Negotiating Meanings: Audience Reception of a Contemporary Staging of Maxwell Anderson's Mary of Scotland

Caroline Heim
School of English , Media Studies and Art History
The University of Queensland

This paper explores one of the basic but crucial processes that takes place in the theatre, the process by which readers and audiences contribute to the meaning making process. I will discuss audience reception to a recent Australian staging of Maxwell Anderson's 1933 play Mary of Scotland . My own theatre company staged this production. I performed in the play and ran the symposiums that were held after each performance to discuss audience response to traditional values presented in the dramatic text and their relevance for a contemporary Australian audience. After an introduction to reception studies, I briefly discuss the documented audience responses from the symposium. I then consider how audiences attempted not only to negotiate but also produce new meanings for the traditional values portrayed. It will be seen that in the production of new meanings, the symposium itself became a 'public discourse' that informed the lived experience of the entire theatrical event.

For the purposes of this paper, I will adopt the word 'reader' or 'participant' rather than 'spectator.' An audience member is mentally involved in textual interpretation. Spectatorship connotes a passive and visual discourse whereas readership suggests a more active and participatory involvement with the meaning making process.

Audience reception theory, or what I would like to posit as meaning making for audiences, has its beginnings in reader response criticism and reception theory. Both of these branches of contemporary literary studies focus on the meaning making processes engaged in by readers of literary texts. The most influential of the reception theorists, Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish, draw on various philosophical approaches such as hermeneutics and phenomenology. Hermeneutics offers a particularly useful paradigm for the study of audience meaning making as it destabilises the determinative meaning of a text and authorial intention and addresses the status of a reader's contribution to textual meaning. A phenomenological approach is also useful in considering the consciousness of the reader in a given event. In The Reading Process: a Phenomenological Approach, Iser stresses that 'Meaning is reached by an interactive process between reader and text' (1974, p. 65). In her influential text Theatre Audiences, Susan Bennett argues, 'without the existing corpus of reader-response theory, it is unlikely that there would be that current concern of drama theorists for the role of the audience' (1997, p. 34). It is interesting to note that Bennett refers to the 'role' of the audience. That the audience should play a particular role in the theatrical event alludes to the performative nature of the audience participant. This will be discussed later in the paper. There is, however, little research in the area of audience reception theory that addresses the specific meaning making process for the theatre reader. In her recent book Reception Studies, Lorna Hardwick points to this dearth of research and argues that 'theoretical research in audience response is still lacking' (2003, p. 8).

The importance of an audience-centred approach is paramount in interpreting theatre. Jerzy Grotowski argues that when all other theatre conventions are put aside, 'we are left with spectator and actor - all other things are supplementary, necessary perhaps, but supplementary' (1968, p. 32). A theatrical experience is created only in the presence of performer and audience. While much theoretical research has considered drama and performance texts, the essential construction of the theatrical event occurs in the encounter between performer and audience reader. The aesthetic response of the audience reader is far more accessible and visible in a theatrical event than in a literary reading. In a theatrical event the interaction between signifier and signified minimises the aesthetic distance so that the various signifying texts work together with the audience to create a unified whole. Taken from this perspective it is, perhaps, surprising that so little attention has been paid to the vital role of the audience in the context of the theatrical event.

The research that has evolved in the area of theatre audience reception can be seen to have taken three different orientations: cultural/sociological, historical and psychological. Cultural/sociological approaches to audience reception consider the demographic characteristics of the audience, their cultural and social backgrounds and questions of class, gender and race. An historical approach to reception studies considers the ways in which audiences' perceptions of different texts change over time. Psychologically orientated research considers the ways in which audiences experience and interpret a theatrical event. Psychological approaches undertaken by reception theorists such as Bernard Beckerman (1970), Herbert Blau (1990) and Willmar Sauter (2000) have explored theories to analyse the audience's meaning making process. Sauter's book The Theatrical Event: Dynamics of Performance and Perception explores the 'spectator from a sociological and psychological perspective' (2000, p. 2). The text acts as a precursor to recent research into the theatrical event in Theatrical Events: Borders Dynamics Frames (Sauter, 2004). Both of these texts touch on the meaning making process of the audience reader. Apart from these initial inquiries into audience interpretation, audience reception has predominantly taken a cultural/sociological orientation. I would here like to emphasise that my approach departs from this cultural/sociological perspective. Since much valuable research has already been undertaken in this area, I am not considering what the audience brings in with them, but rather what happens on that particular night. Sauter points to this temporal nature of theatre: 'performances . . . exist only as events during a certain time in a certain place' (2004, p.11). This paper takes a theoretical/empirical approach focusing on the details of one meaning making event and situates the reader's meaning making as part of the entire theatrical experience.

In this case study, the post production symposium rather than the performance becomes the meaning making event. Stanley Fish (1980) attempts to remove the literary text entirely (but I must add, unsuccessfully) from the reader's meaning making process. In focussing on the symposium I am not, however, attempting to remove the drama or performance texts but rather consider the interrelationship among the various texts that create the theatrical event. Although the application of reader reception theories to the dramatic text is explicit, it is here necessary to position the meaning of 'text' in the theatrical context. The text that is read in the theatrical event is not only the drama text but also the performance text (also known as the theatre text [Carlson 1990, p. 85] ) and myriad other signifiers such as scenography, place and printed material that inform conditions of reception for theatre readers. In what can be considered more of a socio-semiotic approach, Ric Knowles in his recent book Reading the Material Theatre (2004) defines these contributing texts as 'public discourses'. Reconsidering the contemporary focus on the theatrical event, Knowles proposes a tripartite paradigm to explore the interrelationship of the performance text, conditions of production and conditions of reception. His research explores, albeit briefly, the interaction between the audience and public discourses that affect conditions of reception. The drama text, performance text and public discourses work together to create a unified textual whole that is the theatrical event.

To contextualise the reader's role of meaning making in the theatrical event, I wil l h ere discuss my particular case study. Apart from the recent Sydney production, Maxwell Anderson's Mary of Scotland was last professionally produced in Australia in the 1950s. This was a staged reading in Perth . Crossbow Productions staged the play in May 2004 at the Fig Tree Theatre in Sydney . Live music, mime and abstraction were utilised in the production to facilitate the somewhat difficult verse text for the audience. American playwright Maxwell Anderson was a prolific dramatist writing a total of thirty-eight plays, most of which enjoyed long runs on Broadway. While his Modernist contemporaries, Eugene O'Neill and Clifford Odets, wrote realist plays, Anderson 's plays explored progressive ideas within a traditional form. The content of his plays addressed contemporary issues such as feminism, politics and pacifism. Greek tragedy and Shakespearian language and motifs influenced their form and structure. Anderson 's plays have since dropped into obscurity while O'Neill's plays continue to attract critical attention. Anderson was, however, the most successful Broadway playwright of the 1930s. He adapted many of his plays for the screen. Key Largo, What Price Glory and Anne of the Thousand Days are among Anderson 's most significant films. The text of Mary of Scotland was adapted for a 1938 film starring Katherine Hepburn. Interestingly, in his writings, Anderson scathingly attacked the commodification of Hollywood which produces 'product[s] ready for consumption [that] taste like all the rest of the soup' (1971, p. 710). It is, however, his screen adaptions rather than his plays that have endured.

Although his plays were traditional in their use of language, genre and structure, Anderson 's appropriation of contemporary issues in the content of his texts was progressive. His juxtaposition of traditional form and progressive content struck a chord with audiences of the period. Mary of Scotland, which contains a progressive feminist discourse, ran for 280 performances on Broadway. The play explores the turbulent reign of Mary Queen of Scots from her arrival on Scottish soil to her imprisonment and subsequent death in England . Anderson examines the power struggle between Mary and Elizabeth the First, and Mary's relationship with the Earl of Bothwell. Anderson argued, 'moral excellence is the aim of good theatre' (1971, p. 65). In his 1947 book Off Broadway, he proposed a set of 'rules' for playwriting. In these rules he espoused the need for representations of good and evil in both the plot and protagonist construction. In Mary of Scotland Anderson explored binaries such as good and evil, decadence and austerity, private and public, among others.

Symposiums were held after each Sydney performance and focussed on contemporary responses to Anderson 's presentation of the aforementioned binaries. Symposiums, where the audience is invited to stay after the performance to discuss issues arising from the play, are a device for creating a means of what Bennett refers to as the 'emancipation of the spectator' (1997, p. 48). The documented responses from symposium participants are in themselves interesting and would form the basis for another paper on audience reception with a cultural studies orientation. The purpose of this paper is, however, to explore the meaning making process rather than documented outcomes. I will briefly introduce topics that were raised and explore in more depth one area of discussion that is particularly relevant to the meaning making process.

Issues that dominated symposium discussions included the construction of a hero or anti-hero, feminism, and Anderson 's presentation of good and evil motifs. The focus on these issues evolved from discussions relating to binaries such as public and private, a woman's way and a man's way, and good and evil, as explored in the drama text. Contemporary audiences found that Anderson 's construction of an eponymous hero created a distance between audience and text/s. The construction of an anti-hero, with which the reader can identify, was also discussed. Historical plays that portray a hero were found to have a place in contemporary society by some participants. Others considered the use of an anti-hero representing the common man/woman more accessible. It is of interest that audience participants felt the need for the personification of either a hero or anti-hero. The portrayal of two powerful and intelligent women in political positions engendered much discussion. In the drama text, Mary and Elizabeth represent two seemingly antithetical feminist approaches to power. Much discussion centred on contemporary approaches to conflict and power. Audience participants applauded Anderson 's progressive feminist ideas explored in Mary of Scotland .

In all of the post production symposiums, participants considered Anderson 's presentation of good and evil problematic. In Off Broadway Anderson argued, 'The story of the play must be a conflict between the forces of good and evil' (1971, p.25). Exploration of the representation of this binary dominated discussion in all the symposiums. Audience participants equated the good/evil binary with morality, and heated discussions arose as to the relevance of Anderson 's ideas for contemporary society. The symposium revealed a tendency for participants to think in terms of interpersonal conflict rather than a good/evil binary. One participant argued, 'We live in a world of conflict. I saw Mary and Elizabeth as egotistical arbitrators for one throne. I didn't see any good or evil come into it' (Mary of Scotland, 2004). Participants seemed to feel more comfortable couching their responses in terms of contemporary concepts of conflict and power. In one symposium, having shifted the discussion of Anderson 's portrayal of good and evil to contemporary concerns of conflict and power, dissension amongst the audience participants was mollified. It is interesting to note that Anderson , although arguing for a good/evil ideology in play construction, also noted that audience perception of good and evil can change over time and can be different for each audience. From this perspective, and from this contemporary audience's reception of the representation of good and evil, it can be seen that the opposition of good and evil, like culture itself, is in a state of flux.

It is significant that in each of the symposiums participants found a need to negotiate meaning rather than simply exploring or discussing Anderson 's use of binaries. Norman Holland argues that the reader 'shapes the materials the literary work offers him' (1980, p. 125). In the post production symposiums the audience participants formed a kind of interpretive community dedicated to the purpose of shaping the traditional values presented in the text into a palatable contemporary form. Although much of the discourse focussed on participants negotiating meaning with each other, the desire to produce new meanings for what many considered obsolete values was paramount. Iser argues that the 'spectator is both producer and receiver of the drama' (1974, p. 141). The new meanings produced in the symposium became a text or 'public discourse' that informed the entire lived theatrical experience.

Anderson 's ideas as expressed in the drama text were seemingly destabilising for this contemporary Australian audience, and created a sense of displacement. The good/evil construction was, as discussed, unsettling for contemporary audiences. There were, however, various other elements of the drama and performance texts that constituted a distance between the readers and stage and contributed to displacement. An English/Scottish setting, a little-known American playwright, the portrayal of royalty, the construction of a heroine, an historical context, the use of heightened verse and period costuming all worked to create an effect of distance from the drama and performance texts and public discourses. It is at this moment that in order to create what Iser refers to as 'the harmonious reconciliation of textual ambiguities' (2000, p. 310) the participants produced new, or contemporary, meanings. The symposium became a vehicle for bridging the distance between these textual ambiguities, and a mode in which to reconcile contemporary meanings through reinterpretation. In the establishment of these new meanings, a space was found for textual ambiguities that had previously created a sense of displacement: the role of the audience was delineated. Just as the performers, playwright, director and technical staff had a defined role, the audience voice was emancipated.

Jauss argues that a 'work does not exist without its effect; its effect presupposes reception, and in turn the audience's judgement condition's the author's production' (1982, p. 79). Audience readers engage in the meaning making process during the production. Their cognitive response is articulated in various behavioral patterns such as laughter, crying and applause during the production. While the effect of the work, in this production of Mary of Scotland, was articulated in the post production symposiums, it is obvious that the effect of a work can exist without the need for a symposium. Meaning making occurs in various other small groups, between family members and friends in post production discussions and, notably, within the individual themselves. The symposium participants became, however, a collective interpretative community that negotiated and produced their own public discourse in response to the production. In this way the audience's public discourse conditioned not only the drama and performance texts, but can be seen to have become a text in itself. In turn, this new text informed the entire theatrical experience. From this perspective the symposium can be seen as a macro-sign carrying significance similar to the drama and performance texts. The audience text contributed to what Keir Elam refers to as the 'unified textual whole' (1980, p. 120) of the theatrical experience. It is significant that this particular audience text was different from night to night. The drama text and performance text carried new meanings in light of the response of the audience readers not only during the production, but most significantly in the symposium. As such, the symposium became a text through which this particular audience was able to contribute to and negotiate meaning in the unified theatrical experience of Mary of Scotland .

References

Anderson, Maxwell 1933, Mary of Scotland . Samuel French, New York .

-- 1971, Off Broadway: Essays about the Theatre. Di Capo , New York .

Bennett, Susan 1997, Theatre Audiences: A Theory of Production and Reception. 2^nd edn, Routledge , New York .

Beckerman, Bernard 1970, Dynamics of Drama: Theory and Method of Analysis, Knopf , New York .

Blau, Herbert 1990, The Audience, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore .

Carlson, Marvin 1990, Theatre Semiotics, Indiana UP, Bloomington .

Elam , Keir 1980, The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama, Methuen , London .

Fish, Stanley 1980, Is There a Text in this Class?: The Authority of InterpretiveCommunities, Harvard UP, Cambridge .

Grotowski, Jerzy 1968, Towards a Poor Theatre, Odin Teatrets Forlag, Holstebro.

Hardwick, Lorna 2003, Reception Studies, Oxford UP, New York .

Holland , Norman 1980, 'Unity Identity Text Self', in Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, ed. J Tompkins, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore .

Iser, Wolfgang 1974, 'The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach', in The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore .

-- 2000, 'Do I Write for an Audience?' Publications of the Modern Language Association of America , vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 310-14.

Jauss, Hans Robert 1982, Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. T. Bahti, Harvester, Brighton .

Mary of Scotland by Maxwell Anderson 16 May 2004 , Dir. Caroline Heim , Io Myers Theatre, Sydney .

Sauter, Willmar 2000, The Theatrical Event: Dynamics of Performance and Perception, Iowa UP, Iowa City .

Sauter, Willmar , Vicky Ann Cremona, Peter Eversmann, Hans van Maanen, John Tulloch (eds) 2004, Theatrical Events: Borders Dynamics Frames, Rodopi, Amsterdam .