The Staged Reading
In February 1999, a semi-staged reading of Heartfield was directed by Kate Chisholm and presented by the MFA in Theatre Program at Towson University. The actors learned the material in two weeks, and presented three free public readings of Heartfield. About 200 people attended, including the author, Kenneth Vega.
Kate Chisholm, the director of Heartfield, discusses the reading process:
"Over the past few decades, readings and staged readings have become an integral part of the development process of new plays and musicals in the United States. The reading process involves actors becoming familiar with and rehearsing the material, and then reading the script out loud for a select audience. In a semi-staged reading, actors are still on-book (reading from scripts), but are given some movement by the director to help make situations clearer and perhaps to suggest a style of performance which the play might require. A staged reading is often off-book and is presented with a more fully sketched suggestion of movement and staging. Some staged readings almost look like productions--they have lighting, costumes, and choreography. Others are much more rough. Usually a staged reading requires more rehearsal time than a reading, because movement and staging are explored. Often a staged reading is the culmination of a workshop process, in which actors explore scenes with the director and writer(s), giving the writer a chance to see which moments and structural choices are problematic and make changes. This step also allows the writer to get a feel for the rhythm and flow of the whole piece. It is much easier to see that a sequence is too long or obscure when you can see the audience fidgeting, coughing and reading their programs instead of being compelled to watch the scene. The act of making theater is not complete without the audience, and readings are a great way to start to factor in the perception of the audience--how do the people who come to the theater respond to the piece for the first time?"
Benefits of readings
"Readings have the potential to be very useful to writers and directors--and to actors, if they have the opportunity to be in the reading and the production. For writers, the reading can help them identify trouble spots or weaknesses. They can see how their story isn't clear and where it might need more support from the written text. They can see structural problems and try changes during rehearsal. The reading process can also help writers develop a working relationship with a director. For directors, readings are often a chance to dig deeper into the material and become fully familiar with it. The material goes from being abstract, on the page, to a more concrete form, acted by real people. The director can interpret the piece with more knowledge than when it was abstract, and can begin to address issues such as how to make particular moments work and how to best support the text through staging."
Potential dangers
"Readings work well for more traditional, narrative plays and musicals, but they can get tricky with experimental work, especially when the text calls for specific visual elements or stylistic choices. From my own experience as book writer of The Hidden Sky, a musical I wrote with Peter Foley, I have found that in addition to the benefits noted above, readings can be deceptive. Readings are primarily an aural experience, and they don't prepare you for places where the combination of visual production elements (lighting, costumes, staging, scenery) and text might be too complex for the audience to take in all at once. If you are asking for feedback from the audience after a reading, they will be responding primarily to narrative and text, which might not be the primary focus of a work. Many writers express concern that too much feedback can be destructive to their work."
The Heartfield reading
"Directing a reading of Heartfield helped me begin to get a sense of how to convey the style and aesthetic of the piece. We had very little movement, but what we did have helped clarify the style of the piece (ie, non-realistic). Actually working with the actors on the play helped me to be able to talk to Ken much more specifically about sections that were presenting difficulties and that he might want to address in a re-write."
"What Ken and I learned from the semi-staged reading we did in 1999 was that the audience was confused by the way Act II seemed to veer away from focusing on John Heartfield's life, and spent a lot of time showing John's son Tom and his experience on the Italian front in World War II. The piece shifted into a more romantic style which was enjoyable but ultimately confusing--people wanted to know why this was part of the show. Ken cut some material but mainly made a structural shift in Act II, so that the three scenes which deal with Tom being a German- American fighting as a GI in Italy are broken up by scenes with John Heartfield and his wife Gertrud in exile in London. Ken also gave Brecht more titles and commentary, to help make the point that the war was far-reaching and affected millions of people all over the world. He now raises the question, 'The enemy of your enemy is...?' To me, these changes successfully keep the manner of storytelling consistently Brechtian, and also help the audience to understand why we're shifting away from John Heartfield for a few scenes. While the piece begins with a group of artists in Berlin responding specifically to the political upheaval after World War I and the rise of Nazism in Germany, Ken gradually moves the piece into a larger and broader political and historical context. This helps us to see that while we are specifically looking into one man's life and work, ultimately the piece is about the larger political and historical events of the 20th century."
The Director's Process