A Conversation With Michael Kahn
 Question: Over
the course of your career in the theatre as a director, the head of companies,
or as a teacher, has the nature of theatre changed in this country? If so,
what have been some of its developments?
MICHAEL KAHN: I believe several things have developed. When
I was growing up in New York City, the theatre was primarily Broadway. It was
the incubator for everything; theatre was defined by what happened in New York.
Living there, I saw a certain kind of play, a certain kind of actor, and a
certain kind of audience.
By the time I graduated from Columbia University, the regional not-for-profit
theatre movement began to flourish, changing the face of theatre. The number
of theatres outside of New York increased. With that came a desire to mount
the great works of the past-the classics not occasionally but throughout the
season. This was an exciting and fertile time for the reexamination of the
great works of theatre literature that were-until then-infrequently seen or
performed. With this came an appetite on the part of both artists and audiences
for language and more challenging theatre than the commercial stages of New
York provided. This enormous change laid the foundation for theatre companies
such as The Shakespeare Theatre.
Actors actually found that they could develop careers in communities outside
of New York City, and that they needed to acquire skills beyond what the commercial
theatre required. Actors were now expected to be able to perform different
kinds of material. They were required to do David Mamet and Shakespeare often
in the same season, and this helped changed the American acting style. American
actors began to see themselves not only either as method actors or as classical
actors, but as actors expected to perform with a variety of skills, styles
and abilities. Acting programs at colleges and conservatories (such as Juilliard)
responded to this need. As a director and a teacher of acting, I saw new possibilities
of doing classical theatre in a truly American style and that excited me.
Question: How does theatre relate to other entertainment
forms?
MK: Over the years, television and the increasingly technologically
advanced movie making began to allow for a kind of experience that live theatre
couldn't. They forced theatre to examine itself and to determine its uniqueness;
to evaluate its relevance within a context where other forms deliver experiences
you've only dreamt about. Add to this television, the vehicle that delivers
entertainment directly to the comfort of your own home, where food and drink
go hand in hand with sitting and watching the small screen.
Question: So what is theatre's unique quality?
MK: It is the combination of telling a compelling story within
an environment that is always live, changeable and in the present, creating
a singular experience with each performance for people who are part of a shared
community.
When you go to the movies, you don't really share the movie with anyone else.
It's a solitary thing even though there may be 1000 people present. In a sense
you're by yourself, in a kind of isolation, having your own response; you don't
laugh together, cry together. You also don't get that sense of community watching
TV at home. That experience is reductive because of its need to draw huge audiences,
often setting its sights on the lowest common denominator of taste and content.
Add to this mix today's technology, that in one sense isolates rather than
develops community. With a computer, there isn't nuance-real conversation with
inflection or tone or the subtextual signs that body language provides.
When you go to the theatre, you are engaging with other living, breathing
human beings, having an immediate human response. In the theatre you sense
that all of this may never happen again in this particular way. As a member
of the audience, you are actually part of how that's developing-you have a
hand in it. Your response actually changes the temperature of the room and
influences that fragile dynamic. You are part of a community where you are
asked to be compassionate, perhaps to laugh with or grieve as well as to understand
people, lives and cultures different from your own. Regardless if it is a funny,
sad, tragic, political or domestic story, theatre is about creating a truly
unique, live, human experience, which can entertain and enlighten at the same
time-changing perceptions and thus changing the world.
A THEATRE IS ROOTED IN THE TIMELESS TERM — CLASSICAL
Question: The Theatre's mission is to become the preeminent
classical theatre in the country. How do you define classical? Does it refer
to style or method of presentation? Does it refer to structure of the play,
i.e., a traditional narrative based on character development, or does it refer
to a particular timelessness of message or meaning?
MK: The latter.
Question: Care to elaborate?
MK: Classics for me are works that have lasting significance
and thus lasting relevance. Plays about the human condition and experiences
that transcend the time in which they were originally conceived and still remain
relevant. They achieve this through an ambition of language, character of size,
scope and dimension. They are open-ended, asking more questions than giving
answers. Their timelessness allows them to be infinitely re-interpretable by
artists of different periods.
The responsibility and privilege of the creative team of a production is to
find the connections between the work and the world in which it will be performed
to honor both the playwright's time and the time in which we live. Putting
those two things together is what is thrilling about doing classical theatre
in the 21st century.
Question: One might say that the presentation of classical
theatre in today's culture is about advancing an agenda-not a sensibility.
How would you comment?
MK: I don't believe that. I'm not interested in advancing
an agenda. An agenda is one-sided, a mandate. Our mission is to make relevant
connections about humanity and the human condition-to identify plays of the
past that continue to speak to contemporary concerns. How that is manifested
in our productions develops from a desire to discover the most alive ways of
illuminating what that play has to say. How it is interpreted or presented
must always be rooted in a real understanding of the text.
I expect clarity, accessibility, good storytelling, character and imagination.
I demand that when I see a classical play, regardless of the particular style
it is presented in, that it illuminate that work, whether it is Shakespeare,
Williams, Ibsen or O'Neill. It shouldn't require an education, or reading the
plays beforehand by the audience to experience them. All it requires is coming
openly to hear and experience. If we have done our job properly, any individual
can understand a classic play.
Question: But still, for some in today's culture, the term
classical or classic denotes a certain sense of rigidity, predictability and
irrelevance. How do you deal with these notions?
MK: I believe that reaction stems from exposure to some
bad productions. It's certainly not the fault of the plays. Classical plays
are neither rigid nor irrelevant. A classical work creates a wonderful tension
between what the play is about and the carefully crafted form in which it is
conceived. The manipulation of those two elements is what actually keeps the
work flexible and energetic. It's a dynamic that is very much alive.
If people think classical plays are irrelevant, first let's look at the subject
matter of many of them-family, murder, politics, rage, first love, suicide,
man's relation to god and the cosmos, and our place in a changing world-hardly
irrelevant. Second, take all of the physical imagination and energy of American
actors with their ability to be psychological and honest. Put that together
with 14th-, 15th- and 16th-century styles of writing with the technical skill
to make those styles accessible, and allow those disparate worlds to coalesce
on stage before a live audience, and I believe you create an extraordinary
experience, something emotionally and intellectually satisfying-hardly rigid
or predictable.
Question: What about being relevant in terms of the physical
presentation of the production? What about "period style?"
MK: The physical production, however you decide to do it,
must be chosen to illuminate the play. It can be done in "traditional dress." It
can be done on roller skates. It can be done in kabuki. It can be done in modern
dress. It's not about the physical appearance, but about the life that happens
on the stage. Somebody once said to me, "Well, is that production going to
be traditional?" I said, "Traditional? What do you mean by traditional?" In
Shakespeare's theatre, no matter what the play, whether it was Julius Caesar,
Timon of Athens or Antony and Cleopatra, they were all dressed like the audience.
They didn't put on togas; they wore doublets and hoses - garments of the time.
So "modern dress," where the audience and the actors look alike, is "traditional" if
you will, for Shakespeare.
It is up to the actors and the director to interpret the work freshly, and
it is up to the audience to drop their preconceptions at the door. It requires
some work from both groups. I don't believe in changing the period just to
change periods. I believe a production can be very alive in traditional dress
or can be dull and unengaging. To move a play from "traditional" to modern
dress-I only do that if it enhances the story the play is telling. When I did
Timon of Athens, I set it in the '80s in New York because first of all, Shakespeare
set it in Periclean Athens, writing about Jacobean economics. He had already
removed it. Jacobean economics was foreign to our audience, but the economics
of the '80s weren't and created parallel issues to Shakespeare's play. So we
set it in a contemporary period where we felt the similarities were huge and
revealing. We made that choice in order to bring Shakespeare's thought to life,
as I believe it did.
Question: Some of the theatre's successes have been with
non-Shakespearean works, works of the 20th century - Williams, O'Neill or Ibsen.
How do these works or these playwrights fit into your overall mission?
MK: As I stated earlier, certain authors, while writing in
another era, actually ask questions that we need to be discussing now. As with
Shakespeare, while writing in their own time, and concerned with their own
contemporary issues, they ask more questions than they give answers. They are
open-ended plays.
A great classic does not tell you what to think. Shakespeare never tells you
what to think. As a writer he is not a moralist. Rather he is literally exploring,
exposing and revealing new and rich territory for us to discover and contemplate-allowing
us the freedom of our own judgment. Ibsen, Williams, and all playwrights I
consider in that category, allow for us to look at problems and questions and
force us to make up our own mind. For example in Hedda Gabler, is Hedda all
bad or is she good? Is she a victim of her society or is she a perpetrator
of a terrible act? Is she a proto-feminist or is she a person who never even
had the chance to experience her own power? Who is Hedda Gabler? Is Brecht's
character Mother Courage an evil capitalist? Or is she somebody struggling
to make good in a society that doesn't allow her to? Is Williams' play Sweet
Bird of Youth about purely egotistical and shabby monsters, or is its about
what happens to people in a society based on success and youth when you don't
have either anymore? The ambiguities and contradictions in great plays are
revealed in their fullness for us to decide.
Question: So these characters in classic plays are incredibly
complex, incredibly layered, but to a certain degree incomplete?
MK: They are completed by the artists of the day (directors,
actors, designers) along with the contemporary sensibilities of the audience.
But let me make one very important point. It's not that the playwright hasn't "completed" the
characters but has given characters dimensions that are complex, and therefore
not easily pigeonholed. These characters can be viewed from many different
angles, like the facets of a diamond as you turn it around. These playwrights
did what Picasso wanted to do with Cubism-looking at the same thing in different
ways. Classical plays are ones whose characters and ideals live past their
own period. That's great writing. Plays that don't have that quality exist
only in there time, because all the answers are in the play-all the decisions
are in the play and the audience is told everything! It is why some plays from
the past still live and others do not. Although there is tremendous excitement
in discovering "forgotten" plays from the past that now can speak to us-that
is one of the missions of The Shakespeare Theatre.
CROSS-PURPOSES INFORM A LIFE IN THE THEATRE
Question: You have worked at Juilliard since 1968 and have dealt with successive
generations of artists and actors. How has the ability to work with the youth
of Juilliard affected your work at The Shakespeare Theatre?
MK: I was fortunate enough to be asked to teach at the same
time I was beginning my career. As a teacher, I've always been part of the
real world the students were entering, and at the same time I was lucky to
be able to continually be in dialogue with new and fresh ideas. My work has
evolved because I keep working with a new generation of young actors. I think
my teaching has been enriched because I'm also putting into practice what I
do in my directing.
Working with young actors not only makes me question what I know but also
allows me to continually hear and come up against fresh ways of thinking, which
certainly influences my directing and my work in Washington. I believe at heart
I am a good storyteller-but how I tell that story has changed over the years.
The students are as much an influence on me as other things have been. Certain
movies, directors, certain dance and music, certain painters-all have influenced
me.
Question: Let's go back to one artist you mentioned with
regards to your thoughts on classical theatre. You mentioned Picasso. Why him?
MK: Picasso is an idol of mine. I admired Picasso's evolution;
his desire to not stay with what he knew he could do or what was successful,
but actually going on to the next thing-throwing out what he knew and trying
something else.
The greatest ideal for me as both an artist and as head of an institution
such as The Shakespeare Theatre is that each should continue to evolve. The
theatre should be ahead of society, it must continually change, and it must
rediscover and reinvent its work.
I mentioned Picasso as one artist who continually changed, and Shakespeare
was one as well. If you look at his first plays, then his middle plays and
finally, at his last works, you could actually say they weren't written by
the same person. You could see that he actually said, "I know how to do that,
let me try to do this instead, or that." The Winter's Tale is no more like
Richard III, than Henry VI is like The Tempest. So there you have two individuals
creating in two different centuries that are my artistic ideals.
A NEW PHYSCIAL REALITY ENHANCES AND BROADENS THE MISSION
Question: You are launching a capital campaign to build a second theatre;
in fact you will be incorporating your existing space-the Lansburgh-with a
new entity just around the corner and down the block, to create a center for
the arts. How will the realization of an arts center support what we have discussed
so far? How will the Harman Center for the Arts allow for greater experimentation
and your ability to delve into new areas that seem to excite you?
MK: The Harman Center for the Arts is an essential component
of realizing our expanded mission. On the simplest level, having two stages
allows us to explore a larger repertory. The smaller of the two-the 450-seat
Lansburgh-can be used in a more experimental, possibly "chamber" way. This
wasn't possible in the past as it was our only, our "epic" stage.
The new 800-seat Sidney Harman Hall is being designed for what we hope will
be the ideal 21st-century theatre. What sounds like an aggrandized notion is
actuality a simple concept that has everything to do with flexibility. If you
recall, I spoke about one important characteristic of classical theatre-open-endedness-the
ability to be viewed from a variety of perspectives. That singular concept
drove all our discussions with our wonderful architect, Jack Diamond. We wanted
a very transformable and transformative space. A space that can easily be a
proscenium, or a thrust, in semi-arena or without any scenery whatsoever.
The theatre's extreme flexibility will allow artists to imagine different
ways to envision, produce and perform a classical play. They will not be tyrannized
by architecture. The presentation style will not be dictated by the architecture,
but the architecture will be created by the style of the presentation. The
Harman will have an elegant simplicity that will be rendered as a neutral environment
and will be easily adaptable. It will be a blank yet evocative canvas in which
the imagination is freed-where boundaries are obliterated in many ways for
the audience as well as the artists. Out of that will come new ways of thinking
about the plays and how they are brought to life.
We will remain true to considerations of clarity, accessibility and imagination,
but how we're going to tell those stories will now have immensely more possibilities;
looking at the space differently, we will look at new ways to see our work.
Question: Why call it the Harman Center for the Arts?
MK: We are not a "Center" in the traditional physical perception
of the term-with multiple spaces linked under one roof like the Barbican Centre
in London, or geographically existing on the same parcel of land like Lincoln
Center. We chose the term because it speaks more to the institution we will
become-for the very reasons why we want to incorporate other art forms under
the rubric of "center." The term "center" refers to the great variety and various
combinations of presentations that we will be offering to the public either
separately or simultaneously at the Harman Hall or the Lansburgh.
Question: The new Harman Center for the Arts will also change
the nature of the institution as well. You will begin to feature other disciplines
such as music and dance. What else will the new center allow for?
MK: We knew that by creating the Harman Center for the Arts
we had an incredible opportunity to become a greater presence within the cultural
life of Washington, D.C. By having a stage that is welcoming to dance, to chamber,
jazz and classical music, we open up a variety of possibilities for us and
for the cultural community of Washington. One individual who immediately saw
the potential and possibilities of the new facility was Sidney Harman, who
shares our desire to embrace a wider mission to include other art forms.
At present, there is a lack of viable, mid-size performance spaces in downtown
Washington. It is our goal that the Harman Center for the Arts will not only
feature productions we produce but also theatrical productions and cultural
presentations by local and national organizations. In fact, we have initiated
talks with many local and national organizations about joining us on our stages.
Both the 450-seat Lansburgh and the new 800-seat Sidney Harman Hall will be
venues that we will make available to other cultural groups, who share our
artistic ambition for excellence, for their presentations, and when appropriate,
for joint presentations. It is our hope that some theatre companies, who in
the past have bypassed Washington, D.C. due to inappropriate-sized venues,
might consider the Harman or the Lansburgh as possible stops on their tour,
allowing Washingtonians the opportunity to see their work. The facility will
also be alive during the day, with lunchtime and afternoon events of readings
and concerts for individuals working in the neighborhood.
I see a ferment happening in these buildings. Other artists, other disciplines
that are not only going to affect us but also are going to affect and benefit
our audiences as well. Who knows, there will be dance one night and Shakespeare
another night, affecting each other in ways that I'm not sure yet. What I do
know is that there is the wonderful potential for cross-fertilization for audience
and artists alike.
Question: Let's get back to the direct benefit to your productions
within this new environment. Can you expand a bit more?
MK: Some plays are going to mean something different if you
do them in a thrust configuration, and some plays are going to take a different
dimension if you mount them arena-style or in a proscenium arrangement. It
would be great to do Julius Caesar not in proscenium style, but in the round
where the audience actually feels they are part of the crowd involved in the
play at all times. What if actors surround the audience and are part of them
at all times? And yet we can continue to use the proscenium when it most benefits
the play or the director's vision. It will be a "theatre of possibilities," unrestricted,
and not limited to only one audience/stage dynamic as in the past.
That is why we chose Jack Diamond as our architect. We met and spoke with
a lot of very successful and tremendously brilliant architects, but Jack understood
from our very first encounter that we didn't want to be bounded by the limitations
of a 19th-century proscenium or 20th-century arena-style environment. Jack
instinctively picked up on our goal and embraced our desire with genuine enthusiasm
and excitement.
Question: You spoke of the benefits the Sidney Harman Hall's
configuration will have with your own theatrical presentations. How will the
space function for other art forms?
MK: The stage will be adaptable to allow chamber music,
dance and jazz concerts. But the most beneficial aspect of the design will
be how the space will work acoustically. We will be taking into account the
variety of activities that will take place in the space. We are making allowance
for the spoken word, the theatre voice and for live music as well. The complex
acoustical arrangement will allow us to tune the hall for each discipline.
Question: Your project is unlike other new centers for the
arts in another way. You aren't building a freestanding iconic building, but
have chosen a different route by integrating yourself into a new office building.
Why is this?
MK: We could have looked at other places to build a theatre,
but we knew we wanted to remain in very close proximity to the Lansburgh. We
also wanted a direct connection to the vibrant and revitalized urban street
life of downtown that we helped to create by moving to the Lansburgh eleven
years ago. Jack Diamond also understood this desire. Jack developed a brilliant
design that links us to the urban rhythm and street energy of downtown Washington.
The building's glass curtain wall creates a wonderful transparency for the
entire facility, beginning at street level and entrance lobby, and continuing
up the building to include the two levels of theatre lobbies that look out
across the street. Jack has developed a "bay window" that encompasses both
theatre lobby levels, extending eight feet out from the building and over the
sidewalk below. If you are approaching the Harman Center in either direction
along F Street and look ahead, you will encounter the theatre, creating a dialogue
and inviting interaction even before stepping through the front door.
Question: So if you were to sum up the relationship between
the institution and the new facility what would it be?
MK: With the creation of the Harman Center for the Arts,
our hope for its success is two-fold: to create a wonderful synergy of purpose
with the addition of other arts forms to classical theatre, and to create a
unique environment where the open-endedness of the classical theatre can be
enjoyed within a space that mirrors that classic sensibility.
Back to Top
|