|
Transcript |
[Beginning of Recorded Material] Interviewer: Four of them did you know [inaudible 00:08] place? For a few [inaudible 00:12] and it's partly that we say dialogue. Moving away generally speaking for naturalism sometimes into what has been called [inaudible 00:25] comedy. Times say, what's on our mind and as he himself said about James [inaudible 00:35] catching a sense of the ridiculous and now as to the sentences which people make half the time bear absolutely no resemblance to what people think. He is known also as a frustrated poet. His first major play, The Zoo Story was produced in 1959 and opened, I believe, and is still running in West Berlin at that time. In brief, it can be said love is a patient of his work powers over the common run of contemporary plays. And its significance extends beyond, I'm sure, present moment and we shall find this to be true. Currently playing in Baltimore, I think if you realize it's something of a holiday week here. Baltimore's New Theater and around Center Stage. I was then presenting and will present the final production tonight of The Zoo Story. The last I heard there were a few tickets left but these have been generally sold out, so I'm not so sure of that now. And the John Hopkins University play shop at 8:30 tonight will present The American Dream and The Death of Bessie Smith and again next Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings as [Marx Wars 02:02] first, second and third in the Barn on the Homewood campus, You Are Here. Edward Albee Theater has been termed the theater of the absurd and referring of course to life itself. But since to some extent everyone speaks at the core of himself no matter what his topic I'd now like to introduce Edward Albee to speak to you on theater today several forms of absurdity, Mr. Albee? Respondent: Thank you very much that introductory which like, all introductions, embarrassed me. It seemed to be better for me to be in Baltimore than New York. Since I have, at the moment, three plays running in Baltimore and only one in New York. Now I have two requests that I'd like to make. First, very seriously I'd like you to forgive the natural disorder in my mind because I'm a playwright and playwrights are notoriously known for not thinking terribly clearly. They do like to talk and they do get up and they will talk but they don't think too clearly and I don't think too clearly either. And second when I'm done with the formal or supposedly formal part of this afternoon I'd appreciate very much if we could have question and answer session and let's learn something. I don't learn anything when I talk, but I do learn things when people ask questions and so if we can have a question answer exchange, difficult questions which I won't be able to answer, embarrassing ones which I'll refuse to answer and let's have that shall we? It would be nice for me. Now I'm supposed to be talking about the theater today several forms of absurdity. That's fairly general and I guess that is pretty much what I will be talking about. Talking first a bit about the so-called Theater of the Absurd and then talking about the absurdity of the theater. The first question to come up, of course, seems to me is why should we bother to concern ourselves with the theater with the state that the theatre is in? In other words, is there any obligation on anybody's part to concern himself with the state of the theatre? I think there is and not only because I to be a practitioner. Of the three spoken performing arts theater, movies, television, in United States the live theater is the only one of the three that's managed to retain a good portion of its integrity. The only one that's not so completely hampered by commercial considerations as to have lost whatever useful function it has. We all know about television and the aesthetic determinants of the sponsors and everybody spends a long time telling everybody else about movies in the United States. And then two, the theater, the large theater has a continuing tradition of over 2000 years. So naturally it's the oldest of the three performing spoken arts and after that is also the fact that some of the finest writers of western culture have been playwrights and like Sophocles, Shakespeare, Moyer, Racine, Chekov these are pretty good writers. There is one other thing, make it important for us to consider the state of the theater. The health of the theater perhaps and that is that the real function of live theater aside from it's purely entertainment value. The true function of live theater is to be an absolute mirror of [inaudible 06:48] and cultural health. For the play always exists in the present tense [inaudible 06:55] is always contemporary. A playwright is not only a creative person in that he writes plays if indeed he is a creative person. Playwrights not only a creative person in that he writes plays. He is as well, I think or at least he should be sort of a demonic social critic of course for things that are right as opposed to things are correct for example. It's a playwrights' responsibility as much as people will allow him to be, to be a kind of national conscience but in this country and not alone in the United States but since we're here let's consider that for a moment. In this country our playwrights for the most part are being discouraged from performing their correct and their natural function. Our playwrights are being urged to lie to their audiences and are being urged by their audiences to lie to their audiences, to falsify rather than tell the truth, to be pacifiers rather than disturbers. Our playwrights are encouraged to congratulate their audiences, reassure them that everything is just fine whereas more likely true than not that things are not so hot. Pat the audience on the back to tell them that their values are wonderful. Well, it seems to be that if you have culture that needs to be patted on the back and told that his values are wonderful there might just be something little suspect about those particular values. Our playwrights in the long run are being used as servants by a spoiled and self-deluding public. In spite of attitudes of this sort should we fairly accurately judge the health of the people, society, governmental system or the total aesthetic? I think we might examine this relationship between playwright and his audience, between you and me, not specifically between you and me but between the playwright and his audience. I think we should examine it because something could be done to correct the situation that exists. I'm not suggesting that anything will be done to change it but something could be done. So let's examine that, maybe a little history is in order now. Maybe we should just look for a minute at what's been going on in the theater the past 15 years or so. When I say what's has been going on in the theater I don't mean what's been going on, on Broadway because what's been going on on Broadway is indicative of quite a number of things. It is not necessarily indicative of anything do with the theater. Well, in the past 15 years, the world's been changing quite a lot. You come to the point, where every day we live with the possibility of not getting through the day because we're all are going to be blown to hell. There are at least 1 billion people who live under the communist system and another half a billion quite close to it. Africa or [inaudible 10:34] is important forces, conceivably dangerous ones. We've been warned about all these by historians and philosophers for a long time and nobody's paid any attention to it. And the fact is honest nobody is doing anything about it and following the second world war, became necessary for variety of reasons for a complete re-examination of every single one of our values, religion, morality, social structure, re-examination if you will of the very nature of reality. And concurrent with this there emerged after the Second World War a bunch of French playwrights. One was an Irishman, one was Rumanian and one of them actually was French and he was a jailbird. These writers of course, Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco and Jean Genet, these people, these playwrights, understood the need for re-evaluation, re-examination of values and perhaps Kierkegaard was their spiritual godfather and certainly had a good deal to do concurrently with that thinking. You can't have a re-examination of values that's total unless you have the re-examination of theatre values at the same time. And so that happened the Avant-Garde Theatre is as we understand though I loathe really came to flower with Beckett and Ionesco and Genet which almost sounds like a vaudeville act or Madison Avenue Ad Agency. It isn't really. Well while this was going on simultaneous with this The Naturalistic Theatre which got it's impetus from Ibsen and Chekov less from Strindberg. While this was going on, The Naturalistic Theatre had been running almost constantly downhill. One of the real troubles The Naturalistic Theatre found, it was becoming more and more difficult to have heroes, have a heroic personality on stage. Marx and Freud had something to do with that of course. But as The Naturalistic Theatre got into the hands of playwrights that who were enormously adept and [inaudible 13:13] at doing what Ibsen and Chekov did so much more crudely but better. The nature of The Naturalistic Theatre began to get self-limiting and finally self-destructive. Characters were no longer larger than life. They were brought down being life sized and the final step naturally was to create a theater of characters who were smaller than life. We find the final results of that particular theater, the smaller than Life Theater in those tiny little television plays that used to be on several years ago before everything in television had a soundtrack of canned laughter attached to it and was called comedy. So I guess you have the break down, the eventual grinding to a halt in a way of The Naturalistic Theatre. At the same time you had the counter movement going on in Europe and we take everything from Europe in this country and we usually get it about 10 years late, because while we're a very insecure society, we're a very proud one. The effect on the theater and theater thinking as recorded by young playwrights the affected Beckett, Ionesco, and Genet have had has been profound. It's actually a result of these three playwrights, it's impossible to about the theatre anymore. If we even, really want to bother to think about the theater, in the same way it was possible before these three men started writing. It's ostrich like to pretend these playwrights haven't existed. It's ostrich like to reject their works and to reject the implications of their works. There's a book by a Rumanian, oh, I'm sorry, Hungarian writing out of London and his name is Martin Esslin, the book is called The Theatre of the Absurd. It examines what's been going on in the theater. Examines the work of Beckett and Ionesco and [inaudible 15:31] and Genet and [inaudible 15:31] and Howard Pinter and N.F. Simpson and a couple of other people. It's an interesting book. It's a grab bag but I suppose there is a kind of post existentialist connective tissue binding together all the playwrights represented in the book and it's called The Theatre of the Absurd. Leading off with the plays of the playwrights are absurd with the man's position, the universe has become absurd. One of the important things about the title of the book, The Theatre of the Absurd is there has allowed some of our critics a rather primitive sense of humor to exactly do that to refer to the plays and the playwrights as absurd. Well, just what is this, Theatre of the Absurd, exactly what is it? I wrote back in the days when we had newspapers in New York. My definition of it since I can't remember what it was let me read it to you. I wrote as I get it, Theatre of the Absurd is an absorption in art of certain existentialist and post existentialist's philosophical concepts having to do in the main with man's attempts to make sense for himself out of his senseless position in the world which makes no sense which makes no sense because the moral, religious, political and social structures, that man has erected to illusion himself have collapsed. Absurd, absurdity in the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus writes this, Camus says a world that can be explained by reasoning however faulty is a familiar world but in the universe that's suddenly deprived illusions of light, men feels a stranger. His is an irremediable exile because he is deprived of memories of a lost homeland as much as he lacks the hope of a promised land to come. Just a force between man and his life, the actor and his setting who reconstitutes the feeling of absurdity and Ionesco [inaudible 18:03] for which he said, "Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose. Cut off from his religious metaphysical and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless." Martin Esslin, himself, man who wrote the book includes the book with these lines, "The dignity of man lies in his ability of to face reality in all its senselessness to accept it freely without fear, without illusions and to laugh at it." And I'd make an addition to all of this maybe a somatic one; I suggest that the so-called Naturalistic Theatre in the United States is truly the theatre of the absurd and that the so-called Theatre of the Absurd is the naturalistic theatre of our time. Because of course we had writers in the United States who have concerned themselves and understood the nature of man's isolation, the ultimate absurdity, the concept of God as dead, indifferent or insane. It's not totally European. Carson McCullers wrote a page on the nature of love, man's isolation in the state of love I'd like to actually read it to you. If for no other reasons the fact that it's beautiful writing. The time has come to speak about love. First of all, love is a joint experience between two persons. The fact that it is a joint experience does not mean that it's a similar experience to the two people involved. They are the lover and the beloved. These two come from different countries. Often the beloved it is only stimulus for all stored-up love which is laid quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto. And somehow every lover knows this. He feels in his soul that his love is a solitary thing. He comes to know a new, strange loneliness and it is this knowledge which makes him suffer. So there is only one thing for the lover to do. He must house his love within himself as best he can; he must create for himself a whole new inward world a world intense and strange, complete in itself. Let it be added here that this lover about whom we speak need not necessarily be a young man saving for a wedding ring this lover can be man, woman, child, or indeed any human creature on this earth. Now, the beloved can also be of any description. The most outlandish people can be the stimulus for love. A man may be a doddering great-grandfather and still love only a strange young girl he saw in the streets one afternoon two decades past. The preacher may love a fallen woman. The beloved may be treacherous and given to evil habits. Yes, and the lover may see this as clearly as anyone else but that does not affect the evolution of his love one whit. A most mediocre person can be the object of a love which is wild, extravagant and as beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp. A good man may be the stimulus for a love both violent and debased or a jabbering madman may bring about in the soul of someone a tender and simple idyll. Therefore, the value and quality of any love is determined solely by the lover himself. It is for this reason that most of us would rather love than be loved. Almost everyone wants to be the lover and the curt truth is that, in a deep secret way, the state of being beloved is intolerable to many. The beloved fears and hates the lover and with the best of reasons for the lover is forever trying to strip bare his beloved. The lover craves any possible relation with the beloved even if this experience can cause him only pain. You remember what Tennessee Williams wrote in the play version of Suddenly Last Summer on the death of God or the nature of God? This is what he wrote; it's a monologue by the Mother of the dead poet Sebastian. It's not quite a monologue, there was some underlines but I turned it into a monologue [inaudible 23:01]. She says, "long ago one summer my son Sebastian said mother listen to this. He read me Herman Melville's description of the Encantadas, the Galapagos Islands, "Take five and twenty heaps of [inaudible 23:18] here and there and outside the city lot. Imagine some of them magnified into mountains and the vacant lot the sea you have a fit idea of the general aspect of the Encantadas, the Enchanted Isles, extinct volcanoes looking much as the world at large might look after last configuration, end quote from Melville. He read me that description and said that we had to go there and so we did go there that summer by a charter boat, four massed schooner. As close as possible to the stern of the boat that Melville must have stood on, we saw the Encantadas. And on the Encantadas we saw something Melville hadn't written about. We saw the great sea turtles crawl up out of the sea for their annual egg laying. Once a year the female of the sea turtle crawls up out of the equatorial sea out of the blazing sand-beach of a volcanic island, to dig a pit in the sand and deposit her eggs there. It's a low and dreadful thing depositing of the eggs in the sand pits but when it's finished the exhausted female turtle crawls back to the sea half dead. She never sees her offspring but we did. Sebastian new exactly when you see turtle eggs would be hatched out and we returned in time for it. We went back to the terrible Encantadas. There was heaps of extinct volcanoes and time to witness the hatching of the sea turtles and their desperate flight to the sea. The narrow beach, the color of caviar, was all in motion but the sky was in motion too, full of flesh-eating birds and the noise of the birds, the horrible savage cries of the carnivorous birds over the narrow black beach of the Encantadas as the just hatched sea-turtles scrambled out of the sand pits and started their race to the sea to escape the flesh eating birds that made the sky almost as black as the beach. And the sand all alive, all alive, as the hatched sea-turtles made their dash for the sea, while the birds hovered and swooped to attack and hovered and swooped to attack. They were diving down on the hatched sea-turtles turning them over to expose their soft undersides, tearing the undersides open and rending and eating their flesh. Sebastian guessed that possibly only 100 of 1% of their number would escape to the sea. Yes, well now, I can tell you without any hesitation that my son was looking for God, I mean for a clear image of him. He spent that whole blazing equatorial day in the crow's nest of the schooner watching this thing on the beach until it was too dark to see it. But when he came down in the evening he said well, now I've seen Him and he meant God. You know, I don't find much difference between that writing and what's been going on in the so called Avant-Garde, to establish the differences perhaps; the conceptual things are pretty much the same. We do get the concept of the absurd in our best writers a little earlier than we realize. Now I'd like to push on from the Theatre of the Absurd to the absurdity of the theater. Because there is something terribly wrong with theater in the United States and I know whose fault it is. It's yours, which may seem like a very unfriendly remark. Let me explain to you why it's yours if I may. As I before something could be done about the situation, I also said that it probably wouldn't be because I'm a pessimist but something could be done about it. But I would like run down for you starting with Broadway and then moving to Off-Broadway. I like even better than this is the hierarchy, the aesthetic hierarchy of the Broadway Theater in New York. The people who determine what's you're going to see in the theater, the people who determine the kind of theater you're going to get because you let them decide it because you're lazy. They Chief [inaudible 28:13] in the New York Theater set up on Broadway oddly enough is a real estate operator. The man who owns the theater, most people don't know this. It's true. The man who owns the theater on Broadway because you allow him to has complete absolute control of what play will go into that theater. Well what are his aesthetic criteria as to what goes onto his theatre? Well, first of all, of course what is the nature of the play? Is it the kind of good play that is going to please everybody and offend nobody and run for a very long time? Will the theater parties send their ladies to it? Further on perhaps who's directing it? That's a big name director that's fine too and then maybe in very, very few cases way down to bottom he might ask if he remembers by the way who wrote it, but not very often. Now this man, this business man, and there's nothing wrong with business men per se except they should not be [inaudible 29:23] usually. This man decides what you're going to see in the Broadway Theater because you allow him to and the second most important person in the Broadway Theater set-up because you allow her to be is a lady. Oh she's not one lady, she's many ladies. She is executive of the theater party. Believe it or not, she is the second most important person in the Broadway Theater. By her aesthetic judgment goes something like this. What is the nature of the play? Is it a good play that will please everybody and offend nobody? Who's going to be in it? Who's directing it? One maybe when it's one of two or three writers if it's Tennessee Williams or Billy Wilder, possibly William Ames, who knows? Maybe she remembers that too. She is the second mostly important person in the Broadway Theater and the third most important person in the Broadway Theater because you allow them to be. Third most important person is the star now you've noticed that I did not say actor. I said star, because there is a very great difference between actor and a star. Actors submerge their personalities into the role and use their talent to the highest to create a believable personality on the stage for you. While a star is interested in the projection of the public relation's image of him or herself. That's the basic difference being star and an actor. And star on Broadway wants to know first of course who the other stars are and will he or she get his or her name on top and then salary of course and possibly who wrote it. The star on Broadway has the privilege and is encouraged to think of him or herself as a playwright, because stars in Broadway shows are famous for re-writing plays if the part is not sympathetic if they will not feel how do they put it those great ways of love coming over the footlights to them? They don't concern themselves really enough with the possibility there might be at least one wave of love going the other way from them out to the audience. And then I don't know who is of less importance in the next two people in the Broadway Theater set-up because you, the audience, allow the situation to exist the director or the producer? I guess the producer is little less important than the director. There are some directors who should be nameless, as Kazan for example, Jerome Robins, it's like that. Whose name is so large and the type of set-up of the program if you honestly think they wrote the play and sometimes the playwright name in some ads does not occur at all. In fact I suppose some directors practically do write the plays. Because one of the unhealthiest things of that theatre in the United States, see the playwrights are encouraged not to go into rehearsal period with a pre-composed play. They come with a skeleton, which will be flushed out by the talent of the actors and genius of the director, it's unfortunate but that's something else. Then we have to come with the producer? Somewhere along the line we have to come to the producer. Now he's in a [inaudible 33:24] position because he's aesthetic as to what's good in the theater, not what's good for the theater but what's good in the theater? I got to be good to the aesthetics and people that we've just been talking about. I've met some producers who are honorable men. Who can read, think, as a matter of fact I'm very fortunate because the two men who produced my plays so far can read and think and they're honorable men. But in general when the producer gets a hold of the play, by the way you know he stops calling the play once he gets a hold of it he call it a property. It's an extraordinary de-personalization I guess property means I own it. He calls it a property and then he takes a look at it and said I'm wondering if the theater owner will buy it? I wonder if he'll let me put it in his theater. I wonder in other words, where it's the kind of play that the theater owner will think that the ladies clubs will send their members too and is the kind of good play which will please everybody and offend nobody? Can I get stars for it, like, can I get the director? The producers function is to organize this particular kind of chaos, that's the producer's function. Way down at the bottom of this list at the very bottom because, you, the audience meant the situation to exist. You have the playwright, as I said on Broadway you're encouraged to compromise. Not only to rival others but to be prepared to have actors and directors and sometimes [inaudible 35:06]. [Repeats Audio 35:08] who are honorable men who can read, think, as a matter of fact I'm very fortunate because the two mean who produced my plays so far can read and think and are honorable men. But in general when a producer gets a hold of a play and by the way he stops calling it a play once he gets a hold of it he calls it a property, it's an extraordinary de-personalization. I guess property means I own it. He calls it property and then takes a look at it and said I wonder if the theater owner will buy it. I wonder if the theatre owner will let me put in his theater. I wonder in other words, where it's the kind of play the theater owner will think that the ladies clubs will send their members to and is the kind of good play which will please everybody and offend nobody. Can I get stars for it, like, can I get the director? A producer's function is to organize specifically the kind of chaos, that's the producer's function. And way down at the bottom of this list, at the very bottom, because, you, the audience meant the situation to exist. We have the playwright, as I said on Broadway we're encouraged to compromise. Not only to rival others but to be prepared to have actors and directors and sometimes [End of Repeated Audio 36:34] - Producers and producer's wife and producer's girlfriends and producer's girlfriend's boyfriend re-write his play for it. The playwright is encouraged to do an imitation of what is fashionable last year but it is not as very specific to that. [Inaudible 36:57] fashionable two years ago and absolutely in the long run no really good theater can come from this sort of thing. This is commercialism, big business this has nothing to do with the theater in the long sense of the term and the historical continuum of the theater this has nothing to do with anything. Well naturally, there has to be a counter movement for this aesthetic, and it did evolve and it was called off Broadway. Time Magazine did a piece about two weeks ago on off Broadway. It was a fairly accurate piece. It pointed out that maybe felt ten years ago there were 10 plays produced each year off Broadway and last season there were about 125 days produce off Broadway. While in the same time period the number of plays done on Broadway has decreased 70 to 45 a season. And off Broadway has grown not because it's an ideal situation, off Broadway is not ideal, it's a longshot. Off Broadway has grown and prospered simply because of the abdication of responsibility in the part of the Broadway Theater. When you think of the number of playwrights, same playwrights that any one season who have their plays produced off Broadway and not on Broadway, [inaudible 38:25] but I made a list once, from the 1959-1960 season and the 1959-1960 season the following playwrights had plays off Broadway and did not have plays on Broadway. Beckett, Ionesco, [inaudible 38:44], Genet, Ibsen, Chekov, [inaudible 38:51], O'Casey, Shaw, [inaudible 38:55] those are the playwrights who in 1959-1960 season did not have their plays produced on Broadway. They did not have their plays produced on Broadway because to the minds of the [inaudible 39:10], you, the audience would not go see them. That's right. So what off Broadway has become in a sense really is the conscience of the American Theater assuming of course that the American Theater does have a conscience. If it does then off Broadway, the off Broadway theater is the conscience of the American Theater. Off Broadway has always been beset with problems with combination of city ordinance, outrageous union demands, nearly impossible in an off Broadway theater not even 200 seats. Off Broadway is ridiculous financially, actors get paid $45.00 a week and in spite of that fact, some very good actors prefer to make $45.00 a week in a good play than to make a good deal more in a bad play on Broadway. And I have a suspicion most of our critics don't like the fact that off Broadway exists. We don't like it because why I think it shouldn't exist is because it shouldn't have to. They preferred it didn't our daily critics. It's too much work for them and they also don't like the so called Avant-Garde and of course vanity productions have done terrible things to off Broadway. I guess that's had [inaudible 40:51] to the critic hasn't it? [Inaudible 40:55] have got to be brought into well, critics have been quite nice to me but I have varied respect for them. It's very nice for a playwright to get good reviews, well, consider the alternative. But the fact that a playwright gets a good review does not necessarily mean that he has to admire the critic who gives him a good review. But we have good reviews and bad but I prefer [inaudible 41:26] too much review be good for intelligent reasons. So asking too much necessarily to review the right for intelligent reasons. So, that would be appropriate. We can't have that. But I was shocked a couple of years ago when [inaudible 41:46] appeared on the Open-End television show and [inaudible 41:48] is one of our most literate critics on the daily papers in New York, in fact we have two critics in the daily papers in New York but he is one of our most literate critics probably in the United States as matter of fact. On this television show he said that he considered it his function as a critic to be an accurate mirror what he thought the place readers of the New York Herald Tribune and in that instance I've always assumed the critics were hired not for their wisdom at least for their opinions that excellent you know what I mean, but apparently not. And it relates to a big problem probably the probably the earliest relationship to the playwrights, which is the fundamental problem I think So long as the critic thinks of himself as reflected in the face to his audience. He is no more useful than any member of his audience. Some seem to think critics function is to report and to educate, [inaudible 42:50]. The critics in cities themselves only reflection the mass public face and I don't see how the mass public face is ever going to improve itself unless of course it has to some people think it does. The critic also thought this way. The critics should be positive, it should be prejudice and if possible he should be a practitioner of the art he's criticizing. The finest criticism throughout history has always been by very prejudiced men. [Inaudible 43:23] the lack of personality, they lack of individuality; the unwillingness to go out on a limb [inaudible 43:32] country is quite shocking. All of this ties in [inaudible 43:39] all of this ties into you, all of you, to the audience there are many ideas put forward as to what could be done to solve the problems of theaters in this country. Centralization has been suggested by lot of people. I think its fine that amateur stock groups are springing up all over the United States and in places other than [inaudible 44:02] all the time. There's nothing wrong with [inaudible 44:06] so say a prayer as a matter of fact. And any objectionable talking about that I hope they never get the impression that I am suggesting that the Broadway Theater should be completely given over to plays by [inaudible 44:23]. I'm not suggesting that, I'm only saying [inaudible 44:30] because co-existence seems to be about the only way we can possibly guarantee continuing existence, if the musical comedies and the so-called sex comedies are allowed to build not allowed to take over the theater completely. There's plays with more serious potential are allowed to survive then I'll be perfectly happy and suggest that the theater, so bottom headache these days. So civilization aside that's not going to solve the whole problem because [Audio Issues 45:13] [Audio Repeats 45:25] are allowed to build not allowed to take over the theater completely and is played with more serious potential or are also allowed to provide then I'll be perfectly happy. It's just [inaudible 45:39]. [End of Recorded Material] |
