wufi‘wfigufls
1.9 .C. . finp‘uvvmkd. .rflf.

“W

, «I'M-Lizudl
n. . . Hid .n..o..v..u.....;.ry...nm..u'vnw .
orsflo .v. ....YllWHrW.ailv flay.»J
"on :1. I.

‘ufll‘!‘u

than... H.301 u\
c .. . Iii.
, u . unhiouta
cl .c.-..

i...

I “wk...“aol ‘

«w.

t~ln1 4t4!\|ln|. ‘ ,
yr“ u U? V

'0 . . IV Q4
autumn.»

.7.‘ ..n....--. rr
v\. ARUNN WULVW.
. . 0.. n ,
Aiihfiu‘lf ..
3.1L” .01 V
1.

 

 

mess ilJlllllllllHlllHIUllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

2 301570 6132

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

DLCCN’SIIQK’CTWON “Thtfofy, p(a\c'(*;(Ce_ CVwL
AfphCa‘JflUm

presented by

mac/1412i Lx/mn MamSOfl

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M- A" degreeinWmHC

 

or professor

45/2221, //C%./w7;(fi
Date E59/7/2' ’q 7‘

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to roman this chockout from your rocord.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or bdoro duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECONSTRUCTION: THEORY, PRACTICE, AND APPLICATION

BY

Rachel Lynn Abramson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Theatre

1997

ABSTRACT
DECONSTRUCTION: THEORY, PRACTICE, AND APPLICATION
BY

Rachel Lynn Abramson

In the study of theatre, it is necessary to recognize
change and progression from both a theoretical and
practical viewpoint. In fact, many obtuse theories may
be best understood through practice--such is the case for
the theory of deconstruction.

In this study, deconstructionist theory is discussed
from two angles--the ”pure" and the ”practical." The
history of the ”pure" theory is traced back to Jacques
Derrida, and discuss its transformations through
practical application in the art of theatre. The study
ends with a personal, retrospective look into merging
theory and practice through a production of Lysistrata.

Through this type of dichotomous approach, future
academicians and practitioners of theatre may understand

the continual influence of deconstructionist theory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Georg Schuttler,
for his inexhaustible patience, persistence, assistance,
and encouragement. I am.deeply appreciative for all of
his efforts, support, and guidance throughout my Master's
tenure.

Additionally, I would like to thank Mark Hoover for
providing me with an isolated and ergonomic work-space in
which I wrote this study. I would also like to thank him
for his support and love.

Finally, I would like to thank my brother, Brian
Abramson, and my sister, Cari Felski, for paving the
successful way and providing me with undying inspiration,

pride, and awe.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1
Deconstruction: origin, form, style, and influence 1
NOTES .............................................. 7

CHAPTER ONE ............................................ 9
Deconstruction in Theory ........................... 9
What is deconstruction? ............................ 9
From what (or whom) did it evolve? ................ 11
What is the purpose ? ............................. l7
Feminist theory and deconstruction ................ l7
NOTES ............................................. 22

CHAPTER TWO ........................................... 24
Deconstruction in Theatre Practice ................ 24
Transitions: From recent past to present ......... 27
NOTES ............................................. 42

CHAPTER THREE ......................................... 45
Michigan State University’s Production

of Lysistrata ................................. 45
Style ............................................. 47
The Set ........................................... 48
The Costumes ...................................... 50
The Bacchants Improv Ensemble ..................... 52
Plot .............................................. 53
Dramaturgy ........................................ 53

CONCLUSION ............................................ 59
NOTES ............................................. 62

APPENDICES ............................................ 63
Appendix A ........................................ 63‘
Appendix B ........................................ 64
Appendix C ........................................ 65
Appendix D ........................................ 66
Appendix E ........................................ 67
Appendix F ........................................ 68

iv

Appendix G ........................................ 744

Appendix H ........................................ '78
Appendix I ........................................ 85
Appendix J ........................................ 88
Appendix K ........................................ 91
Appendix L ........................................ 92
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 9 4
GENERAL REFERENCES .................................... 9 6

INTRODUCTION

Deconstruction: origin, form, style, and influence
This study will focus upon three major areas of
deconstruction: 1) its theory, 2) its practice, and 3)

its application. First, I will briefly examine
deconstruction from contextual origins and theoretical
standpoints to show the relationship between
deconstructionist theory and theatrical theories and
practice. Emphatic contemporary leaders in the field of
deconstruction prove that the question of ”who started
it?" is still up for debate. As Howard Felperin states
in his book, Beyond Deconstruction: ”While NObel Prizes
are often awarded belatedly or retrospectively, such an
infinite regress or mise-en-abime of likely candidates
for the dubious title of 'founding father of

deconstruction' would make something of a mockery or a

nonsense of the committee's august deliberations.”l
Chapter 1 will begin with a focus on Jacques Derrida,

Paul de Man, and Harold Bloom, the primary documentors of

the movement, in order to establish a working
understanding, not definition, of deconstruction. I
emphasize “understanding" as opposed to “definition"
because my research has led me to firmly believe that a
concrete definition of deconstruction is not only
impossible, but obsolete and anti-thetical to the genre
itself:
As its oxymoronic self-appellation suggested from the
beginning, deconstruction was always, given its
negative understanding of the differential and
deferential nature of language and textuality, a

practice oppositional to all philosophies of
representation and construction, the newer as well as

the older, an anti-methodical method.2
Along these lines, as oxymoron, as paradox, as self-
deconstructing word, deconstruction asks for an anti-
definitive definition.

Many theorists have made furtive attempts to define
deconstruction, or to tame it as method suited for their
area of criticism" I maintain a position between what is
believed to be the original theoretical conception
(eventually described in words by Derrida) and practical
understanding of deconstruction for the purposes of
dramatic literary and theatrical theory and praxis. It
is through this subjective, intermediate understanding

that I approach deconstruction and how it has influenced

the theatre. Deconstruction should not be approached as
if it were dogma: "To present 'deconstruction’ as if it
were a method, a system or a settled body of ideas would

be to falsify its nature and lay oneself open to charges

of reductive misunderstanding."3 However, I will trace
how the ideas and impetus behind deconstruction have
transformed how theorists and practitioners criticize and
create theatre.

Chapter 1 ends with a look into the perseverance of

deconstruction. Some theorists claim that deconstruction

is dead.4 I agree that deconstruction, as a method for
discussion surrounding textual analysis may have "said
all it has to say." However, once deconstruction, like
energy, is created it cannot simply disappear. It
penetrates many other avenues of theory; in this work, I
will focus on the parallels made between deconstruction
and feminist theory as an example of such penetration and
perpetual influence.

In Chapter II, I will discuss deconstruction through
the practice of theatre artists and practitioners. I
will begin with an overview of how deconstruction has
integrated itself into theatre practice and theory. My

initial analysis will focus upon the playtext and how its

4

function has changed through deconstructive thought and
application. Then I will discuss how that newly
perceived text is utilized in a deconstructed production.
I will briefly emphasize some major transitions and
tranformations of theatre practice within the 20th
century in order to clarify from.where deconstruction
evolved. I will then analyze previously documented
deconstructed theatre productions of The University of
Wisconsin-Madison's A.Midsummer Night’s Dream, co-
directed by Jill Dolan, and the American Repertory
Theatre's Wbyzeck, directed by Marcus Stern, in order to
highlight processes of director, dramaturg, actors, and
designers. Though deconstruction is not purported as an
instructional methodology for theatre, these productions

allow for a sense of understanding about the leap between

theory and practice.5 I will emphasize analysis on the
role of the text, in different forms and stages,
throughout the deconstructed theatre production process.
The goal of deconstructive thought in relation to
theatre practice is not to radically subvert all pre-
formed notions of the practice and art. It is not to
strip the author or director or text of their creative

”power" for purposes of mere displacement or replacement

(i.e., placing this ”power" into the hands or heads of
someone or something else). The goal is to discover what
happens in the midst of that displacement:
Deconstruction neither denies nor really affects the
commonsense view that language exists to communicate

meaning. It suspends that view for its own specific
purpose of seeing what happens when the writs of
6

convention no longer run.

What Christopher NOrris claims of language in
deconstruction can also be said of deconstructionist
theatre. The “commonsense view that language exists to
communicate meaning" may be equated with the view that
theatre exists to communicate meanings and emotions. It
is at this point of ”suspension" that I begin my study of
deconstructed theatre productions. This section will
show how some artists have translated deconstructive
thought into applicable processes for the creation of a
theatre production. I will not attempt to pinpoint
specific elements of these productions and label them.as
”deconstruction" or ”non-deconstruction;" rather, I will
assume these productions as deconstructions and focus on
analyzing the approach and results.

In Chapter III, I will step out of the intermediary
position and discuss my first-hand approach at

deconstruction with a production of Lysistrata performed

6

at Michigan State University. In this chapter, I will
compare my experience with that of other
deconstructionist theatre artists and their productions.
I will discuss my working relationships with the other
artisans involved in the production to illustrate some of
the intriguing dynamics revealed through a deconstructive
process. I will analyze the use of the playtext in this
production through deconstructionist theory and discuss
how this theory shapes and transforms production practice

and methodology.

NOTES

1Howard Felperin, Beyond Deconstruction: The USes
and Abuses of Literary Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1985) 105.
2Felperin 110.

3ChristOpher Norris, Deconstruction: Theory &

Practice (New York: Methuen, 1982) 1.

4Diane Elam, Pominism and Deconstruction (New York:
Routledge, 1994) 120; John M. Ellis, Against
Deconstruction (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1989) vii. Elam.briefly discusses the argument
regarding the death of deconstruction and the onset of
post-feminism. She opposes the idea of either, though
she does feel that ”the appeal to deconstruction as an
interpretative method within literary studies has reached
its 1imit."(120) Ellis discusses the idea circulating
that deconstruction is on its way out of the theoretical
world. He refutes this matter by mentioning how

published books and journal on the topic are on the rise.

8

5Both Elam and Norris continually state throughout
their texts, that Derrida never proposed deconstruction
as a tool or methodology to be used by practitioners of
any sort. They stress the fact that many theorists, who
denounce Derrida’s theory based on the self-contradictory
nature that deconstruction assumes through application,

have missed this point.

6Norris 128.

CHAPTER ONE

Deconstruction in Theory
What is deconstruction?

Simply put, deconstruction in theory is a paradox.
It touches on the basic human desire to seek truth and
answers by questioning or subverting assumed,
institutionalized, and presumably stable thought or
method. According to Norris, ”Deconstruction is the

active antithesis of everything that criticism ought to

be if one accepts its traditional values and concepts."1
In other words, criticism (and critics) are bound to the
theories and methodologies in which they work. They've
assumed a theoretical standpoint and filter analyses
through this theory in order to reach conclusions or
answers. If accepted, deconstruction disallows for the
assumed theoretical standpoints by subverting their
foundation. The term.”active antithesis" connotes that
an opposite truth or answer may be sought through

subversion, and this is where the paradoxical nature of

lO

deconstruction surfaces. For deconstruction is not
grounded in seeking definitions through binary

opposition; it is, in its purist sense, subversion ad

infinitum.2 Conclusions discovered through
deconstructive analyses may also be subverted, or
deconstructed. Therefore, ongoing subversion of
knowledge and truth leads the ”pure" deconstructor to
believe that there are no possible understandings of
anything, only mis-understandings. This skeptical
thought process eventually leads to nihilism. It would
logically then seem that the concept, “deconstruction,"
can be deconstructed to this same point of nihilism.

Why, then, would anyone bother to discuss or study it? I
argue that although the endpoints of critical argument
may always be subverted or negated in deconstruction, the
‘process of deconstructive thought exists, and therefore,
is not nihilistic. It is an active form of thinking and
an ongoing process of doing (or undoing), not a pre-set
tenet by which to define things. I agree with Norris,
however, that for purposes of practical argument,
”Deconstruction can sustain its sceptical position only

to the point where its findings have to be argued in more

. 3 . . .
or less persua31ve terms." This 13 the only View that

11

makes sense if we are to believe that the theory of
deconstruction exists. I will elaborate on this point in
the next section.

From what (or whom) did it evolve?

The primary leaders of contemporary deconstruction
can be split into two main groups: purists and
practicalists. The purists, Derrida and his American
counterpart, de Man, maintain a strict theoretical
viewpoint. The Frenchman, Derrida, was the first to
begin a serious written debate about deconstruction. As
a student of philosophy, Derrida began his arguments for
deconstruction by blurring the critical lines between
philosophy and literature (or creative texts). He feels
that all written language, whether scientific or

creative, is subject to its own ”perplexities of meaning

and intent."4 In his essays, Derrida strives to keep
deconstruction conceptual and opposes the idea of
deconstruction as a system or method. Derrida proposes
deconstruction as a form of questioning, an interrogation
of rhetoric that has traditionally defined and shaped
Western thought.

When debates surrounding deconstruction traveled from

Europe to the United States, de Man rallied on Derrida's

12

side. In true Derridean fashion, de Man ”exemplifies..
qualities of hard-pressed argument and high conceptual

rigour," and is one to “pursue deconstruction to its

ultimate, unsettling conclusions.”S

Derrida and de Man argue that when deconstruction is
applied or used in conjunction with a particular
practice, it is reduced to the same level of
understanding, and therefore simplicity and reduction, as
other theories (such as structuralism). Deconstruction
becomes dependent upon the context in which it's
discussed; once this contextual definition occurs, the
job of deconstruction is done. The purpose of
deconstruction is to subvert definition and solidified
meaning; so for the purists, a process of application
belies the initial intent.

An easy way to understand how deconstruction thrusted
itself into mainstream theory is through literary theory
and structuralism. Structuralism, in literary terms,
purports that texts contain meaning--that words (signs)
created by the author (writer of the text) act as
signifiers for meaning and are comprehensible to the
competent reader. The reader must be infonmed enough to

recognize these signs, subsequently revealing the

l3

inherent meaning in the text. Structuralism.began as a
radical attempt to extract meaning from texts not from
what was included in the words, but what was excluded.

In other words, structuralism focuses on binary
oppositions--arguing against one meaning through the
discovery of its antithesis. Structuralism is ”a process
of adaptation by British and American critics who quickly

took heart from what they saw as its ’practical' or

6 O
'commonsense’ uses." However as Norris states, “What
started out as a powerful protest against ruling critical

assumptions ended up as just one more available method

. . 7
for saying new things about well-worn texts.” In other
words, structuralism, which sought to revoke critical
assumptions, developed into a critical assumption. It

rose to power as a comfortable method for ”properly"

interpreting texts.8

Derrida has many problems with this notion of
interpretation through structure. He feels the
structuralists are limited in their thinking. Derrida
doesn't disapprove of the structuralist’s intent: ”His
object is not to deny or invalidate the structuralist
project but to show how its deepest implications lead on

to a questioning of method more extreme and unsettling

14

than these thinkers wish to admit."9 So Derrida does
disapprove of the satisfaction structuralists receive
from.reaching a comfortable endpoint in their criticism,
and deconstruction serves as a “vigilant reaction against-

this tendency in structuralist thought to tame and

domesticate:"10
Some of Jacques Derrida’s most powerful essays are
devoted to the task of dismantling a concept of

'structure' that serves to immobilize the play of
meaning in a text and reduce it to a manageable

11
compass.

and
Above all. . .it [deconstruction] questions the

assumption. . .that structures of meaning correspond
to some deep-laid mental 'set' or pattern of mind

which determines the limits of intelligibility.12

Derrida's quest for deconstruction does not end
within the scepe of literary theory and structuralism;
however, these examples are most analogous to the ways in
which theatre and deconstruction relate.

As mentioned earlier, this "task of dismantling"
structure (and meaning) continues ad infinitum for the
purist. And as Diane Elam.points out, ”The threat of

theory is that it allows us to forget the interactions

I I 13 I I I I I
Wlth praXis.” Deconstruction, in original form, is no

exception. Once deconstruction gained the attention of

15

American critics and theorists, it gradually assumed
other shapes and functions. For some, like American
critic Harold Bloom, deconstruction has grand allure and
undeniable presence. However, Bloom realizes that in
order for deconstruction to serve a purpose (in his case,
criticizing poetry), there must be some tangible grasping
point:

There has to be a leap from the knowledge that all

interpretation is a network of superimposed tropes,

to the faith that something might yet be achieved to

clear a space for the modern imagination. This is
where Bloom.parts company with de Man and the purist

deconstructors.14

Bloom feels that pure deconstruction reduces all
interpretation to this ”network of superimposed tropes,”
in other words, elusive language that can never be
understood literally. As a result, Bloom feels that the
constant denial of all meaning, based on this “trOping,”
or specious language, denies the existence or possibility
of creativity and imagination translated through the
written word. From his viewpoint, deconstruction can
subvert traditional understandings of meaning in texts,
but this constant act of subversion must allow for other
reconstructive understandings of meaning to surface, even
if these newly reconstructed understandings may be

deconstructed. Otherwise, human imagination cannot be

l6

justified. Bloom feels the language of creativity must
be seen on a greater rhetorical level than critical
language, and consequently resists deconstruction ad
infinitum. Bloom believes that deconstruction (and
deconstructors) cannot simply seek and destroy all
existing theory and meaning without replacing it with a
more comprehensive rhetoric. Bloom states, ”The issue of
the limits of deconstruction will be resolved only if we
attain a vision of rhetoric more comprehensive than the
deconstructors allow, that is, if we can learn to see

rhetoric as transcending the epistemology of tropes and

re-entering the space of the will-to-persuasion."15 In
other words, Bloom feels that the language used in
deconstruction (critical) must ascend to the same
rhetorical level as the language of creativity if
deconstruction is to be used in its purist sense. This
newly ascended rhetoric may also be deconstructed, but
the process of deconstruction becomes one of creative and
scholarly achievement, not mere negation.

This adapted viewpoint on deconstruction enables
practice and application without perverting the original
concept. Bloom.focuses on the process of deconstruction

as a beneficial tool for theorists and practitioners

l7

alike. Bloom, therefore, is considered a practicalist.
What is the purpose?

Using Bloomfs “version" of deconstruction, which
combines theory with applicability, deconstruction
becomes a more solidified launching point for critical
discussion rather than an esoteric and obscure
philosophy. Therefore, at this threshold:

”. . .deconstruction in America is not a monolithic
theory or school of thought but a gathering-point for

critics who are otherwise divided on many central

questions of technique and style."16

Bloom helped to provide accessibility to
deconstruction by allowing practitioners from.a vast
array of fields to analyze deconstruction and utilize its
processes in order to rethink, re-visualize, or subvert
traditional foundations. The relationship between
deconstruction and feminist theory strongly reveals how
this is done.
Feminist theory and deconstruction.

According to Vincent Leitch in Deconstructive
Criticism, ”Cold and remorseless, deconstructive man

assaults the old sensibility and subverts traditional

foundations."17 This quote highlights my previous

18

discussion of deconstructive theory, but also unwittingly
emphasizes the traditional foundation of deconstructive
man. Initial discourse about deconstruction did begin
with a group of men but certainly didn't end there. So,
what about deconstructive woman? In her paper, ”The
Feminist Production of Knowledge: Is Deconstruction a
Practice for Women?" Kate Nash argues both for and
against deconstruction. Nash makes it abundantly clear
that not all feminists agree with or utilize
deconstruction with feminist theory. With references to
other pro-deconstruction feminists such as Judith Butler
and Jane Flax, Nash clearly presents some of the basic
advantages of deconstruction for feminism, These
advantages include the ability to: 1)subvert constructed
gender identity, 2)ensure that the language of feminism
does not, in turn, repress certain members of the
category, women (those of different race, class, or
sexual orientation), and 3)re-think the concept of
objective knowledge. Nash compares the work of Derrida
with that of Butler to show the harmonious parallel:
Derrida's work shows, then, how no two categories, or
cognitions, are identical because of the way
identities depend minutely on the contexts in which
they appear. This is important for feminists because

focusing on the contextual nature of constructions of
gender identity is a good way for us to examine in

19

very close and precise detail exactly how gender
identities have been constructed, in relation to each
other and in relation to other tenms with which they
appear, and also, as Judith Butler emphasizes, how
they are contested and subverted through repetition
in very different contexts from those in which they
have hitherto been used and considered appropriate.
We may, then, see opportunities for, and occasions
of, subversion in the fine detail of everyday social

. 18
practices.

What this means is that, for feminists, the process of
deconstruction allows for the subversion of the
traditional foundations of gender identity.
Deconstruction allows for the dismantling of gender
definition by divorcing it from.its contextual
restrictions (e.g., cultural, biological, or historical
constructs). And the attention to details and context
that deconstruction emphasizes is what benefits feminism
most. As Nash states, "Like deconstruction, then,
feminism is now intent on detail--on the closely
contextualized construction of gender identity,
particularly in terms of the sociological categories of
class, ethnicity, sexuality and so on. For this reason,

the theory and practice of deconstruction can be seen as

. . 19
useful to feminism,"
However, as Nash points out, some feminists confront

deconstruction negatively. It seems it is with the

20

“pure" sense of deconstruction that difficulties arise.
For example, if pure deconstruction denies all
constructed meaning (social, scientific, or otherwise),
how can feminists validate a search for the meaning of
"woman" or ”women?" This search for the meaning of women
includes creating identity. Therefore, anti-

deconstruction feminists, such as Nancy Harstock, feel

that deconstruction actively undermines feminism.20
Harstock states, “is it not suspicious. . .that just as
women are beginning to make demands as women, the whole

idea of a stable identity from which demands can

legitimately be made is discredited?"21 From Nash's
account, it seems that most of the discourse surrounding
deconstruction in the feminist arena splits into two
parties--one is either an enthusiastic supporter or an
adversary of deconstruction. However, these dichotomous
perceptions never deny deconstruction its existence in
that arena. In other words, deconstruction remains as
something to argue about.

Diane Elam, in her book Feminism and Deconstruction,
approaches the relationship between feminism and
deconstruction from a neutral position. She does not

attempt to show how deconstruction and feminist theory

21

may benefit each other, or whether or not they belong in
a harmonious marriage; rather, she keeps the two concepts

“along side each other" and reveals their theoretical and

functional similarities.22 Elam focuses on the processes
of feminism and deconstruction rather than the definitive
endpoints. She states, ”It would be possible. . .to
understand deconstruction and feminism not as systems of
rules but as an endless search for rules. Judgment lies
in the process of this search, which demands
responsibility without allowing the comfort of
finality."23

Because of this focus on process, Elam hesitates to
define both feminism and deconstruction. She sees both
of them as multi-faceted operatives that may weave in and
out of other domains--philosophical, sociological,
historical, political, and academic. In her view,
feminism and deconstruction have something to offer all

areas of theoretical discourse.

NOTES

lChristopher Norris, Deconstruction: Theory &

Practice (New York: Methuen, 1982) xii.

2Diane Elam, Feminism and Deconstruction (New York:
Routledge, 1994) throughout. Elam.uses this term,
tranlated as "to infinity," to describe the nature by

which deconstruction subverts meaning.
3 .
NOrris 106.
4 .
Norris 22.
SNorris 100.
6 .
Norris 1.
'7 . . .
Norris 1, my italics.

8Norris 5-8. Here, Norris discusses the
structuralist attitude of Jonathan Culler, who views
binary Opposition as a way for competent readers to

correctly interpret texts.
9 .
Norris 79.

10 .
Norris 2.

22

23

11Norris 2.

12Norris 3.

l3Elam6.

14 .
Norris 120.

15Norris 121. See Harold Bloom, Wallace Stevens:
The Poems of Our Climate (Ithaca: Corness University

Press, 1977) 387.
16Norris 115.

:nVincent B. Leitch, Deconstructive Criticism

(London: Hutchinson, 1983) 45.

18Kate Nash, ”The Feminist Production of Knowledge:
Is Deconstruction a Practice for Women?" Feminist Review
Summer.47 (1994): 67. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble:
Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London:

Routledge, 1990) for elaboration.
”Nash 68.

:mNash 71. See Nancy Harstock, "Foucault on power:

a theory for women?" Nicholson (1990) for elaboration.
:nNash 71. See Harstock (1990) for elaboration.
22Elam 1.

23Elam 103.

CHAPTER TWO

Deconstruction in Theatre Practice

Deconstruction in theatre practice provokes
interesting analysis of not just the playtext, but also
the performative elements--directing, acting, and design.
It is important to begin with an understanding of how
deconstructive theory has influenced the theatre overall.
If theatre is defined as an artistic genre, then
presumably it is composed of systems and methods that
help explain this definition and how it functions. For
example, there is a traditionally understood relationship
between playtext, director, actor, and audience: 1)the
playtext exists, 2)the director and actors read and
interpret it, 3)the director, with or without the help of
the actors, creates a ”vision" for the production of the
playtext and directs the actors accordingly, and 4) the
audience receives this ”vision" and interprets the
meaning of the production. Deconstruction aims to

subvert some, or all, of these traditional relationships.

24

25

Theatre deconstructors question the established roles of
each artist involved and, in particular, the power
position of the playtext. Deconstruction in theatrical
theory, much like literary theory, provokes questions
regarding textual interpretation and individual power.
Theatre artists who feel they correctly interpret
authorial intent and can therefore properly envision and
create a production sometimes argue vehemently against
those who seek an alternative approach.
Deconstructionists believe there is no ”correct"
interpretation and that inherent authorial intent does
not exist. From this belief, the concept of ”free play”
comes to fruition. For the deconstructionist,
interpretive meaning and consequent individual possession
of the playtext are elusive and the theatre artists
should not be bound by them:
Once you accept the rather commonplace notion that an
author doesn't really imbue his or her work with an
'aura'. . .but, rather, that a text operates as a
complex nexus of institutional, social, and political
discourses, that it plays at a multitude of levels,
some competing, some contradictory, some
institutional, and some affirmative, then the notion
of a text as possession gives way to the
theatricality of theater, to a sense that the 'field
of drama’ is a playing field and not one to be
rigorously (or sloppily) delimited, marked,

cultivated, or otherwise colonized in the name of any
country, author, or theory.1

26

This idea of “free play" through deconstructive thought
provides each theatre artist with a new-found, autonomous
relationship with the playtext. As Constantinidis
states, "The deconstructive theatre artists assert their
artistic independence against the playwright and his
playtext. They declare their right to initiate, create,
and produce their own thoughts in their own way. The
playwright has not ordered the process of theatrical
production. The playwright has only given it
possibilities."2
This independence does not mean, however, that the
playtext is completely ignored. A deconstructive
approach allows for an interdependence between the
theatre artists and the playtext. The artists and the
playtext are at equal levels and the production is
conceived according to a synthesis of interpretations.
For theatre, a collaborative art, this deconstructive
approach prohibits artistic tyranny:
The deconstructive designers, directors, actors, and
critics do not substitute their interpretations for
the texts that they read. Instead, they create
meaning by responding to the injunctions of these
texts through their cultural perspectives. Meaning
is not the exclusive province of playwright-gods,
director-gurus, master designers, expert critics, and

erudite scholars who purportedly interpret what an
author 'truly' meant or what a text 'really' means.3

27

We can see, then, how this new deconstructive
relationship subverts the systems and methodologies
established in traditional theatrical theory and
practice. This total reconception is deconstruction at
its fullest. However, in the theatre, not all
productions deemed deconstructed involve a complete
utilization of the theory. Some deconstructed
productions do not rely on a complete subversion of the
hierarchical relationship between director and actor;
instead they allow ”free play" with the playtext to lead
the deconstruction. In some cases, it is merely an
alternative or avant-garde reading of the text, shared by
the artists involved, that deems the production as
deconstructed. Often, this type of deconstruction is
found in the contemporization of classical dramas.
Transitions: From recent past to present

During the 19605 and 19703, experimental theatre
flourished in Europe and America. Theatre artists such
as Jerzy Grotowski (the Poor Theatre), Peter Brook (the
Immediate Theatre), Julian Beck (the Living Theatre), and
Richard Schechner (Environmental Theatre) sought to
subvert traditional practices in the theatre. Many of

these experimental processes involved a subversion of the

28

traditional relationship between the performance
(performers) and the audience. Grotowski and Brook
wanted an integration of performance and spectator to
achieve a spiritual and ritual-like experience that
included confrontation and active involvement of the
audience. These artists dismissed the text as the
dominating influence for production; rather, they focused
on the performative elements to act as translators of the
theatre experience. In this respect, they wanted to
achieve a “total" theatre-~one that evokes emotion and
immediate response from the audience; a theatre that
would break restrictive, traditionally constructed
barriers between performer and audience, performer and
performer, and theatre artist and text.4

Poland's Jerzy Grotowski (b. 1933) and the company
from his Polish Laboratory Theatre, performed The
Constant Prince, an adaptation of Calderon de la Barca's
text, transcripted by Julius Slowacki. Grotowski’s
attempt with the Poor Theatre, was to strip the
production bare of any unnecessary technical elements
that would minimize the relationship between the
jperformers and audience. He believed that the audience

ruas an integral part of the performance and should have a

29

specific role to play. In The Constant Prince, a drama
about a prisoner's castigation and torture, the audience
viewed the production from.above the playing space,
therefore “acting" as social witnesses and moral judgers.
For Grotowski, the psychological reaction of the
spectator was on equal levels with the psychological
performance of the actors.

The English director, Peter Brook (b. 1925),
envisioned a theatre ”which can unite spectator and
performance in a communal celebration of experience,
briefly achieving a totality that may leave a permanent

"5 Brook's

image in the minds of its participants.
Immediate Theatre utilized improvisation and reaction-
based performances heavily reliant upon the audience as
either willing or unwilling participants. For this type
of theatre, the position of the passive spectator was
sabotaged. Brook strived for a theatre that would
succeed in, as he states, ”linking the private and the
public, the intimate and the crowded, the secret and the
open, the vulgar and the magical. For this we need both

a crowd on stage and a crowd watching--and within that

crowded stage individuals offering their most intimate

3O

truths to individuals within that crowded audience,
sharing a collective experience with them."5

Similarly, Julian Beck (1925-1985) and Judith Malina
(b. 1926), with the Living Theatre and ”happenings,"
wanted theatre to become ”a place of intense experience,
half dream, half ritual, in which the spectator
approaches something of a vision of self-understanding,
going past the conscious to the unconscious, to an
understanding of the nature of things.”7 Often these
performances consisted of merely a premise, or impulsive
catalyst for action in the theatre or public place rather
than an explicitly scripted text.

Richard Schechner (b. 1934), with Environmental
Theatre and The Performance Group (TPG), wished to
transform the traditional performance space and process.
Schechner wished to “overlap theatre and life."8 His
ideal theatre was a mixture of real life (e.g., public
demonstrations), happenings, and traditional theatre
where the overlap is skewed and the audience is immersed
in the same environment as the performers. Schechner
conceived of Environmental Theatre somewhere between
“happenings" and traditional theatre. In this type of

theatre, “All production elements speak for themselves,

 

31

and none is necessarily subordinate to the rest. This
includes the text, which has no necessary primacy and in

fact may disappear altogether."9

This type of theatre
emphasized the trend toward artistic equality of the
performative elements where the playtext could no longer
efface the ”importance of the texts 'written' by
designers, directors, actors, and critics" as well as the
audience.10

This loose treatment of the text caused artistic
controversy between Schechner and Sam Shepard when TPG
performed The Tooth of crime in 1972.11 Shepard's The
Tooth of Crime, which is often called a ”rock opera,"
calls for electrically amplified rock music (scored by
Shepard) that coincides with the dramatic themes in the
written text. A letter-based “battle" ensued during the
rehearsal period when Shepard became aware that Schechner
and TPG were going produce the drama in a manner that
went against his initial intentions. TPG didn't use
electrically amplified music and they relied on the
collective rehearsal process to reveal the thematic links
and action within the ”world of [Shepard's] script."12

Schechner stated in a letter to Shepard: ”Most directors

and actors start with a ’guiding idea,’ an 'image to be

 

32

realized,’ a ’preexistent action.’ I don’t, the Group
doesn’t. We start with only what is there, the barest
facts: seven performers and a collection of words

"n Eventually Shepard

organized under role headings.
complied with Schechner and allowed TPG to perform his
play with the understanding that it was not in accordance
with his creative intent. This emphasis on rehearsal
process over textual product was one of the most
important trends--the subversion of authorial primacy--of
this experimental period.

At first glance, it seems that these experimental
forms of theatre were progressing in a deconstructionist
manner. Although these artists aimed to subvert many
aspects of traditional theatre, their new methods became
new conventions; further, their processes became less
aimed at subversion as they were reversion. In other
words, their goal to bring theatre to a communal and
spiritual level, though brought to life through
unconventional means for the time period, actually
reverted back to ”deeply traditional" roots of theatre
and dramatic ritual.14 Their theories and.methodologies

eventually became very structure-oriented. However, this

experimental explosion did pave a pathway for

 

33

deconstruction. These artists, deeply concerned with
questions regarding textual interpretation and
hierarchical structure in the performance process, began
the risky process of merging new theories with
application.

In 1991, Jill Dolan co-directed (with Phillip
Zarrilli) a deconstructed, ”postmodern, revisionist,
gender-bent production" of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer
Night’s Dream at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s
Gilbert Hemsley Theatre.15 Dolan documented her
experience in Theatre Topics with an article entitled,
”Peeling Away the Tropes of Visibility: Lesbian
Sexuality and Materialist Performance Practice." Dolan
wrote the essay to describe to readers a theatrical
experience ”in which theory and practice really did meld

"m Dolan and the other artists took a

in production.
chance at combining lesbian and deconstructive theories
and applying them to a classical text. Dolan approached
the dominant sexual/relationship themes in the text as an
opportunity to explore and focus on the idea of
”sexuality as performance.”17

The production was set in a cabaret-style environment

iNhiCh encapsulated both a "working class pub" and a

 

34

”subcultural gay disco.”18 One of the goals of the
production was to present the constructs of sexuality and
gender identity through modes of dress and inter-gender
relationships; then discover what happens when those
representational constructs are deconstructed. For
example, Titania (played by John Jaraczewski) was
conceived as a “punk drag queen. . .a ’cockettish’
provocateur who carried a whip under her arm and often

"m Titania was dressed in

slapped it for emphasis.
spiked black heels, fishnets, a black leather jacket with
rhinestone bra, and black vinyl mini-skirt. Oberon
(played by Darcey Engen) was conceived as a ”sexy, butch
lesbian,“20 dressed in a sharkskin suit, an unbuttoned
white shirt with black tie, spike-heeled boots, and a
felt hat. At the end of the production during the
reconciliation of Oberon and Titania (staged as a sexy
blues dance), the characters exchanged several articles
of their clothing and seductively danced together.

These stylistic choices exemplify how Dolan chose to
focus on the physical, the visible representations of
gender and sexuality through production rather than

settling with the textual implications regarding sexual

confusion. As Dolan states, “It’s not as important to me

 

35

now, at least in the educational, academic theatre
context in which our production took place, that the
visible correspond with some underlying identity. . .but
that these positions be visible in representation. These
visible representations were performed possibilities,
unhampered by the plodding character psychologies of
realism.”21
Furthering her approach towards visible
representation unbounded by dramatic or psychologically
realistic interpretation, Dolan and the designers
integrated the use of masks to either eschew certain
cultural identities, or create contemporary connections
with particular characters in the text in order to
”extend the production's topicality around issues of

"22 For example, the fairies,

sexuality and performance.
wearing ACT-UP paraphernalia, simultaneously assumed the
roles of Helena and Demetrius while adorned with Balinese
half-masks used to confound constructions of sex, gender,
and race. Additionally, the character Bottom was
transformed into an ass represented by a two-dimensional
mask of Senator Jesse Helms, and wore a T-shirt that

"23

stated, ”Know Your Assholes. Creating this specific

deconstructive montage was a source of merriment for

36

Dolan; she states, ”When our drag queen Titania fell in
love with Bottom in his new garb, the implied parody of
Helms’ homophobic, anti-sex, anti-theatrical crusading
was quite fun."24

Other deconstructive processes were also instrumental
in this production. For example, student actors wrote
part of the production text and acted as dramaturgs;
Dolan’s directorial approach was to let ”desire reign”25
within the actors so that they were not coached to act
according to culturally stereotyped representations of
gays and lesbians and cross-dressers; and the audience
was integrated into the performance at certain points to
emphasize the social relevance of sexuality and gender
identity.

Recently, the American Repertory Theatre (ART)
produced Georg Bfichner's weyzeck (1836), which ran from
January 31, 1997 through March 16, 1997. woyzeck is a
German expressionistic drama about a destitute soldier,
Franz Woyzeck, who is subjected to sadistic treatment by
his Captain, an army medical doctor, and everything in
his environment. Woyzeck suspects his lover, Marie, of

having an affair with a Drum Major, and through his

frenzied and hallucinatory state of mind, he becomes

37

overwhelmed with jealousy and rage and kills her.

Because of its episodic, fragmented structure of 27 short
scenes and the treatment of a common man as a tragic
hero, woyzeck is considered by many to be responsible for
the onset of modern drama.

The ART’s deconstructed version, directed by Marcus
Stern, is a prime example of a practical, adapted
deconstructive process and continual influence of
deconstruction in the theatre today. Stern is an M.F.A.
graduate of the Yale School of Drama, which, not
surprisingly, was the major theoretical forum for
deconstructionist theory in the 19803. His experience at
Yale provided a natural outlet for his deconstructive
impulses. He has a strong idea of what his position is
as director of a production. He states:

Perhaps ideally a director is a conduit for all of

the collected input that comes into a production--the

script, the actors, the designers, the dramaturg, the
producers. In some strange way I consider myself
both a very strong-handed auteur director and
simultaneously a guy who’s just hanging out and
editing a bunch of good ideas that are coming from
everyone involved. I also look to the technical
staff and other personnel that are not usually inside
the rehearsal hall, because it’s often these people
who provide a fresh set of ideas and solutions.”26

For Stern, deconstruction comes instinctively; it is

not a long drawn-out process based on theoretical

excerpts. The fragmented, episodic style of Wbyzeck
suits Stern because it “more accurately reflects how

38

jagged and fragmentary life feels inside. . .life
seems more fragmentary than it does linear.27

Dealing with playtexts in a deconstructive manner is
not a problem for Stern. He does not attempt to
interpret specific meaning from reading the playtext.
Instead he prefers to deal with, as he states, ”plays I
don’t understand when I read them on the page."28 This
lack of initial, dominating interpretation frees the
artists to shape the playtext during the rehearsal
process into a theatrical production. The artists
involved form.a symbiotic relationship as the production
is created, and use Stern as both a leader and a sounding
board. This relationship is necessary for Stern because
he is ”Suspicious of how words or the intellect try to

"29 With Woyzeck, Stern

capture a visceral experience.
attempted to create a visceral experience for the
audience through the cumulative effort between the
dramaturg (Gideon Lester), the scenic designer (Allison
Koturbash), and the actors (specifically Thomas Derrah,
as Woyzeck, Scott Ripley, as Andres, and Sharon Scruggs,
as Marie), and didn't rely on the playtext and a personal
mise-en-scene alone to guide him. The concept of

”director-guru" was tossed aside in order to see what was

possible through a collaborative effort.

39

Lester, as dramaturg, was instrumental in this
process. Although Lester did not contemporize the text
(he did a direct German-to-English translation), he did
create six different working versions by rearranging the
scenes in various styles. This constant reconfiguration
was key in the deconstructive process. Stern explains
why:

The actors have had to hold six different versions of

staging in their heads. Because I need to have the

freedom.of flexibility to change gears radically and
quickly as I search for what best explicates each
scene and find the balance between accessibility of

visceral excitement and narrative line. And it’s a

tricky combination, particularly when you're not

dealing in naturalism, In a world like Wbyzeck’s,
anything is possible, and yet anything is not

possible. I can’t do something that’s just a

directorial turn for a directorial turn’s sake. I

think that's bullshit. So I need to keep finding

stuff that I find theatrically interesting,
narratively clear, emotionally engaging,
entertaining, and probably four other things."30
This process of ”finding stuff,” and consequently
throwing stuff away as the rehearsal process continued,
highlights the deconstructive nature of the production.
In this case, the playtext gives way to the
”theatricality of theatre."31 The traditional process of

pre-mapping the production out scene by scene and

directing the actors and designers to follow through is

4o

subverted. Stern prefers a style that is more ”fly-by-

"” Creative ingenuity reveals

the-seat-of-his-pants.
itself as each artist contributes their talents.

Stern relied on Koturbash (set designer) to “create
’the world’ of the play."33 Koturbash possessed the
artistic autonomy to create the set according to the
flexible dramaturgical style of Lester. For Stern, this
interdependency and flexibility was essential because in
this process he doesn’t “know what the event is until

"“ In other words, he

The] see[s] the actors on stage.
cannot begin shaping and re-shaping the production until
the actors have stepped into the “world" of the woyzeck
presented by Lester and Koturbash.

The result of the deconstructive effort is a
production process that is very impulse-driven. One
glaring instance of this is a contemporary thematic
parallel drawn from.Wbyzeck--the O.J. Simpson trial.
Coincidentally, the trial was at its climax when the
rehearsal process began. Through this real-life tragedy
and the theme in Wbyzeck, Stern grasped the opportunity
to address the ”notion of violence both against loved

ones and against women."35 He didn’t contemporize the

language of the text to ”fit" into a mold of the Simpson

41

trial; however he did make reference to it in terms of
production. One way he did this was to emphasize the
jealousy, rage, and psychosis Woyzeck experiences when he
suspects his mistress, Marie, is unfaithful.

The deconstructive process experienced by Stern and
the other artists involved was not one of complete
subversion. There was no attempt to subvert the
relationship between the performance and the audience,
nor did Stern dismiss all authoritative directing style.
This adapted version of deconstruction is an example of
how the theory of deconstruction is transforming through

theatre practice, and how deconstruction transfbrms

theatre practice.

NOTES

1Erik MacDonald, Theater at the Margins: Text and
the Post-Structured Stage (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1993) 179.

2Stratos E. Constantinidis, Theatre under
Deconstruction? A Question of Approach (New York:
Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993) 91.

3Constantinidis 293.

4In saying the word “total," I am not referring to
the inclusion of multiple technical elements, as this is
Grotwoski’s meaning for the term and he is against it.
Rather, I refer to the collaborative nature of all
artists involved in theatre production and the inclusion
of the audience participants in the performance space.

SMarvin Carlson, Theories of the Theatre, expanded
ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993) 464.

6Peter Brook, preface, waards a Poor Theatre, by

Jerzy Grotowski (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968) 14.

42

43

7Carlson 420. From William Glover, ”The Living
Theatre," Theatre Arts 45, 12 (Dec. 1961): 63.

8Carlson 479.

9Carlson 479.

10Constantinidis 104.

11Richard Schechner, Environmental Theater (New York:
Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1973) 227-42.

12Schechner 236.

13Schechner 229.

14Constantinidis 109. This reference was extracted
from.the following quote: "Jerzi Grotwoski’s poor
theatre. . ., Peter Brook’s holy theatre. . ., and
Richard Schechner’s environmental theatre. . ., among
many others, proposed a subversive revision of Western
theatrical production. However, these revisionists,
instead of breaking from tradition, re-established its
fundamental trOpes and functions. Their theory and
practice resulted in a noncomformity that was deeply
traditional. . ."

15Jill Dolan, ”Peeling Away the Tropes of Visibility:
Lesbian Sexuality and Materialist Performance Practice,"
Theatre Tepics 2.1 (March 1992): 41.

1"‘Dolan 41.

17 Dolan
1" Dolan
19Dolan
20Dolan
21Dolan
22 Dolan
23Dolan
2‘ Dolan

25Dolan

42.

44.

45.

45.

48.

46.

46.

46.

50.

26Rebecca Hayden, ”A Director’s Journey: Profile of

Marcus Stern."

A.R.T. News (13 Jan. 1996): n. pag.

Online. World Wide Web. 27 May 1997.

27Carolyn Clay, ”ART Woyzeck to be made of Stern

stuff." A.R. T. News

Wide Web. 27

28Clay n.

29Clay 11.

30Clay n.

May 1997.

pag.

pag.

P39-

31MacDonald 179 .

32Clay n.

33Clay n.

34Clay n.

3SClay n.

pag .

pag.

pag.

pag .

(2 May 1997): n. pag. Online. World

CHAPTER THREE

Michigan State University’s production of Lysistrata.
Michigan State University’s Department of Theatre
opened Lysistrata (an untraditional version) on April 10,

1997 in the Fairchild Theatre. As a Master’s of Arts
student in this department, I was asked by the director,
Dr. Georg Schuttler, to participate as the assistant
director and dramaturg. Schuttler’s original concept for
the production, devised to draw students into the
theatre, was to set the comedy in a late-night-
television, talk-show format. This concept involved
integrating multi-media aspects (such as video clips and
a live band), live commercials, a studio set, and
contemporary costumes and language. This multi-faceted
and contemporized form demanded a deconstructionist
approach. Foremost, to correlate with the fast-paced,
choppy, and contemporary fashion of a talk-show, it
demanded a reconfigured and rescripted text, thereby

dismissing the authorial primacy of Aristophanes and

45

46

translator, Dudley Fitts (whose version was used as a
guide). The entire show was structured around the theme
that sex is powerful and power is sexy, which we
eventually adopted as the production’s slogan. This
theme gave us the opportunity to experiment with gender
roles and dress and the subversion of traditional forms
of male dominance.

This chapter will describe my exploration of the
deconstructive processes used in this production. I will
not attempt to speak for the other artisans involved;
however, I will describe my working relationships with
the director, the actors, and the designers to highlight
the interesting dynamics of such relationships in a
deconstructed production. Additionally, I will provide
detailed descriptions of the dramaturgical process. This
production was primarily created by the students, for the
students, and Schuttler rejected the traditional role of
”director-guru" in order to nurture a collaborative
milieu.

As the audience members entered the building, they
were boisterously greeted by members of the
improvisational group called the Bacchants Improv

Ensemble. These actors were dressed in ancient Grecian

47

garb and physically and verbally interacted with the
audience. One of the main purposes for using a
deconstructive approach in this production was to subvert
the traditional audience/performance relationship. By
immediately integrating the performers with the audience,
before the production even began, we (Schuttler, the
improv ensemble, and I) had hoped to establish a trend of
participation, openness, and reciprocation.
Style

The nature of the production was episodic and fast-
paced. It was composed of 11 to 13 short scenes
(depending on whether or not we had special guests
appear) and eight commercial breaks. There was no
intermission and the show ran for approximately 80
minutes. This format was conceived to subvert the
traditional climactic play structure of classical drama.

The performance was not designated to one playing
space. Action was multi-directional and performers were
positioned in various places throughout the theatre--in
the lobby, in the house, and on all sides of the stage.
Also, throughout the majority of the performance, the
house lights were at half-full. These elements were to

keep the audience active. We wanted to subvert the uni-

48

directional spectator’s gaze customary in an auditorium
setting. With these conditions, the spectators were
often central to the action and their gaze was multi-
directionally aimed at the performance and each other.

In the beginning of the show, the sidekick (played by
Michael Merritt) greeted the audience, welcomed them to
use applause signs hanging in the ”studio," and
encouraged them to participate, relax, and enjoy the show
before introducing the host. This initial interaction
within the confines of the ”production" continued the
emphasis for audience participation.
The Set

As the audience walked into the theatre, they saw a
simulated television studio on stage. The backdrop,
composed of multiple flats painted with landmarks of the
Lansing area, could be flown in and out to create a
flexible playing-space. The painted backdrop was
designed to give the audience a sense of familiarity.
Stage right, the studio band, The Anderson Council, was
playing pre-show music-~classic and contemporary rock,
mixed with jazz and blues. The talk-show host’s (played
by Marcus Davenport) desk and guest couch were on a

platform stage left. Upstage, behind the backdrop, was a

49

bedroom.built on a 12’ by 12’ platform on casters to be
rolled downstage for a scene between Myrhinne (played by
Erin Schultz) and Cinesias (played by Brian McWilliams).
The color scheme consisted of bright jewel-tones--cobalt
blue, red, purple, green, and yellow. The intent was to
create a lively and loud atmosphere, both visually and
aurally.

Similar to Stern’s relationship with the set
designers for his production, Schuttler and I relied on
Professor Linda Janosko and student Mark Johnson to
”create the world" of ”The Marcus Davenport Show."

During the production meetings, it was stressed that the
designers were to possess an extreme amount of autonomy.
Schuttler informed the set designers that he wanted a
talk show on stage: The details of how, which kind, what
should it look like, etc., were up to the design team.
Their collaborative research and results were brought to
the directing team, and we would adjust the format of the
show accordingly. Since the text for the show wasn’t
written at the time of pre-production, preliminary design
choices were freed from.the restrictions of stage
directions and plot structure. Instead of beginning with

a text and creating a set to establish a complementary

50

environment, the designers were responsible for creating
an environment in which a text could begin and flourish.
The Costumes

The costume designer, M.F.A student Joshua Webb, was
responsible for designing three areas of dress: 1) for
the cast and crew of “The Marcus Davenport Show," 2) for
the characters of the story of Lysistrata, and 3) for the
improv ensemble. Although this production was not
structured as a play within a play, the costume designs
had to encompass these three different worlds.

The host, Marcus Davenport, wore a light gray suit
and bright purple tie, and his sidekick (Merritt) wore
brown corduroy trousers, blazer, vest, and bow-tie (see
Appendix A). Webb designed these costumes to emphasize
the foil-like physical characteristics of the actors.
Members of ”The Marcus Davenport Show" were dressed in T-
shirts with the show’s logo. With the direction of
“short, tight, risque," Webb designed contemporary, hip,
provocative costumes for the female chorus (see Appendix
B). These costumes alluded to the sexiness and
confidence that the women inherently possessed before
Lysistrata announced that they could use those attributes

to obtain power over their men.

51

Lysistrata (played by Jennifer Moore), dressed in a
short, tight, red, vinyl, halter-dress, sheer black
stockings, black high-heels, and slicked-back hair,
portrayed the image of a sexy vixen (see Appendix C).
Part dominatrix, part successful business woman, this
Lysistrata was not quite presented as an altruistic
peace-maker. Her outfit was to dramatize her dangerous
elements--a combination of confidence, sexual energy, and
female supremacy.

The male chorus, as soldiers, were costumed in
military fatigues. Their drill sergeant leader (played
by Alisa Berhorst), was also dressed in fatigues,
military helmet, and sunglasses. This military attire
obscured Berhorst’s gender, playing on the cultural
constructs of power and gender identity. As a ”male"
drill sergeant, she maintained authority through military
rank. As the production progressed and the soldiers
became increasingly sexually excited and frustrated (made
evident by large, erect, prosthetic phalluses), the drill
sergeant revealed her ”femaleness" by tossing her helmet
and glasses, and unbuttoning her fatigues to expose a
shocking lime-green push-up bra (see Appendix D). As a

female drill sergeant, her authority doubled--she

52

possessed the power of military rank and the power of
female sexuality. This power situation parodied the
recent conflicts regarding women at The Citadel Military
Academy in Virginia.

The Bacchants Improv Ensemble

The improv ensemble, led by Maria Michaelson, was
responsible for performing ”commercial breaks" throughout
the talk-show. This element became integral to the
fluidity of the production. The group had a fully
autonomous creative relationship with the directing team.
They wrote and directed their own material using Greek
dramatic literature and sexual allusions as their source
of humor. Many commercials parodied those seen on late-
night television, such as 1-900 numbers (e.g., the
Teiresias and Cassandra psychic network and Concu-temp
concubine service) and contraceptives.

The men and women were dressed the same, in neo-
Grecian togas of various colors (see Appendix E). This
uniformity resisted gender and character representations,
thereby aiming to transfer spectator focus from physical
identity to the thematic content of the commercials.

Commercial content and improv performers used varied

53

throughout the run of the production. I never knew
precisely what they were going to do during each show.
Plot

Lysistrata was on a mission. Touring around the
nation, visiting various famous talk-shows, she was
encouraging women to take an oath to withhold sex from
their significant others until they started to respect
and adhere to their various needs. From her Chicago home
base, she visited the Lansing area and ”The Marcus
Davenport Show" to continue her efforts. Women from.the
area (including Marcus’ fiancee) decided to partake in
the effort. By the end of the production, through much
coaxing, explanation, and exemplary displays of seductive
prowess, Lysistrata and her ”troops" of women got the men
to submit and commit.
Dramaturgy

As mentioned, one of the most significant
deconstructive aspects of this production was the
rejection of authorial primacy. I eventually scripted
the production-text, but I do not consider myself the
”author" of this untraditional version of Lysistrata.
Marcus Stern feels that, as a director, he is a conduit

for collaborative and creative input in a production. I

54

feel the same way about the process of writing this text.
I depended on many things to guide me--Dudley Fitts’
version of Lysistrata; the preliminary production
designs; the performance strengths of certain actors;
suggestions from the cast, crew, and production design
team; and Schuttler’s direction and encouragement. I
began writing portions and outlines for the production-
text before rehearsals, but wrote the bulk of the scenes
during the rehearsal period. This process altered the
traditional relationships between “playwright," director,
and actor, creating both difficulties and benefits. For
most of the actors, this process was unique. Some never
questioned the day-to-day development and seemed to
handle it with ease; others would express a need to know
what was coming next, or how the show was going to end.
Dealing with semi-unknowns in any situation can be
straining. For me, it was often stressful knowing that
if I couldn't write a scene one evening, we wouldn’t have
anything to rehearse the next day. Conversely, if the
rehearsal of one scene went well and flowed, the actors
would help create a transition into the next scene. This
symbiotic relationship continued throughout the

production.

55

In essence, there were two different texts, or
”languages" needed for the show--the language of the
talk-show and the language of the story of Lysistrata.
Developing these two languages involved an
interdependency between improvisational elements and
structured dialogue. For example, Merritt and Davenport
were given very little text to learn; Schuttler and I
explained to them their function in the production, gave
them performance guidance based on research of various
talk-shows, and allowed them to create their own material
to suit their real-life personalities. The banter and
movement between the two actors changed throughout the
course of rehearsals until they grew comfortable within
their own patterns. During performances, their actions
and dialogue would often change depending on commentary
from planted and actual audience members. Moore’s
(Lysistrata) monologues and the dialogue between her and
the other characters were more structured. I would
present the actors with the text in rehearsal and we
would begin in a traditional fashion--read-throughs,
blocking, and getting off-book. However, once the actors
were comfortable with what was going on in the scene,

Schuttler and I encouraged them to suggest changes for

56

both dialogue and movement. This combination of
improvisation and structure was designed to contribute to
the 'off-the-cuff," impulse—driven fashion of a real
talk-show, and to enhance the collaborative nature of the
production process.

In order to compose a bulk production-text, I needed
to name and order the individual scenes. They are as
follows: 1) Lysistrata Intro.; 2) Small Planet (video
clip); 3) Oath Scene; 4) Soldier Scene #1; 5) Getaway
Scene; 6) Bedroom Scene (Myrhinne and Cinesias) with
video; 7) Soldier Scene #2; 8) Puppet Scene; and 9)
Resolution. The tone and structure for the Oath Scene,
the Getaway Scene, the Bedroom Scene, and the Resolution
were closely derived from.Fitts' version of Lysistrata
(see Appendices F, G, H, and I). These direct
interpretations were used to retain some of the original
structure of Lysistrata. The remaining scenes were
created as originals and were integrated for several
purposes.

The Small Planet scene (named after an East Lansing
night club) was Lysistrata’s prepared illustration of
what women do when their men are away or neglecting them

(see Appendix J). It was shown as a video clip during

57

the production after Lysistrata explained her mission.
In this video, the female characters are drinking
heavily, partying, and fawning over a male strip-dancer
(played by Steve Lacey). This video represented heavy
connotations regarding sex and gender roles. The women,
independent of their men for the evening, were powerless
to the sexual provocation of the stripper. The stripper,
who possessed sexually-charged power over the women, was,
in essence, foreshadowing what the women were about to do
to their men-~strip, seduce, taunt, tease, arouse, and
leave.

Soldier Scenes #1 and #2 were short, transitional
pieces that were to boost the unpredictable and antic-
oriented style of the talk-show. As mentioned earlier,
these scenes exposed ideas about power and gender roles;
but they were also visual slapstick. The soldiers
represented a portion of the men deprived of sex and
provided an overly exaggerated example of the physical
ramifications of sexual frustration (i.e., large, false
phalluses).

The Puppet Scene was designed to expand upon the
universality and contemporary, topical nature of the

”battle of the sexes" theme. Three-dimensional puppet

58

heads of President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and
Paula Jones were worn by actors, and the scene parodied
the recent sexual harassment and personal defamation suit
by Jones against President Clinton (see Appenedix K and
Appendix L).

The running order of these scenes remained the same
throughout the run of the show; however, the transitions
between them varied. The live band and the improv
ensemble assisted in smoothing difficult transitions with
music and commercials that would reflect upon the

situations occurring in the previous or up-coming scenes.

CONCLUSION

Deconstruction in theatre practice proposes many
exciting opportunities and challenges for theatre
artists, particularly within the educational and academic
realm, It is an ongoing process of change,
methodological questioning and subversion, progress, and
experimentation. Deconstructive theatre practice enables
the artists to wear many hats, and explore a
collaborative method for production. As Constantinidis
states:

The deconstructors are changing conventions and
expectations as to what it means to be director,
designer, actor, spectator, critic, or playwright.
Theatre folks slip easily out of one role into
another because formal education and hands-on-the-job
training require them to familiarize themselves with
several. . . roles within the theatre. As theatre
artists and technicians develop their artistic
consciousness, they can reconsider their artistic
behavior, can recombine learned experience, or can
question and modify standard production and training.
They do not attribute errors unilaterally because
artistic. . .relationships do not result from one-
sided activity, but rather they depend on dynamic
interactions which change from.time to time and from
place to place.1

59

6O

Extrapolating from my research and my own experience
with deconstruction, I agree with Constantinidis. I feel
it is necessary, in educational and professional theatre,
to occasionally adopt the deconstructive approach,
focusing on process over product, and discovering what
you get. I feel it is important for all theatre artists
to experience both a traditional and deconstructive
approach to dramatic textual interpretation and
theatrical production practices; for it is through one
that the other is understood.

Although I feel that a deconstructive approach is
necessary in the academic realm for purposes of
experimentation, growth, and education, I have discovered.
that the institutional restrictions involved can create
difficulties. An ironic relationship can develop between
the deconstructive theatre artists and the university
members (i.e., faculty and governance boards):
Deconstruction, which subverts or combats
institutionalized hierarchical structure and rules, may
be dependent upon the academic institution for financial
support and a structured working environment. As a
graduate student involved in this process, the fear of

success or failure becomes not one of a personal issue,

61

but rather a departmental issue. Given the time and
budget constraints of a main-stage season show, these
fears and pressures cannot be denied or ignored, and yet
must be overcome in order to finish the production.

Though Jill Dolan purports that the academic
environment is well-suited for deconstruction, another
appropriate avenue for deconstructive productions of this
nature might be a grant-subsidized theatre, free from
university politics, where uninhibited experimentation is
expected and encouraged.

Traditional theatre is the primary source of
education for many university departments, and the
primary source of training for many professional theatre
companies. Through learning about deconstruction, I
realize that ”the way we sever our ties with past methods
and means of production will certainly define our ability
to improve performance quality, to enhance company
productivity, to enhance artistic opportunity, or to tap
latent audience demand in the twenty-first century.”2
Deconstruction, on its own, does not assert these future

definitions, but it does provide us with a process to get

there.

NOTES

1Stratos Constantinidis, Theatre under
Deconstruction? A Question of Approach (New York:
Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993) 91.

2Constantinidis 99.

62

APPENDICES

 

Appendix A

 

Merritt and Davenport

63

Appendix B

 

Myrrhine and Lampito

Appendix C

 

Lysistrata chastises Kalonike

65

Appendix D

 

Soldiers at the mercy of their sergeant

66

Appendix E

 

Members of the Bacchants Improv. Ensemble

67

Appendix F

OATH SCENE (My version)

LYSISTRATA: Marcus, I talked to your producer (gestures over to Carl, Carl waves and
smiles) over there and he gave me the go ahead on a little surprise for you and the Lansing
audience.

MARCUS: Is that right? First we need to talk about what happened at that Planet place.
Was that really my woman stuffing my hard-eamed money into some dudes shorts?
(L YSIST RA TA politely nods and smiles)

LYSISTRATA: Well get back to that soon enough, love (winks at Michael knowingly).
As you know from the clip, I did some interviewing about town.

MARCUS: Yeah, we all saw more than I think we needed!

LYSISTRATA: Well, I’ve also done some recruiting. Various women from around the
area seemed more than interested in my “training program” for their men. They’ve
decided to pay a little visit to your show to take my oath and help to keep spreading the
word nation-wide. So (rising and walking to center stage, playfitllyfondles MICHAEL ’s
hair on her way), if you’ll excuse me, I need to welcome my troops!(calls the WOMEN,
one at a time, to the stage fiorn various parts of the theatre)

(To WOMEN) Welcome ladies!

WOMEN: (Various yells of “Hey Lysistrata! " and “Good evening! " They walk to
center stage)

(Improv group and LYSIS T RA T A attempt to get women from the audience to come on
stage and participate in the oath)

LYSISTRATA: Marcus, Marcus, Marcus, that’s not all she wrote, hon. I have just one
more teensy surprise for you. Come on up, girlfriend! (gestures for NESTELYNN in the
house)

NESTELYNN: (Walks in with drink towards MARCUS)

LYSISTRATA: Ah yes! Even your fiancee has expressed her desire to participate!

NESTELYNN: (Leans over and kisses MARCUS) That’s all your getting. After I take
the oath, you can forget about any Boom Boom until you act right.

68

69

MARCUS: Baby! What’s your problem? This is national T.V. here! This ain’t no
Geraldo——surprise guest embarrassment! And what do you mean, “act right?”

NESTELYNN: (Going ofl) I mean that this show of yours sucks up my love life and I’m
not having it!

MARCUS: What do you want me to do? Give it up? I worked hard for this. (Trying to
smooth-talk her) I’m not just doing this for me; I’m doing it for us. (Sarcastically) I
didn’t know I was making all this money for you stuff it some guy’s jock!

NESTELYNN: Just doing what a girl’s got to do. Here’s the picture. I’m all happy
about your little show here. I’m real proud of you, baby. But when you get home, your
work day isn’t done. You’re clipping out news stories for the next night’s show, you’re
glued to the T.V. looking out for the competition, you’re picking out your clothes for an
interview, you’re fixing yourself up in the mirror trying to find good camera angles. You
may be at home, but I might as well not be! You need to get yourself an assistant to wrap
up all the details so when you cross the threshold of our home, you’re mine! Until then,
you can consider this (makes a sweeping motion of her body) signed, sealed, and delivered
to the God of chastity. (Walks over to WOMEN)

LYSISTRATA: Now then, are we ready to demonstrate the almighty power of feminine
persuasion?

WOMEN: Yes!

LYSISTRATA: Are we ready to lift our cups and celebrate the birth of our autonomy
through this generous libation?

WOMEN: Yes!

LYSISTRATA: Then repeat after me: I WILL NOT SUCCUMB TO THE SEXUAL
NEEDS OF MY LOVER.

WOMEN: I WILL NOT SUCCUMB TO THE SEXUAL NEEDS OF MY LOVER.

LYSISTRATA: I WILL NOT ALLOW INTERCOURSE, ORAL SEX, DEEP
KISSING, HEAVY PETTING,

WOMEN: I WILL NOT ALLOW INTERCOURSE, ORAL SEX, DEEP KISSING,
HEAVY PETTING,

LYSISTRATA: OR ANY OTHER SEXUAL ACT THAT RELIEVES
WOMEN: OR ANY OTHER SEXUAL ACT THAT RELIEVES

LYSISTRATA: SEXUAL TENSION OR SATISFIES SEXUAL AROUSAL IN MY
LOVER.

7O

WOMEN: SEXUAL TENSION OR SATISFIES SEXUAL AROUSAL IN MY
LOVER.

LYSISTRATA: I WILL DO MY BEST TO TAUNT AND TEASE
WOMEN: I WILL DO MY BEST TO TAUNT AND TEASE

LYSISTRATA: AND MAKE MY LOVER NEARLY EXPLODE WITH
EXCITEMENT

WOMEN: AND MAKE MY LOVER NEARLY EXPLODE WITH EXCITEMENT
LYSISTRATA: BUT I WILL NOT GIVE IN TO THE MOMENT
WOMEN: BUT I WILL NOT GIVE IN TO THE MOMENT

LYSISTRATA: AND WILL LEAVE MY LOVER TO PINE AND HUNGER FOR
ME.

WOMEN: AND WILL LEAVE MY LOVER TO PINE AND HUNGER FOR ME.

LYSISTRATA: I WILL UPHOLD THIS OATH AND SUPPORT MY FELLOW
SISTERS AROUND THE NATION,

WOMEN: I WILL UPHOLD THIS OATH AND SUPPORT MY FELLOW SISTERS
AROUND THE NATION,

LYSISTRATA: UNTIL MY MAN AGREES TO TAKE ACTION AND SATISFY
MY NEEDS.

WOMEN: UNTIL MY MAN AGREES TO TAKE ACTION AND SATISFY MY
NEEDS.

LYSISTRATA: Any woman who gives in to her lover, is admitting to herself, her lover,
and all women of the world, that the needs and desires of the female species are less
important and less worthy of attention than that of the male. With this understood, and
with the oath hereby taken, you may now drink from your cup.

EVERYONE: (Lift glasses and drink After, yells of celebration)

LYSISTRATA: Take no mercy ladies. The men are going down!

Dudley Fitt’s Version (Prologue, 16—18):
LYSISTRATA: Well, then, Lampito/ what we have to do now is take a solemn oath.

LAMPITO: Say it. We’ll sweah.

71

LYSISTRATA: This is it./—But where’s our Inner Guard?/ —Look, Guard: you see this
shield?/ Put it down here. Now bring me the victim’s entrails. ,

KALONIKE: But the oath?

LYSISTRATA: You remember how in Aischylos’ Seven/ they killed a sheep and swore
on a shield? Well, then?

KALONIKE: But I don’t see how you can swear for peace on a shield.
LYSISTRAT A: What else do you suggest?

KALONIKE: Why not a white horse?/ We could swear by that.
LYSISTRATA: And where will you get a white horse?

KALONIKE: I never thought of that. What can we do?

LYSISTRATA: I have it!/ Let’s set this big black wine-bowl on the ground/ and pour in a
gallon or so of Thasian, and swear/ not to add one drop of water.

LAMPITO: Ah lahk that oath!

LYSISTRATA: Bring the bowl and the wine-jug.

KALONIKE: Oh, what a simply huge one!

LYSISTRATA: Set it down. Girls, place your hands on the gift-offering.

0 Goddess of Persuasion! And thou, O Loving-cupl/ Look upon this our sacrifice, and
be gracious!

KALONIKE: See the blood spill out. How red and pretty it is!

LAMPITO: And Ah must say it smells good.

MYRRHINE: Let me swear first!

KALONIKE: No, by Aphrodite, we’ll match for it!

LYSISTRATA: Lampito: all of you women: come, touch the bowl,/ and repeat after
me—remember, this is an oath—:/ I WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY
HUSBAND OR MY LOVER

KALONIKE: I will have nothing to do with my husband or my lover

LYSISTRATA: THOUGH HE COME TO ME IN PITIABLE CONDITION

72

KALONIKE: Though he come to me in pitiable condition/ (Oh Lysistrata! This is killing
me!)

LYSISTRATA: IN MY HOUSE I WILL BE UNTOUCHABLE
KALONIKE: In my house I will be untouchable

LYSISTRATA: IN MY THINNEST SAFFRON SILK
KALONIKE: In my thinnest safii'on silk

LYSISTRATA: AND MAKE HIM LONG FOR ME.
KALONIKE: And make him long for me.

LYSISTRATA: I WILL NOT GIVE MYSELF

KALONIKE: I will not give myself

LYSISTRATA: AND IF HE CONSTRAIN S ME

KALONIKE: And if he constrains me

LYSISTRATA: I WILL BE COLD AS ICE AND NEVER MOVE
KALONIKE: I will be cold as ice and never move

LYSISTRATA: I WILL NOT LIFT MY SLIPPERS TOWARD THE CEILING
KALONIKE: I will not lift my slippers toward the ceiling

LYSISTRATA: OR CROUCH ON ALL FOURS LIKE THE LIONESS IN THE
CARVING

KALONIKE: 0r crouch on all fours like the lioness in the carving
LYSISTRATA: AND IF I KEEP THIS OATH LET ME DRINK FROM THIS BOWL .
KALONIKE: And if I keep this oath let me drink fi'om this bowl

LYSISTRATA: IF NOT, LET MY OWN BOWL BE FILLED WITH WATER.
KALONIKE: If not, let my own bowl be filled with water.

LYSISTRATA: You have all sworn?

MYRRHINE: We have.

LYSISTRATA: Then thus/ I sacrifice the victim/ [Drinks largely]

73

KALONIKE: Save some for us!/ Here’s to you, darling, and to you, and to you!

In our production, all of the women repeated the
oath, as well as any audience members that chose to
participate. This was to emphasize the immediate and
dominating influence of Lysistrata, as well as the
uninhibited social display customary for talk-shows.
Additionally, the sidekick (Merritt) joins the women in
the oath, playing with notions of female/male sexual

power and identity.

Appendix G

GETAWAY SCENE (My version)

(KALONIKE and [AMP] T 0 walk in on the show and interrupt MARCUS and
L YSIS T RA TA)

LAMPITO: Excuse me, Marcus, but we have a bit of a problem here.
MARCUS: What’s up girl?

LAMPITO: Do you mind if me and Kalonike chat with Lys for a sec?
MARCUS: I guess not. Nothing else seems to be in my control!

LAMPITO: Thanks a million. (to LYSISTRA TA) We seem to have someone here who
wants to, shall we say. . . go AWOL. I busted Kalonike making out with her boyfi-iend in
the lobby.

LYSISTRATA: Is that right? That didn’t take long.

KALONIKE: Oh god, Lys. I was, um, just sort of kissing him good-bye! You know,
letting him know what he won’t get!

LAMPITO: What about when I heard you planning your hot tubbing session for later
tonight? (to LYSISTRA TA) And I mean they were talking hottubbing!

LYSISTRATA: For lack of a better word, and to oblige the FCC, you, Kalonike are
pathetic. Don’t you understand what we just did here a few minutes ago? Are you that
desperate and dependent that you can’t go five minutes without giving in? Aren’t you the .
one who bitched and moaned about your loser boyfriend, who doesn’t even have a job, but
would rather spend his time out with the boys drinking and playing poker three nights a
week?

KALONIKE: Well, yeah. . .but he’s so scrumptious! I can’t resist. One little kiss with
his whiskey-filled breath and I’m his! Besides, when he’s drunk, he lasts longer.

LYSISTRATA: When he actually makes it home instead of passing out on a friend’s
couch. And if he doesn’t come home, and you’ve been waiting, what do you do?

KALONIKE: Well. . .it’s kind of private. I’m on T.V., you know.
74

75

LYSISTRATA: Enough said, sweetie. Listen, you don’t need to be deprived and left to
scrape up the leftovers of your boyfriend’s attention. You will be able to teach him a
valuable lesson, and you’ll get some sexual gratification in the process. You’re allowed to
touch him and tease him and get him aroused. You just need to leave when he’s out of the
starting gate! Make it a game. You’re the master now, and he needs to learn to play by
your rules.

LAMPITO: Yeah!

LYSISTRATA: Kalonike, I’ll show you, (turns to MARCUS) and you, what this oath is
really all about. Your production staff has kindly provided the necessary means for a
prime live example.

MARCUS: Well, I guess when we get back from this commercial, we’ll all get to see
what Lysistrata’s game is all about.

Dudley Fitts’ Version (Scene II, 38—41):

LYSISTRATA: The behavior of these idiotic women!/ There’s something about the
female temperament/ that I can’t bear!

KORYPHAIOS‘”: What in the world do you mean?
LYSISTRATA: Exactly what I say.

KORYPHAIOS‘": What dreadful thing has happened?/ Come, tell us: we’re all your
friends.

LYSISTRATA: It isn’t easy/ to say it; yet, God knows, we can’t hush it up.
KORYPHAIOSW: Well, then? Out with it!

LYSISTRATA: To put it bluntly] we’re dying to get laid.
KORYPHAIOSW: Almighty God!

LYSISTRATA: Why bring God into it?—No, it’s just as I say./ I can’t manage them any
longer: they’ve gone man-crazy/ they’re all trying to get outJ Why look:/ one of them
was sneaking out the back door/ over there by Pan’s cave; another/ was sliding down the
walls with rope and tackle;/ another was climbing aboard a sparrow, ready to take off/ for
the nearest brothel—I dragged her back by the hair!/ They’re all finding some reason to
leave./ Look there!/ There goes another one./—Just a minute, you!/ Where are you off to
so fast?

FIRST WOMAN: I’ve got to get home./ I’ve a lot of Milesian wool, and the worms are
spoiling it.

76

LYSISTRATA: Oh bother you and your worms! Get back inside!

FIRST WOMAN: I’ll be right away, I swear I will./ I just want to get it stretched out on
my bed.

LYSISTRATA: You’ll do no such thing. You’ll stay right here.
FIRST WOMAN: And my wool?/ You want it ruined?
LYSISTRATA: Yes, for all I care.

SECOND WOMAN: Oh dear! My lovely new flax form Amorgos—/ I left it at home,
all uncarded!

LYSISTRATA: Another one!/ And all she wants is someone to card her flax] Get back
in there!

SECOND WOMAN: But I swear by the Moon-GoddessJ the minute I get it done, I’ll be
back! '

LYSISTRATA: I say No./ If you, why not all the other women as well?
THIRD WOMAN: I’m having a baby—any minute now.
LYSISTRATA: But you weren’t pregnant yesterday.

THIRD WOMAN: Well I am today./ Let me go home for a midwife, Lysistratazl there’s
not much time.

LYSISTRATA: I never heard such nonsense./ What’s that bulging under your cloak?
THIRD WOMAN: A little baby boy.

LYSISTRATA: It certainly isn’t. But it’s something hollow/ like a basin or— Why, it’s
the helmet of Athena!/ And you said you were having a baby.

THIRD WOMAN: Well, I am! So there!
LYSISTRATA: Then why the helmet?

THIRD WOMAN: I was afraid that my pains/ might begin here in the Akropolis; and I
wanted/ to drop my chick into it, just as the dear doves do.

LYSISTRATA: Lies! Evasions!—But at least one thing’s clear:/ you can’t leave the
place before your purification.

THIRD WOMAN: But I can’t stay here in the Akropolis! Last night I/ dreamed/ of the
Snake.

77

FIRST WOMAN: And those horrible owls, the noise they make!/ I can’t get a bit of
sleep; I’m just about dead.

LYSISTRATA: You useless girls, that’s enough: Let’s have no more lying./ Of course
you want your men. But don’t you imagine/ that they want you just as much? I’ll give
you my word,/ their nights must be pretty hard./ Just stick it out!/ A little patience, that’s
all, and our battle’s won./ I have heard an Oracle. Should you like to hear it?

I decided to use only one woman from.the chorus to
break the oath in order to intensify her public
humiliation on “nation television."

Lysistrata’s ”example" that she refers to is a
seduction scene (Bedroom Scene) where the “trained"
Myrhinne illustrates, physically and verbally, how the

oath works .

Appendix H

BEDROOM SCENE (My version)

(Bedroom of house. There is a bed in the middle, with a door leading to the bathroom to
the right and a dresser with a vanity minor to the left.)

KINESIAS: (in bed) MYRRHINE, baby, come here. I want to show you something.
MY RRHINE: No.

KINESIAS: What do you mean “No?” Big Poppa’s got a surprise for you!
MYRRHINE: I’m not in the mood for surprises. Surprise yourself.

KINESIAS: I’ve been surprising myself babe! I need you. Look at me! I’m dyin’ over
here!

MYRRHINE: You won’t explode. Gotta go, later! (Heads for door with baggage)

KINESIAS: (jumps out of bed) Waitl! What about the lovin’ and. . .and the baby and the
house and everything. You can’t just walk out on me. . .on us!

MYRRHINE: Michael Keaton. Mr. Mom. Rent it. Learn it.

KINESIAS: But nobody can do all that like you. And nobody can rock my world like
you. You’re the sexiest, smartest, sassiest, most exciting woman I know. I’m getting hot
just watching you stand there. You’re the master.

MYRRHINE: Really?

KINESIAS: Really baby (puts his hands on her).

MYRRHINE: Then it’s really too bad that you’re not getting any! (bumps him away)
KINESIAS: Myrrhine! Come on! What in the hell does a man have to do?
MYRRHINE: Stop fighting other peoples’ damn wars and come home for good. I’m
tired of being a military widow. You dragged me onto this base to live and then you take

offl I’m tired on watching over the house, the baby, the cooking, the cleaning! My sex life
consists of things that say “batteries not included” and I’m sick to death of it. Then you

78

79

come sauntering home every once in a go, get me all worked up, roll me over like a piece
of dough, boink me and bolt! So that’s the deal “Big Poppa,” you either stick around and
do the job right or you can look forward to an empty house and a chaffed right hand!

KINESIAS: I’ll come up with a plan—dishonorable discharge if I have to. I’ll figure
something out. I swear.

MYRRHINE: (pats his head) That’s my good baby. Then you’ll get your nookie. But
not yet. I took my oath with the girls—verbal contract, legal and binding you know.

KINESIAS: (taking of his shirt and rubbing his chest) You sure about that? You really
want to wait? How would those women ever know?

MYRRHINE: Well, I guess you’re right. You are looking pretty yummy. Maybe a
quickie wouldn’t count against the oath.

KINESIAS: (jumps into bed) That’s the spirit. Lights on or off?

MYRRHINE: 0000 on. I want to see the expression on your face. It turns me on. Hang
on sweetie, let me turn on some soft, sexy music (goes over to stereo system).

KINESIAS: You don’t need to! We’ll make our own!

MYRRHINE: I’ll only take a sec. There!

KINESIAS: All right. Here we go.

MYRRHINE: Let me just slither into that new nightie I bought just for your eyes.
KINESIAS: Save it for another time babe—

MYRRHINE: Hush hush! It’ll be worth it. Be fightback! (exits through side door)

KIN ESIAS: (Groans) Better hurry up. We’re at the launching pad! (Rubs under the
sheets)

MYRRHINE: (enters from side door wearing nightie) What do you think Tiger?
(Throws one leg up on the bed)

KIN ESIAS: I think it won’t be on for long! (Reaches for her thigh)
MYRRHINE: (Runs to mirror) Hair up or down?

KINESIAS: How about spread out on the sheets?

MYRRHINE: Don’t be a spoiled sport. This is love-making. It’s got to be right!

KINESIAS: You call this a quickie?

80

MYRRHINE: Why just eat the main course when you can savor the appetizers too?
Now, lay back and close your eyes. I want you to feel my body crawl on top of yours.

KINESIAS: (Closes eyes and smiles largely) Oh yeah, that’s what Big Poppa needs.

MYRRHINE: (Throwing on her T-shirt and jeans) How long before you can get that
discharge?

KIN ESIAS: (Dreamily) Couple of weeks maybe.
MYRRHINE: See you then! Hope your not too blue! (Runs out laughing)

KINESIAS: Where the hell are you going? Get back here! You’re my wife damnit! I
need to get laid! (Runs afier her)

Dudley Fitts’ Version (Scene III, 46—51)

KINESIAS: Myrrhine!/ Darlingest Myrrhinette! Come down quick!
MYRRHINE: Certainly not.

KINESIAS: Not? But why, Myrrhine?

MYRRHINE: Why? You don’t need me.

KINESIAS: Need you? My God, look at me!

MYRRHINE: So long!/ [Turns to go]

KIN ESIAS: Myrrhine, Myrrhine, Myrrhine!/ If not for my sake, for our child!/ [Finches
BABY]/ —All right, you: pipe up!

BABY: Mummie! Mummie! Mummie!

KINESIAS: You hear that?/ Pitiful, I call it. Six days now/ with never a hath; no food;
enough to break your heart!

MYRRHINE: My darlingest child! What a father you acquired!
KINESIAS: At least come down for his sake.
MYRRHINE: I suppose I must./ Oh, this mother business!/ [Exit]

KINESIAS: How pretty she is! And youngerl/ The harder she treats me, the more
bothered I get./ (MYRRHINE enters, below]

MYRRHINE: Dearest child,/ you’re as sweet as your father’s honid. Give me a kiss.

81

KINESIAS: Now don’t you see how wrong it was to get involved/ in this scheming
League of women? It’s bad/ for us both.

MYRRHINE: Keep your hands to yourselfl

KIN ESIAS: But our house/ going to rack and ruin?

MYRRHINE: I don’t care.

KIN ESIAS: And your knitting/ all torn to pieces by the chickens? Don’t you care?
MYRRHINE: Not at all.

KIN ESIAS: And our debt to Aphrodite?/ Oh, won ’t you come back?
MYRRHINE: No.—At least, not until you men make a treaty and stop this war.
KINESIAS: Why, I suppose/ that might be arranged.

MYRRHINE: Oh? Well, I suppose/ I might come down then. But meanwhile/ I’ve
sworn not to.

KINESIAS: Don’t worry.—Now, let’s have fun.

MYRRHINE: No! Stop it! I said no!/ —Although, of course/ I do love you.
KINESIAS: I know you do. Darling MYRRHINEz/ come, shall we?
MYRRHINE: Are you out of your mind? In front of the child?

KINESIAS: Take him home, Manes./ [Exit MANES with BABY]/ There. He’s gone./
Come on!/ There’s nothing to stop us now.

MYRRHINE: You devil! But where?

KINESIAS: In Pan’s cave. What could be snugger than that?
MYRRHINE: But my purification before I go back to the Citadel?
KIN ESIAS: Wash in the Klepsydra.

MYRRHINE: And my oath?

KINESIAS: Leave the oath to me./ After all, I’m the man.
MYRRHINE: Well. . .if you say so./ I’ll go find a bed.
KINESIAS: Oh, bother a bed! The ground’s good enough for me.

82

MYRRHINE: No. You’re a bad man, but you deserve something better/ than dirt./ [Exit
MYRRHINE]

KINESIAS: What a love she is! And how thoughtfulll [Re-enter MYRRHINE]

MYRRHIN E: Now let me get my clothes off/ But, good horrors!/ We haven’t a
mattress.

KINESIAS: Oh, forget the mattress!

MYRRHINE: No./ Just lying on blankets? Too sordid.
KINESIAS: Give me a kiss.

MYRRHINE: Just a second./ [Exit MYRRHINE]
KINESIAS: I swear, I’ll explode!/ [Re-enter MYRRHINE]

MYRRHINE: Here’s your mattress./ I’ll just take my dress off./ But look—/ where’s
our pillow?

KIN ESIAS: I don’t need a pillow!
MYRRHINE: Well, I do./ [Exit MYRRHINE]

KINESIAS: I don’t suppose even Herakles/ would stand for this!/ [Re-enter
MYRRHINE]

MYRRHINE: There we are. Ups-a-daisy!

KINESIAS: So we are. Well, come to bed.
MYRRHINE: But I wonder:/ is everything ready now?
KIN ESIAS: I can swear to that. Come, darling!

MYRRHINE: Just getting out of my girdle./ But remember, now,/ what you promised
about the treaty.

KINESIAS: Yes, yes, yes!

MYRRHINE: But no coverlet!

KINESIAS: Damn it, I’ll be/ your coverlet!
MYRRHINE: Be right back./ [Exit MYRRHIN E]

KINESIAS: The girl and her coverlets/ will be the death of me.

83

MYRRHINE: Here we are. Up you go!
KINESIAS: Up? I’ve been up for ages.
MYRRHINE: Some perfume?
KINESIAS: No, by Apollo!

MYRRHINE: Yes, by Aphrodite!/ I don’t care whether you want it or not./ [Exit
MYRRHINE]

KINESIAS: For love’s sake, hurry!/ [Re-enter MYRRHINE]

MYRRHINE: Here, in your hand. Rub it right in.

KINESIAS: Never cared for per-firme/ And this is particularly strong. Still, here goes.
MYRRHINE: What a nitwit I am! I brought you the Rhodian bottle.

KINESIAS: Forget it.

MYRRHINE: No trouble at all. You just wait here./ [Exit MYRRHINE]

KIN ESIAS: God damn the man who invented perfumel/ [Re-enter MYRRHIN E]
MYRRHINE: At last! The right bottle!

KIN ESIAS: I’ve got the rightest/ bottle of all, and it’s right here waiting for you./
Darling, forget everything else. Do come to bed.

MYRRHIN E: Just let me get my shoes off/ —And, by the way,/ you’ll vote for the
treaty?

KINESIAS: I’ll think about it./ [MYRRHINE runs away]/ There! That’s done it! The
damned woman,/ she gets me all bothered, she half kills me,/ and off she runs! What’ll I
do? Where/ can I get laid?/ —And you, little prodding pal,/ who’s going to take care of
you? No, you and I/ had better get down to old F oxdog’s Nursing Clinic.

The end of this scene, in our production, was
followed by a video clip. Once Myrrhine ran out of the
bedroom set, she ran down the aisle of the theatre and
out the door. Cinesias then chased after her, the video

screen came down on the set of ”The Marcus Davenport

84

Show," and the audience watched a video of Cinesias
chasing Myrrhine around MSU’s campus and the downtown of
East Lansing. The end of the video showed Myrrhine and
Cinesias running back into the theatre, at which point
they ran back down the aisle and onto the stage as the

video screen flew out.

Appendix I

RESOLUTION (My version)

MARCUS: It’s about time to wrap things up. Lysistrata, I want to thank you for coming
on the show this evening.

LYSISTRATA: No, no, Marcus, thank you. This has been a boot. I expect to be hearing
from the local women, and your fiancee regarding the status of firings soon.

(SOLDIERS and ALISA filter in from stage right in formation. MARCUS gestures over to
them and to CARL as if to say, “What ’s up? ” LYSISTRA TA turns to look at what ’s going
on.)

LYSISTRATA: Hey looks like we’ve got more company. Carl, we’re not going over
time are we? (Gets up to approach the SOLDIERS)

MARCUS: Last I checked, this was the Marcus Davenport Show. Carl, are we over
time? (MICHAEL is laughing)

CARL: No sir. Let’s roll. This should be good.

ALISA: (Marches SOLDIERS to center stage, halts when LYSISTRA TA reaches them,
turns to men) Gentlemen, present arms! Order arms! Sound ofil

SOLDIERS: Hail Lysistrata!

LYSISTRATA: (Laughing) At ease, gentlemen.

ROBERT: Permission to speak freely, ma’arn.

LYSISTRATA: Permission granted.

SOLDIERS: (All break out at the same time saying various things like, “,Uh we ’ve got to
settle this woman thing” and “We need to talk to you about some things ” and “We can 't
take it anymore " and “You ’re busting our balls, lady, ” etc.)

LYSISTRATA: Whoa! One at a time fellas. (Smacks down the line of phalluses)

ALISA: They’ve come to try and solve this problem with their women.
85

86

(All WOMEN filter in fi'om stage left and stand behind LYSISTRA TA. The rest of the men,
including improv members, filter in from behind the SOLDIERS)

LYSISTRATA: I see. Well, it’s quite easy. I’m sure your significant others here
(gestures to WOMEN) have told you what they’ve wanted. All you need to do is find a
way to please them. Right ladies?

WOMEN: (led by NEST ELYNN in a gospel-like chant and bouncing fi'om the knees) Oh
yeah. Laying it down. Time to give.

LYSISTRATA: (while WOMEN are bouncing and humming) We’re all human here.
There is a way! It’s spring! No one should be without their lover. Give to your honey
and you shall receive all they have to offer!

MEN: (Start bouncing and humming with the women and begin choral chant) We will
give! We will give!

Dudley Fitts’ Version (Scene V, 57—59)
AMBASSADOR: We propose to consider peace.

COMMISSIONER: Good. That’s on our minds, too./ —Summon Lysistrata./ We’ll
never get anywhere without her.

AMBASSADOR: Lysistrata?/ Summon Lysis-anybody! Only, summon!
KORYPHAIOS’“: No need to summonzl here she is herself./ [Enter LYSISTRATA]

COMMISSIONER: Lysistrata! Lion of women!/ This is you hour to be/ hard and
yielding, outspoken and shy, austere and/ gentle. You see here/ the best brains of Hellas
(confused, I admit,/ by your devious charming) met as one man/ to turn the future over to
you.

LYSISTRATA: That’s fair enough,/ unless you men take it into you heads/ to turn to each
other instead of to us. But I’d know/ soon enough if you did./ —Where is
Reconciliation?/ Go, some of you: bring her here./ [Exeunt two women]/ And now,
women,/ lead the Spartan delegates to me: not roughly/ or insultingly, as our men handle
them, but gently,/ politely, as ladies should. Take them by the hand,/ or by anything else if
they won’t give you their hands./ [The SPARTAN S are escorted over]/ There. —The
Athenians next, by any convenient handle./ [The ATHENIANS are escorted]/ Stand
there, please. —Now, all of you, listen to me./ [During the following speech the two
women re-enter, carrying an enormous statue of a naked girl; this is
RECONCILIATION.]/ I’m only a woman, I know; but I’ve a mind,/ and, I think, not a
bad one: I owe it to my father/ and to listening to the local politicians./ So much for that./
Now, gentlemenJ since I have you here, I intend to give you a soolding./ We are all
Greeks. Must I remind you of Thermopylai, of Olyrnpia/ of Delphoi? names deep in all

87

our hearts?/ Are they not a common heritage?/ Yet you men/ go raiding through the
country from both sides/ Greek killing Greek, storming down Greek cities—/ and all the
time the Barbarian across the sea/ is waiting for his chance!/ —That’s my first point.

AN ATHENIAN: Lord! I can hardly contain myself.

(Scene V, 60—61)

LYSISTRATA: Good—But before you come inside/ to join your wives at supper, you
must perform the usual lustration. Then we’ll open/ our baskets for you, and all that we
have is yours./ But you must promise upright good behavior/ from this day on. Then each
man home with his woman!

AN ATHENIAN: Let’s get it over with.

A SPARTAN: Lead on. Ah follow.

AN ATHENIAN: Quick as a cat can wink!

(Exodos, 64)

LYSISTRATA: All that will come in time./ But now, Lakonians/ take home your wives.
Athenians, take yours./ Each man be kind to his woman; and you, women/ be equally

kind. Never again, pray God,/ shall welose our way in such madness.

KORYPHAIOS’: And now/ let’s dance our joy.

At the end of our production, as the men and women
danced wildly together (the Soldiers tucking away their
phalluses) to the band's rock music, Lysistrata took over.

Marcus’ desk and closed the ”talk-show."

Appendix J

SMALL PLANET SCENE

Throughout scene, women of cast are talking, laughing, flirting with men,
drinking, smoking, and dancing.

LYSISTRATA: Okay, Marcus! I got my new fiiend Bob here (Bob flips camera
on himself and cheeses) to help me show the absolutely pathetic behavior of
lonely women, young and old, indigenous to the Lansing area.

So here we are at the Small Planet and tonight is what they call “The Party Pit!”
(pan crowd and stage with caged dancers/ walks towards women sitting together
near stage) Ah! And here we have my star players! One word:
Exemplification! Wave to the camera ladies! (Women raise glasses, hoot and
hollar, blow kisses, etc.) Notice the style of dress—tight, short, risqué. Each
outfit should come equipped with a neon banner that says, “I need to get some.”
(To TRISHA, ERIN, JANE Y, and POLINA)

How many times a week do you come here?

TRISHA: Lately? About three times. And then of course on “pit” nights!(starts
dancing excitedly)

ERIN: (Smoking a cigarette with “tough-girl " attitude) Depends on the
husband. If he’s home, so am I. If he’s not (lifts drink and cigarette in same
hand), Salute! (tosses back drink)

JANEY AND POLINA: (Speaking in unison, quite intoxicated, leaning on each
other) We jus’ come whenever they come/ We go out to where they say they’re
going out to go (both point to TRISHA and ERIN)

JANEY: (Pulling POLINA) I gotta go bathroom. Can you help?

(Pan over to EMILY, MELISSA, JOANNE, & ALISA, who are doing copious
amounts of tequila slammers at the bar)

EMILY: (lifts glass) A toast ladies! (Everyone gathers drinks and lifts them in
the air) Here’s to our home away from home, the Small Planet, to tear-away
clothing, and our best friend, “The Tongue!” (They slam their shots on the bar,

88

89

toss back the drinks, and cheer loudly a mixture of “I ’ll drink to that! ” and
“Cheers, sisters! ")

LYSISTRATA: (Laughing) I hope this town has a dependable cab service!
(Walks over to LAMPITO, who is standing near the dance floor seriously flirting
with two men) I can’t believe the amount of liquor! (To LAMPITO) Let me ask
you, how many drinks do you get when you come here for your “ladies night?”

LAMPITO: (well on her way to drunk) I d’no. Six or seven mixers maybe.
Unless someone buys us shots! Then it’s balls out! It can get expensive. It’s not
worth it unless there’s some meat to scope.

LYSISTRATA: Meat to scope?

LAMPITO: You know! Guys—meat! Tonight Planet’s got our favorite dancer,
Sergeant Sex.

ALL OTHER LADIES: (Screams of delight, Mexican ai yai yai!)

LAMPITO: Oh my god. Oh my god! He’s coming on. I gotta go get some
singles for the G-string!

LYSISTRATA: Do what you have to do, love. (Back to camera) I suppose now,
Marcus, you’ll get to see what these poor women are paying as a substitute for
their lovers.

(Music gets louder, introduction of dancer by DJ. if possible)
This should be good!

(Camera on Steve. He dances and strips. Ladies are going wild while dancing
beneath him, catching clothing, shoving dollar bills in his underwear. Steve
comes down from stage and dances around each lady, flirting and teasing. As he
does this, each lady yells to LYSIST RA TA various things such as: “Isn’t he
hot? ”, “Lysistrata, you have to dance with us! ” and to Steve, “Baby, you can
strip search me any day! ” LYSIST RA TA responds to comments with, “Oh yeah,
he ’s a hot one! ” and “No, no. I ’11 just watch you! ” After dance ends and Steve
walks ofl' stage, women whistle and go crazy, then begin to dance wildly to music
and flirt with various men)

LYSISTRATA: Well, Marcus! I think you get the picture. Oh, but wait. Who’s
that I see? (Walks over to NEST ELYNN who is slumped into a chair, half
passed-out with Steve ’s tear-away pants wrapped around her shoulders, and a

hand full of dollar bills)

90

Why, it looks like the woman who introduced herself earlier as your fiancee!
Wave to your honey, girlfriend! (Walks behind NEST ELYNN and manipulates
her hand in a wave like a puppet)

NESTELYNN: (barely lifts head, looks glazingly into the camera) Hi bab. . .y.
(her head slumps back down into her chest)

LYSISTRATA: Enough said, sister! (T 0 camera) And I believe enough shown,
Marcus! I bid you adieu, sweet thing! (Blows kiss at camera)

Appendix K

 

The Bill, Hillary, and Paula puppets

91

Appendix L

PUPPET SCENE

MARCUS: It doesn’t seem to matter who you are, whether you’re flipping burgers or
mopping floors for a living, or if you’re the Commander in Chief—if you’re not getting
any from the little woman at home, bad things will happen.

(Hail to the Chief plays)

(PUPPE T S of BILL and PAULA appear as music plays. BILL enters from the back of
the house, walks down the aisle, shaking hands with patrons, then reaches the stage to
greet PA ULA)

BILL: Now, Miss Jones, I understand we need to get a few things settled here.
PAULA: Whatever do you mean?

BILL: Well now, you’re an intelligent woman. You can see that we can work out this
little problem without all the legalities. (Moves closer to her) We can settle it, in. . .a more
human way; you know what I mean?

PAULA: You’re coming on to me again! You pervert! Picking on an innocent God-
fearing southern gal like myselfl I should record everything you say.

BILL: Hush, hush now little filly. The boss lady’s on her way. Move along now, we’ll
settle this mess later. (Pushes PAULA into the house right aisle)

(HILLARY P UPPE T enters upstage)

HILLARY: I can not believe your audacity, Bill. How dare you expose this tumult to the
nation.

BILL: What was I to do, Hi1? A man can only go for so long until something snaps!

HILLARY: You mean snaps open don’t you? Flashing “Mr. Willy” to that little tramp?
How vulgar, Bill. Really, the solution to our little sexual glitch was quite simple—all you
had to do was allocate a few high-level govermnental positions to me, finally make a
quality real-estate deal, and viola! Sex was yours. But no, you forced me to use powers
beyond the business realm, and because of your spineless, sniveling, desperate demeanor,

92

93

you broke! (in speech mode) This is not the way to succeed in our relationship! We must
bear the forces that direct our natures--

PAULA: Excuse me! I am not vulgar! Just because I’m not some white-collar executive
fi'om the east coast, and just because I was born and bred in Arkansas, and just because I
did that picture spread in Penthouse (starts whimpering) doesn’t mean I’m some dim-
witted, low-class, money-hungry tramp!

BILL: You are correct Miss Jones! All that means is that you were easy. And I can
solemnly swear, as Commander in Chief of these United States, that I was damned lucky
for that. I took one look at that short skirt, that long, curly hair, those cute, crooked teeth,
and I said to myself, “God love the south!”

HILLARY: Bill! Calm yourselfl I will eventually succeed in my mission, and don’t
worry, I may appoint you as Vice-President, but until then, we must remain stoic. And we
must, for the sake of the nation and women everywhere, shut this woman up! Hillary
Rodham-Clinton shall rise to the top, no matter what! (Hell, I’ve already got a Grammy!)

PAULA: (Sobbing while saying, “I am not a tramp " and “I am telling the truth, you '11 all
see. ”)

BILL: And I will rise. . .and rise. . .and rise (music fades back in as BILL repeats line
while laughing devilishly)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AristOphanes. Lysistrata. Trans. Dudley Fitts. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1957.

Carlson, Marvin. Theories of the Theatre. Expanded ed.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Clay, Carolyn. ”ART woyzeck to be made of Stern stuff."
A.R.T..News (2 May 1997): n. pag. Online. World Wide
Web. 27 May 1997.

Constantinidis, Stratos E. Theatre under Deconstruction?
A Question of Approach. New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc., 1993.

Dolan, Jill. ”Peeling Away the Tropes of Visibility:
Lesbian Sexuality and Materialist Performance
Practice" Theatre Topics 2.1 (1992): 41-50.

Elam, Diane. Feminism and Deconstruction. New York:
Routledge, 1991.

Felperin, Howard. Beyond Deconstruction: The USes and
Abuses of Literary Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1985.

Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1968.

Hayden, Rebecca. ”A Director’s Journey: Profile of
Marcus Stern." A.R.T. News (13 Jan. 1996): n. pag.
Online. World Wide Web. 27 May 1997.

Leitch, Vincent B. Deconstructive Criticism. London:
Hutchinson, 1983.

94

95

MacDonald, Erik. Theater at the Margins: Text and the
Post-Structured Stage. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1993.

Nash, Kate. ”The Feminist Production of Knowledge: Is
Deconstruction a Practice for Women?" Feminist
Review Summer 1994: 65-77.

Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory & Practice.
New York: Methuen, 1982.

Schechner, Richard. Environmental Theater. New York:
Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1973.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Brockett, Oscar G. History of the Theatre, sixth ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991.

Cornell, Drucilla. Beyond Accommodation. New York:
Routledge, 1991.

Ellis, John M. Against Deconstruction. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1989.

Loesberg, Jonathan. Aestheticism and Deconstruction:
Pater, Derrida, and De.Man. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1991.

Reinelt, Janelle. ”Theatre on the Brink of 2000:
Shifting Paradigms." Theatre Research International.
Vol. 20, n2: 123—9.

Siegel, Ed. ”woyzeck crosses the tabloid with the avant-
garde." The Boston Globe n2 (26 Jan. 1997): n. pag.
Online. World Wide Web. 27 May 1997.

Tejera, Victorino. Literature, Criticism, and the Theory

of Signs. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing,
1995.

96

 

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293015706132