No one seems to object to the transcriptions and posting of AK’s comments which are at I’m putting comments and analysis on a separate blog, this one, so that people who don’t want to read such things don’t have to. This blog is set to accept anonymous comments, but I read them all and won’t tolerate flame wars. None have started.

Some of the most interesting and useful feedback on this material is coming in emails, some shared and others not shared, which I don’t want to post with names attached unless I have permission. I’m just going ahead to name the people AK named in her notes -- it’s been half a century since then, after all. Indeed, some of the email comments are arriving from people in that time period as well and those of us who know each other can probably guess who said what.

In good “discussion” mode, I’ll try to separate the issues from the people.

1. It is most moving that after fifty years the memory of personal relationships with AK have the status of love affairs, magical relationships that have inspired people for decades. They do NOT want that interfered with. Who would?

2. Likewise, there were a few people deeply wounded by past misunderstanding and schism and they, too, still hurt. To some this might be a reason to shut down, but to me it’s a reason to continue.

3. One opinion is that AK’s teaching methods are obsolete now. Students will no longer tolerate the confrontive and sometimes invasive tactics she used then. Indeed, some people wouldn’t accept them then, but they quietly went elsewhere. Is it a loss or a gain to give up the auteur model of teaching? Stanislavki was, after all, a Russian like the famously dictatorial ballet masters.

4. Is it true that academic theatre is nothing like professional theatre? You can still be tough on professional actors? (If Equity allows it.)

5. Some feel that theatre is totally different now. Whatever was important then is NOT important now. Or, to the contrary, theatre, esp. repertory theatre, is entering a renaissance that is vital and thriving across the country with new companies still being founded.

6. AK’s life trajectory is not really understandable without considering the time periods, the place, the administrators, sexism, and so on. No different from understanding a character in a play. (I confess -- this is my opinion.) All this happened before the Derrida Deconstruction craze, but we understand that, don’t we?

Mary Strachan Scriver

(Prairie Mary_

Sunday, March 31, 2013


(From the Alumni section of the NU publication called “Dialogue” in Fall, 2002)

The creation of the Alvina Krause Fund and the release of a related CD-ROM have met with an exceptionally positive response, and alumni continue to submit memories of Krause as well as archival material.  The school will continue to gather such material for an on-line Alvina Krause database.  [Note: As nearly as I can tell, this doesn’t exist.]  Fund-raising continues for the Alvina Krause Fund, which will support construction of a new wing for the Theatre and Interpretation Center and expansion of the MFA program to include the teaching of acting.  For information on how to contribute to the fund and recieve the CD-Rom, contact Anita Hillin at 847/491-4379 or  [This address is dead.]

Bill Bergfeld (C 57) [sic] has been instrumental in helping gather Krause material, including Forward Productions’ six-film series Acting -- A Study of Life (with an introduction by alumnus Charlton Heston) that chronicles her 1968 workshops a the University of South Dakota.  Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble plans to issue a complete four-hour edition of the series this fall, with a highlights edition available this winter.  For more information, contact James Goode at the Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble, Alvina Krause Theatre, 226 Center Street, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania 17815.

No comments:

Post a Comment