“Milton Katselas”

FOOTLIGHTS

By Clark R. N. Carr

This interview with Milton Katselas took place in his spacious, simply furnished, Spanish-styled apartment in West Hollywood. Once nominated for a Tony Award, Milton is now teaching an acting class in Los Angeles, having done so here and in New York for many years. In New York he directed the Original Zoo Story with George Maharis and William Daniels, the original Call Me By My Rightful Name with Robert Duvall, Joan Hackett, and Alvin Ailey, and the original Butterflies Are Free with Blythe Danner, Eileen Heckert, and Keir Dullea. He has done many other productions including in Los Angeles, Camino Real, Joe Egg, and recently P.S. Your Cat Is Dead. He just took his original production of Jockeys from L.A. to Broadway. In the last few years Milton has begun directing films, having done Butterflies Are Free, 40 Carats, and Report to the Commissioner. Among the many actors and actresses he has worked with are George C. Scott, Coleen Dewhurst, Gloria Swanson, Jose Ferrer, Karen Black, Liv Ullman, Gene Kelly, Al Pacino, Jessica Tandy, Jean-Pierre Aumont, and Goldie Hawn.

Footlights: What do you feel theatre has to offer Los Angeles?

Milton: I think it’s very exciting what’s happening to Los Angeles theatre. There is the same fireworks starting up, the fervency I felt in the 1960s when I was doing Zoo Story in New York City. We produced Zoo Story and Krapp’s Last Tape at that time for something like $3500. If we were to attempt the same production today we would expect an expenditure ten or twenty times higher. Anyways, the excitement of Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway of those times I feel now in Los Angeles theatres. The nucleus is the Mark Taper Forum with other theatres spreading out all around. I am very interested in what Ralph Waite is doing. I also just saw The Martian Chronicles at The Colony Theatre. I’ve admired Lonny Chapman’s tenacity with his Group Theatre. All these theatres’ work is an affirmation of what can be done without spending an exorbitant amount. Persistence, dedication and the quality of professionalism outshines money.

The actors in my class and in others are working very hard in showcases. People are turning out in droves to see those showcases. There is something exciting about going to the theatre in a small, not necessarily extravagantly equipped place. It might not even be comfortable, but it has within it a tremendous amount of heart and dedication from the people who are involved.

I remember one of the first things that I did with some of my students in New York. The theatre was on 55^th Street. It held about 40 people, but we had 80 people there, sitting on the piano, in the aisles. It was hot as hell, but there was this excitement in the room and a real fervency in the air. I feel this happening in L.A.

Footlights: What about theatre vis a vis film?

Milton: Well, they can be of value to each other and very supportive of each other. But one of the objections I have to small theatre is that a lot of small theatres seem to be trying to compete in their set designs with movies or big theatres. I find this problematic. The Martian Chronicles had a marvelous set, but it was very simple and imaginative. I think that small theatres are creating too much scenery, spending a lot of money and time on scenery, instead of devoting their energies to the play and to the acting. You could tell a set designer he had $5000 to create a set and he would do it. You could turn around and say to the same guy, “You’ve got $400 to do this,” and the fellow will have a much more creative time with it. There are certain productions that need that kind of scenery, but I would say that 95% of your small theatres should be doing very unusual, imaginative, and interesting sets instead of box sets with a room and a sofa. They should try to find a more “space-oriented” solution to scenic problems. You see, one can’t see elsewhere what one could see in small theatres. There’s something special about them. No matter how much you pay to go to a larger theatre, it is different and misses something that is unique to the artistry of the small house.

Footlights: How do you feel about the communication amongst theatre people themselves

Milton: I saw an excellent interview between Gordon Davidson and Ralph Waite. I would hope that that kind of co-existence and communication between theatre people of Los Angeles could occur more.

Footlights: How?

Milton: I think what happens is that you struggle to preserve your own turf, to make your own turf thrive. You get a bit introverted into it. It takes a great deal of energy to make a theatre go. But I believe that a conference could be held where the problems of this area could be discussed. What is desired? How could we be supportive of each other? You know, something might be worked out where facilities, props, electrical equipment could be shared. There could be a mutual fund. Theatres could join together and share equipment and actors. Then theatres would feed each other instead of feeding off each other.

Footlights: Do you think the real people would attend such a conference?

Milton: They will if you promote that there’ll be GOOD FOOD…maybe, a belly dancer. Some entertainment. You know. It’s a good idea, and you’ll get a good response. Just make sure there is…good food. Hood the meeting and find out. A great deal would depend on who were the moderators. The different kind of theatres would want to each feel properly represented.

Footlights: What have you loved or do you love about theatre, especially?

Milton: I don’t really dwell in any way on the past. I just know that I really do perceive the same kind of fervency and hustle today as years ago. Theatre is exciting right now. Recently, I spent a year of my time on a small project called “Jockeys.” We tried it out and developed it in a small theatre on Robertson here, and then, it was subsequently bought to be taken to New York. Unfortunately, it was not too successful there. It may now become a film. It was originally conceived to be a film. What is really exciting is the prospect of mixing the strengths of theatre and film. Jockeys was created with no props, just sound and actors trying to depict those kind of tensions and emotions. We created a whole horserace on stage with no scenery, just lights and sound. A lot of techniques that I have always used in theatre have been influenced by what I call, for lack of a better word, “space staging”. One “free-falls” the actors in creating a special kind of spatial relationship. Space is carved up by movement. It’s like free-form camera work. I’ve always felt a lot of kinship with attempts to liberate space structures. It was for this reason that I admired Peter Brooks’ Marat/Sade. Camino Real had free spatial aspects, too. Tennessee Williams called it “not a play, but a pageant”. I enjoyed not nailing down the forms of the theatre. The theatre is capable of creating anything. It is only limited by the ability of the theatre people to find ways and means to transform their ideas in a free-form stage way within a theatre solution.

The most exciting author I’ve ever worked with is Shakespeare. The reason Shakespeare was and is exciting is that he had a small theatre (much smaller than most people know), no lights (it was all performed in the bright sun, even the tragedies). He would have a guy stand up and say, “Imagine a battle. Imagine this. Imagine that.” The possibilities with Shakespeare are enormous. He did not rely on technical artifacts.

Footlights: Perhaps you’d like to comment on the great debate of New York vs. Los Angeles?

Milton: Well, to tell the truth, I don’t really care for Los Angeles as a city (which it really isn’t). But I have to admit that here in L.A. it takes more of an effort for an actor to be dedicated as compared to New York. The atmosphere, the weather, the climate, the beaches all are conducive to lead a person away from work and activity. But there is a great thirst amongst the Los Angeles actors, both in films and theatre, to have that kind of commitment. The L.A. actor is perhaps hungrier to go. But perhaps because it’s L.A., it requires more support from others to maintain that commitment. There’s just something about the fact that in New York it takes so much energy to get to the rehearsal, to go to the acting classes, to go home late at night. You’re constantly on your toes, constantly feeling this fever pitch. This can more easily tune you to the hard, rigorous tasks of theatre and rehearsal. But there’s no question that I come out of my acting classes here, and there on the street are lined up the Mercedes and sports cars – chariots waiting to carry my students home. Nevertheless, I would say that the best classes I have ever been teaching are right here now rather than in New York.

Footlights: What about writing? It seems that there is money in screenwriting and not in playwriting.

Milton: That may be, but all the producers and directors of theatre are all reading plays. We’re all still reading because we’re still looking for that wonderful play. One can never tell what turns you on about a particular play. It’s sometimes something in what would seem to be an inferior piece of work, but there’s something personal about it. I would say that the old rule that “you should write about what you know” still persists. Also, a guy should write for the medium he wants to. There is plenty of theatre going on in Los Angeles. The demand for good theatre is still there. This is a film town; nevertheless, it is becoming more of a theatre town. That can only be to the help of each. Film and theatre can only be good for each other. If I had the appetite to write a play, I wouldn’t listen to an agent who said “Oh no, there’s money in screenwriting.” Write the damn play if that’s where your heart is. But you should have an appetite to write about something. The form will come out of the subject. There have been many great writers who have founded their careers on writing for the theatre. Just because things in Hollywood are measured in terms of money does not invalidate this.

Footlights: What about the subject of money? A lot of people set money up as a goal, but that doesn’t seem to work.

Milton: The thing about money is that the emphasis on money makes it become a STOP. People think in a wrong sequence. They think, “If I achieve this amount of money, then things will happen.” But the basic thing that makes things go is Agreement. If you focus on getting or producing ‘agreement’ on what you are doing, you will infuse within your production a certain integrity and power. People accept things they agree with.

Perhaps, I haven’t made this clear. Not enough time is spent in theatre and the arts getting people to see your intention, what it is that you want to do, getting them in agreement with you, be they actors or producers, writers or audiences, and getting them to join together to create this product, this thing that you want to do. People are available for projects. But the catalyst that makes a project occur is agreement. It is never the amount of money that should stop anyone. Any project that looks like it should cost $100,000 can also be done somewhere for $6000. It really doesn’t matter where you do projects. The only thing that matters is that you Do it, that you communicate. If there’s anything there, then it will prove itself. And then it will move forward. I have never in my career been concerned about where I did something. Hence, I’ve never had any problem with getting something on. It’s basically because I’ve operated on the principle of agreement. I try to get people into agreement on what needs to be done and then through that agreement whatever needs to be created is created. Money is no stop.

Footlights: What do you have to say about our L.A. audiences?

Milton: I sense that there is a changing attitude in our audiences. I perceive a more exciting sense, a desire to break out. You know, there’s always been this “feeling” that everything outside of New York was the Provinces. And the Provinces have bought this and, therefore, there has been a little inhibition on the part of the so-called “provinces” to stand up on their own feet and really cheer. I feel L.A. has busted out of this. The fact that last year a Tony was given to Gordon Davidson, to the Mark Taper, to a play developed out here, The Shadow Box, shows New York’s recognition of this. It’s not that L.A. audiences need confidence. They are merely becoming more aware of their own existence and of the fact that what is being done in L.A. is viable, exciting, and interesting.

You know, I’ve heard that there’s more excitement amongst the New York Knicks fans than among the Laker fans. Well, you’ve got to get excited, hoop and holler at a Knicks game because…it’s taking your attention away from the gawdawful conflicts and problems of the city!

I think that if that idea were recognized here, that it is audiences that create plays, that the play does not occur on the stage, but in the audience…then something would happen. The stage is only a meter. If a play clicks, if it communicates a reality across the footlights to a number of people in the audience who can understand it, agree with it, communicate with it, have responses to it, then you’ll have an interesting play. Audiences should recognize that this is their play, their team, and not be concerned about being staid or conservative. There’s nothing like getting an audience responding actively to a play. I think this is occurring here.

Who knows? If we get Walt Frazier from the Knicks, we may get the same fervency in the Los Angeles Lakers fans!