storytelling techniques used must be based out of the play itself, and not be imposed from an outside source. In this sense, Mr. Albee is perfectly correct with his demands, particularly since he is still alive and can be consulted if necessary.
However, it does strike me as a bit presumptuous for Mr. Albee, as well as others like him, to inherently assume that no one could ever think of anything new regarding their plays. As I understand it (and again, I'm young), playwrights often make changes to their works during initial productions, and sometimes even beyond, as they find necessary. Some of these are things that the authors themselves have thought of, while others may be suggested by the director or actors. Consequently, good ideas about plays can from outside the playwrights mind, and while Mr. Albee's classics have certainly stood the test of many decades, he should perhaps listen to his own advice regarding Shakespeare.
In the end, I firmly believe that a director's decisions about a play must be choices the author would agree with, though they do not necessarily need to be things the author has already thought of.
Creative differences
November 19, 2009 - 05:16 — Rob Salvin (not verified)Obviously Albee, as a living playwright, is quite within his right to protect his play as he sees fit. Long-dead authors with plays in the public domain aren't afforded this protection so, rightly or wrongly, you can do as you will with Shakespeare. As a writer of no particular repute I generally have to direct my own plays if I want them to see the light of day. This involves trying to remember what my intentions were in the first place and then trying not to stray too far from them in the production. The only time someone else has directed something of mine it was someone I knew well and trusted. Having said that, I would pay good money to sit in on a rehearsal of a Bruce Norris play directed by Laura Parker.
Supporting Playwrights
November 19, 2009 - 18:05 — Marcus West (not verified)Just to set the record straight, Inscription invited, paid for and curated Edward Albee's tour of Australia. Not the Sydney Theatre Company. Though we did appreciate enormously their assistance in getting together a public forum with us for EA. The purpose of getting Albee here? To encourage and inspire Australian scriptwriters; the people who are the genesis of most theatre we see. Albee was a great choice because of the same reasons Laura Parker found him to be an "old fogey." He's tough and he stands up for the scriptwriter as creator. Australian scriptwriters need more investment, training, nurture and inspiration and we try to help just a little and certainly Edward helped the participants in our master classes to trust their instincts more.
The Play's the Thing
November 20, 2009 - 07:55 — Allen (not verified)It seems to me that the playwright has a perfect right to insist that his play be performed as written -- and that includes stage directions. Why are they any less a part of the copywritten work than the dialogue? They are all part of one total vision.
Ridiculous attack
November 23, 2009 - 15:15 — Visitor (not verified)I was looking forward to read this essay expecting illumating thoughts on such a classic playwriter - I am very much dissapointed in this essay- To say that "that his views are so dazzlingly out of date" sound very much like heresy to his art; by WHOSE standards are his views out of date? I am in my early 30-s and the broadway performance of "Who is afraid of Virginia Wolf" was thrilling...in every sense of it-- and it adhered to his views, which I found very deep, and at the same time contemporary..as far as the oplay in australia "result was pure, alcohol-fuelled psychosexual warfare, played out on a stark and sleek stage surrounded by a glass cage"... I haven't seen it, but I can tell you that the glass cage would just make it surreal for me and I got every bit of the result from the classic play the way it was.
To attack a living artist on why doesn't he want to change his play so that people can express "their views" and interpretations is, simply, ridiculous. Parker you must re-writte this piece. Perhaps, you are way out of your league and mind in here.
"Meaning doesn’t lie with
November 23, 2009 - 15:50 — Visitor (not verified)"Meaning doesn’t lie with the creator, but with each reader, each observer."
Exactly, my dear. Your Point again?
A Gracious Reply
November 24, 2009 - 00:53 — Laura (not verified)As the writer of this piece I thought I'd post a reply to some of the comments.
The article was not meant to inspire such a frenzied response from readers. I absolutely love Albee, and I have great respect for his work. I took great pains to make that clear in the piece. My opinion still remains that he is one of the greatest playwrights of the 20th century. My objection was more to his manner during the interview and his views on the role of the director in the creative process.
This was an opinion piece, so I did not intend for it to be taken as anything other than opinion. It was not written for shock value, and it was not an unfounded and deliberate "attack" on Albee. Just food for thought in the spirit of discussion.
Oh, and to Mr. Bruce Norris, who expresses himself so eloquently, my only defence in that regard is that alas, I am not an actor or a director. I’m sure that point is clear if the article is read with attention.
Ironically, after all this, I now know how Albee feels.
-- Laura Parker
Laura to assert Albee is an
November 29, 2009 - 18:24 — Ellen Becker (not verified)Laura to assert Albee is an 'old fogey' then to backtrack once criticised and insist you hold the utmost respect for him is needless to say rather contradictory. Unlike most of those who made comments on your 'opinion' piece (and opinion needs emphasis), I actually went to the interview with Albee at the STC. I found him to be even more delightful than I had expected, and while as you did note at times he cut off the interviewer, keep in mind that he is also eighty one years old, and the play that has roused the most impassioned discussion was written close to fifty years ago. How many times do you think he has been asked the same needless questions? What you interpreted as rudeness, I interpreted as Albee trying to send the conversation in alternate directions to avoid responding with the same answers he has from the time it was written. Even Jonathan acknowledged at the start that it is impossible to ask Albee questions which haven't been asked already. He was incredibly quick and bright and endlessly fascinating, and is one that truly deserves the utmost respect from his admirers and beyond, not the useless accusations of your article which personally I believe are unfounded given his responses in the interview.
Isn't Ms. Parker's real sin
November 30, 2009 - 21:11 — Thomas Garvey (not verified)Isn't Ms. Parker's real sin that she has simply regurgitated here what is force fed to young people from the surrounding culture and even our universities? She says nothing in any way original over the course of her piece - and not even anything particularly insightful regarding Albee's aesthetic or his plays. She simply toes the current party line as it is currently taught in theatre departments across the U.S., and I assume Australia. It's nice to see playwrights are beginning to fight back; people like Ms. Parker (and I'd bet Benedict Andrews) are slowly killing the theatre. Probably only playwrights can save it.
Authorial Insecurity
December 9, 2009 - 20:34 — Campbell Edinborough (not verified)I am shocked at the unpleasantness of some of these comments towards Parker. The insecurity of the view that directors and actors need be servants of the text completely baffles me. Good writing transcends the ephemeral nature of an individual production. Albee's work is testament to this fact; so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that he should relax a little about individual directors' choices.
Chekov's work survived Stanislavsky, Brook and Dodin's interpretations. It also deepened and matured in relation to those readings. We should applaud risk and experimentation; not because it is always best, but because it encourages us to develop our readings of texts. We don't produce theatre to celebrate the text, but to communicate with an audience. There is no reason to suggest that the playwright must be the final arbiter of such communication. (And no reason to suggest s/he shouldn't.)
help
February 14, 2010 - 09:43 — Visitor (not verified)I really would like if you kindly inform me about more deatais of one of the most gerat and wounderful play writters, Edvard Allbee.
I really like to know his e-mail Add. Mail Add. Tel No.,... if he is still alive (hope to be).
I really appologize not to be as familiar as the other comments.
Post new comment