|
HOW FULL OF BRIERS
FOREWARD AND NOTES TO THE 2017 EDITION Foreword to the 2017 edition: From 1978 through 1982 I was working full-time during the day in the Athletic Department of Duquesne University and going to law school full-time at night. I maintained that grueling schedule for four years, and left with a law degree, some wonderful friends, and a research paper that was my love letter to the theatre. I was not a model law student. Often the only way I could make it through class was to sit at the back of the room and read P.G. Wodehouse paperback novels hidden in my enormous law books. I lived for my vacations to the Stratford Festival in Canada, where I could revel in the delights of watching Maggie Smith, Brian Bedford, Domini Blythe, Nicholas Pennell, and many, many more wonderful actors performing Shakespeare, Noel Coward, Chekov, Shaw, and Rattigan. My hero was Robin Phillips, the Artistic Director whose work was unlike anything I’d ever seen. Even now, more than 35 years later, I can still see the Festival stage as I walked in for a performance of Love’s Labour’s Lost, and found actors already on the stage, reading, lounging, creating the world of a lazy, hot summer day, drawing the audience into the play long before the house lights were ever dimmed. Pure magic, and I couldn’t get enough of it. |
Cyndie Cline, who sat next to me in class and eventually visited Stratford herself, said one day, “Why don’t you do a research paper about theatre? You can get credit for doing what you love.” Once she said it, it seemed incredibly obvious. Thanks to my kind and generous boss, Red Manning, who agreed to let me use my vacation time and then some; and my corporations professor, Joy Conti, who agreed to act as advisor for my research project, I laid out my plans.
I would spend two weeks at each of the three theatres I wanted to research: The American Shakespeare Theater in Stratford, Connecticut, the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon in England, and the Stratford Shakespearean Festival of Canada in Stratford, Ontario. Once each of the theatres agreed to my request, all I had to do was make my travel arrangements and come up with a list of people to interview and the questions I would ask.
Early on I discovered that there was little to nothing published at that time on the non-profit corporation, much less theatre. The closest I could get was a book on company law from England. This was before the internet, and despite the assistance of numerous librarians, I could find nothing. My research, other than some writings on each of the theatres and their respective artistic histories, would be primary research done at each site.
The acknowledgments detail the people to whom I am deeply indebted for their generous assistance. From the perspective of the years since I did the research, several things stand out that seem worth sharing.
At the Royal Shakespeare Company, I was there during a transition as one acting company moved from Stratford-upon-Avon to the Aldwych Theatre in London. This meant I didn’t get to meet any of the actors in person, a huge disappointment to me, as I’d been blown away the year before by the performances of Susan Fleetwood and Sinead Cusack in As You Like It. I’d written to Susan Fleetwood with a question about her Rosalind, and she wrote back with a detailed response, and they had revived the play during the time I’d be there, so my hope was for an in-person interview.
I did get to see the last performance before the show finally ended its run, but ended up sending her my questions for the research paper with a cassette tape so she wouldn’t have to write her answers down. It took a long time, but the tape did eventually find its way back to me. Many of her answers are quoted in the book, there was such universality in what she said about working in a kind of community, that it inspired me to share parts of that cassette (now digitally recorded) with co-workers and friends over the years. Her generosity and thoughtfulness greatly enriched this work, and my life, and I was deeply saddened to learn of her death in 1995.
At the American Shakespeare Theatre, I had an opportunity to interview a trio of delightful actors, Raymond Skipp, Graeme Campbell, and Roy Dotrice. Each of them was in a very different place in his career, yet each of them was generous with his time and memories. Graeme had worked at the Stratford Festival in Canada as well as Stratford, Connecticut, and Roy at the Royal Shakespeare Company, so their overlapping experience was a decided bonus.
In Stratford, Ontario, I interviewed many people, particularly enjoying a few hours talking with Rod Beattie, who was the Equity Deputy of the acting company. On a personal level, the greatest impact came after the paper was done, as it proved to open the door to friendships with several people who became very important to me. Brenda Rooney was the assistant to the Marketing Director the year after I’d done my research. When I visited Stratford to follow up and share some copies of my work, Brenda was assigned by her boss to help me out. She became a friend for life, and I was fortunate to be a part of her life and the lives of her family as well, who welcomed me every time I came to town.
John Neville and Richard Monette both gave me very positive feedback on my research, and when John became Artistic Director of the Festival he invited me to come to work for him. Unfortunately, Canadian Immigration took a dim view of that and refused me a work visa.
Robin Phillips inspired this research before I ever met him. Until I visited the Stratford Festival in the summer of 1978, my greatest experience of Shakespeare was the Franco Zeffirelli film, Romeo and Juliet. I was due to start law school in the fall of 1978, and that summer I had the first adult vacation of my life. It was a toss-up between taking a windjammer cruise or going to Stratford. When I saw that Maggie Smith and Brian Bedford would be doing both Private Lives and As You Like It, there was no question: I was going to Stratford.
I spent a full week there, Saturday to the following Sunday, and saw 10 plays in 7 days (Monday the theatre was dark). I lived, ate, and breathed theatre all week, and came away with a love for William Shakespeare and Robin Phillips that remains to this day.
NOTES ON THE 2017 EDITION:
- When I wrote this as a research paper, my professor, Joy Conti, insisted that it be formal. She would not accept me referring to Robin, saying it had to be Mr. Phillips. As I went through the text, I found that I was comfortable leaving it formal for people I didn’t know at all, but that I wanted to be less formal with those I’d met and especially those who became friends. It is idiosyncratic and completely personal, and I may not have caught everything. I did my best to be consistent.
- The other issue was that some of the individuals received honors. However, I had originally written it is how I left it. I noticed that I acknowledged Frank Benson was knighted, but referred to him as Mr. Benson. Yet Sir Peter Hall was always Sir Peter. I don’t remember why I made those choices at that time, and I decided to leave them as being true to the original voice of the work.
- It is noticeable that most, if not all, of the major figures in this research were men. Even as recently as 1981, when I visited the three Stratfords, all of the Artistic Directors and Executive Directors were men, with the lone exception of Muriel Sherrin at Stratford, Canada. I tried to correct all of the exclusively masculine references, except those that were in documents or quotes. I hope I succeeded, as many women have successfully run major arts organizations in the intervening years (and before).
- The legal title is the Royal Shakespeare Theatre (RST), according to the documents, however, the staff, actors, and even publicists, refer to it as the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC). When writing about the organizational history and legal status, I have used Royal Shakespeare Theatre or RST. In most other areas, I have used Royal Shakespeare Company or RSC.
- Any errors or omissions are entirely my responsibility.
INTRODUCTION
"0 how full of briers is this working-day world!”[1]
If Shakespeare were to see the "working-day world" of today's non-profit theatre, it seems likely that all he would recognize would be the actual performance. Would he understand the Royal Shakespeare Company's ownership of land and buildings, acting as landlord to many of their actors? At the American Shakespeare Theatre, Shakespeare might find himself at home on its newly re-designed stage (in the style of the Globe), but what would he make of its Critical Path Method charts (day-by-day progress markers)? And in Canada, how would he view the events of the “Winter of Our Discontent" - in which business and artistic interests combined with circumstances to create a violent controversy at the Stratford Shakespearean Festival?
The heart of the theatre - actors and playwright working in an effort to entertain and touch an audience - has not changed. But the present day non-profit theatre corporation can no longer simply put on a play. There exist complex considerations extending into every area - unions, budgets, technical advances in lighting and effects, and of course, the corporate structure. In the end, it boils down to two major areas - artistic integrity and management or business interests. It is important to examine the interaction of the business and artistic concerns in order to understand the modern non-profit theatre corporation. When these two are in conflict, the resulting tensions weaken the entire organization and its creative capacity from top to bottom. When they work in harmony, the strength of their cooperation builds a firm base from which organizational and creative efforts can flower.
The Royal Shakespeare Company, the American Shakespeare Theatre, and the Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada are non-profit theatre corporations that have wrestled with their seemingly contradictory identity as artistic business for the entire one hundred and fifty years of their collective existence. An examination of their individual organizations as well as a look at their collective interests provides fascinating insights into the complex workings of theatrical corporations and how they perceive both their artistic responsibility and their financial credibility.
Each theatre will be viewed individually, looking at their organizational histories, artistic histories, and current organizational structures. Then a comparative analysis will consider both the similarities and the differences in major areas of each of the three theatres. Their parallel development as non-profit theatre corporations whose primary objects are the performance of the plays of Shakespeare makes the Royal Shakespeare Company, the American Shakespeare Theatre, and the Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada ideal subjects for such comparisons. Finally, based on an understanding of the problems and complexities encountered in each of the three theatres, an ideal theatre model will be suggested including a proposed organizational structure, charter of incorporation and bylaws.
[1] Shakespeare, William, As You Like It, Act I, Scene 3, 1. 12-13, (William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Peter Alexander, Editor, p. 259).
"0 how full of briers is this working-day world!”[1]
If Shakespeare were to see the "working-day world" of today's non-profit theatre, it seems likely that all he would recognize would be the actual performance. Would he understand the Royal Shakespeare Company's ownership of land and buildings, acting as landlord to many of their actors? At the American Shakespeare Theatre, Shakespeare might find himself at home on its newly re-designed stage (in the style of the Globe), but what would he make of its Critical Path Method charts (day-by-day progress markers)? And in Canada, how would he view the events of the “Winter of Our Discontent" - in which business and artistic interests combined with circumstances to create a violent controversy at the Stratford Shakespearean Festival?
The heart of the theatre - actors and playwright working in an effort to entertain and touch an audience - has not changed. But the present day non-profit theatre corporation can no longer simply put on a play. There exist complex considerations extending into every area - unions, budgets, technical advances in lighting and effects, and of course, the corporate structure. In the end, it boils down to two major areas - artistic integrity and management or business interests. It is important to examine the interaction of the business and artistic concerns in order to understand the modern non-profit theatre corporation. When these two are in conflict, the resulting tensions weaken the entire organization and its creative capacity from top to bottom. When they work in harmony, the strength of their cooperation builds a firm base from which organizational and creative efforts can flower.
The Royal Shakespeare Company, the American Shakespeare Theatre, and the Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada are non-profit theatre corporations that have wrestled with their seemingly contradictory identity as artistic business for the entire one hundred and fifty years of their collective existence. An examination of their individual organizations as well as a look at their collective interests provides fascinating insights into the complex workings of theatrical corporations and how they perceive both their artistic responsibility and their financial credibility.
Each theatre will be viewed individually, looking at their organizational histories, artistic histories, and current organizational structures. Then a comparative analysis will consider both the similarities and the differences in major areas of each of the three theatres. Their parallel development as non-profit theatre corporations whose primary objects are the performance of the plays of Shakespeare makes the Royal Shakespeare Company, the American Shakespeare Theatre, and the Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada ideal subjects for such comparisons. Finally, based on an understanding of the problems and complexities encountered in each of the three theatres, an ideal theatre model will be suggested including a proposed organizational structure, charter of incorporation and bylaws.
[1] Shakespeare, William, As You Like It, Act I, Scene 3, 1. 12-13, (William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Peter Alexander, Editor, p. 259).
PART I
THE ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
CHAPTER 1
Organizational History
Creation of a Theatre
On Shakespeare's birthday - April 23, 1879 - the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, England opened its doors with a performance of Much Ado About Nothing. The historical event was the culmination of five years of work by Charles Edward Flower and the people of Stratford. Mr. Flower came from a family of local brewers and succeeded his father as the mayor of Stratford. The Flower family brewery remains a part of present day Stratford, but more important is the legacy of the Shakespearean Theatre in which the Flower family retains an active interest to this day. In 1874, Charles Edward Flower donated two acres on the banks of the Avon River and £1,000 to head the list of subscribers to erect a theatre for the performance of the plays of Shakespeare.
The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre (SMT) was incorporated in 1875 with the following objects:
The objects of the theatre were contained in the 1875 Memorandum of Association, a document which is comparable to the current Royal Charter of Incorporation, except that in 1875 the theatre was incorporated as a limited liability company and in 1925 it became a royal charter corporation.
The first and second sections of the Memorandum of Association set out the name of the theatre as The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre (SMT) with its registered office located in England. Section Three contained the objects already listed and Section Four stated that the income and property of the corporation were to be applied solely to the promotion of the objects of the theatre with no dividend, bonus or profit going to members. In Section Five the Board of Trade granted a license to the SMT based on that prohibition of profits, dividends, and bonuses, which made the theatre a non-profit corporation. If members of the corporation should violate the non-profit status of the theatre, unlimited liability would be imposed upon every member of the Council and every member who accepted a dividend, bonus, or profit. The final and seventh section provided that the members would bear limited financial responsibility for the winding up of the corporation in the event that it was wound up during or within a year of the member's tenure.
The Articles of Association functioned as the Bylaws or Rules of the corporation with the members of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre also known in the Articles as the Governors. The Articles of Association set out the organizational guidelines for the theatre in eight parts: Constitution, Management, General Meeting, Proceedings, Votes of Governors, Bylaws, Property and Investments, and Winding Up. The Constitution and Management sections should be examined in some detail as they created the framework upon which the rest was built.
The Constitution delineated the role and status of the member or Governor, a position which was attained through a contribution of £100 to the corporation. There was a maximum of two hundred Governors allowable at one time, although the Council could increase that number as necessary. A Governor could only transfer his privileges as a Governor by putting such a transfer in writing to a person approved by the Council. Upon the death of a Governor his legal representative or someone appointed by that representative could succeed to the Governor's right of membership, subject to the approval of the Council.
[1] Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Memorandum of Association (1875).
THE ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
CHAPTER 1
Organizational History
Creation of a Theatre
On Shakespeare's birthday - April 23, 1879 - the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, England opened its doors with a performance of Much Ado About Nothing. The historical event was the culmination of five years of work by Charles Edward Flower and the people of Stratford. Mr. Flower came from a family of local brewers and succeeded his father as the mayor of Stratford. The Flower family brewery remains a part of present day Stratford, but more important is the legacy of the Shakespearean Theatre in which the Flower family retains an active interest to this day. In 1874, Charles Edward Flower donated two acres on the banks of the Avon River and £1,000 to head the list of subscribers to erect a theatre for the performance of the plays of Shakespeare.
The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre (SMT) was incorporated in 1875 with the following objects:
- To build a theatre dedicated to the memory of Shakespeare;
- To manage the theatre and let it to managers of theatre companies;
- To hold an annual celebration of Shakespeare’s birthday;
- To advance and improve the dramatic art by the creation of a school of acting, delivery of lectures, establishment of prizes for essays;
- To build a library and gallery in connection with the theatre;
- To establish a relief fund for indigent or needy members of the theatrical profession;
- To acquire land, buildings, and property to fulfill the objects of the corporation;
- To cooperate with other societies and institutions to attain the above objects;
- To enable other societies and institutions to use the property and to have the privileges of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre; and
- To do other things to attain the above objects as necessary.[1]
The objects of the theatre were contained in the 1875 Memorandum of Association, a document which is comparable to the current Royal Charter of Incorporation, except that in 1875 the theatre was incorporated as a limited liability company and in 1925 it became a royal charter corporation.
The first and second sections of the Memorandum of Association set out the name of the theatre as The Shakespeare Memorial Theatre (SMT) with its registered office located in England. Section Three contained the objects already listed and Section Four stated that the income and property of the corporation were to be applied solely to the promotion of the objects of the theatre with no dividend, bonus or profit going to members. In Section Five the Board of Trade granted a license to the SMT based on that prohibition of profits, dividends, and bonuses, which made the theatre a non-profit corporation. If members of the corporation should violate the non-profit status of the theatre, unlimited liability would be imposed upon every member of the Council and every member who accepted a dividend, bonus, or profit. The final and seventh section provided that the members would bear limited financial responsibility for the winding up of the corporation in the event that it was wound up during or within a year of the member's tenure.
The Articles of Association functioned as the Bylaws or Rules of the corporation with the members of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre also known in the Articles as the Governors. The Articles of Association set out the organizational guidelines for the theatre in eight parts: Constitution, Management, General Meeting, Proceedings, Votes of Governors, Bylaws, Property and Investments, and Winding Up. The Constitution and Management sections should be examined in some detail as they created the framework upon which the rest was built.
The Constitution delineated the role and status of the member or Governor, a position which was attained through a contribution of £100 to the corporation. There was a maximum of two hundred Governors allowable at one time, although the Council could increase that number as necessary. A Governor could only transfer his privileges as a Governor by putting such a transfer in writing to a person approved by the Council. Upon the death of a Governor his legal representative or someone appointed by that representative could succeed to the Governor's right of membership, subject to the approval of the Council.
[1] Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Memorandum of Association (1875).