Richard Foreman Interview
February 7, 2003
NF: Your first theater was attached to the
alternative film scene that was going on at the Cinematheque
building.
RF: My first theater was given to me by
Jonas Mekas when they closed down at 80 Wooster Street. He had a film
theater but the fire department closed it down. He didn’t have a license
to show films. So he said to me, “Well, we can’t show films, but they
didn’t say anything about plays. So why don’t you take it over and do your
plays.” So for three years I had that space rent free to do
plays.
NF: So that’s how you got
started.
RF: Yes. Well, I had gone to
school. I had been a member of New Dramatists, a member of the Actors
Studio Playwrights Unit. But I didn’t have any credentials. I did
write one play when I got out of Yale that actually got optioned for Broadway by
this rich lady, but nothing came of it finally. Then I started because I
saw these underground films and that inspired me to rethink everything that I
was doing in theater.
NF: Specifically, like the film “Flaming
Creatures”?
RF: Oh a lot of things, “Flaming Creatures,”
the films of Michael Snow, “Wavelengths,” a lot of people. For about five
years, I and my first wife would go to screenings literally every single
night. So that was our world for three or four years. And she became
a film critic.
NF: That must have been in the late
sixties.
RF: Well, in the mid-sixties.
NF: So you’ve been doing plays ever since,
once a year?
RF: Well, I started doing plays in
’68. And in those days, for the first 15 years or so, I would do two or
three plays a year. I would also do plays for other producers and so
forth. At a certain point, my second wife, Kate, who was the leading
actress in my theater for about 15 years, got very very sick. And she
didn’t want to act anymore anyway. So it became, and still is, very
difficult for me to leave New York for extended periods of time. Now I
can’t go around the world doing plays as I used to. And Joe Papp died, and
he used to ask me to do plays from the classical repertoire. So I’ve
fallen out of that world. I occasionally do other things – I have some
other plans — but I can’t be as active as I used to be.
NF: What for you has changed over the
years? America, in the mid-sixties, was the center of a
counterculture. Now, thirty years later, America represents a dominant
culture.
RF: Oh yes. Well, I grew up in the
fifties. And I grew up sort of hating America. I went to Europe for the
first time when I graduated from college and it was a total revelation. For
about 10 or 15 years, France was the great love of my life. And then I
went and did with Kate about 7 or 8 productions in Paris, because Kate grew up
in France. Her father was a translator and during the McCarthy era he went
to live in France and never came back. Kate didn’t come to America until
she was 26. So I almost moved permanently to France. But I then finally
realized I was an American and I had to fight my battles here. So during
the 60s was the only time that I felt good about America. I and my friends
really believed the world was totally changing. Then, beginning in the
80s, everybody started glorifying the 50s again which was horrendous. And
now I feel as alienated from America as I ever have. And I find it very
difficult now. I mean, I am sort of established now, so I get a miniscule
amount of funding that allows me to do my plays every year. But I feel
very adrift. I feel that the arena, the context in which I do my work had
dissolved, is meaningless. I really don’t know anymore for whom I’m doing
this work. I used to sustain the illusion that I was participating in a
dialogue with the whole tradition of Western culture — serious, modernist,
Western hard avant garde culture. I deeply sense that that possibility
does not exist. We live in a corporate world of the bottom line, and I
think that deeply affects everybody’s psychology, everyone’s mentality. I
do these plays and I don’t know why I’m doing them. But I’m very unhappy
about being here and doing them in the context that I’m doing them. But I
can’t figure out what else to do.
NF: Are they in a way a counter to the
dominant culture?
RF: Well, I’ve always made a work of art
into which I could disappear, but it gets harder and harder to sustain that
illusion. In the last two years also, the audience, I must admit, is
less. I can’t quite figure out why. I just don’t know. In a
sense, I would like to do more radical, but admittedly, modernist work.
Modernist work belongs to the past. We’re obviously moving into something
else. In a way I feel slightly guilty for making my own contribution to a
kind of disassociated, super-fast, super-complex art that, in a sense, has led
to MTV and all kinds of things I don’t really approve of. But I see how
there are certain suggestions of that in my work. So I’m totally confused
about that.
NF: You’re a theater artist who, more than
most today, have continually studied, pondered and disrupted “process” — whether
it’s the process of writing or the process of staging theater. Where are
you now with that? I imagine you’re still doing that.
RF: Yes, but as you get older, it’s harder
and harder to do it. Like, every year I think, “oh, in this one I’m going
to trash everything I’ve done, make it totally different.” And I start out
that way, but then it doesn’t reverberate in my soul in the right way. So,
whereas each year I think I’m going to take a six-foot step forward, as I’m
working on it, in order for it to seem emotionally correct to me, it ends up I
think being a one-foot step forward. Maybe that’s not a bad way to
proceed. What people are doing now involves a lot of media, a lot of
technological stuff. I find it very hard to get into that area. It
does not seem to me to speak to the notion of the complexity of the human soul
that I inherit from the modernist period, the modernist orientation. I
think we’re producing a race of people who are paper-thin – almost pancake
people – who cover a lot of territory. Like the Internet. And our
psyches cover a lot of territory, but to me it’s sort of pancake-thin.
That may in the end produce something totally different, and totally interesting
and totally justifiable. And I have certainly dabbled in that. And I
have my tendencies to that. But in the end I still have a spiritual center
that I find hard to deny and hard to have my work deny.
NF: You’ve referenced alchemy in talking
about your process. Seeing the staging of your work reminds me of an
alchemist laboratory perhaps — the different props and scenery. I wonder
if you could talk about that.
RF: I don’t think about that much
anymore. It was very influential upon me when I started my work, in ’68 or
so. I was reading books about alchemy, about techniques, and down through
the years when I feel dry, when I need some inspiration, I’ll often go back and
look at some of the illustrations of those old texts to get ideas. But
these days there’s so much that I’ve been through intellectually, and that is
part of the past – it’s not something I think about these days — but I can
clearly see that is one of the strong sources of my beginnings and it still
influences me.
NF: You have two different processes,
directing and writing. Do you put a limitation on either of those – either
in time or ambition?
RF: Well, there’s been a change in
trajectory. I began as a writer. Well, when I was a kid I began
making scenery for local high school productions. And I went to Brown as
an actor. But I started writing plays because my friends were and I thought I
could do it well. So I then went to Yale Drama School as a writer.
And I think of myself as a writer. I only started directing plays because
nobody else would do my plays. As a writer when I began in the 60’s I
wanted to start from scratch. I hated the manipulative kind of playwriting
that was American playwriting in those days. So I pared down the language
and I wrote plays that only registered the kind of physiological things going on
in the body in very primitive language. Then I began to feel that I wanted
my writing to be richer. So, somewhat under the influence of back in the
early ‘70s reading Barthes and some of the other French theorists, my work
became verbally much more complex. And all these people were saying,
“Well, Foreman’s a pretty good director but the texts, they could be the kitchen
sink, they could be the telephone book.” And I always thought that wasn’t
true. I thought that I was a good writer and that I was basically a
writer. So I consciously sort of wanted to prove that I could write.
And my texts became much more complex, much more multi-layered, much more
aphoristic. And I think I finally proved to the world that I could write,
because I started getting awards as a writer. And about 2 or 3 years ago,
I started getting disgusted with writing, feeling that good writing was almost,
in Barthes original terms, writing that belonged to a political class, made
certain political manipulations. And I got sick of writing well.
There was so much good writing that I admired in my life and that I had tried to
do and it no longer did it for me. So two years ago I started doing some
plays in which there was very little writing, just aphoristic phrases coming
over the loudspeakers – maybe 40 or 50 sentences in the whole play. I’ve
done that for 2 years, started to branch out a little, and starting next year I
may return to writing, but that’s the arch that I’ve gone through. Who
knows. So the writing always comes first. I amass these texts.
They’re written at random moments. Pages from different years, different
months, are combined in various ways. I then go into rehearsal with these
texts. And nowadays I rewrite a lot as I think I’m going into rehearsal.
In the 80’s I didn’t rewrite a word. I felt sort of like Kerouac:
What comes is the evidence of your spiritual state and you musn’t touch it; you
must confront what’s come out of you. Then I started rewriting. I rewrite
now a great deal in rehearsal also. I have no hesitation about doing major
rewrites in rehearsal in response to what I hear the actors doing, what seem to
be the actors’ strengths. So the plays are now half written in rehearsal
even though I always go into rehearsal with finished texts. I always felt
that I had more courage as a writer than as a director and that as a director I
was a little bit reactionary because I was concerned with trying to make these
massive, impressive machines; whereas as a writer, I was open to letting come
whatever crazy impulse would come. It’s also very hard for me as a
director to stand in front of a group of 20 people and act as stupid and as
empty and as not knowing as I can do as a writer. Faced with all those
people, my personality is such that I want them to think I’m in charge that I
know what I’m doing. And I look upon that as a mixed blessing. I
think there are problems.
NF: In your current play “Panic” you’re
sitting in the audience with your sound board directly involved in the pace of
it.
RF: I’ve done that from the
beginning.
NF: Sitting in the audience?
RF: Sometimes sitting in the back. It
depends on the play and where I feel I can experience what I have to
experience.
NF: It was very interesting. I was
sitting right next to you, and because of the lighting on the audience and other
alienating techniques, as an audience member I was not only conscious that I am
“watching a play” but also that the playwright/director is also an audience
member sitting next to me, whose recorded voice occasionally comes out over the
loudspeaker.
RF: In the early days, I even used to – 50
times throughout the performance – and in those days sitting in the front of the
audience – shout out, “Cue! Cue!” to make people do different
things.
NF: You’re just one degree removed from
being an actor in the play. So as a theater artist, you are a playwright,
director, designer, theorist and actor of your plays and productions. Is
there any hierarchy in that? I’m interested in how you think the history
of theater is passed on from generation to generation and how you fit into that
history of theater.
RF: I have no idea (laughs). I always
had a love-hate relationship with the theater. I got into the theater as a
young kid because I was very shy. It was a way to live out a fantasy life,
to relate to people, that I couldn’t do in real live. So at a very early
stage I began to find the theater not very interesting and the other arts, other
disciplines, always much more interesting. After the initial phase of
responding to the glamour of the theater, I began to use the theater much more
consciously as a kind of therapy, therapy for myself and therapy for those
members of the audience who wanted to engage in this process of trying to
perceive at a slightly different rhythm – trying to process ones perceptions at
a slightly different rhythm. And to me, I think that’s what I’m
doing. So it’s therapy, not so much in a psychological sense but more like
somebody’s meditative practice (laughs).
NF: I’m reminded when I first started
reading Gertrude Stein years ago, the initial frustration and finally the
understanding that it wasn’t reading in the normal sense. It became more a
meditation on the act of reading.
RF: Right.
NF: I have a similar feeling when I see your
plays. I’m so conscious of watching myself watching, watching others
watching the play. What’s left after you and I and the audience leave your
play? Going back to Gertrude Stein, the act of reading there, was the act
of meditating on one’s life also – moment to moment applying it to the reality
of one’s emotional or psychic life. So what’s left when we leave one of your
plays?
RF: I can’t answer that. I make
something that I need. I find life not very satisfactory. I find the
world we live in not very satisfactory. And I make paradise for
myself. I make the world the way I want it to be. And that world has
something to do with some concrete objects being there in the present, the way
your consciousness is dealing with it, the way you are handling what in the
present moment you are given. And there is a certain activity in the
present moment that I want to be able to perform that the life within which I
live, in the 21st century of America, does not provide. So I
make something that I’m desperately hungry for. Having made it, I guess I
can only hope that it stands as an example of some alternative possibility that
might to some people seem denser, richer, more interesting, more desirable and
then they make of it what they will. I work totally out of instinct, even
though after the fact I theorize a lot, try to help people understand what I’m
doing or where I’m coming from. None of that informs the work. What
informs the work is a feeling in my solar plexus and just continually saying,
no, that’s not dense enough, that’s not clear enough, just keep changing it
until something clicks and I can’t really say what it is, even though because I
read a lot, I’m then able to relate it to a lot of intellectual traditions, but
that’s after the fact.
NF: If we think of a certain theater
tradition in the last century that starts with Jarry and moves, say, through
Artaud, through you and now into the next century. Let’s say Artaud was
the big disruption. Many times people put Grotowski or the Living Theatre
as the inheritors of this tradition that’s come through Artaud but have left you
out. Could you speak to that?
RF: Again, that’s hard. I rarely think
of my work in terms of theatrical tradition. I think of my work in terms
of other philosophical, poetic, spiritual traditions. Now I can see a
certain relationship to certain things in Artaud. I read Artaud back in
school in the late ‘50s early ‘60s and certainly I responded to certain levels
of it. And I occasionally look at Artaud again. I think that, by the
way, the Living Theatre manifested Artaud back when they were doing things like
“The Brig” and “The Connection” way back then. I don’t think they were
manifesting it later in their more popular period, when they came back from
Europe and did all those things. Now, Grotowski is not somebody that I
respond to at all. I think that at the beginning of my career indeed I
said that what I wanted to do was “Artaud in the Bronx,” in other words, Artaud
in terms of bourgeois living room settings – that the cruelty of life is in
these little moments of awkwardness and stumbling, and miscommunication that are
also openings to a whole other world, not just symbols of our isolation as they
are in something like Chekhov or Pinter, but are really opportunities to see a
cosmic energy pouring through which is why Ontological is one of the two names
of my theater. So, for years, when I was a young man, I thought I wanted
to be like Artaud, but I thought, “yeah, but I don’t want to end up crazy and
committed ” (laughs). And I have a little problem with Artaud, the
glorification of Artaud, because it’s the glorification of a man who was
insane. And I don’t say that in a negative sense (laughs). He was
also in touch with energies that very few other people were in touch with.
But a lot of times the promoters of our Artaud forget “but at what cost? At what
cost?” So how does one who does not want to be that troubled make contact
with similar energies? That’s the real problem.
NF: It seems like in this play you’re moving
towards an exploration of death.
RF: Yes, I think so. But I always have
been.
NF: Does that have anything to do with
age?
RF: No. I’m 65 now. But death
certainly has been featured in my plays. I think almost the whole
time. Twenty years ago I started saying that the basic theme of the
theater was death. I thought the theater was death — it wouldn’t be in
Artaud’s theater – but any theater like mine, which is most theater, where
things are repeated night after night, you shun death somehow. And for 20
years my work always featured a lot of skulls and that has been an obsessive
theme in my theater I guess.
NF: You use both actors and
non-actors.
RF: These days I use actors. I used
non-actors in the beginning, but I haven’t for quite a while.
NF: What are you looking for in an actor
that another director might not be looking for?
RF: I always hated actors basically, in the
sense that most actors, understandably, want to be loved. I want
performers who are willing to withhold themselves. I was very influenced
in the beginning by Bresson’s use of actors in films, where he asked people – he
used non actors – and he wanted to use them as models he used to say, because he
didn’t want them to try to manipulate the audience, try to develop empathy with
the audience. And that’s always been my tendency because I want to make
something confrontational. And I hated this American theater where we’re
all supposed to be friendly and, in a very superficial way, to look into each
other’s eyes and say, “hey, I like you” basically (laughs). No, I want to
be challenged by people, I want to be awakened by somebody who looks at me and
says, “I see through your shit.” (laughs). I mean I don’t say I want it
because it’s tough. It’s tough. But in making art, it’s that kind of
feeling that I want from the performer. I don’t want that kind of desire
for puppy love which I think is at the root of the actor’s craft. I also
don’t want, like Grotowski, a release into a kind of organic body of orgasm that
suggests a sensory, sensual way that the audience can identify with that kind of
release. Because that is escaping for me also the real problem, whatever
that is. The fact that you have to share this planet with other people
that have minds that function much like yours. Yet you want to maintain
your individuality and that person sitting across from you, basically, when it
comes down to it, wants your food, wants your air (laughs). You are
constituted as a human being to wants your own food, your own air, even though
your mind probably is going through many similar processes and you may share on
some level the same mental consciousness. And it’s that kind of
problematic that I’m interested in. So I want actors who can suggest the
intensity of that problematic.
NF: There’s a sense of almost evil innocence
on your stage, as if bad kids are playing at this forbidden game and then
staring back at their parents insolently saying, “I’ll do whatever I
want.”
RF: I think we’re all kids. I have
known very few adults in my life. (laughs)
NF: Getting back to the actor/non-actor
thing, for a long time in your career you did work with non-actors. Now you’re
working with actors but you’re asking these actors – I talked with Elina before
coming here – basically to be in service of a painting you’re making on
stage.
RF: The compositional reality would be the
big reality. I was going to mention Elina because she said during
rehearsal, “This is the hardest thing I’ve ever done, because you want to take
everything away from me. You want me essentially to become a
non-actor.” And I do in a sense. I do in a sense. I do want
something real to be going on. I want some real energy, a real commitment
to be there. But I don’t want any of the normal rhetorical emotional
tricks that the actor grows up learning and using.
NF: When do props in your plays go to then
next level of becoming something else, talismans maybe? You have a tomb on
stage for instance and a phallic thing suggesting maybe two poles within the
play. When are these props or talismans brought in? Before you begin
your rehearsal?
RF: I have a script which essentially I
write and rewrite listening to some music trying to get it right in my
head. Then I design a set and I look at the script. And — in about an hour
– for every page, I read the text very casually and I get some ideas for some
props. Just pop into my head from nowhere. I just jot them down and I end
up with a list of like 50 props. Then I go through the play one or two
other times, again thinking about it and throwing some of those things out and
getting a few other ideas. But then we make those props. Then in
rehearsal – we rehearsed for 14 weeks this last time – props get thrown out,
changed. The prop guy – this year we had a student form down south making
my props – he was going crazy: “My god, I worked for 2 weeks making this
beautiful thing and then he throws it out, it doesn’t work and instead he wants
this.” So again, it’s all intuitive. I have no answer.
NF: I have a designer friend who worked with
you twelve years ago on “Eddie Goes to Poetry City.” She said she worked
real hard on this detailed poster you had her make. She brought it in to
you and you cut it into a bunch of pieces, Xeroxed it and pasted it all over the
set.
RF: (laughs)
NF: You must often run into some
resistance. Well, the people are there to work with you, but they must
constantly question you on what you are really looking for. You continually
disrupt the creation of the product to bring everything back to the
process. It seems that if you had unlimited time that you would
continually cut out what’s funny or what “works” – that you would keep the
process open and never get to a finished production.
RF: No. I wouldn’t. I
wouldn’t. It’s hard to explain to somebody else. But I’m waiting for
a certain click that it seems right to me – that it has the right density, that
it goes in seven different directions at once and yet still seems clear – I’m
waiting for that. And I’ve tried to build for myself this situation where
I can work the way that I work, continually trashing things. Now I don’t
throw out things that work. Now, I throw out things that seem
one-dimensional, or too simple minded or too easy. And I trash my own
material as much as I trash things that other people do. I’m constantly
saying, “Oh my god, that line of dialogue is stupid, throw it out; this staging,
this scene, throw it out.” Other people are saying, “Oh this is going
pretty well; this big dance number it’s good.” No. I just know it’s
not good enough. It’s not quite sharp enough. I also used to work in
situations – and still do occasionally – where I don’t have 14 weeks. Not
for my own work. But if I do other people’s plays? Yeah, I can do a
play in 4 weeks like everybody else. But to me, that does not allow the
uncovering of the real gold that is hidden somewhere in this stuff.
NF: Towards the beginning of the interview,
you said we are producing a race of people who are paper thin – pancake
people. What can theater do to counteract that? Of course, you’re
going to try to do that. But what are some projections you might have of
where theater could go?
RF: I have no idea. I’m waiting for
somebody to show me. I’ve been claiming I want to get out of the theater
for the last 15 years, believe me. But I don’t know what else to do.
And I need it. I just psychologically need it. But I have no
clue. I feel very much at sea. I still can make this little islands
for myself, and I was very happy making this play this year. I was less
happy when we opened and we had to worry about audience and so forth, but it is
still totally satisfying to me to make these works of art. That’s not to
say that there aren’t frustrating moments in making it, but I can always sort of
blindly forge ahead into the unknown. I don’t know. I’m always
waiting to see what someone else might do. I haven’t seen anything that I
really believe is a tremendous breakthrough to the next step. Not that I
go to the theater very much. But I’m aware of what people are talking
about, the current explorations. I’m always looking for things. Like
in the last year I discovered a filmmaker who blows me away. But it’s not
the next step. He’s 92 or 94 years old – this Portuguese filmmaker Manoel
de Oliveira, one of the great artists of our time that I didn’t know about until
about a year ago. But that’s not the future I guess (laughs), although I
don’t know; I don’t know. So I really don’t know. People my age
rarely know.
NF: What do mean by that?
RF: Picasso put down all the abstract
expressionists. Most artists reach a certain point where they can’t really
understand what is alive and productive in the work of younger artists.
That doesn’t seem to belong to their world; that doesn’t seem relevant.
But it might turn out to be the important thing.
NF: Did Elina give you that little book by
Genet [“What Remains of a Rembrandt Torn into Four Equal Pieces and Flushed Down
the Toilet”]
RF: Yes
NF: I found that interesting. I read
it thinking of your work.
RF: I found it very interesting.
NF: What remains of your work after it has
been cut into four equal pieces and flushed down the toilet? I think what
Genet was getting at is that there was a change going on in Rembrandt as a
person, a spiritual change, that brought him almost full circle to a child
again. Everything superfluous in his personality was gone. Rembrandt
was merely at the end of his life, a hand and an eye moving back and forth
between the paint and the canvas. Has there been an inner journey within
you that is not reflected necessarily in your work unless we look at it as
closely as you look at it?
RF: Yes. Yes. I think it’s easier for
a painter who does not have to deal with a mass audience. Because even if
I don’t have thousands of people in my theater, I’m still dealing with groups of
people. That makes it hard. There’s no question, when I started I
thought of myself as very cerebral, making intellectual theater. At about
40, I read Jung, who said that when you get about 40 there’s a big choice.
You either become a dried up, scholastic, bitter man, or you make contact with
some other river of feelings that is there to pick up upon. And I said,
“well, I don’t want to be one of those bitter, dried up men. I’m going to
recontact some kind of archetypal, mythical source.” And I did that sort
of consciously. I think that has informed my life. I think, however,
there has been a current in my work that is terribly humanist, terribly poignant
in dealing with the issue of death, in dealing with the issue of the childish
aggressiveness in all of us that is just a hunger for meaning, for love, what
have you. I’ve already expressed my frustration about being in the arena of
current times. I feel tremendous frustration of not being able to, I
suppose, have the courage to make plays that would be as minimal and as true to
a certain kind of maturity in older age, as somebody like Beckett did.
Now, I’m not a tremendous admirer of Beckett. But I’m a tremendous admirer
of the fact that he did exactly what he wanted to do. And if he wanted to
make a ten-minute play with just a mouth, he would do it. Now I’m corrupt
enough, that I find it difficult to entertain the notion of making that kind of
totally abstract theater that just says the one thing nakedly that I want to
say. Because I think, What’s the point? I would only be talking to a
few converted people and the activity of doing that… The activity of writing
that seems to me ok. I write things like that. But the activity of
getting people together and rehearsing them to make that into a reality, I don’t
have the chops for it in a certain sense. I want it to be more of a
circus. I’m decadent enough. I’ve been corrupted enough that I still
want that circus. But it bothers me. It bothers me because I think
maybe I lack the courage to escape the circus aspect of the theater.
NF: Have you ever thought of theater from
the perspective of either a written or oral tradition; how often are your texts
picked up and done by others?
RF: More and more people are doing
that. I make all of my raw material available on my web site. All of
my notes. There’s been a definite increase each year in the number of
people that pick up on that. But my plays are out there and I am convinced
– maybe not the last two years; my plays have been so minimal in terms of
language – but from 1980 through 1996 or 7, in my deluded way, I’m absolutely
convinced that some people will realize that these are great plays, these are
great texts. And I think of myself as operating specifically in the
tradition of Moliere and would hope that some years from now, people would pick
up on that and do them. And people do do them. Not in huge
numbers. But I think of myself, certainly up until the things I’ve done in
the last two years or so, as definitely continuing in the tradition of Western
written theater.
NF: If you picked up an old play of yours,
would you be coming to the same production choices as when you first did
it?
RF: That’s hard to say, because I don’t want
to do my old plays because I have new material that I’d rather do. But
people suggest that I do my old plays. Maybe someday I will. But
until I do it I won’t know.