The Role of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof

A Monograph Submitted to

Dr. Anne Fliotsos, Chair Kristine Holtvedt

Richard Stockton Rand

Department of Visual and Performing Arts

Division of Theatre

by

James Alan Harris

March 28, 2004

Harris 2

Graduate Committee

Dr. Anne Fliotsos, Chair

Kristine Holtvedt

Richard Stockton Rand

Harris 3

Harris 4

Table of Contents Monograph Introduction........................................................................................ 5

Formalist Analysis ................................................................................................ 7

Character Analysis ............................................................................................. 34

The Character From the Text ............................................................................. 50

What the Playwright Says About Hal .............................................................. 51

What Hal Says About Himself ......................................................................... 51

What Other Characters Say About Hal ........................................................... 52

Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 54

Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 60

Essence Sheet................................................................................................ 61

Word or Phrase Associations.......................................................................... 61

Time, Weight, Space, Flow ............................................................................. 62

Appendix B ......................................................................................................... 71

Scene Breakdown........................................................................................... 72

Appendix C....................................................................................................... 102

Audition Journal ............................................................................................ 103

Rehearsal Journal......................................................................................... 107

Appendix D....................................................................................................... 136

Image Collage............................................................................................... 137

Appendix E ....................................................................................................... 139

Selected Research........................................................................................ 139

Works Consulted .............................................................................................. 165

Harris 5

Monograph Introduction

What is the most effective way to create a role for the stage? Indeed,

there are many schools of thought on this subject and each has its own virtues.

An acting technique that works well for one may not work at all for another.

Throughout my studies at Purdue University I have been exposed to numerous

techniques for character creation. Providing the core for this creation is the

Meisner Technique. While I have been fortunate to experience a wide variety of

techniques, it is the technique developed by Sanford Meisner that has proven to

be the most effective for me. While living truthfully under the imaginary

circumstances of the play is what all good actors are striving for, successfully

accomplishing this task requires much research and intensive study. The

Meisner Technique’s mantra is “really listen and answer.” This seems simple

enough, but after two years of hard work in Kristine Holtvedt’s class, it is a skill

that still requires conscious and methodical application of this technique. I am

told that it will take several more years of using this technique before it begins to

feel completely natural. There are many other techniques and elements to

consider while creating a character aside from “really listening and answering.”

Professor Rand’s classes have proven highly beneficial to me as an actor.

Before enrolling at Purdue, I must admit that I rarely considered the physical and

psychological aspects of a character as deeply as I should. I think back on some

of my more successful roles and wonder what they could have been if I had

applied what I have learned here. The failure to fully explore every component of

a character occurs all too frequently by many actors working as professionals; I

Harris 6

was one of these actors. I realize now that I was only faking it, and I am able to

recognize when other actors are faking it too. While many actors have great

talent and greater potential, they fail time and time again to bring the inner life of

the character alive. What is this true “inner life” that Professor Holtvedt and

Professor Rand have continually guided us toward? After working toward this

goal during my three years of training, I feel that it cannot be defined, only

experienced. Once the training from all the classes becomes second nature,

even if only for a short moment, this is living truthfully in the imaginary

circumstances of the play. The actor is thinking, moving, and speaking like the

character. The inner life is revealed, and it is easy for the spectator to see the

difference between an actor who is living this inner life and one who is merely

pretending.

The following monograph documents the creation of the character of Hal

in David Auburn’s Proof. It includes an in-depth character and script analysis as

well as many supplemental sections. It is a culmination of my three years of

intensive training at Purdue University and is representative of the incredibly hard

work required to attain a Master of Fine Arts degree.

Harris 7

Formalist Analysis

The Role of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof

Proof production poster

Harris 8

Formalist Analysis Introduction

On May 23, 2000, David Auburn’s play Proof premiered at the Manhattan

Theatre Club and subsequently became a smash hit. As with any popular play, a

new theater space was readily provided on New York City’s prestigious

Broadway at the Walter Kerr Theatre. Opening on October 24, 2000, Auburn’s

play enjoyed a 27-month run that included 917 performances before closing on

January 5, 2002. Hailed as one of the best dramas to hit the stage in the past

two decades, Proof is the recipient of many awards and honors, none more

esteemed than the Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the Tony Award for Best Play of

2001. The success of Auburn’s play seems to know no boundaries as it

continues to be produced by regional theatres and universities in virtually all

English speaking countries.

As a relatively young and inexperienced playwright, Auburn’s first off-

Broadway debut began with his play entitled Skyscraper in 1997. Although it was

unsuccessful, his style of writing caught the attention of Back Stage magazine’s

Victor Gluck who predicted great things from Auburn. Gluck stated in his review,

“As playwright Auburn can write believable dialogue and director [Michael] Rego

can move people around theatrically, expect better things from them in the

future” (Gluck). His prediction would prove to be extremely accurate.

David Auburn spent his college career at the University of Chicago

studying political philosophy. Shortly after his graduation, he received a

screenwriting fellowship in Los Angeles, which he happily accepted. Upon the

completion of his fellowship, Auburn decided to attend the prestigious Julliard

Harris 9

School of Drama and further his playwriting skills. Julliard would eventually

propel him to create Proof.

The awards and honors that Auburn’s play have received are well

deserved. Aside from the play’s popularity, reviewers hail Auburn’s skill at

creating complex characters and relationships. A full year after the opening of

Proof on Broadway, Bruce Weber of the New York Times wrote a second review

of the play stating:

It remains an astonishment that the playwright, still just 32, has

joined an admiration and sympathy for his characters and a careful

delineation of their different strains of intelligence to a structure that

is as astutely crafted as an artisan cabinetmaker's. (Weber)

It is this type of complexity of character and relationship that makes Proof a

daunting challenge for even the most experienced of actors.

The following monograph will trace the creation of a complex role, Hal, in

David Auburn’s Pulitzer Prize winning play, Proof. All four characters in Auburn’s

play are deeply interesting and complex. Hal presents some particularly difficult

challenges regarding his relationships. A hopeless romantic, a mentor

worshipper, and a genius in his own right, Hal must demonstrate his relationships

with all of the characters distinctly.

The guidelines of employing this analysis will be derived from James

Thomas’ Script Analysis for Actors, Directors, and Designers, which in turn relies

on Aristotelian play analysis. Following the formalist analysis of the play itself, I

will include a complete character breakdown of the role of Hal. While the subject

Harris 10

of character is part of Thomas’ analysis of a play, this section will be created as a

separate document drawing from my study of acting at Purdue University.

Harris 11

A Formalist Analysis of David Auburn’s Proof

In The Poetics, Aristotle effectively identified the basic elements of drama

and placed them in a hierarchy of importance. These elements are as follows:

plot, character, thought or idea, diction, music, and spectacle. Examining a play

and its structure provides the reader with a deeper understanding of its

significance. David Auburn’s Proof provides a worthy challenge for deeper

analysis. Using Thomas’ book as a guide for this analysis will create a greater

appreciation for Auburn’s work. Thomas uses Aristotle's hierarchy of play

elements, starting his examination with plot, considered the most important

element.

I. The Plot The given circumstances of a play are concisely defined by Thomas as,

“[t]he overall situation in which the action of the play occurs” (1). These “givens”

consist of many elements, some of which include the time of the action of the

play, the setting, and various social and political constructs. These elements

provide a wealth of information to the reader.

David Auburn wrote Proof in 2000, though his play is set in the present. In

order to find the exact time of action, Auburn requires the reader to investigate

the script more closely. Near the end of Act I, Scene 1, Hal reads Catherine a

note from one of Robert’s journals. He says that it is, “Dated September fourth.

Tomorrow” (Auburn 20). Catherine corrects him by saying that it is already the

4th due to the fact that it is past midnight. It is not until that moment that the

reader knows that the time of action is September 4th of the present year.

Within the script, Auburn has incorporated two flashback scenes. These

Harris 12

scenes could prove highly effective as they blend information from the present

and the past. For example, in one scene Catherine reminds Hal that they have

met before when he brought his thesis draft to her father. In a later flashback

scene, the audience sees their first meeting. It is Auburn’s use of the changing

time of action that adds a wonderful element of complexity to his script.

Thomas defines “dramatic time” as “The total of the time that passes

during the on-stage action plus the time during intervals between acts and

scenes” (3). It is necessary to investigate the script very closely to determine the

total dramatic time of the play. The bulk of the play takes place over a three day

period, September 4th through September 6th. The first of two flashback scenes

takes place four years earlier. The second occurs in the month of December,

three and a half years earlier. The final scene of the play takes place a week

after the events of Scene 3, making the date September 11th, of the present year.

By examining all of the scenes closely, the total dramatic time of Proof can be

established as four years and one week.

Auburn sets his play in Chicago, Illinois. Unfortunately, the specific locale

of the setting is more difficult to pinpoint. All the reader know is that it takes

place on the back porch of a house in Chicago. Chicago is comprised of many

neighborhoods, each with their own unique social and economic influences.

Identifying the neighborhood in which the house is located can provide greater

insight into their surroundings. The reader can assume that the house is located

on the south side of downtown Chicago, because Hal offers a hint in one of his

lines in Scene 1. While trying to convince Catherine to go see a band with him

Harris 13

he says, “[…] Some friends of mine are in this band. They’re playing at a bar up

on Diversey” (Auburn 14). Any reader with knowledge of Chicago would know

that Diversey is a major street considered to be “downtown.” When Hal uses the

phrase “up on Diversey,” it indicates that they are located to the south of that

street. In the downtown area of Chicago, there are no houses available,

especially houses with porches. This can lead the reader to safely assume that

the house is located just south of the downtown area, where many residential

streets are located. Later, in Scene 4, the reader can target in on the exact

locale even more closely. Claire informs her sister that she is selling the house

to “the University” and that “[The University] has wanted the block for years” (37).

With this information, the reader confirms that the home is located on a street in

the east 50’s near the University of Chicago, south of The Loop. The most

specific locale information that Auburn gives the reader occurs when Catherine

calls the police on Hal to report his “robbery.” She says on the phone, “Yes, I’m

at 5724 South –” (19). Although the reader never learns the exact street, the

partial address can narrow it down even further. The house number “5724”

indicates that the home is on East 57th Street. The only unknown fact remaining

is the cross-street, which must run north and south. Using all of the above clues,

the address could be either 5724 S. Woodlawn Avenue, or 5724 S. Kimbark

Avenue, both of which exist. Knowing this location leads the reader to assume

many other social and economic factors concerning the family that lives there, to

be examined more closely later in this analysis.

Examining the society in which the play takes place is the next step to

Harris 14

understanding the plot more completely. Part of this examination includes

families, friendships, occupational group, and social standards that surround the

characters.

The plot of Proof centers around a family consisting of a single father,

Robert, and two daughters, Catherine and Claire. Hal, a former student of

Robert’s and a romantic interest of Catherine’s, completes the four-person cast.

The complex relationships between all four of these individuals are what makes

Proof a truly compelling play and worthy of its accolades. Since Catherine is the

main character, Auburn applies most of the emphasis on her relationship with the

other three characters. Catherine was very close with her father and has also

inherited his genius in the field of mathematics. Whether Catherine has inherited

his mental illness is a recurring issue in the play. At the play’s beginning,

Catherine is speaking with her father, but later the reader realizes that he is a

figment of her imagination, having just passed away due to heart failure. During

his mental illness, Catherine was the only person living with him in the house.

She dropped out of school to take care of him so that a mental institution would

not have to be an option. As a result, Catherine’s sacrifices created a very

tangible resentment toward her sister, Claire. Claire is only four years older than

Catherine but treats her much like her own child. Claire believes that Catherine

has “some of his talent and some of his tendency toward … instability” (39).

Although it is never stated, Claire apparently owns the house since their father

passed. Claire tells Catherine that she is going to sell the house and wants her

to move to New York City. It is this event that triggers an argument in which

Harris 15

much of their relationship is revealed. Catherine is enraged after hearing Claire’s

plan to sell, and her resentment is evident. The argument clearly becomes more

about their father, and Catherine screams at Claire saying, “He’s dead. Now that

he’s dead you fly in for the weekend and decide you want to help? YOU’RE

LATE. Where have you been” (38)? Claire simply wants to take care of

Catherine and thinks that she is doing the right thing. A week after their big

argument, Catherine has clearly not forgiven Claire and her resentment

continues. Their conflict remains unresolved with the play’s ending.

Catherine’s relationship with Hal may be the most dynamic of the three.

The first impression the reader gets is that Catherine is completely indifferent

toward Hal, even dismissive. During the course of the play, the relationship

changes into one of a romantic nature. She confesses to him that from the

moment she first met him, she liked him. Hal certainly likes Catherine a great

deal, yet he breaks her trust when he expresses his disbelief that she wrote the

incredible proof that is discovered at the end of Act I. Hal returns in the final

scene to apologize and tell Catherine that he believes she wrote the proof.

Catherine is certainly holding a grudge toward Hal because of his initial reaction

to her claim. In the end, her attitude toward Hal softens, and she begins to

discuss the proof with him. The reader is left with the hope that they will rekindle

their romantic relationship, though it is far from clear if they will.

Another unique aspect of Auburn’s play is the intellect and culture

involving the characters. All of the characters are well educated. Robert and

Catherine are undoubtedly geniuses. Because all four characters are highly

Harris 16

educated people, the humor present in Proof is high comedy with witty banter.

Auburn also exposes a culture surrounding mathematicians that most readers

would not expect. The stereotypical idea of a mathematician generates images

of a nerdy, glasses-wearing, heavy-set or scrawny male with a pocket protector

in his short-sleeved shirt. The characters in Proof certainly go against this

stereotype. What the reader may find interesting is that these people are not so

stereotyped. They have complex emotional relationships and carry on

conversations with each other in a way in which most people can identify. A

particularly enlightening character element of the mathematicians that Auburn

exposes is their ability to “party” to excess, including the use of drugs, such as

amphetamines. Hal explains to Catherine, “They think math’s a young man’s

game. Speed keeps them racing, makes them feel sharp” (30). This insight into

the culture of mathematicians exposes the pressures that only they can feel.

A number of economic factors can be determined by examining the given

circumstances. The location of the home indicates that the owner must have

sufficient wealth. Homes in the south side of Chicago near the university sit on

prime real estate and the cost of those homes is substantial. Through a recent

online search of homes for sale in this neighborhood, the average price for a

single family home was $750,000 (dreamtown.com). This is a very wealthy

neighborhood, and virtually all homes in this area fall into the $400,000 to $2.3

million range. A second factor that determines economic status is the profession

of the homeowner. As a famous mathematician at a reputable university, the

reader can safely estimate Robert’s annual income to be over $100,000. This

Harris 17

estimation is based on current salary statistics at public universities. With these

two factors alone, the reader can determine that the characters in the play are

financially stable, perhaps even wealthy by current social standards. Money is

never an issue in the play. The only time money is mentioned is when Claire

says that the house “costs a fortune to heat” (37). This is only an excuse that

Claire is giving to Catherine so that she can sell the house; it is hardly a real

issue.

Thomas defines “the world of the play” as “The cumulative effect of all the

given circumstances plus the social standards they embody […]” (19). This

definition leads the reader to draw several conclusions. Firstly, the recent death

and future funeral of Catherine’s father creates a somber and somewhat

depressing mood. The reader can instantly see that this play has funny

moments, but the underlying theme is serious in nature. Secondly, the

characters of this world are genuinely good, mostly friendly people. They

possess qualities that force them to act in a manner true to their moral standards.

At the heart of the drama, an unbalance in family values appears to cause the

most conflict. The simple fact that Catherine physically cared for her dying father

and Claire did not creates a large conflict between the two. Catherine emerges

as one who values the personal, hands-on relationship, while Claire provides for

the family in a practical, financial way. Both value their own method of providing

for the good of the family, although Catherine has difficulty validating the manner

in which Claire does so. All of these given circumstances and social implications

create a drama that is warm, intellectual, and real.

Harris 18

Thomas states that, “The lives of the characters actually begin long before

they first appear on stage, and understanding their pasts is necessary for

understanding their lives on stage” (23) The events that have occurred prior to

the action of the play is called the background story. Throughout the history of

drama, playwrights have experimented with the way in which the background

story is delivered to the reader. Proof uses what Thomas describes as an early

modern technique of conveying the background story, meaning the characters

reveal the background story through conversations with each other, rather than

delivering long speeches. Auburn utilizes a unique style to convey background

story. For example, the first scene of the play shows Catherine having a

conversation with her father, Robert. Half way through the scene, the reader

learns that he is really dead and that the entire conversation is taking place in her

imagination. The past event of Robert’s death is an extremely important piece of

information as well as the driving force for conflict throughout the play.

Throughout several flashbacks, Auburn reveals more past events. The reader

learns that Catherine enrolled at Northwestern University in the graduate

program for mathematics near the end of a seriously difficult period of her

father’s illness. When her father became ill, she felt obligated to drop out and

move back in with her father to take care of him. This event was extremely

difficult and it is the source of a great deal of resentment for Catherine. There

are several other minor past events that are revealed, but none are as important

as the two that have been identified.

Character descriptions are another important part of the background story

Harris 19

and much can be learned from these passages. Since Auburn uses several

flashback scenes to convey past events to the reader, there are very few

character descriptions given by the characters; only one can be said to have

some significance. This particular description is given by Catherine about her

father. She says,

I spent my life with him. I fed him. Talked to him. Tried to listen

when he talked. Talked to people who weren’t there … Watched

him shuffling around like a ghost. A very smelly ghost. He was

filthy. I had to make sure the bathed. My own father. (Auburn 16)

Catherine continues to expound on her father’s mental illness with descriptions of

other events. Through these descriptions the reader can paint a clear picture of

the disarray that Robert was in, as well as the pain his illness caused his

daughter.

According to Thomas, “The first responsibility of the plot is to provide the

physical action needed to carry out the story practically” (Thomas 39). One of

the ways that physical action can be examined is by identifying entrances and

exits. While examining the entrances of the characters in Proof, it becomes

apparent that Auburn favors a specific style of character entry. Many scenes

begin with a character, usually Catherine, sitting alone while some other

character enters. This entry sometimes startles Catherine and leads to some

interesting dialogue. The entrances of Hal are particularly interesting. He says

on more than one occasion that he has terrible timing and Auburn certainly

emphasizes this trait. In all but two of the scenes involving Hal, his entrance

Harris 20

occurs during an argument between either Catherine and Clair, or Catherine and

her father. Forcing Hal to enter a scene under these circumstance creates some

obvious anxiety and embarrassment for him. Exits are relatively rare throughout

the script; most scenes end with a blackout. When exits do occur, however, they

are designed to create tension in the play. Many of the exits come after a major

argument, leaving the conflict unresolved.

Several other physical actions occur that further the plot. For example, in

Act I, Scene 1, Hal is caught trying to sneak one of Robert’s notebooks out of the

house. He contends that he was going to give it to Catherine as a birthday

present, but Catherine refuses to believe him. His thoughtful gesture certainly

sets up the idea of a future romance between the two, at least from his

standpoint. This romantic interest comes to fruition with another physical action

taken by Hal. In Act I, Scene 3, he suddenly kisses Catherine and she

reciprocates. A final important physical action occurs when Catherine gives Hal

a key to a desk drawer. She tells him to open it and examine the contents. This

ultimately leads Hal to discover the proof that provides the basis of much of the

plot.

Coupled with the examination of the physical actions of a play are the

psychological actions. Thomas states, “Plot is more than a collection of inventive

physical activities; for besides its external features, it also occurs inside the

characters, changing their inner states as well as their outer conditions” (49).

These psychological actions enrich Auburn’s play, however, identifying all of

them would be overwhelming and impractical for the purpose of this analysis.

Harris 21

Consequently, only the most important examples will be offered. Psychological

action can be identified by recognizing the assertions, plans, and commands

made by the characters throughout the play.

Assertions are “a plain statement of fact,” and are the most common form

of psychological action (50). Thomas claims that almost every page of dialogue

has an assertion. They provide the reader with the most basic idea of the plot.

Proof contains some assertions that warrant mention. For example, Hal makes

an important assertion when he states that Catherine would not be able to

recognize valuable math in her father’s notebooks. She asks him if he thinks she

could recognize it and he says, “I’m sorry: I know that you couldn’t” (Auburn 18).

With this simple statement of fact, true in Hal’s opinion, Auburn skillfully sets up

the future bombshell of the discovery of Catherine’s proof. Not only can she

recognize valuable math, she creates a historical mathematical document of her

own. The reader learns through other assertions that Robert was a genius as

well as mentally unstable, Catherine has always liked Hal, and Claire wants

Catherine to move to New York City.

Plans made by characters are another form of psychological action. They

offer insight into the character’s state of mind and intentions. Very few plans are

exposed in the play. The primary reason for this is that the lead character,

Catherine, truly does not know what she wants in her life. She is confused and is

struggling to conquer her emotional turmoil. In fact, the only plan that Catherine

has is made for her by Claire. Claire has decided to sell the house, and she

wants Catherine to move to New York City. Hal has a plan to go through all of

Harris 22

Robert’s notebooks to see if there are any valuable mathematical discoveries to

be made. If so, he plans to publish the material on Robert’s behalf.

Commands made by characters offer plenty of insight into their attitudes

and feelings regarding various subjects. In Proof, no character gives more

commands than Catherine. What makes this particularly interesting is that these

commands seem to arise from the her feeling that she is losing control of

everything. She throws her commands at the other characters in a vain attempt

to demonstrate control. Ironically, the will of her sister prevails as Catherine

intends to follow Claire’s command to move to New York.

According to Thomas, a close examination of the progressions and

structure of the play is an important part of the process of analyzing a script. By

progressions, Thomas means to break the play down into smaller, more

manageable pieces. These pieces are called acts, scenes, units, and beats.

With the exception of the flashback sequences, Auburn has made the

progression of his drama very straightforward. Proof is divided into two acts,

with each act divided into a series of scenes. Generally, the play is written in a

linear fashion. The scenes are well constructed, each having its own mini-

climax. The flashback scenes are woven seamlessly into the present day

scenes; both of them depict events that were discussed at an earlier moment in

the play. This allows the reader to actually witness these important events rather

than relying only on his or her imagination.

Thomas defines the term “beat” as “The smallest dramatic progression

[…]. Its purpose is […] to introduce, develop, and conclude a single small topic

Harris 23

that adds to the progress of the whole story” (62). A “unit” can be described as

“a collection of related beats” (65). All of these beats and units complete the

“scene.” The beats in each scene arrive at a very quick pace. The primary

reason for this seems to be rather simple: Auburn’s scenes are short, leaving

little room for many different topics. Primarily, he presents one or two topics and

stays with them throughout the scene. Not only are his scenes short, but the

topics they discuss are rarely resolved and the same topic may be discussed in a

later scene.

Understanding the structure of a play is one of the most important parts of

the analysis. By examining the structure, the reader can recognize the play’s

most significant events: the point of attack, climax, and resolution.

Where the action of the play begins in relation to the background story is

called the point of attack. The action of Proof occurs after many important

events, the most important of which is the death of Catherine’s father. The four

years leading up to his death create most of the tension between Catherine and

her sister, as well as the mood of the entire play. With so much important

information in the background story, it becomes apparent that the play has a late

point of attack.

The climax of the play is not easily recognizable. In order to determine the

moment of climax, the reader must identify the central conflict in the play. Upon

examination, it is clear that there is no climax in the second to last scene since it

is a flashback sequence between Robert and Catherine that occurs three and a

half years earlier. It must occur in the final scene. Two events transpire In the

Harris 24

final scene. Firstly, the reader learns that Catherine and Claire are still not

seeing eye to eye, but that Catherine has agreed to move to New York City.

However, whether or not Catherine intends to move to New York City is not the

major conflict of the play. Clearly, the relationship between Hal and Catherine is

highly significant because of the second and final event in the last scene. Hal

returns to talk to Catherine to tell her that he made a mistake when he did not

believe that she wrote the proof. He is now convinced that she did write the

proof and wants to apologize to her as well as get more information from her.

Catherine clearly harbors some resentment for Hal’s actions and, in no uncertain

terms, displays her feelings about his distrust. Taking this event into account, the

climax must deal with a resolution regarding the relationship between Hal and

Catherine. Hal clearly wants her to stay in Chicago and appears interested in

continuing their romance, although he says that he only wants her to speak to

him about her proof. The climax occurs on the last line in the play when

Catherine begins to speak to Hal about her proof. Because the climax occurs on

the last line, the resolution of the play remains unwritten. The reader is left to

assume that this relationship will continue and that Catherine has forgiven Hal for

his distrust. Whether or not she will stay in Chicago is uncertain.

II. Idea Thomas defines the idea of the play as, “[…] the thought pattern

expressed by the whole of the play” (101). In essence, it is the meaning of the

play. In order to determine the main idea, several elements should be examined,

beginning with the most basic building block of a play, the words. The title of the

play unquestionably holds great importance. Proof obviously refers to the

Harris 25

document that all great mathematicians try to create. More specifically, the title

refers to the proof created by Catherine that ultimately causes her blossoming,

romantic relationship with Hal to falter. Further analysis of mathematical proofs

will be performed in the character analysis.

Aside from the play title’s obvious meaning, there are more subtle

connotations within the script. The fact that Catherine has no way of proving that

she wrote the proof creates a significant conflict between her and Hal. Catherine

assumed that he would believe that she wrote the proof, but he does not. He has

failed Catherine’s test to prove his trust in her. Only after Hal and his colleagues

thoroughly examine the proof does he realize that Catherine is honest in her

claim to be the author. The fact that the proof uses new techniques that Robert

could not have mastered in his ill state is the convincing factor for Hal. The irony

is clear; the proof is in the proof.

Set speeches and imagery can be used as a vehicle to deliver the main

idea of the play to the reader. There is only one set speech in the play, and it is

delivered by Robert. In it, he expresses that he enjoys watching the students in

the bookstore at the beginning of the school year. He also agrees with the

stereotype that a mathematician does his best work when he is young. It is clear

to the reader that Robert is reminiscing about his past accomplishments and

longs to be able to create mathematical theory once again. His mood throughout

the speech is that of defeat. He appears to be resolved to the fact that his best

work is finished and that he has little to offer the mathematical world. This set

speech can be juxtaposed with Catherine’s current position in her life. Robert’s

Harris 26

death is now in the past and she must move forward with her life. She must

resolve to make some decisions and carry on.

Auburn’s use of imagery is quite effective throughout his play. This

imagery helps to create a picture of mathematics that non-mathematicians would

find surprising. Hal described the way that Robert created and wrote a proof this

way: “Plus, the work was beautiful. It’s streamlined: no wasted moves, like a

ninety-five-mile-an-hour fastball. It’s just … elegant” (Auburn 33). This is a

wonderful example of how imagery can describe something in a unique way.

Catherine’s description of her father as a smelly ghost provides another example

of Auburn’s powerful use of imagery.

Identifying specific character types can also help identify the main idea of

the play. Catherine is the protagonist, a character that has to overcome an

obstacle. She is also the raisonneur, or character that knows more than the

other characters. She knows more, not only in an intellectual sense, but also

through her life experience. She has a special knowledge of how it was to live

with and take care of her father. Claire is what Thomas calls the “norm

character.” She has, “[…] successfully adjusted to the dominant social standards

in the world of the play” (111). She appears to be the emotionally stable, clear-

thinking, supportive figure in the play. Her attempts to guide Catherine to make

what she feels are the right choices lead to a falling out of their relationship. Hal

is the romantic interest and confidant. Catherine’s choice to confide in him

ultimately backfires on her and creates the central conflict in the play. As a

confidant, Hal fails miserably.

Harris 27

The most important element that crystallizes the main idea of the play is

the climax. Having previously identified the climax as the moment that Catherine

begins to explain her proof to Hal guides the reader toward a conclusion. The

main idea of Proof appears to be this: in order to carry on living a productive life,

we must learn to live with the past. This play is about Catherine and her struggle

to put her life back on track. While she wallows in the memory of her dead father

and wonders if she has inherited his mental illness, her life is falling apart. She

will not be productive until all is reconciled.

III. Dialogue Thomas feels that while the dialogue is the primary source for

understanding the play, it also possesses special qualities that deserve to be

examined. Recognizing the way in which the dialogue is written offers the reader

a greater insight into the play. Identifying certain components of dialogue, such

as the words, sentences, and their theatricality, helps to deepen the

comprehension of the play.

The words the playwright chooses can be either abstract or concrete,

formal or informal. They can contain jargon and slang or carry special

connotations that are cleverly hidden or overtly recognizable. The playwright’s

use of words creates a specific style and overall feel of the play. David Auburn

uses words that are very concrete. This is ironic when compared to the abstract

ideas of mathematical proofs. In fact, pure mathematics is entirely abstract. In

Proof, the idea of the abstract is always present while the dialogue is concrete.

Little discussion of mathematics ever takes place. His dialogue deals with the

conflict of human relationships, not mathematics. However, when the topic of

Harris 28

mathematics is mentioned, jargon is frequently used. Elliptic curves, modular

forms, Germain Primes, and Eberhart’s Conjecture mean very little to the

average person, but in Auburn’s play they can be used without explanation, due

to the fact most of the characters are advanced mathematicians. Even with

these few instances of jargon, the dialogue is easily understandable.

Three of the characters are members of the same family, Hal being the

only exception. As a result, much of the dialogue is very informal. The reader

witnesses conversations that appear very natural in a family. As a family

outsider, Hal’s dialogue is much more formal. Because Robert is Hal’s mentor

and idol, his formal speech represents his relationship of student to teacher. He

is also a polite man, especially when conversing with Catherine and Claire,

neither of whom he knows very well. Although Hal is formal near the beginning,

he is much more informal as the play develops and he becomes more

comfortable with his surroundings. Overall, the play is written in a very informal

way, which gives the reader the impression that the characters may say anything

that comes to mind.

Sentence length and complexity contribute to the style and feel of a play.

Thomas recommends counting the number of words in each sentence to find an

average. For the purposes of this analysis, the sentences on a random page

were counted and an average number of words per sentence were counted.

Examining page 23 of the script reveals that there is a total of 48 sentences

containing only 198 words, with an average of 4.125 words per sentence. This

average is indicative of most of the sentences in Proof. Auburn’s dialogue is

Harris 29

written in the form of natural conversation, allowing a quick give and take

between characters. Most sentences are only one line in length and are not very

complex. Much of the dialogue occurs during an emotionally charged argument,

which forces the characters to make their points quickly and concisely.

Finally, the theatricality of the words is another quality of the dialogue that

requires further study. Thomas states that theatricality of the dialogue “[…] refers

to those effects that are achieved only through the actors and the production

values” (138). Much of the dialogue throughout Proof is emotionally charged.

Simply reading the dialogue of these scenes cannot completely convey its

intensity. The argument between Catherine and Claire in Act I, Scene 4 provides

a good example of high emotion:

CATHERINE. He didn’t belong in the nuthouse.

CLAIRE. He might have been better off.

CATHERINE. How can you say that?

CLAIRE. This is where I’m meant to feel guilty, right?

CATHERINE. Sure, go for it.

CLAIRE. I’m heartless. My own father.

CATHERINE. He needed to be here. In his own house, near the

University, near his students, near everything that made

him happy.

CLAIRE. Maybe. Or maybe some real, professional care would

have done him more good than rattling around in a filthy

house with YOU looking after him. I’m sorry, Catherine, it’s

Harris 30

not your fault. It’s my fault for letting you do it.

CATHERINE. I was right to keep him here.

CLAIRE. No.

CATHERINE. What about his remission? Four years ago. He was

healthy for almost a year.

CLAIRE. And then he went right downhill again.

CATHERINE. He might have been worse in a hospital.

CLAIRE. And he MIGHT have been BETTER. Did he ever work

again?

CATHERINE. No.

CLAIRE. NO. (Auburn 38-39)

Auburn helps the reader understand emphasis on certain words and moments by

capitalizing them. While a certain level of intensity is apparent in the argument,

only the actors can make the scene achieve the emotional intent of the

playwright. Auburn cleverly exposes both sides of this touchy subject through

their argument. Both sisters make valid points and their banter is sharp. Not

only is the argument full of emotion, but subtext as well. Claire’s subtext

throughout the scene is that Catherine may have meant well, but it was a mistake

for her to drop out of school and stay with their father at home. Depending on

the actor’s interpretation, there may be a deeper subtext: Catherine is

responsible for their father’s early death. This subtext is not clear, but could be a

logical choice made by the actor when considering all the given circumstances

that are involved.

Harris 31

IV. Tempo, Rhythm, and Mood Thomas uses the terms tempo, rhythm, and mood to describe what

Aristotle called “music.” Tempo refers to how often information about the plot,

characters, and idea occurs in the dialogue. The rhythm of dialogue consists of

changing tensions that lead to a build up and release. Thomas defines the mood

of the play as, “[…] a particular state of persistent emotion that includes the

whole range of possible human feelings” (160). These three elements of a play

often go unnoticed when reading the play. While these parts can be identified in

the text, it is the director who has an integral part in how these elements are

implemented.

The tempo of Proof varies greatly when comparing the plot, characters,

and idea. The plot tempo of the play is slow. Much of the first act focuses on

character relationships and information. In fact, the inciting incident of the play

does not occur until the last line of Act I, when Catherine claims to have written

the proof. The character tempo is quite fast-paced. The reader quickly learns

that Catherine is a math wiz and that she is depressed for some reason. In a

particularly clever moment in the middle of the first scene, Auburn reveals that

her father, with whom she is having a conversation, is actually dead. From this

moment onward, character information moves at a blistering pace and Auburn

wastes little time distinguishing the relationships between Catherine, Claire, Hal,

and Robert. The tempo of the idea of the play is prevalent from the first line to

the last. If the previously stated main idea is, “in order to carry on living a

productive life, we must learn to live with the past,” then the tempo of this idea is

very fast. Nearly every scene depicts Catherine struggling with her past and

Harris 32

trying to move on with her life.

Auburn uses the classic style of rhythm in his play. That is, each scene

starts at a low, normal level of emotion and escalates to a moment of extremely

high emotion. He continues to build the intensity of the entire play by withholding

a resolution of the conflict in each scene. Instead, he carries the conflict over to

a later scene. Several of the conflicts are never resolved, adding to the intrigue

and leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions.

The mood in Proof is quickly established as slow at the top of the first

scene. The time is shortly past midnight and Catherine begins depressively

drinking on the porch of her house. Her father has died a week earlier and the

funeral is tomorrow. Catherine’s mood will remain somewhat constant

throughout play. There are scenes in which she is happy, especially Act 1,

Scene 4, the morning after sleeping with Hal, but her depression returns. The

primary issues in Proof deal with the death of Robert, Catherine’s struggle to

cope and move on, Claire’s persuasion to have Catherine move to New York,

and Catherine’s faltering relationship with Hal. While there are moments of

lightheartedness, these issues are serious in nature, and that is the overall mood

of the play. The reader witnesses a series of life-altering events and Catherine’s

life will never be the same. The loss of her father and her historic mathematical

proof will certainly force her to change the way in which she lives. No longer

hearing her father’s supportive words and her future fame in the mathematical

world will affect her dramatically.

V. The Style of the Play Only after examining all of the previous elements can the style of the play

Harris 33

be determined. The unique combination of these elements creates the style.

The given circumstances in Proof are revealed primarily in the first two scenes.

Time is interrupted by two flashback scenes, one in each act. The background

story consists mainly of character descriptions and feelings with a few events.

The issue of whether the plot is simple or complex is debatable. While the main

character of Catherine has a specific journey, it is unclear whether she comes to

any new understanding or has a serious reversal of fortune. She does appear to

accept Hal’s apology and accept him as a trustworthy person, but this is all the

reader sees as far as a change in her emotional personality.

Character seems to be the single most important dramatic element in the

play. The relationships between all four characters almost makes the plot seem

secondary. The main idea of the play centers around Catherine and her

relationships. Through the use of clever conversation, Auburn has created a

realistic drama about characters and events to which nearly every reader can

relate to.

By examining the elements of plot, idea, dialogue, tempo, rhythm, mood,

and style, the reader develops an understanding of Proof that would otherwise

never be attained. Each of these elements perform a crucial part in the written

play. Although some plays may focus more on one element than another, it is

the unique combination of all of these elements which fosters the creation of

great drama.

Harris 34

Character Analysis

The Role of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof

Act I, Scene 3

Harris 35

All of the characters in David Auburn’s Proof are extremely complex,

although they appear deceptively simple on the surface. Upon closer

examination and analysis, it becomes clear that the relationships between them

are intricately woven. The characters have powerful wills, creating conflicts that

tantalize the reader and audience member alike. Ultimately, the decisions that

the characters are forced to make throughout the play are based on past

experiences and their belief systems. It is important for the actor to understand

why a character responds to circumstances in a particular way. In order to attain

this understanding, an intensive study and analysis is required.

One of the acting tools employed by Sanford Meisner is the creation of a

character idea. This is a concise, playable phrase that encompasses the

essence of a character. The character idea for Hal could be comprised of any

number of words or phrases, but it must fit into the actor’s interpretation of the

character, as well as adhere to the director’s concept of the play. After careful

analysis, the character idea for Hal appears to be this: Hal is a hopeless romantic

who is constantly striving to make a historic contribution to the field of

mathematics. While the character idea is the creation of the actor, it must not be

unfounded. It is a concept that can and must be supported by the text. The

following in-depth character analysis of Hal in Proof will not only provide

credibility to the character idea, but develop the actor’s understanding of this

complex character.

Harris 36

The Aristotelian method of character analysis focuses on four main

elements: the physical, social, psychological, and moral traits. The bulk of this

character analysis will use James Thomas’ Script Analysis for Actors, Directors,

and Designers as a guide. His book provides an ample platform to complete the

social and psychological elements of character analysis. However, where

Thomas’ book falls short is in its examination of the physical and social traits of a

character. During the analysis of these two elements, the Aristotelian method will

be used.

Oscar Brockett interprets Aristotle’s first level of characterization in this

way: “The first level of characterization is physical and is concerned only with

such basic facts as sex, age, size, and color” (Brockett 39-40). David Auburn

does not provide a great deal of detail about the physical traits of Hal. In fact, the

only physical description of Hal that Auburn provides occurs with Hal’s first

entrance. Auburn writes, “Hal enters, twenty-eight, semi-hip clothes. He carries

a backpack and a jacket, folded” (Auburn 12). While this is the only description

provided by Auburn as playwright, other physical traits can be discovered from

the characters themselves.

Hal is a twenty-eight year old male that is apparently in good health and

physical shape. This assumption is formed as a result of Hal’s recommendation

to Catherine that exercise would make her feel better. He says, “Also exercise is

great. I run along the lake a couple of mornings a week” (18). His concern for a

healthy diet is revealed in the first scene with Catherine when she empties the

contents of his backpack. Auburn writes, “Catherine removes items one by one.

Harris 37

A water bottle. Some workout clothes. An orange. Drumsticks. Nothing else”

(18). All of these items reveal a character who is leading a healthy lifestyle. The

fact that drumsticks are in his possession confirms that Hal is a drummer in a

band. Among musical instruments, drums are the most physically demanding to

play. Only someone who is in good physical condition can play them effectively

for a long period of time. This would also suggest that Hal is not a klutz, realizing

the hand-eye coordination required to play the drums. It is a skill that only one

who is in control of his body can acquire.

The second level of characterization is social. It includes a character’s

level of education, social class, profession or trade, religion, and family

relationships; all of these factors that place him in his environment.

Having spent his entire life in academia, Hal is an extremely smart

individual. He has a PhD in some form of mathematical discipline. Hal is also a

professor at the University of Chicago in the math department. Ironically, while

he is extremely smart, one of Hal’s lifelong struggles is his lack of genius. His

admiration for his mentor, Robert, and his own efforts to make a significant

contribution the field of mathematics reveal this struggle. In Act I, Scene 3, Hal

discusses the quality of Robert’s work compared to his own. He says to

Catherine:

Plus the work was beautiful. It’s streamlined: no wasted moves,

like a ninety-five-mile-an-hour fastball. It’s just … elegant. […] And

that’s what you can never duplicate. At least I can’t. It’s okay. At a

Harris 38

certain point you realize that it’s not going to happen, you readjust

your expectations. I enjoy teaching. (33)

Hal’s lack of genius will add a great deal of complexity to the plot, particularly in

regards to his relationship with Catherine. When Hal refuses to believe

Catherine’s assertion that she wrote the proof, Catherine accuses Hal of being

jealous of her because he could never have the ability to create such a

document.

Many factors lead the reader to conclude that Hal is an average, middle

class citizen. The most important factor concerns itself with Hal’s profession. As

a respected professor at an esteemed university in Chicago, Hal should be

making a moderate living wage. Coupling this idea with the fact that he is single

may make Hal wealthy by social standards. Hal never mentions having financial

difficulty of any kind.

Religion and family relationships are never revealed, nor are they an issue

throughout the play. There is only one moment in the entire play that offers any

insight into Hal’s family relationship. In Act I, Scene 1, Hal says to Catherine,

“My Mom died a couple years ago and I was pretty broken up” (18). From this

single sentence, the reader could assume that Hal had a loving relationship with

his mother. This assumption would lead to the conclusion that Hal had no

childhood difficulties and probably enjoyed a normal, nuclear family. However,

an argument could be made that Hal may be lamenting the fact that he was not

very close with his mother and was feeling guilty for not reconciling his

Harris 39

differences with her before her death. There is simply not enough information

offered by Auburn to reach an indisputable conclusion.

James Thomas arranges his analysis of character into eight sections:

objectives, dramatic actions, conflicts, willpower, values, personality traits,

complexity, and relationships. By closely examining each of theses sections, the

actor can gain an extremely deep understanding of a character’s psychological

and moral traits.

One of the first elements that an actor recognizes when reading a script

are the character’s desires or objectives. A character can have many objectives

throughout a play, but one main objective can usually be identified. Stanislavski

called this one overriding desire the superobjective. This objective is the driving

force of the character. It is the one need or desire that compels all of the

character’s actions throughout the play. This main objective can be difficult to

nail down. In Proof, Hal could have two main objectives, and it may be the

interpretation of the director that ultimately guides the actor to a final choice.

While Hal is passionate in his desire to contribute to and advance the field of

mathematics in any way he can, it is also clear that he wants to develop and

nurture a romantic relationship with Catherine. Both of these objectives are very

important and either could be considered the main objective, however a decision

must be made. After closely examining the text, a strong case can be made for

the first objective. The fact that his desire to advance the field of mathematics

overrides his romantic interest in Catherine is confirmed in Act II, Scene 3. In his

confrontation with Claire, Hal is denied permission to speak with or even see

Harris 40

Catherine. Although he argues with Claire to let him speak with her, Claire

ultimately wins this clash of wills. Hal then asks Claire for the proof and she

gives it to him. This act appeases Hal and he leaves with the historic

mathematical document. Because he gives in to Claire’s denial to see Catherine

rather easily, his desire to study and publish the proof appears to supercede his

romantic interest. More confirmation occurs in the final scene. Hal says to

Catherine, “I was hoping to discuss some of this with you before you left. Purely

professional. I don’t expect anything else” (Auburn 69). Hal still cares for

Catherine in a romantic way, but learning about the proof remains a higher

priority.

Thomas defines dramatic action as, “the behavioral tactics characters use

to achieve their objectives” (Thomas 85). The number of tactics or actions that a

character uses can be virtually limitless. Characters can intimidate, threaten,

plead, bribe, beg, and charm to name only a few. The way a character goes

about achieving his objective relays a vast amount of information to the

spectator. As a mathematician, and not surprisingly, Hal uses plenty of logic in

the pursuit of his objective. His primary form of dramatic action is to convince

those people around him of the importance of his intentions. While Hal employs

this action, he is not above begging or negotiating with Catherine to allow him to

come back to the house to further his examination of Robert’s notebooks. Hal is

a person of high moral standards and does not choose any actions that could be

considered evil or malicious. This particular quality of morality that Hal

possesses will be discussed in detail later in this analysis.

Harris 41

When looking at the specific conflicts in which a character is involved, it is

helpful to determine the type of conflict. Thomas identifies two types: role

conflicts and conflicts of objectives. He writes, “Role conflicts arise specifically

from characters’ opposing views of each other” (86). The only role conflict in

which Hal might be engaged involves the perceived stereotype of a

mathematician. In the first scene with Catherine, he tries to dispel this stereotype

and present himself as a “normal” person. However, this event does not seem to

be a serious conflict. Instead, a conflict of objectives is the principal form that Hal

experiences. Catherine’s primary objective seems to be to gain Hal’s love and

he appears to reciprocate. The conflict occurs when Hal’s allegiance to the field

of mathematics forces him to place their relationship in an inferior position.

Catherine is crushed to see that she has not won Hal’s trust, and he certainly

does not want to hurt her. Unfortunately for Catherine, giving the proof its rightful

place in history is of greater importance to Hal.

Hal has no conflicts with Robert, but he does with Claire. In Act II, Scene

3, Hal enters and wishes to speak with a depressed, and perhaps ill, Catherine.

Her sister refuses to allow him to speak with her, fearing Catherine will become

even more depressed and upset.

Hal: Catherine? (Claire enters.) I thought you were leaving.

Claire: I had to delay my flight. (Beat)

Hal: Is Catherine here?

Claire: I don’t think this is a good time, Hal.

Hal: Could I see her?

Harris 42

Claire: Not now.

Hal: What’s the matter?

Claire: She’s sleeping.

Hal: Can I wait here until she gets up?

Claire: She’s been sleeping since yesterday. She won’t get up.

She won’t eat, won’t talk to me. I couldn’t go home. I’m going

to wait until she seems okay to travel.

Hal: Jesus, I’m sorry.

Claire: Yes.

Hal: I’d like to talk to her.

Claire: I don’t think that’s a good idea. (56)

This scene offers a very clear conflict of objectives between the two. Hal wishes

to make amends with Catherine and Claire wants to protect and help heal

Catherine.

The willpower of a character offers a clear demonstration of strength or

weakness. Willpower is defined by Webster’s Dictionary in an extremely concise

two words, “energetic determination” (“Willpower”). It is precisely the strength of

the character’s willpower that creates conflict in drama. The strength in Hal’s

willpower comes in the form of persistence. After Catherine tells Hal that he

cannot come back to further inspect the notebooks, he spends a great deal of

time persuading her to let him continue, and Catherine concedes. Later in the

play when Claire refuses to let Hal see Catherine, he asks Claire for the proof,

which requires a great deal of courage after the arguments that he has had with

Harris 43

both of them. In the final scene, Hal’s demonstrates his persistence once more

when he asks Catherine to discuss her proof with him. This is a very

unpredictable moment between the two. His persistence pays off when

Catherine appears to forgive Hal’s mistrust and begins to discuss her proof with

him. What makes Proof interesting is the fact that the lead character of

Catherine has very weak willpower. Her indecisiveness creates many obstacles

for the other characters in the play. It is difficult to pinpoint what Catherine’s

main objective is because of her uncertainty. Ironically, though her willpower is

weak, she poses a formidable obstacle for Hal.

As previously stated, Hal is a person of high moral standards and his

sense of right and wrong guides his every action. What distinguishes a “good”

character from a “bad” one can be found by answering a simple question: do the

character’s values change only to get what he wants, or do they remain

constant? Hal can be considered “good” because his values are deeply seated

and do not change to suit his needs. One of his most endearing values is his

profound respect for his deceased mentor. This respect is never more evident

than in the first scene of the play. Hal is trying to convince Catherine to let him

continue examining Robert’s notebooks:

Hal. I don’t have time for this but I’m going to. If you’ll let me.

(Beat) I loved your dad. I don’t believe a mind like his can just

shut down. He had lucid moments. He had a lucid year, a

whole year four years ago.

Catherine: It wasn’t a year. It was more like nine months.

Harris 44

Hal. A school year. He was advising students … I was stalled on

my PhD. I was this close to quitting. I met with your dad and he

put me on the right track with my research. I owe him. (Auburn

14-15)

Moments later, Catherine doubts Hal’s motives for wanting to examine the

notebooks:

Catherine. You’re not taking anything out of this house.

Hal. I wouldn’t do that.

Catherine. You’re hoping to find something upstairs that you can

publish.

Hal. Sure.

Catherine. Then you can write your own ticket.

Hal. What? No! It would be under your dad’s name. It would be

for your dad. (15)

Hal clearly worships and respects Robert and feels that he must do anything he

can to bring further esteem to his name. He is shocked when Catherine accuses

him of wanting to claim her father’s work as his own. Because of his strong

sense of morality, this is something that Hal could never conceive of doing.

Other characters believe in Hal’s outstanding moral values as well. When Claire

hands over the notebook to Hal for him to study, a witty exchange takes place:

Claire. Don’t worry, I understand. It’s very sweet that you want to

see Catherine but of course you want the notebook too.

Harris 45

Hal. (Huffy) It’s – No, it’s my responsibility – as a professional I

can’t turn my back on the necessity of the –

Claire. Relax. I don’t care. Take it. What would I do with it?

Hal. You sure?

Claire. Yes, of course.

Hal. You trust me with this?

Claire. Yes.

Hal. You just said I don’t know what I’m doing.

Claire. I think you’re a little bit of an idiot but you’re not dishonest.

(58)

This scene typifies Hal’s sense of duty and his respect for mathematics. He truly

believes that the pursuit of his objective is a noble one and he should do anything

he can to expose this proof to the mathematical world. His values and ideas of

morality never change throughout the play. This is not to say that Hal never

questions right or wrong; the choices he makes reflect what he truly believes is

best for everyone involved.

The next element to consider is a character’s personality traits. These

traits can be recognized by identifying certain actions and statements made by

the character. For example a personality trait that Hal possesses is loyalty. His

devotion to his mentor is evident as he studies the remaining notebooks. Hal can

also be described as hardworking and honest. Hal’s consideration for others is a

particularly charming trait that he possesses. This trait is revealed as he tries to

sneak a notebook out of the house so that he can give it to Catherine as a

Harris 46

birthday gift. Although his attempt backfires as Catherine accuses him of

stealing it, his thoughtfulness is obvious. If Hal has any negative personality

traits, it might be that he is simply too logical at times. The moment that

Catherine is trying to convince him that she wrote the proof, the “logical”

evidence is too great for Hal to believe in her. It may be best for Hal to consider

the human elements as concrete evidence as well.

How aware a character is of his surroundings, circumstances, and inner

impulses and conflicts determine his level of complexity. Characters who know

little about their circumstances and reveal little about themselves are considered

types. Thomas writes, “The most complex characters are those who are capable

of being fully aware of what happens to them and who allow us to share in their

awareness” (97). He also states that there is normally only one character that

has this much awareness, the lead character. Catherine is clearly the lead

character in the play and has this degree of awareness. There is another type of

complexity that exists between a type and a complex character called an

intermediate character. While Hal appears at first glance to be a complex

character, he is not fully aware of the entire situation. He can sympathize with

Catherine’s depression over the death of her father having lost his own mother

two years earlier, but he has no idea what it was like to live with Robert during his

illness. He is aware that there is a conflict between Catherine and Claire, but he

does not know to what extent or why they are quarreling. He fully understands

his own situation and reveals his awareness of it, but he does not see the entire

picture.

Harris 47

As revealed in the script analysis, the relationships between the four

characters in Proof provide the backbone for the entire premise of the play.

These relationships are extremely complex and not easy for an actor to

accurately convey. Hal’s relationships are no exception. A complete

examination of his relationship to the other three characters creates a deeper

understanding of the overall situation in which he exists.

It is Hal’s relationship with Robert that provides the vehicle for his

existence in the play. Hal was a student of Robert’s in the math department at

the University of Chicago. The student and teacher relationship is explored in a

flashback scene. Hal has come by to drop off a draft of his dissertation to Robert

and is extremely nervous. Robert has great confidence in Hal and tries to ease

his tension with lighthearted remarks and support. Hal’s behavior could be

described as star-struck. It is obvious that Hal completely idolizes him. The

scene is full of awkward moments for Hal and a strong desire to please Robert.

Hal is careful with his choice of words and conversation, although there is a

mutual respect among the two.

The spectator is able to witness the full extent of the relationship between

Hal and Claire. Their first meeting occurs at the end of Act I, Scene 2, in which

they are simply introduced before Hal exits to continue working on the

notebooks. The scene that demonstrates their relationship most clearly is Act II,

Scene 3. In this scene, both characters engage in a clash of wills. Hal wishes to

speak with Catherine and Claire refuses to allow him to do so. Claire clearly

doubts that Hal is truly interested in Catherine. She accuses him of taking

Harris 48

advantage of her in a weak state, an accusation Hal vehemently denies. It

becomes apparent near the end of the scene that Claire actually believes Hal is a

good person and that she was only lashing out at him due to her frustration with

Catherine’s depression. Claire is in complete control of this relationship as she

holds all of the power. Hal is left with no choice but to hope Claire will allow him

to take the proof for further study, which she does without hesitation. This is a

clear demonstration of her trust in him.

The relationship between Catherine and Hal is by far the most complex of

the three. At the heart of this complexity is a romantic interest. Even though

Hal’s main objective is dedicated to mathematics, his interest in Catherine as a

possible companion is almost as great. Their romance begins clumsily while

both of them are somewhat inebriated and tired. Hal suddenly leans over and

kisses Catherine, and an awkward moment follows. She reciprocates to his

advances at the end of the scene, claiming to have liked him since the first

moment she saw him, four years earlier. In the “morning after” scene, Hal is

trying to detect how Catherine feels about their sexual encounter. He certainly

wants her to feel good about what happened between them and breaks the

uncomfortable banter with a witty and charming comment. This scene is very

important as both characters appear to be smitten, if not falling in love with each

other. The fact that Hal is falling in love with Catherine makes the end of the

scene even more difficult for them. When Catherine gives Hal the key to the

drawer containing her proof, Hal cannot believe that she is the author. This is a

devastating event for Catherine who could not foresee that Hal would not trust

Harris 49

her word. It propels her into an week-long depression in which she sleeps

almost continuously and refuses to speak. In the final scene of the play, Hal

returns with the proof and finally gets to speak to Catherine. He explains to her

that he believes she wrote the proof and apologizes for not believing in her to

begin with. She is full of spite toward Hal, not accepting his apology until the end

of the play. This forgiveness is a clear sign that they have a chemistry that

cannot be negated nor controlled. They are drawn to each other in this way, yet

their relationship has changed on a fundamental level. Hal realizes that

Catherine is as gifted as her father, if not more so. He has become the student

of Catherine as well as her potential mate.

Only after examining all of these essentials can an actor begin to create a

character portrayal that rings true to the audience. These factors are crafted by

the playwright in a very careful manner. Perhaps Thomas summarizes it best

when he writes, “Dramatists create characters that only exist in the script. Actors

create living characterizations from the written characters” (99). Without a

thorough investigation of all of these elements, the actor only has a few pieces of

the entire puzzle. As a result, their performance cannot possibly possess the

depth that is present in a real person. It is the actor’s thorough understanding of

these elements that allows him to capture and expose a character’s inner life.

Harris 50

The Character From the Text

Act I, Scene 3

Harris 51

The Character From the Text

What the Playwright Says About Hal Act I, Scene 1 Hal enters, twenty-eight, semi-hip clothes. He carries a backpack and a jacket, folded. He lets the door bang shut. Act I, Scene 3 After a moment, Hal comes out. He wears a dark suit. He has taken off his tie. He is sweaty and revved up from playing [the drums]. He holds two bottles of beer. Hal stares at her. He suddenly kisses her, then stops, embarrassed. He moves away. Beat. Catherine goes to him. She kisses him. A longer kiss. It ends. Hal is surprised and pleased. Act I, Scene 4 Hal enters, half-dressed. He walks up behind her quietly. She hears him and turns. Hal enters, holding a notebook. He is nearly speechless. He stares at Catherine. Act II, Scene 1 Catherine goes inside to answer the door. She returns with Hal. He carries a manila envelope. He is nervous. Act II, Scene 5 Hal enters – not through the house, from the side. He is badly dressed and looks very tired. He is breathless from running.

What Hal Says About Himself Act I, Scene 1 To Catherine: My Mom died a couple of years ago and I was pretty broken up. Also my work wasn’t going that well … I went over and talked to this doctor. I saw her for a couple of months and it really helped. […] Also exercise is great. I run along the lake a couple of mornings a week. Act I, Scene 3 To Catherine: Mathematicians are insane. I went to this conference in Toronto last fall. I’m young, right? I’m in shape, I thought I could hang with the big boys.

Harris 52

Wrong. I’ve never been so exhausted in my life. Forty-eight straight hours of partying, drinking, drugs, papers, lectures … To Catherine: Yeah. Amphetamines, mostly. I mean I don’t. Some of the older guys are really hooked. To Catherine: [My mathematical work] is not exactly setting the world on fire. To Catherine: My papers get turned down. For the right reasons – my stuff is trivial. The big ideas aren’t there. Act I, Scene 4 To Catherine: I want to spend the day with you if possible. I’d like to spend as much time with you as I can unless of course I’m coming on way too strong right now and scaring you in which case I’ll begin backpedaling immediately … Act II, Scene 3 (In reference to he and Catherine’s broken love affair) To Claire: I wasn’t jerking her around. It just happened. To Claire: No. It’s what we both wanted. I didn’t mean to hurt her.

What Other Characters Say About Hal Robert Act I, Scene 1 He’s not my student anymore. He’s teaching now. Bright kid. Act II, Scene 1 Hal is a grad student. He’s doing his PhD, very promising stuff. Catherine Act I, Scene 1 HE’s dead; I don’t need any protégés around. Act I, Scene 2 Claire: Is Harold Dobbs your boyfriend? Catherine: What? Euughh! No! He’s a math geek! Act I, Scene 2 Claire: That’s Harold Dobbs? Catherine: Yes.

Harris 53

Claire: He’s cute. Catherine: (Disgusted) Eugh. Claire Act II, Scene 3 You’re the reason she’s up there right now! You have no idea what she needs. You don’t know her! She’s my sister. Jesus, you fucking mathematicians: You don’t think. You don’t know what you’re doing. You stagger around creating these catastrophes and it’s people like me who end up flying in to clean them up. Act II, Scene 3 I think you’re a little bit of an idiot but you’re not dishonest.

Harris 54

Conclusion

Act I, Scene 3

Harris 55

After all of the hard work and analysis that went into the production of

Proof, I must conclude that all of the roles are deceptively difficult to create.

What appears to be a straight forward character with clear-cut objectives and

actions, is really an incredibly complex human being with a variety of needs and

desires. A range of methods were used to create the role of Hal and all of them

proved helpful in one way or another.

The first thing I did to prepare for this role was to read the play many

times. I am proud to say that I had read the play at least three times before the

first rehearsal. One of those readings was entirely aloud, stage directions

included. Kristine Holtvedt was absolutely correct when she says that reading

the play aloud can lead to many discoveries. By reading the stage directions

aloud, it somehow seems to solidify exactly what is happening. They are no

longer just words on the page, but they come alive. This allowed me to

understand the given circumstances on a much deeper level.

Without a doubt, the best tool utilized in the creation of Hal was the in-

depth script analysis using the Aristotelian method along with James Thomas’

book Script Analysis for Actors, Directors, and Designers. Only by examining

and understanding each of the elements that make up a complex character can

an actor begin to understand the inner life of that character. Without knowledge

of the most intricate details, the character cannot be fully realized. There will

always be something missing, and the audience will be able to see that fact.

The character analysis itself also helped me in ways I can’t describe.

Focusing on the physical, social, psychological, and moral traits is a wonderful

Harris 56

and efficient way to break down a character. When the actor understands all of

the elements that encompass these traits, it makes the actual performance much

easier. The actor can then work strictly on the moment to moment work with

their partner because all of the analysis has lead to a firm understanding of the

circumstances. The actor knows what he is striving for and can do that, rather

than have all of the thoughts present when the research has not been done

properly.

Before entering Purdue University, I was familiar with other methods used

to analyze scripts and characters. However, one of the areas in which I had very

little knowledge was stage movement. This was the first time that I had used all

of the methods that Rich Rand had taught us in his movement classes. I must

also say that until I used the application of this knowledge for Hal, it had failed to

be a method that worked for me. The idea of time, weight, space, flow was very

beneficial in creating this character. The moment that this method became the

most useful was in the examination of Hal as a nervous student as compared to

Hal as the confident professor. The moment in which the play goes back in time

to give the audience a glimpse of the past was very important. It also needed to

be clear that it was a different time, and that these were different people. Just as

we change over a four year period, Hal did too. By examining how his body

movement would have changed over that time, I feel that I was successful in

portraying the younger Hal. Without saying a word, the audience was able to see

that he was a much different person than they had seen up to that point. It is this

Harris 57

analysis that helped me achieve this success. It proved to be invaluable to me

during the entire process.

The research for this character was rather interesting. The first thing that I

decided to do was to brush up on my math skills. I felt it was necessary that I

understand what I was talking about when I used mathematical jargon. I began

my research by reading many books on number theory, proof creation and

reading, non-linear operator theory, etc (see page 143). What I found after

examining these books was one thing: I’ll never understand these concepts. I

am a theatre person, and, as a result, I am hardly mathematically inclined. I did

complete trigonometry, physics, geometry and algebra in high school, but that is

the extent of my mathematical prowess. The scores of my undergraduate level

math courses can verify that I am not a mathematical thinker. As rehearsal

carried on, the more I began to realize that it truly did not matter if I understood

what the math was about. This is a relationship play; perhaps it would be more

important to understand the way a mathematician thinks rather than his trade.

Before I left for the summer, I spoke briefly with Jeff Casazza and he told

me of a book that might be helpful to me, A Mathematician’s Apology, by G.H.

Hardy. It is written by a genius mathematician near the end of his life. It is a

rather sad book, as his desire to continue doing math is incredibly strong, but the

mental capacity to do so no longer exists for him. However, this book would

prove to be one of the most helpful items of research in the creation of this

character. Aside from the many memorable quotes, the most important

discovery I made was that mathematicians see their field as an art form. It is not

Harris 58

simply about making new discoveries, it is how they arrive at those discoveries

and how they are documented. A great proof will indeed be “[…] streamlined: no

wasted moves, like a ninety-five-mile-an-hour fastball. It’s just … elegant”

(Auburn 33). A mathematician can only think in mathematical ways. The

mathematicians of genius have difficulty communicating to the average person.

It has been said that having a non-mathematical conversation with Albert

Einstein was an exercise in futility. It was this idea that lead me to the conclusion

that Hal would have the same difficulty, not that he was in any way a genius, but

that logic ruled his thinking and his life. The best example of this in the play

occurs when Hal refuses to believe that Catherine wrote the proof. He should

have listened to his heart and emotions, rather than allowing logic to be the

decision maker. He is logical to a fault.

Shortly after the second week of rehearsal, my wife Carla and I drove up

to Chicago to visit the Hyde Park neighborhood. Having lived in Chicago for two

years, I was familiar with the architecture and layout of the neighborhoods,

however, I had never visited Hyde Park nor the University of Chicago. I was

impressed by the old houses. One of the discoveries that I made on my tour was

just how far away the residential areas are from the university. To sprint from the

math building to the area in which Catherine lived would leave the runner

gasping for breath. They are quite a distance away from each other. I was able

to use this for the final scene when Hal enters the porch after sprinting from the

school. It seems simple enough, but actually driving the distance allowed me to

Harris 59

playback those images in my mind before the scene. It simply allowed me to

enter into the world of the play more completely.

While the Meisner Technique can be used with any acting endeavor, I

think that Proof is especially receptive of its methods. The deeply involved

relationships and the many two-person scenes provide a wonderful opportunity

for moment to moment work. This technique, along with the other methods of

analysis I have learned during my time at Purdue University will, without a doubt,

help me to create more complex and complete characters in the future. I cannot

thank the performance faculty enough for all that I have learned.

Harris 60

Appendix A

Essence Sheet Word or Phrase Associations

Time, Weight, Space, Flow Analysis

Act II, Scene 1 – Flashback scene, four years earlier

Harris 61

Essence Sheet The Character of Harold Dobbs (Hal) in David Auburn’s Proof

Questions: 1. The world is a place where – everything is ordered. Mathematics are the key

to answering what we think is unanswerable. 2. The reason I have survived is – because I have a mathematical mind that

could potentially discover something great. I am respected in my field and that allows me to continue teaching at the University, but most people know that I will never create something meaningful.

3. The one thing I can never lose is – the hope that I can make a brilliant

discovery. Although it is becoming more and more evident that this discovery will never take place, I must never lose the idea that it could still happen.

4. If I could have lived in another time – I would have loved to actually witness

Einstein write his Theory of Relativity. To be in the same room with a mind like that would leave me awestruck.

5. I always wished that – I could be truly great at something. I am good at

mathematics, but not great. As G.H. Hardy said in his book, A Mathematician’s Apology, very few people are “great” at what they do. I wish I was.

6. If I could change one thing about my appearance – I wouldn’t change

anything. If there is one thing in my life that I have always been satisfied with it is my appearance. I am who I am.

7. The thing that I regret most in life is – not being gifted. 8. If I had my life to do over – I would try to live my life with my heart more than

my head. I often think too much and don’t rely on my instincts. Word or Phrase Associations Verb: Wandering – While he still possess an incredible mathematical mind, he is lost in his field. He knows that he may never make the breakthrough that he desires, but he continues to stumble through, aimlessly hoping to find the way. Adjective: Tangential – He thinks and acts impulsively at times. His mind races from one thought to the next, sometimes having no relation with each other.

Harris 62

Noun: Geyser. While reliable and magnificent at times, it always tumbles back to earth. It can only go so high. Color: Blue – Hal is a calm person for the most part and reason permeates his every pore. Object: Park Fountain – While the fountain is beautiful, it is scattered and can only reach a limited height before falling back to earth. Mode of Transportation: The El – It is constantly starting and stopping. It also changes track rapidly at times, taking the occupants in different directions in a jarring way. Type of Weather: The eye of the storm. While the world around him is chaotic and hectic at times, he almost always maintains a sense of calm. Favorite part of the body: The head. It contains the answers to everything. Least favorite part of the body: The heart. It gets in the way of logical thought. Time, Weight, Space, Flow Act I, Scene 1 Time: Sustained at the beginning of the scene, quicker toward the end. Weight: Strong. Space: Direct. Flow: Free. The time is shortly after midnight. Hal has been working on Robert’s

notebooks for many hours and he is on his way to play the drums in his band.

He must be tired from the tedious examination of the notebooks, yet not so tired

that he can’t play at the club. His band is “Way down the bill, they’re probably

going on around two, two-thirty” (14). His time is sustained for the first half of the

scene, especially because he is tired from the tedious work he has just

completed. Once the notebook falls out of his jacket and is revealed to Catherine,

time becomes very quick. She is calling the police to inform them that he is

Harris 63

robbing her house. He needs to explain quickly to have her hang up the phone.

Time is, quite literally, running out for him.

His weight is strong throughout the scene. Many reasons exist for his

strength. Firstly, he is trying to convince her to allow him to come back to her

house to further examine Robert’s notebooks. Any moment that he becomes

light in his movements will be perceived as weakness from Catherine. Hal

realizes this and must remain confident yet not too demanding to try to get his

way. Secondly, Hal is interested in Catherine in a romantic way, at least, he

finds her attractive. His weight must remain strong to dispel the stereotype that

mathematicians are geeks.

Hal’s movement through space is direct. Hal seems interested in

Catherine in a romantic way almost immediately. What appears to be idol chat is

really Hal’s way of flirting with Catherine. She offers him some champagne and

he accepts at first. When he realizes that she will not be drinking some with him,

he then declines. Hal clearly knows what he wants in this scene and goes

directly after it, never faltering.

The flow of the character is either bound or free. This choice is an

important one which may make the character appear comfortable or

uncomfortable, strict or relaxed, or in control or being controlled, to name a few.

Hal’s movement is more bound in this scene, creating a feeling of tension in him.

He is fighting to return to the house so that he may continue to study the

potentially important documents. Catherine’s thwarts his persuasiveness

repeatedly, making him feel uncomfortable and controlled.

Harris 64

Act I, Scene 3 Time: Sustained. Weight: Light. Space: Direct. Flow: Free.

This scene presents the actor with some of the more difficult physical

decisions in the play. Hal confesses after kissing Catherine that he is a little

drunk, and indeed the moment seems awkward. Because of this slight

drunkenness, Hal’s normal physical attributes will be altered and impaired. This

is particularly tricky because Hal must appear inebriated, yet truthful in his

attraction to Catherine.

Time is sustained throughout the entire scene. Neither character is in a

hurry to do anything. It has been a very long funeral reception/party and Hal has

been playing drums with his band for the occasion. Time gives the impression

that it moves very slowly and moments tend to linger between the two.

Hal’s weight is light due to his inebriation. His balance is shifted from its

normal center and he only appears grounded after he sits with Catherine on the

porch. His reason for appearing on the porch adds to his lightness. His mood is

hopeful as he anticipates speaking with her, perhaps flirting with her some more.

Hal moves directly through space. He enters the scene with two beers,

one for Catherine and one for himself. He has obviously arrived on the porch

only to see her. His actions are deliberate, especially the moment in which he

kisses Catherine. Auburn describes the moment in this way: “Hal stares at her.

He suddenly kisses her, then stops, embarrassed. He moves away” (31). His

kiss is quick and direct, catching Catherine off her guard. This direct movement

Harris 65

through space pays off for Hal at the end as Catherine reciprocates to his

romantic advance.

At the top of the scene, Auburn writes that Hal enters “sweaty and revved-

up from playing” (29). This energy allows Hal to move in a free flowing manner.

The alcohol also adds to his courageous attempt to kiss Catherine. Virtually all

of his inhibitions are gone in this scene, freeing him from his normal movement

pattern.

Act I, Scene 4 Time: Begins with sustained, ends with quick. Weight: Begins with strong, ends with light. Space: Begins with indirect, ends with direct. Flow: Begins with bound, ends with free.

This scene takes place the morning after Catherine and Hal have slept

together. It contains some of the awkwardness that one might expect after

having such an encounter. There is no evidence that Hal is experiencing a

hangover from the previous night’s festivities. Although Hal is involved in this

scene for only a short time at the beginning and end, his movement changes the

most drastically.

Hal’s movement begins with a sustained relationship to time. That is, it is

the lazy morning after a long party and no character is moving quickly. Near the

end however, he is moving quite quickly as he tries to uncover more information

about the proof he has found.

His weight near the beginning is heavy. He just woke up and is not fully

alert. Near the end, however, his weight is light as a feather. He is on cloud nine

due to the incredible discovery he has made.

Harris 66

His relationship to space is indirect at the top of the scene. He is very

unsure of how Catherine will respond to him after their night of passion. The

morning after awkwardness is scattering Hal’s movement. When Hal returns to

the scene with the proof, he is extremely direct. He makes a bee-line straight for

Catherine to talk to her about the historical proof.

The flow is bound at the top of the scene. Hal doesn’t know what to make

of the morning after. He moves in an uncertain, methodical manner, not wanting

to cause any discomfort to Catherine. Upon his return with the proof, however,

his flow is free. He is ecstatic about the discovery of this document. In a way,

Hal himself has been liberated by this proof. He will be a part of history.

Act II, Scene 1 Time: Quick. Weight: Light. Space: Indirect. Flow: Bound.

The top of Act II is a flashback to a scene that occurred four years earlier.

Hal is extremely nervous about giving his mentor, Robert, the first draft of his

thesis. Every time that Hal is around Robert, he is awestruck. Hal worships

Robert and as a result, he is willing to become too comfortable in the unfamiliar

environment of Robert’s home.

Time moves very quickly to Hal at this point in his life. As a graduate

student working on his thesis, he has very little time for recreational activities and

his life is run by the watch on his wrist.

Hal’s weight is light throughout the scene. He moves rather quickly and

nervously, often impulsively. He follows Robert around as if he is a lost puppy,

Harris 67

but he does not want Robert to witness his nervousness, so he tries to create the

façade of casualness.

Hal moves very indirectly throughout the scene. He is in unfamiliar

territory and is uncertain as to whether he made the right decision to drop by

unannounced. His nervousness forces him to move uncertainly. His

indirectness is compounded by his poor timing of entering the scene in the

middle of an argument.

His flow is bound because he is not free to move or do as he chooses.

There is a very rigid code of relationship that he must follow while in the

presence of Robert. While Hal would like this moment to be one of casual

friendship, he cannot allow himself to appear disrespectful of Robert; indeed, this

may be his biggest fear. As a result, he appears bound and uncomfortable in this

setting.

Act II, Scene 2 Time: Quick. Weight: Strong. Space: Direct. Flow: Bound.

This scene is the most pivotal for Hal and his relationship with Catherine.

It begins an instant after the end of Act I, Scene 4. Ultimately, Hal refuses to

believe Catherine’s claim that she is the author of the proof, a moment that

devastates Catherine. Hal has betrayed her trust and he realizes this.

The moments come very quickly in this scene. Time is flying by at an

incredible rate of speed. This gives Hal very little time to think about what he

Harris 68

should say and do. As a result, Hal may act impulsively, creating a damaging rift

in his relationship with Catherine.

Although Hal is uncomfortable and tries to be gentle with Catherine’s

feelings, his weight is very strong. He is firm in his belief that Robert wrote the

proof and he is unsure why Catherine is claiming authorship. He must convince

her to drop her claim and let the rightful creator of the proof receive the credit.

He stands his ground and refuses to back down.

Hal does not mix words or intention in this scene. Once he knows what he

should do with the proof, he is extremely direct, driving toward his goal both

verbally and physically. There is no doubt in his mind that his idea to let other

math professors determine the authorship is the best thing to do.

Several factors force Hal’s flow to be bound in this scene, the most

significant of which are his feelings for Catherine. He does not want the previous

night to be a one-night stand, but he is troubled by her claim. Catherine must be

doing this for selfish reasons, or, maybe she really did write the proof. If the later

is the case, he must handle the situation with the utmost ease, as a bomb squad

handles a mysteriously wrapped package in a parking lot. This task requires that

Hal’s flow be bound, and deliberate.

Act II, Scene 3 Time: Sustained. Weight: Light. Space: Begins with direct, ends with indirect. Flow: Bound. This scene takes place the day after Hal’s terrible argument with

Catherine. He has come back to apologize and try to work things out with her,

Harris 69

but Claire informs him that she is too depressed and will not speak to anyone.

Hal tries to get Claire to allow him to speak to Catherine, but she refuses. Claire

then confronts Hal about his intentions toward Catherine and an argument

erupts.

Time moves slowly throughout the scene. Unlike most of his other

scenes, he is not concerned with time. He only wants to make things right with

Catherine. The moments between Claire and him are slow and sustained.

Claire surprises Hal by attacking him, keeping him off-balance. As a

result, his weight is quick. He is forced to dance around Claire’s questions in a

verbal sense and this translates into his physicality. He must be able to move

quickly in order to avoid Claire’s arrows.

Hal has no idea what to do in this scene. At the beginning of the scene,

he moves through space in a very direct manner. He is seeking to talk to

Catherine, regardless of any circumstances. Even after Claire comes out of the

house and tells him that she had to delay her flight, Hal continues to pursue his

objective in a very direct manner, moving in the same way. After Claire verbally

attacks him for sleeping with Catherine, Hal is shaken, unbalanced, and

uncertain. His movement reflects these aspects and becomes very indirect.

When Hal learns of Catherine’s depression, he feels responsible. His flow

becomes very bound, almost paralyzing. He knows that he hurt Catherine, but it

is only now that he realizes just how much.

Act II, Scene 5 Time: Begins with quick, ends with sustained. Weight: Strong.

Harris 70

Space: Direct. Flow: Free.

The scene begins moments before Catherine’s departure for New York.

Hal enters the scene after running to her house from the University. He is

ecstatic about the confirmation that the proof works. He is rushing over to

Catherine’s house to tell her the good news as well as try to smooth things over

with her.

His relationship to time upon his entrance is quick. He is afraid that

Catherine has already left and time is of the essence. He must speak to her

before she leaves for New York. The fact that he sees Claire leaving through the

front only adds to his fear that Catherine has already left.

Hal’s weight is strong throughout the scene. He is determined to make

things right with Catherine as well as talk to her about the proof. Several times

during the scene, Catherine dismisses him, yet he refuses to back down. His will

is strong and that is reflected in his weight.

Hal is very direct in this scene. He knows what he must do and moves

directly toward Catherine with no hesitation. In fact, this is the only scene where

Hal literally states his objective when he says, “Come on, Catherine. I’m trying to

correct things.” There is no veiling of words or actions.

Although the stakes are very high for Hal, his flow is quite free. The

knowledge that the proof works has placed him in a moment of historical

significance. He is liberated by this fact and his movements are free.

Harris 71

Appendix B

Scene Breakdown

Proof Set, Evening Shot

Harris 72

Scene Breakdown The Role of Hal in David Auburn’s Proof

A. Act I

I. Scene 1

a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance. Ends with Catherine’s “Good.”

1. Objective – To get to know an acquaintance.

2. Actions used:

i. To befriend.

ii. To prod.

iii. To persist.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s depressed state.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “When should I come back?” Ends with

Catherine: “No. I’M not crazy.”

1. Objective – To get Catherine to allow him to continue his

examination of her father’s notebooks.

2. Actions used:

i. To convince.

ii. To justify.

iii. To persuade.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s assumption that none of the notebooks

contain any mathematical significance.

c. Beat 3 – Starts with Hal: “Well, I’m going to be late.” Ends with

Catherine: “No thanks.”

1. Objective – To get Catherine to accompany him to the nightclub.

2. Actions used:

i. To impress.

ii. To joke.

iii. To negate.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s depressed state.

d. Beat 4 – Starts with Hal: “All right. Look, Catherine, Monday: What do

you say?” Ends with Hal: “I’m not. I’m telling you if I came up with

Harris 73

one-tenth of the shit your dad produced, I could write my own ticket to

any math department in the country.”

1. Objective – To get Catherine to allow him to continue his

examination of her father’s notebooks.

2. Actions used:

i. To flatter.

ii. To convince.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s belief that Hal is wasting his time.

e. Beat 5 – Starts with Catherine: “Give me your backpack.” Ends with

Catherine: “So you don’t need to come back.”

1. Objective – To convince Catherine of his honesty.

2. Actions used:

i. To dismiss.

ii. To dispute.

iii. To assure.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s continued demand to look into his

backpack.

f. Beat 6 – Starts with Hal: “Please. Someone should know for sure

whether …” Ends with Catherine: “You can come tomorrow.”

1. Objective – To convince Catherine to allow him to continue his

examination of her father’s notebooks.

2. Actions used:

i. To console.

ii. To comfort.

iii. To doubt.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s insistence that she would be able to discern

valuable mathematical information.

g. Beat 7 – Starts with Hal: “The University health service is, uh, very

good.” Ends with Catherine: “Wait, your coat.”

1. Objective – To ensure Catherine’s emotional stability.

2. Actions used:

Harris 74

i. To advise.

ii. To offer.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s insistence that she doesn’t need help.

h. Beat 8 – Starts with Catherine: “I’m PARANOID?” Ends with Hal:

“There’s more.”

1. Objective – To get Catherine to stop calling the police and listen to

him.

2. Actions used:

i. To calm.

ii. To demand.

iii. To plead.

iv. To reveal.

v. To apologize.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s intent to call the police on Hal.

i. Beat 9 – Starts with Hal: “Machinery not working yet but I am patient.”

Ends with Hal’s exit.

1. Objective – To prove to Catherine that his intentions were good and

honest.

2. Actions used:

i. To read.

ii. To confess.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s mistrust of Hal.

II. Scene 2

a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal: “Catherine?” Ends with Hal’s exit.

1. Objective – To receive permission to continue his examination of

Robert’s notebooks.

2. Actions used:

i. To defuse.

3. Obstacle – The current argument between Catherine and Claire.

III. Scene 3

Harris 75

a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance. Ends with the transitional moment

into Hal kissing her.

1. Objective – To pursue his romantic interest in Catherine.

2. Actions used:

i. To comfort.

ii. To compliment.

iii. To impress.

iv. To flirt.

3. Obstacle – Internal: His fear that Catherine may not reciprocate.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “Sorry. I’m a little drunk.” Ends with Hal’s

“Yeah” after Catherine’s “Back to the drums.”

1. Objective – To cover up his possible mistake.

2. Actions used:

i. To apologize.

ii. To agree.

3. Obstacle – Internal: His fear that his mistake may be irreparable.

c. Beat 3 – Starts with Catherine: “And your own research.” Ends with

Catherine: “Have you tried speed? I’ve heard it helps.”

1. Objective – To gain sympathy from Catherine.

2. Actions used:

i. To confide.

ii. To resign.

3. Obstacle – Internal: His own fear that Catherine will not sympathize

with him.

d. Beat 4 – Starts with Catherine: “So Hal.” Ends with the scene.

1. Objective – To explore the romantic possibilities with Catherine.

2. Actions Used:

i. To charm.

ii. To flatter.

iii. To kiss.

3. Obstacle – None.

Harris 76

IV. Scene 4

a. Beat 1 – Starts at top of scene. Ends with Hal: “[…] unless of course

I’m coming on way to strong right now and scaring you in which case

I’ll begin backpedaling immediately …”

1. Objective – To ensure that Catherine feels the same way about him

as he does for her.

2. Actions used:

i. To invite.

ii. To test.

iii. To confess.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s seemingly standoffish behavior.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “What’s this?” Ends with Hal’s exit.

1. Objective – To determine what the key is about.

2. Actions used:

i. To inquire.

ii. To kiss.

3. Obstacle – None.

c. Beat 3 – Starts with Hal’s re-entrance. Ends with the scene.

1. Objective – To celebrate a historical discovery.

2. Actions used:

i. To thank.

ii. To claim.

iii. To explain.

iv. To acclaim.

3. Obstacle – Claire’s failure to recognize the significance of the

moment.

B. Act II

I. Scene 1

a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance. Ends with the transitional moment

into Robert’s “Happy Birthday.”

1. Objective – To deliver his thesis draft and impress his mentor.

Harris 77

2. Actions used:

i. To apologize.

ii. To make conversation.

iii. To encourage.

iv. To inquire.

3. Obstacle – His inability to understand Catherine and Robert’s

relationship.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Robert: “Happy Birthday.” Ends with Hal’s exit.

1. Objective – To politely leave Catherine and Robert to themselves.

2. Actions used:

i. To hide.

ii. To make an excuse.

iii. To avoid.

3. Obstacle – Robert and Catherine’s request that he join them for

dinner.

II. Scene 2

a. Beat 1 – Starts at top of scene. Ends with Catherine: “You’re

supposed to be a scientist.”

1. Objective – To determine the validity of Catherine’s claim of

authorship.

2. Actions used:

i. To avoid.

ii. To pacify.

iii. To justify.

iv. To nullify.

3. Obstacle – His fear of hurting Catherine’s feelings.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “You’re right.” Ends with Hal: “It’s your

father’s handwriting.”

1. Objective – To get Catherine to agree to allow him to take the proof

to the University of Chicago for examination.

2. Actions used:

Harris 78

i. To compel.

ii. To assure.

iii. To advocate.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s refusal to allow him to take the proof.

c. Beat 3 – Starts with Hal: “At least it looks an awful lot like the writing in

the other books.” Ends with Hal’s exit.

1. Objective – To convince Catherine that the evidence shows she

didn’t write the proof.

2. Actions used:

i. To present.

ii. To explain.

iii. To convince.

iv. To glorify.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s insistence of authorship.

III. Scene 3

a. Beat 1 – Begins at top of scene. Ends with Claire: “That’s the deal.”

1. Objective – To see and talk to Catherine.

2. Actions used:

i. To ask.

ii. To compel.

iii. To defend.

iv. To repel.

3. Obstacle – Claire’s refusal to allow him to see her.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “Okay.” Ends with the scene.

1. Objective – To take the proof to the University of Chicago.

2. Actions used:

i. To explain.

ii. To assure.

3. Obstacle – Claire’s obvious disapproval of Hal.

IV. Scene 5

a. Beat 1 – Starts with Hal’s entrance

Harris 79

1. Objective – To get forgiveness from Catherine for doubting her

word.

2. Actions used:

i. To praise.

ii. To apologize.

iii. To convince.

iv. To encourage.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s grudge against him for doubting her.

b. Beat 2 – Starts with Hal: “So Claire sold the house?” Ends with the

curtain.

1. Objective – To get Catherine to stay in Chicago

2. Actions used:

i. To compliment.

ii. To agree.

iii. To reassure.

iv. To praise.

v. To uplift.

vi. To encourage.

3. Obstacle – Catherine’s decision to move to NYC.

Harris 80

Harris 81

Harris 82

Harris 83

Harris 84

Harris 85

Harris 86

Harris 87

Harris 88

Harris 89

Harris 90

Harris 91

Harris 92

Harris 93

Harris 94

Harris 95

Harris 96

Harris 97

Harris 98

Harris 99

Harris 100

Harris 101

Harris 102

Appendix C

Audition Journal Rehearsal Journal

Act II, Scene 5

Harris 103

Audition Journal

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

It sure has been nice having a relaxing break before I depart to

Tecumseh! for the summer. It has provided me with some time to digest all that I

have learned in the previous year and reflect on my audition. I have to say that I

was thrilled with all of the roles that I received. I told Carla that I felt like the

general audition was one of the best auditions I have ever given, including

professionally. I chose to perform Richard of Gloucester from King Henry VI –

Part III and a monologue that I have had in my rep for over 10 years, “Sylvio’s

Monologue” from Pvt. Wars. This was the first time that I had used the Richard

monologue in an audition. Originally, it was given to me as a class project by

Rick Lee and I had only worked the language of it with him. Performing it was a

lot different. I am really passionate about it and enjoy performing it immensely

and I think that it shows. Auditors love to see people enjoy performing a piece as

well as nail the character. As far as Sylvio went, I found a lot more humor in the

piece than I ever have before. I think that the humor was always there, I just

tended to play the laugh before coming here. Having Sylvio pursue an objective

and focus on that solely made the comedy jump out even more. I had learned

that about comedy long ago, especially after my dinner theatre experiences, but I

think I had performed the monologue so many times that I forgot about the

basics. It was nice to see that the monologue still works and I feel that it has a

new life in my repertoire. There was a strange feeling among all of the graduate

actors during the callbacks. Tensions were high as everyone hoped they would

Harris 104

receive a great thesis role. Unfortunately, there were several episodes by a

particular graduate actor that can only be considered less than professional. As

a result of the dramas created by that individual, I spent most of my time by

myself in a corner of the basement, preparing for my reading. I liked having that

privacy. I felt extremely focused and I’m sure that several people thought I was

being rude by not speaking to them or joking around with them. The following

are my feelings on each callback.

Proof

I wanted the part of Hal very much, unfortunately, I wasn’t called back for

it. I have to admit that I was very surprised that I wasn’t. Many people

expressed their surprise to me as well. I was called back for the father, which we

all thought wasn’t available to us; there had been rumors of bringing someone in

for that role. Anyway, I prepared during the day for this callback and I was

determined to get the part of the father. I thought I read very well for this part,

although I still felt that Jeff wasn’t taking us (all who were called for that role)

seriously. I mean that we all had a sense that an older man would play the role,

somehow, someway. After my reading of the father, Jeff said that he would like

me to read for Hal and that, “I know that you weren’t called back for that, but I

really would like to see you read for him.” I was glad that he asked me to read

for Hal without me requesting it of him. I prepared the reading in the hallway and

was foaming at the mouth to win this role. After the reading, I was proud of what

I had done and thought that Jeff responded well to my performance. All of us

knew that there was simply no way to know what would happen. The truth be

Harris 105

told, I really felt like there was no way for me to get the role of Hal, especially

since I wasn’t called back for it originally. I wrote it off in my mind. I was stunned

when I read my name beside Hal on the cast list. I cannot wait to play this role. I

will choose this part to be my thesis role.

The Cherry Orchard

I really don’t like this play and I have to confess my disappointment when

it was announced as part of next year’s season. We had studied the play in

THTR 671 and I expressed my dislike for it in that class. In fact, there were only

two or three graduate actors that liked the show and looked forward to doing it. I

thought that I would have been called back for Lopakhin and I was surprised to

see that I was the only graduate male not called for that role. After reading for

the student, Rich Rand said to me, “Yeah … out of all the roles that I called you

back for, I thought this one would be the one that you would least likely play.” My

first thought was well, “you only called me back for two parts so that pretty much

narrows it down for me.” I knew from that moment that I would be playing

Yepichodov. I knew that I still had to win the part and I didn’t take it for granted –

I just knew that I would win the part. I understood the comedy of Yepichodov, but

Rich forced me to examine the other side of him as well. I was pretty confident

that I had the part. In fact, I was surprised to find that I had figured out the

casting for that show for the most part.

King Lear

I had pushed for the casting of King Lear before the summer because I felt

like this show was the most likely to provide my thesis role and I wasn’t alone.

Harris 106

My thinking was this: I knew I wouldn’t be in Proof and I didn’t want my thesis

role to be in The Cherry Orchard, so it was vital to me that casting occur. I

wanted the summer to write the bulk of my monograph so I had to know my role.

I, along with many others were relieved to hear that casting would take place for

this show. I went into this callback with reckless abandon. I wanted Edmond or

Kent I was determined to win one of them. These callbacks were rather

interesting and had other possible repercussions. The fact that Peter Forster is a

professional director in Chicago definitely raised the bar. Don’t get me wrong, we

work hard in callbacks for our professors as well, but after two years of classes,

we know that they can’t help but weigh our previous work as a factor in casting.

We met with the director for an hour before the actual callback to work on text

and do some exercises. He seemed very personable yet too soft-spoken. We

did a warm-up exercise that relaxed us all because of its familiarity. Moving

through the space, he would call out different effort actions that we would adopt.

After the warm-up, things became a lot more difficult. He had us perform an

exercise that forced us to focus on anything but the meaning of the

Shakespearean text. Lined up onstage, we would have to say certain words in

unison, move around the stage only on the verbs, stomp our feet with any

punctuation and many, many more complications. It was very difficult to

concentrate on all of the things he wanted us to do. The point was that the

meaning of the line will come through if we understand how the line works,

structurally. He really demonstrated his knowledge of Shakespeare. After a

short break, the actual callbacks began. Peter ran his callbacks in an extremely

Harris 107

efficient manner. After performing my Richard monologue for him, he asked me

to read Edmond. I thought that I read for that role pretty well and then he asked

me to read Kent. I was delighted to be asked to read the two parts that I wanted.

I really thought that I would get Edmond, but in the end, Kent was the role for me.

I look forward to the challenge of playing this role.

Rehearsal Journal

Sunday, August 24, 2003

Wow. I can’t believe that I just had my first rehearsal for Proof. I am still

working at Tecumseh! and I had to drive all the way to Lafayette for an eight hour

rehearsal. I am so glad to be working on a show other than Tecumseh!. I didn’t

mind the drive. I was quite tired during the second four-hour session, but I am

more than willing to deal with the tiredness if it means keeping the role. I can’t

believe that Jeff was willing to work with me on the rehearsal schedule. I made a

huge mistake by not putting Tecumseh down on the conflict sheet and I was very

afraid that I would lose the role. I wasn’t trying to deceive anyone, I simply

missed the fact that Tecumseh and Proof would overlap. Anyway, the rehearsal

was great. We spent the first four hour session reading through the play as well

as table work with the entire cast. I must say that I was impressed at Jeff’s

thoroughness. He had all of his bases covered. It is apparent that even with all

of the time that I have spent on researching the play and the role, Jeff is still

functioning at a deeper level than I. He has done his homework. We spent a

great deal of time looking at pictures of the neighborhood of Hyde Park in

Harris 108

Chicago. He took pictures of the same neighborhood at different times of the

year. He was incredibly prepared. The assignment for the next time we meet is

to determine what Hal’s happiest and saddest time in his life was . We have to

create a short scene when we meet again as a full company next Monday. I

really am very glad that I was able to come to this rehearsal. I am upset that I

can’t stay here and continue rehearsal on Proof. I can’t wait for Tecumseh to

close.

Tuesday, September 02, 2003

What a long, strange trip it’s been. I feel like I have hardly had any time

to do anything productive since my return. It’s like getting a drink from a fire

hydrant. So much has happened in the past 3 days, it feels like I haven’t slept. I

was very tired at tonight’s rehearsal, but it was a good one, nonetheless. Jeff

continues to impress me with his directing skills. Our 30 second scenes

depicting the happiest and saddest times of character’s lives went very well. I

chose to make Hal’s happiest moment the instant he and his colleagues

discovered that the proof actually works. It was like being present at one of the

world’s most historic events. Chills literally fell over my body. The saddest

moment was a week after my mother’s death. Hal was working on a proof of his

own when he simply breaks down and can’t deal with anything. He is so

confused, lost, and in grief that he can’t cope with life. He must get help. I really

cried during the exercise. All of us did, except for Dale. He handled his saddest

time a little differently than us. I could really sense the inner life of the characters

Harris 109

in front of me. It was enlightening. I feel that I have come full circle. I

understand things now.

The staging was nice. I wish that I had known my lines a little better than I

did. It was okay, but the scenes we staged were the ones that I had spent the

least amount of time with. I hope that Jeff wasn’t disappointed; I’m sure he

wasn’t. He works very, for the lack of a better word, organically. He wants us to

feel our impulses and act on them. If you want to move, he encourages it and

works to make the picture look the best it can. He is very easy to work with and I

trust him implicitly. I look forward to rehearsing again with him.

Wednesday, September 03, 2003

This week is really catching up to me. I am feeling very tired by the time

that rehearsals begin. I am managing to keep the energy up throughout the

scenes though. Tonight, we staged what could be the most difficult scene

between Catherine and I, the kissing scene. It was actually quite easy and

professional. I think that there is a chemistry between us that is developing

throughout this process. We are very comfortable with each other. I imagine

that fact that we are all in our third and final year has a great deal to do with it.

We know each other very well and there is no giddiness or awkwardness when

we did the scene. I think that it will play very well. Jeff continues to be terrific.

He has a wonderful way with all of us. While it is obvious that he has his own

ideas about how a scene should go, he is extremely generous and is willing to let

the actors bring their own thoughts about the play. He virtually eliminates any

Harris 110

hesitation at trying something new because you know that he is always going to

be there to catch you if you fall. Sometimes it feels like we are walking a

tightrope when doing certain scenes, but he is always there, keeping you on

balance. He is simply awesome. People continue to ask me how the rehearsals

are going and I can’t help but smile because they are going so well. I’ll tell them

that and they say, “Thanks, rub it in!” ☺ Erin and I have discussed just how

lucky we are to be in this show with Jeff at the helm. I am having the best time.

Thursday, September 04, 2003

This was a difficult rehearsal. We spent the first 2 hours doing some more

scene work, which was really nice. As usual, Jeff was great. We are all very

close to being off book and we do most of our scenes with very little calling for

line. The run-through was a different story. I hate the run-throughs that occur at

this point in a rehearsal for many reasons. The main reason is that it feels that

all of the great scene work that has been done goes out the window and it

becomes about getting through the lines. Wonderful moments that occurred in

earlier rehearsals get glossed over in a run-through. I understand the necessity

for it, but it is very frustrating. I think that the worst part of it all is when you are

doing the scene, getting the lines, and then you remember the way you did a

particular moment in a previous rehearsal, but you just missed it now. You can’t

go back and get that moment again. Ahhh, the actor’s craft. Living in the

moment, making the very rehearsed seem spontaneous. We’ll get there. It’s

going to be a great show.

Harris 111

Friday, September 05, 2003

Tonight we rehearsed only the scenes between Catherine and me. While

I loved the special attention, I was enjoying getting a break for 30 minutes or so

during the previous rehearsals. It was tiring getting through the entire thing. We

looked at each scene intensely. The image I get in my head when I think about

how the rehearsal process is going is that of a screw going into a piece of wood.

It starts off very wobbly and unbalanced. Every turn of the screwdriver stabilizes

the screw as it becomes tighter and tighter. That is what Jeff is doing with each

play. He is focusing in on each moment, more and more closely. It was at the

point where we were working beat by beat. Sometimes we spent 5 or 10 minutes

on 5 lines of dialogue. Several moments during the rehearsal I felt like I was

stupid for not thinking about the moment in a certain way. Jeff is so good at

guiding us along and making us think about the moments in different ways that

sometimes I feel like I haven’t done the work I should have. I know that I have

done my work, and I know that Jeff sees that I have done my work, but I still feel

unprepared and off-balance sometimes. I think Jeff likes to do that too. We can’t

get too comfortable by thinking that we know what this moment should be. We

must always be open to where it could go. A particular moment of interest dealt

with making a point of view that I created much stronger. He wanted to know

what Hal and the mathematicians did at those conferences. He made me

vocalize and visualize what kind of partying they would do. It turns out that I

made a deeper discovery that these guys are absolutely nuts. They get jacked

Harris 112

up on speed and talk about Pythagoras like most guys talk about sports. While I

had only placed the POV on them that they were crazy partiers, Jeff made me

realize that I was not specific enough. Forcing me to truly visualize them made

me zero in on who they really are. Stanislavski once said that “generality is the

enemy of all art.” I think that was never more true for me than tonight. I must go

back through the script and refine my POV for everything. Am I specific enough?

We’ll see.

Monday, September 08, 2003

Rehearsal continues to go very well. We ran Act II tonight and it felt great to

do the whole thing off-book. It also opened my eyes up to just how quickly some

of my costume changes will be. It was the first night that we have received notes

after the run as well. My notes are as follows:

I.1 - Add another knock before entrance into II.1.

I.1 - There is something going on between Hal and Catherine with her

invitation to dinner.

II.2 - Remember the moment just before this scene occurs. We’ll work on it.

II.2 - Cheat more SL before the beginning of the scene (which must actually

occur at the end of Act I).

III.5 - At Hal’s entrance, what stops him from rushing to Catherine and sweeping

her off of her feet? We need to see more of the resistance and what it

may be.

III.5 - The “nice house” sequence went very well.

Harris 113

III.5 - We’ll work the X to the steps at the end of the scene.

Overall, I am very pleased with the way that the run of Act II went. I could tell

that Erin was rather frustrated with the dropping of her lines, but she has many

more than we do. I thought that it went very well and I can’t wait to see what

develops in the next 2 ½ weeks. Something did happen that made me feel very

good. Jeff commented that the moment that I look at the proof at the end of Act

II, Scene 3 was very nice. I couldn’t believe that he noticed that. It makes an

actor feel very good when you make a choice, even if it is incredibly subtle, like

that moment, and he notices. What an incredibly keen eye he has. I feel like he

is watching everything I do at every moment.

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

Tonight I wasn’t called until 8:00 pm. It always feels strange being called

so late because the rehearsal is over before you know it. We worked two scenes

with Hal tonight, Act I, Scene 1 and Act II, Scene 1. Both of them included

working with Dale. We have a great time in our flashback scene in Act II, Scene

1. I feel like my point of view about him is really working well; Robert is God. He

certainly gives me plenty to play with out there too. We all like that scene very

much. I think it presents a great challenge to me. It is not very often that you get

to play a role where the audience sees what a character was like 4 years earlier.

There are many questions to answer, the largest of which is how much has he

changed? I must say that being a TA for the directing class today made me go

back and scrutinize my choices. Maybe the beats that I had worked out and their

Harris 114

objectives weren’t correct. I asked Jeff if I could try the first moments between

Catherine and Hal in Act I, Scene 1 with a different objective and to see what he

thought. I had viewed the scene as Hal flirting with Catherine. Now I think that

he may be investigating to see if she is alright (physically and emotionally). His

“Drinking alone?” doesn’t have to be flirting or striking up conversation. Drinking

alone is indicative of a much bigger problem and anyone who does so could be

seriously depressed. I think that Hal is concerned for her health. Well, I tried it

and it felt much better. Besides, there is plenty of room throughout our scene for

Hal to “put the moves” on Catherine, although, I must say that it is very fun to

play suave Hal. He could be the biggest dork on the planet. Let the discoveries

continue.

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

I wasn't called for rehearsal tonight until 7:30. I am absolutely exhausted.

Mondays and Wednesdays are grueling. I got to school at 9:30 am and I haven't

been able to go home at all. These days usually last 13 hours. I hate my

schedule. It really was hard to focus through this rehearsal. I made it though.

Jeff doesn't seem to be able to see my exhaustion, so I guess I am faking the

energy well enough. Just like a long run, sometimes you have to rely on

technique to pull you through. I am still having a wonderful time. Thank God I

love this play and this part, otherwise I would certainly have a difficult time

making it through this ordeal. Erin and I developing some great chemistry out

there. I really feel at ease with her. I think that this is certainly her best work. I

Harris 115

just hope that it becomes mine. I think that I had a mini breakthrough tonight. I

feel that I am really into Hal's body. I know how he moves now. He is much

more of a dork than I thought. He's not clumsy, just uncertain throughout much

of the play. This results in a hesitant movement style. He often enters the scene

in the middle of an argument and this creates a feeling in him to become

invisible. He wants to make himself as small as he can. I have been trying to

place myself in a place that draws very little attention during these moments.

Behind the columns, upstage by the window, behind furniture, it all lends itself to

his desire to disappear. Jeff really seems to like these choices.

Thursday, September 11, 2003

Tonight was the first run-through from beginning to end off book. To make

it a little more intimidating, tonight was crew watch too. It was nice having an

audience out in the house, but we knew that it was going to be a bumpy ride.

The pacing was deadly. Overall, you begin to wonder many things about what

you are doing as an actor on nights like these. Every character has a journey to

make. How am I creating this character. How has he changed from the

beginning of the play to the end. Polar attitude? Well, I think that I can answer

that one. At the beginning of the play, Hal sees Catherine as someone who is

mathematically inferior to him. At the end of the play, he realizes that she is a

greater genius than her father, Hal's mentor and god. Their relationship

changes from romantic partners to student/teacher. Robert has been knocked

off of Hal's pedestal and Catherine know sits there quite firmly. To complicate

Harris 116

matters, I think that Hal has fallen in love with her. He has to have. It is more

than just sex - there is a connection between them that is unexplainable. The

relate to each other in many ways. Anyway, Jeff gave us tons of notes

afterwards. They are as follows:

I.1 - Close the wooden door after my entrance.

I.1 - Don't play down to Catherine's level. Try to pull her out of the mire.

I.1 - Call me Hal - have more fun. More personal or hate Harold.

I.3 - Still need more hope for Hal during the date scene. He is not done with

math yet. He can still produce some type of major work of mathematics.

I.3 - Great entrance - the door bit.

I.3 - Don't see her say "yeah" after the "just elegant" line.

I.3 - Don't make the move on her. After she kisses you. It looked like I knew that

she was going to kiss.

I.4 - Don't anticipate the kiss.

I.4 - How embarrassing would it be ... wonky.

II.1 - Oh, who are you working with? We'll work that moment to fix the blocking.

II.2 - Move more SL at top of scene.

II.2 - Take out all pauses.

II.2 - must build to It's your father's handwriting.

II.5 - We'll work the end of the play tomorrow.

II.5 - Great entrance.

II.5 - There are no dates in this. Good.

II.5 - The proof pass was great. Not too much time.

Harris 117

II.5 - Getting too tentative with "talk me through it." More cause I want to know

what's in there.

General Notes:

• Overall rhythm tonight felt slow. Pick it up. Think of sifting through

these books like sifting through gold. This is great work.

• Don't draw out a word or phrase. It makes the sentence lose its

meaning.

• Tentative - going balls to the wall. Let your impulses go. Free

yourself.

• Don't X behind the scrim anymore - you will be seen too much because

of the lighting.

• We need to work the argument and phone call.

• Start to eliminate pauses. Every pause is the same. The rhythm of the

show became the same. Get rid of the pauses. Drive through the plot.

Get to the point. Don't let the period land. If we don't, it negates the

meaning of the beat when it is a choice.

Although he had tons of notes, he was still very encouraging. RSL said

something nice to me today too. I told him that the show's tempo was deadly and

he said that he could tell that it is going to be a great show. That is quite

encouraging. We have 2 weeks left. We're going to be great.

Friday, September 12, 2003

Dale wasn’t called tonight so we were able to spend the evening fixing

Harris 118

many things that occur between Erin, Anita, and myself. We dove right into Act I,

Scene 4, our toughest, most emotionally difficult sequence. I wish that I could

see a video of a before and after rehearsal shot because we grew enormously in

this scene. It truly has gone to a different level. What used to be a slow,

painstakingly difficult scene has become a full blown argument and firestorm.

What a difference. Erin and I were finally able to get some stage time with our

last scene. It really needed to be worked. We hadn’t worked on it at all really,

only staged it. There are some great moments in that scene too. The patterns

now feel more natural. Overall, I’d give this rehearsal an A+. Really great things

happening out there now.

Sunday, September 14, 2003

We did another run through tonight and it took us right up to 10:30. We

weren't able to receive any notes afterward, but we all felt a lot better about this

one. All of the blocking patterns are beginning to iron themselves out. The only

scene that really feels like it still could use some work is the last scene with

Catherine. Jeff is certainly aware of this fact because he has scheduled time for

it tomorrow night. I am interested in what notes I will get. I experimented with

some new ways of doing things and I want to know what Jeff saw. We will

receive our notes via email before tomorrow's rehearsal.

Update: Jeff has emailed the notes as follows:

Harris 119

Whenever you enter from the study, let's try making them all from the up left

area. I don't think we're going to be able to do anything with the cross behind the

back scrim, and I think in front of it is too close. See me if this doesn't make

sense to you.

I.1 - Nice with "They're all in the math department"

I.1- Nice in the "Your dad..." leading to her "Don't lecture me"

I.1- This is a total technical thing to open you up a little. When you are getting

ready to read the diary entry, could you work your way up a touch - near

the upstage edge of the glider. That will open you up more when you

read. We can work this tonight or tomorrow if you'd like.

I.1- On Tuesday's run, let's try not reading along with Robert. So you just fade

out, and then come back in.

I.2 - Close the door when you exit out of this scene.

I.3 - Fun entrance. You just came from a great set with all the math geeks

screaming. Let some of that carry into more of the scene - parts of the

scene are seeming a little somber - for instance, “Can you believe how

many people came?” and, “Math's a young man's game.”

I.3 - Try not starting as close to Catherine when you sit down on the steps and

using "Did he ever find out who she was" to move in a little bit.

I.3 - The notebook section right after the first kiss was nice.

I.3 - A little more open for "...95 MPH fastball / elegant"

Harris 120

I.3 - As you are in the second glider kiss "again" try putting your arm around

her.

II.1 - The knocking sounded a little more like pounding tonight.

II.5 - Great into "nice house"

II.5 - "That's just Chicago" - a little to somber there - maybe think about selling

Chicago the way Claire sells NYC.

II.5 - "Maybe. Maybe you'll be better" got a little breathy-dramatic.

II.5 - Great having your feet on the lower steps while Catherine had hers on the

higher one. It was a great look and should look great under all the lights.

Monday, September 15, 2003

Tonight I wasn't called until 9:15. Although I appreciate having some time

off before the rehearsal, it always seems more difficult to bring energy that late in

the evening. Fortunately, we only worked the last scene for an hour. It really

feels a lot better. The blocking has changed a bit and it feels great. Now that

Catherine is picking up her luggage and starting to exit, it really gives me a lot to

play against. It is easy to try many different actions to get her to stay, both there

on the porch as well as Chicago. I really have a tremendous impulse to touch

Catherine in that scene, especially when Hal agrees with her that she is like her

father. I wanted to touch her face, but the impulse cannot be pursued. I think

that it is obvious to Jeff that I want to touch her but I can't and it looks great. I

hope, anyway. Tomorrow we will do another run. I am really anxious to see how

it goes as we approach tech.

Harris 121

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

We were able to work many things tonight that really needed some

attention. Once again, we hit the last scene between Erin and me, but not before

Anita and I did our scene. That one needed more work than I had anticipated. It

is much more intense now. Anita really comes after me and forces me to take a

stand and defend myself. I didn’t see the scene going quite like this, but it feels

really good. It is easy to play against that type of anger and accusations. We

were supposed to get through a run tonight, but we weren’t able to complete it. I

was disappointed with Jeff’s comments after the partial run because I had hoped

to hear him say we had come leaps and bounds. Instead, we got the dreaded

“Hot out of the gates, but then took a nosedive.” Ugh. I thought that the

moments were there and the tempo felt good. We’ll get there. I am not afraid of

failing anymore. I know that this is going to be a great show and I look forward to

tech rehearsals where we have costumes and lights to see what it is going to

look like. Notes are as follows:

I.1 - The scene was great. Good moments. After this scene, it took a nose

dive.

I.1 - Must really listen, listen, listen and respond.

I.1 - Call me Hal impulse was not as strong.

I.1 - Try selling instead of qualifying with “some friends of mine are in this

band.”

Harris 122

I.1 - Okay, yes, I play drums - pick it up.

I.1 - Find the physical life when the characters are still. Maybe use the lake

when I say "I run along the lake."

I.3 - Maybe the drumsticks for the scene.

II.1 - Great moment with the "I wasn't sure if I should wait until the quarter

started or ..." Reactions are great.

II.1 - More response on "It's a stereotype that happens to be true ..." Think

about the creativity after 23 line in 1.3.

II.1 - Claire will move her "good" to after "and we'll figure out exactly what we've

got..."

II.1 - Things to think about - Up the stakes.

II.1 - Cheat it out.

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

We did a run-through tonight at the top of the evening so that we were

assured of getting through the entire thing. Act I went very well I thought, but Act

II was shaky at best. I must say that I am a little disappointed with Anita. Over

the last couple of nights, she seemed very unfocused and it really made our

scenes suffer. Not that I was the greatest or anything, but it is very un-Anita like

for her to be that way. Our scene together in Act II, Scene 3 was terrible. She

seemed to be all over the place. I was literally willing her to stay with me.

Overall, I feel that we are doing well, but that we haven't grown with this

rehearsal. Many of the scenes tonight were forced, both emotionally and

Harris 123

physically. Maybe I need to step back and see what I can do to make it better.

Notes After Run:

General:

• More choppy moments in Act II than Act I.

I.1 - Play with this: Physicalization into Call me Hal.

I.1 - I don't have time for this - More intensity.

I.1 - Build the astrophysicist speech. It's one note.

I.3 - Lose the drumsticks.

I.3 - Hold kiss longer before exit.

I.4 - We'll cue the entrance.

I.4 - No sound on her decision to give me the key.

I.4 - We'll work my re-entrance into the scene.

II.1 - Entrance will be quicker.

II.1 - Good sequence with the thesis handoff to Robert.

II.1 - Don't worry about sitting after "thanks" before "Oh, who are you working

with?"

II.1 - The exit worked nicely.

II.2 - The "good" moment with Claire worked well.

II.2 - The big argument didn't seem as connected.

II.5 - That was this week, I spent this week reading the proof.

II.5 - There are not dates in this - physical and vocal seemed forced.

II.5 - Playing off of her nicely.

Harris 124

II.5 - I think you are too - don't get locked in - maybe try that a little more

positive.

II.5 - Nice understanding of the radiator.

II.5 - Connect the "elegant" with her Dad's stuff - i.e. hit the "you'll."

II.5 - Nice "talk me through it" moments.

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Tonight was the first tech. As techs go, it wasn't too bad. I have been

through some absolutely terrible ones. We actually made it through every cue.

At 10:25, we started the last one. The set looks incredibly stunning under the

lights. I looked at Anita while we were sitting in the house and said to her that

our designers and artists are very, very talented people. It was difficult finding

our way off the set in the darkness, but they are going to remedy that problem. I

was concerned that the audience would see people exiting offstage when they

were supposed to be entering the house. Fortunately, they are going to create

some more masking that will take care of that. I'm getting very excited about

opening. I think that it is an incredible show. I hope the audience likes it as

much as we do.

Friday, September 19, 2003

Tonight we had our 2nd tech rehearsal. We attempted to get through an

entire run of the show without stopping but we had to hold a couple of times. Not

bad at all though. Everything is starting to feel a lot better. We are all becoming

Harris 125

much more comfortable out there. The only problem that I had was getting

offstage in the blackout. It is very difficult to get through the curtains SL. The

curtains overlap each other by about 3 feet, so it becomes quite a hassle to find

the split and get through. I think that they are going to do something about that.

Overall, some nice work going on out there. The notes are as follows:

I.1 - Dilbert speech - cheat open - too profile.

I.2 - Good reaction to their fight.

I.3 - More teacher-like with the Germaine primes.

I.3 - Good move into the first kiss.

I.3 - May work the except for the book I stole - what gets you into that.

I.3 - 95 mile an hour fastball - good.

I.4 - Work transition into 1.4

I.4 - Make entrance a little later.

I.4 - What's in there? - Nice moment.

I.4 - Kiss before leaving seemed Jim awkward, not Hal excited.

II.1 - Good who are you working with?

II.1 - Wonder where to get rid of the glass?

II.1 - I have plans - do I?

II.5 - Nice moment before into "So Claire sold the house"

II.5 - The moment before "Nice House" seemed a little rushed

II.5 - The end of this scene is still a touch too romantic. I think he has a great

hope for the future, but think of the way into that possibility as being

through the math. Get her talking about what you know she loves. You

Harris 126

hope she loves you, but you know she loves math. You learned that in 1-3

and it is beyond all doubt that she loves math after you read the proof

during that week before this scene.

Sunday, September 21, 2003

I was called today at 1:30 for only an hour and a half. We did some

cleaning up of some moments. One moment in particular really feels a lot better.

I felt like I was standing beside Catherine for a very long time and we were able

to motivate some movement for me. The evening run consisted of our first dress.

Overall, it went very well. All of my quick changes went well, except for the

super-quick one. It will get better, I'm sure. It already went well last night, but

Jeff wants it a little quicker. We'll make some adjustments and try it again

tomorrow. Notes are as follows:

I.1 - I could see the proof in the jacket. Fix that.

I.1 - Beginning seemed low energy. Pick it up - go after what you want.

I.1 - Nice backpack section.

I.1 - Nice run along the lake - whole section went very well.

I.1 - Nice picking up of your coat and bag at the end of the scene.

I.3 - Much more fun and playful - this was a great scene.

I.4 - Ended up too close to Catherine at the end of the scene.

II.1 - Take the hat off somewhere in the scene.

II.2 - Nice - "disinterested guys."

Harris 127

Monday September 22, 2003

We completed our 2nd dress tonight. We are all very pleased with how

the show went. Our focus is getting better and better out there. I only had one

problem throughout the run, that damned quick-change. I call it the brown

change. I really think that we have solved the problems and ironed out the kinks.

I'll make a few more adjustments that will really save time. I thought that Erin

and I were very connected to each other and that 1.3 went better than it ever

had. I really feel quite giddy (for lack of a better term). I am already getting

those feelings of nervousness and anxiousness. I think about this show and I

have to smile. It has been one of the best rehearsal experiences of my life. We

haven't even opened yet and I miss it already! Notes are as follows:

I.1 - Drinking alone. Nice - seemed a little angry at "Sorry, I was planning to

attend."

I.1 - Nice with "2:00, 2:30"

I.1 - Nice connection with her through the "pretty high order."

I.1 - Think about changing the folding of the jacket.

I.3 - Great entrance.

I.3 - Nice enjoy teaching.

I.3 - Sunday morning I usually go out not as strong.

I.3 - Play with the pause before "Uh so."

II.1 - Nice - with "getting out of the house."

II.2 - First 1/3rd of 2.2 was dragging.

II.2 - Raise the stakes.

Harris 128

II.3 - Fix the quick change.

II.3 - Nice on "Call her once she's settled."

II.5 - Nice top of scene!!!

II.5 - Nice into "I think you are too."

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

My god, I can’t believe that the run went so poorly. They say bad dress,

great opening, but I don’t buy that crap. Everything was strange. The tempo

was terrible. I wonder what went wrong. I think that we just need an audience

and that would really fix the problems. We are tired of performing it for Jeff. We

did add a backpack to 2.1 after the run. We rehearsed it briefly and it doesn’t

seem to be a problem. Now I can wear my hat and have some place to put it

after I take it off. We’ll see how that goes tomorrow. I have to get some sleep

and try not to think about it.

General Notes:

• We need an audience. They will help fuel you for the scene.

• This is such a delicate play that you can push it over the edge if you start

to push it.

• There are so few marks that are necessary to hit - feel free to play,

engage, listen to each other.

I.2 - Nice entrance and awkwardness.

II.3 - This scene was good. We were connected.

II.1 - The drinking moment was pushed.

Harris 129

II.1 - "No, I shouldn't" was great.

II.1 - Can we add a backpack to you?

II.2 - Didn't get there.

II.3 - Too long at the door.

II.3 - Response to "That's the deal" was in a different place - it worked.

II.5 - "Hip" didn't work tonight.

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Preview Performance

Well that felt much better than last night. Everything seemed to go very

well. We had a house of 96 people and they were pretty responsive as preview

crowds go. I think that 2.2 was still very slow. Jeff wants us to run the end of 1.4

into 2.2 to get the feeling of that once again. It is an incredibly demanding

transition and we never seem to have the necessary stakes at the top of the

scene. Coming out of 2.1 into this scene doesn’t make anything easier. We are

happy-go-lucky in one moment and intense as can be in the next. It was nice to

have an audience. There were a few technical glitches, but I’m sure they will get

ironed out for tomorrow. Notes are as follows:

General Notes:

• Volume was the only problem throughout the show. Take it up a notch.

Wasn't bad, just needs a little push.

I.3 - Play with the kisses. Length of time. Test the one on the glider.

I.4 - Lost some of the awkwardness.

Harris 130

II.2 - Earn the pauses. If there aren't many pauses along the way, the big one

will pay off even more so.

II.5 - There will be a card in the proof. It will be actor proof.

Thursday, September 25, 2003

Performance #1 – Opening Night

I can’t believe that the show is now open. Everything went wonderfully

well. The audience was great! They were so quick, it was difficult to stay ahead

of them. What I mean by that is that they were getting the jokes before we even

said them. I was very nervous at the start of the show, but I warmed up to it

about midway through 1.1. It was a great night. The feeling that we had

immediately afterwards is a constant reminder of why I have chosen acting as a

career. I am on cloud nine!

Friday, September 26, 2003

Performance #2

The 2nd show letdown is an enigma. I can’t understand why it happens,

but it does. I have never experienced a show that didn’t have that feeling. The

audience was great again, but we were dragging through the show. Our tempo

felt slow and the moments seemed more forced than usual. Dale had some

difficulty with lines in 2.1. Instead of saying “Yes, it is a bad time, you couldn’t

have picked worse,” he said, “What are you doing here?” It was alright though

because I was in the moment and started to respond to him as Hal would have.

Harris 131

He finally caught his mistake and recovered, but he seemed rattled throughout

the entire scene. We made it through the show, however, and it was still a good

one. Just not as good as last night.

Saturday, September 27, 2003

Performance #3

Tonight was much better than last night. 1.1 went better than it ever has,

until I dropped a line. I struggled with “Riding buses.” I floundered and had that

deer in headlights stare going. I mumbled out “Writing to people” and continued

on but it was obvious that I dropped a line. Of course, those moments always

seem worse to the actor than to the audience. Overall, an excellent show. Dave

and Vanessa were there, we could hear them laughing quite a bit. They really

seemed to enjoy the show. Tomorrow is a matinee and we get adjudicated. I

hope that everyone will be on their game.

Sunday, September 28, 2003

Performance #4

Today is my birthday! It also adjudication for ACTF day. I must say that

the performance that we all gave today reminded me of the reason I have chosen

acting as a career. Today was a rare experience on the stage. I truly felt like this

was one of my best performances that I have ever given. I felt like I was involved

completely in every moment. There was a connection out there that we all felt.

The show is in a different place, both emotionally and tempo-wise. It simply felt

Harris 132

great. I cannot control that feeling; I can only hope to experience it again

sometime. It was awesome. We finally get a night off tomorrow. That will

certainly be nice.

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Performance #5

A typical Tuesday night crowd was in store for us tonight. They really

weren't very responsive and the show seemed to drag a little. It always feels that

way after a night off. it was nice, but it really wasn't a night off. I had tons of stuff

to do and read on Monday night. I can't wait for this weekend to get here so that

we can have a good crowd again.

Wednesday, October 1, 2003

Performance #6

Tonight's crowd was much like last night's. They are never really awake

out there early in the week. The show seemed to go well though. Poor Anita

had an incredible coughing fit out there. Something got in her throat and the

more she tried to push through, the more her voice closed off. She made it

through though. I read the review and was a little disappointed with Kathy

Matter's review. I was the only person she criticized. I'm really not upset about it

though; I've been stabbed by much bigger pens than hers. I'll continue to read

reviews while I'm in performance. It doesn't affect what I do out there.

Harris 133

Thursday, October 02, 2003

Performance #7

Finally, a big house again. I thought that the show went very well tonight.

Dale thought that it could have been better, but I think he was not so pleased

with his performance. From my end, it seemed very good. I felt like I was in the

moment out there for the most part. I had to suppress an impulse tonight,

directly going against what I was taught in Meisner class. I honestly had the urge

to cry with Catherine as she said her line at the end of the play, “We’d talk … not

about math, he couldn’t.” For some reason it hit me very hard tonight. I was

caught in an conundrum. I didn’t know if I should go with it and let it happen or

suppress it. I chose to suppress it, not because I had a fear of letting it go, but

because I didn’t think that this type of moment is what Jeff had in mind. It was a

strange moment. Dual consciousness kicked in big time. Looking back, I don’t

think that it would have been a bad thing to have let go and cried with her. Not

sobs, but tears. Hal can allow himself to do that. He truly loved Robert too. He

certainly feels terrible for hurting Catherine. He is definitely emotionally charged

enough for some tears to be an honest response. Anyway, if I felt it and I was in

the moment, shouldn’t it be correct? If it happens again, I’ll let them fall.

Friday, October 03, 2003

Performance #8

My mother, brother, and sister-in-law came to see the show tonight. It

was a good house and the show really seemed to clip along at a nice pace.

Harris 134

Overall, it was a very good show. No major problems or snafus to report. I still

love doing this show. I don’t want to see it end. As far as suppressing moments

during the show, I wasn’t compelled to cry like I was last night. That’s okay, it still

was nice. My family loved the show. My mother is very proud of me. I think

everyone in the theatre knew that I was her son at the end of the show! She has

a habit of telling everyone that fact. I’m glad she’s proud. I am proud of this

show too.

Saturday, October 04, 2003

Performance #9

Things went very well again. Dale had a little difficulty in II.4, grasping for

lines and dying a thousand deaths, but he pulled out of it. I didn’t know if Erin

was going to make it through it. She had nothing to say or do to pull him out of

his line problem. Dale has had a habit of dropping lines throughout the run and

rehearsals. He forces us to stay on our toes out there. Unfortunately, it’s not the

good kind of focus. We have to be Jim and Erin waiting on Dale, not Hal and

Catherine listening to Robert. I know that he is struggling with his problem too.

He came into the dressing room and said, “What the hell is going on with me? It

must be a sign of age.” He wasn’t tongue-in-cheek about it either. I could tell

that he was really concerned about what was happening out there. I tried to

ease it by telling him that it wasn’t as bad as he thought, but it didn’t do much

good. It was a real Life in the Theatre moment in the dressing room. He just

might be slipping a bit. I still think that he’s a great actor.

Harris 135

Sunday, October 05, 2003

Performance #10 – The Closing

It’s over. It’s over. It’s over. I don’t want it to be over. It was a very

emotional moment backstage at the end of the show. Erin, Anita, and I had a

group hug and the tears came. This has been the best experience on the stage

that I have ever had. I love this show and cast so much, it is going to be very

difficult letting go of it. After so much incredibly hard work and effort, it is finally

over. I’m going to have to leave all of it alone for a while and let it soak in. I look

forward to completing my monograph, but I want to play this role again and

again. This is the type of play in which every actor dreams about originating a

role. I owe Jeff Casazza so much. He is the best.

Harris 136

Appendix D

Image Collage

Act I, Scene 4 – The morning after

Harris 137

Image Collage

The following images are representative of how Hal sees the world. He is

incredibly smart and mathematically oriented. Unfortunately, Hal cannot

complete the pictures that he sees. He understands how math works and

comprehend the inner workings of it, but his connections are not quite complete.

One thought leads to another and then scatters into confusion. While the works

are beautiful, they do not make logical sense. Just like Hal’s mathematical

accomplishments, the “big ideas” fall short of completion. All of these images are

the work of M. C. Escher.

Titles, clockwise from upper left: Eye, Relativity, Reptiles, Bond of Union.

Harris 138

Titles, clockwise from upper left: Ascending and Descending, Waterfall, Sky and

Water, Print Gallery.

Harris 139

Appendix E

Selected Research

Act II, Scene 5

Harris 140

Selected Research

Letter from Jeff Casazza, August 16, 2003

Hello everyone, I can't tell you all how much I am looking forward to beginning our work together. I think we have a wonderful cast and the makings of what will be an exciting and engaging production. As you know, we will have everyone together for Sunday's rehearsal and then not again until the following Sunday. So, in order to include everyone in our early discussions, I would like you to think about a few things in preparation for Sunday's rehearsal. I hope you will spend a little time during the next week thinking about the following items. While we will be doing a good deal of character and relationship work during the first week, I would like you to think about the items on this list from your own point of view and not from that of the character you are playing. An important note-please don't think of the following in terms of the play, but in terms of what they mean to you personally. I'm not looking for any deep philosophical meanings here, but those first impressions, thoughts and feelings inspired by these words and ideas. We'll use them as a jumping off point for discussion. This also doesn't mean that you have to go out and research anything. Let your reactions be personal and honest. Feel free to be creative with any of these words. For example, if the word Chicago reminds you of the Cubs and you have a Cubs hat or a picture of you at Wrigley Field bring that as well as your written impressions and thoughts. Or if Family reminds you of Thanksgiving Dinner and your favorite dish is applesauce, feel free to bring some to sample. Basically feel free to bring in pictures, objects, music, etc. along with any written work. This should be a fun discussion as we begin our work together and mix in all of our various views, thoughts and ideas. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at home or work by phone or email. As Karin and I are in the process of building a home, we may not be reachable every moment during the next week. If I am not there when you call or email, I will respond as soon as I can. Work (317) 916-4801 Home (317) 871-2790

Thank you in advance for all of your work, and I look forward to seeing you all on the 24th.

Harris 141

Jeff Here is the list of things to think about for our first rehearsal Chicago Father Family Brother/Sister Proof Faith What is the difference between proof and faith What is the difference between a house and a home University of Chicago vs. Northwestern University Mathematics Music Machinery Ghosts Hallucinations Dreams Patterns Freedom Prison Prison yard Claire's Chicago friends Claire's New York friends Claire's Stupid friends Mitch New York doctors New York people are the best Hal's friends Hal's band The guys that Hal knows - to read proof Hal's mom Mathematicians Robert's Students Woman Mathematician at Stanford Chicago Police The officers that come by at night/morning University Officials - Northwestern that Catherine dealt with University Officials - U of C that Claire is dealing with Northwestern - Kaminsky Northwestern - O'Donohue Catherine's mom Funeral guests Party guests Chicago Cubs Northwestern Football Neighbors Neighborhood

Harris 142

Harris 143

A Brief History of the Department

The University of Chicago, and with it the Department of Mathematics, opened its doors in October of 1892. The first chair of the department was Eliakim Hastings Moore, who had been an associate professor at Northwestern. He immediately appointed Oskar Bolza and Heinrich Maschke, and the three of them became the core of the department during the period 1892-1908. R.C. Archibald has described this group as follows:

Harris 144

These three men supplemented one another remarkably. Moore was a fiery enthusiast, brilliant, and keenly interested in the popular mathematical research movements of the day; Bolza, a product of the meticulous German school of analysis led by Weierstrass, was an able, and widely read research scholar; Maschke was more deliberate than the other two, sagacious, brilliant in research, and a most delightful lecturer in geometry. During the period 1892-1908 the University of Chicago was unsurpassed in America as an institution for the study of higher mathematics.

One of the first projects undertaken by the newly formed department was the organization of an international congress of mathematicians in association with the World Fair held in Chicago in 1893. The success of this venture is indicated by the fact that it has inspired the organization of International Congresses of Mathematicians on a regular basis. The publication of the proceedings of this congress was undertaken with the help of the New York Mathematical Society, and shortly thereafter, with Moore's strong encouragement, it was concluded that the Society should be reorganized as the American Mathematical Society.

From 1892 to 1910, 39 students graduated from Chicago with doctoral degrees in mathematics. This group included such mathematicians as Leonard Dickson (Chicago's first Ph.D. in mathematics), Gilbert Bliss, Oswald Veblen, R.L. Moore, George D. Birkhoff and T.H. Hildebrandt. There was a shift in the character of the department beginning in 1908, when Maschke died, and this was accentuated in 1910 when Bolza returned to Germany. Along with Moore, the most influential members of the department became L.E. Dickson, G.A. Bliss and Ernst Wilczynski. The pace at which doctorates were granted accelerated: in 1910-1927, 115 Ph.D.s were granted. By the end of this period, Chicago had become a dominant source of mathematical Ph.D.s in the United States: in 1928, 45 Ph.D.s in mathematics were granted in the United States, and either 12 (according to the Bulletin of the AMS) or 14 (according to department records) of these were from Chicago. The nearest competitors in that year were Minnesota (with four) and Cornell and Johns Hopkins (three each). By virtue of sheer numbers, Chicago became a dominant force on the American mathematical scene, providing faculty for many departments in the nation. On the other hand, it is generally agreed that none of the graduate students in this period reached the same level of mathematical profundity as the best students in the earlier one. Saunders Mac Lane's sober assessment: "Chicago had become in part a Ph.D mill in mathematics."

In 1927, Gilbert Bliss succeeded Moore as chair of the department. He and Dickson were the dominant mathematical influences on the department during Bliss' chairmanship, which lasted until 1941. Together, they directed nearly 70 of the 117 theses written during this period. There was somewhat more success in producing mathematicians of depth in this period: Adrian Albert graduated in 1928, W.L. Duren in 1929, E.J MacShane in 1930 and Leon Alaoglu

Harris 145

in 1938. Mac Lane (who was a student at Chicago during this period, though he soon left for Göttingen, with E.H. Moore's encouragement) makes this assessment: "In this period the department at Chicago trained a few outstanding research mathematicians and a number of effective members of this community - plus produced a large number of essentially routine theses."

Up until this point, it had been a pattern at Chicago to appoint Chicago Ph.D.s to the faculty. This predictably led to a certain narrowness of mathematical focus: the calculus of variations, projective differential geometry, algebra and number theory were the main topics of interest. During the latter part of Bliss' chairmanship, there were some efforts to appoint mathematicians in new fields and not from Chicago. Two of these included Saunders Mac Lane and Norman Steenrod, though both left after a few years.

Bliss retired in 1941, and was succeeded as chair by E.P. Lane. Lane's attempts to revive the department were largely unsuccessful, due primarily to the onset of World War II. President Robert Hutchins brought the Manhattan Project to the University of Chicago, and was housed in Eckhart Hall, while the mathematicians were moved into one of the towers of Harper Library. There were no new appointments until after the war; Irving Kaplansky was the first in 1945. There were however, some notable graduate students during the war, including George Whitehead in 1941.

At the conclusion of the war, Hutchins made an effort to retain some of the scientists who had come to campus as part of the Manhattan Project; a consequence of this was a need to strengthen the mathematics department. A professor at Harvard, Marshall Stone, was approached and asked if he would come to Chicago as chair. There were at the time five vacant senior positions which had accumulated during the war, which meant that the department had to be rebuilt almost completely, and there was a wish to match the level of appointments in the physical sciences which the university had been able to make through its involvement in the Manhattan Project.

Stone brought a considerable degree of ambition and vision to the project of rebuilding the department. The list of mathematicians appointed at Chicago through Stone's efforts is remarkable: André Weil, Antoni Zygmund, Saunders Mac Lane and Shiing-Shen Chern as professors, and Paul Halmos, Irving Segal and Edwin Spanier as assistant professors. Other appointments were attempted, but unsuccessful. The first offer Stone made was to Hassler Whitney. Stone's recommendation to appoint Whitney was initially rejected by the administration, and it required considerable effort to reverse this decision. When the offer was finally made, Whitney turned it down, and shortly later moved to the Institute for Advanced Study. In another case, an attempt was made to appoint Freeman Dyson; this failed when the Dean of the Division (a physicist) asked "Who is Dyson?"

Harris 146

Stone grew weary of the struggle with the administration for new resources, and stepped down as chair in 1952. He was succeeded by Mac Lane as chair from 1952-1958, and Adrian Albert from 1958-1962. This period presented new challenges, as Weil left in 1958, Chern and Spanier in 1959, Segal in 1960, and Halmos in 1961. But this account will end here, as the writing of recent history is too dangerous an occupation. Notes: The material on this page has been stitched together from the following sources:

• In A Century of Mathematics in America, Part II, Peter Duren, ed. (assisted by Richard A. Askey and Uta C. Merzbach), American Mathematical Society, 1988:

o Saunders Mac Lane, Mathematics at the University of Chicago: A Brief History.

o Karen Hunger Parshall, Eliakim Hastings Moore and the Founding of a Mathematical Community in America, 1892-1902, reprinted from the Annals of Science, vol. 41, 1984, pp. 313-333.

o Marshall Stone, Reminiscences of Mathematics at Chicago, reprinted from The University of Chicago Magazine.

o Felix E. Browder, The Stone Age of Mathematics on the Midway, reprinted from The University of Chicago Magazine.

Harris 147

Senior Faculty, June 2001

Harris 148

Guidelines for the Topic

During the second year of graduate study, students are required to give a topic presentation in some field of mathematics. The goal of the topic is to help students bridge the gap between the material covered in the first year courses and some of the frontiers of research. It is, in addition, an opportunity for students to begin to engage with mathematics in a more sophisticated and active manner. Often, until this point, students have seen mathematics presented in highly refined and complete form, and their task has been to absorb it as thoroughly as possible. By and large, the path has been laid out quite clearly, and the student's task has simply been to follow it. In the topic, the student is expected to begin to take a more active role; the task is not simply to master a body of material (although it includes that), but also to understand the problems, questions and examples which have led to the development of the theory, and to begin to be able to formulate questions which might lead to productive future developments. In other words, he or she must learn not only answers to questions, but also what makes the questions interesting.

The student should have two advisors during the course of the topic, one of whom generally takes a primary role. At least one of the advisors should be a senior faculty member in the mathematics department. At the beginning of the topic, the student and advisor(s) should reach a preliminary agreement about the area to be addressed in the topic, and the kind of work to be undertaken in connection with it. Often, there will be a list of books and papers to be read and discussed with the advisor; in other cases, the advisor may run a seminar in which the student is expected to take an active role. The agreement about the scope and direction of the topic may change over the course of time, but both student and advisor(s) should be clear in their understanding of this. There are two requirements for the successful conclusion of a topic: a topic proposal and an oral presentation.

Topic proposal

The first requirement is that the student write a brief topic proposal, generally 3 to 5 pages in length. The goal in the proposal is to give an overview of the area in question which is accessible to a reader who is mathematically literate, but not a specialist in the area. The proposal should attempt not only to describe a set of results, but also to explain the source of interest in the subject, and what fertile areas for further development there might be. While the topic is intended to help the student reach the point of doing research, it is not desirable that the focus of the topic be narrowed excessively so as to ensure that the student is able to work on a problem at its conclusion. It is more important to gain a firm and broad foundation in a significant area of mathematical inquiry at this stage, even if this means that additional work may be necessary after the topic before the student can begin to engage seriously with a problem. The proposal

Harris 149

should aim to convince the reader that such a foundation has been put in place. Obviously, there may be disagreements as to whether a topic is broad enough; there should be enough communication between the student, the advisor(s) and the graduate committee over the course of the year to ensure that these disagreements are resolved early rather than late. Proposals are to be turned in to Laurie Wail by Friday of the second week of the spring quarter at the latest. It is, however, advisable to turn in the proposal earlier if at all possible, and to begin work on the proposal well before the deadline. The proposal will be reviewed by the graduate committee and, if the committee is satisfied, distributed to the faculty. The faculty as a whole then has two weeks in which to raise questions or objections. If no objections arise, the proposal is considered approved.

Oral presentation

The second and major requirement is an oral presentation to the advisors (and perhaps others), which may be scheduled after the proposal has been approved. The presentation itself is generally expected to last about an hour, but questions from the advisors may expand the time required to as much as two hours. Questions may be asked by the examiners either during or after the presentation; the energy and depth of the questioning will vary according to the inclinations of the examiners. Under certain circumstances, the student may be asked to do some follow-up work in order to pass. The topic should be passed by the end of the last week of classes in the spring quarter, though exceptions may be made in unusual circumstances, if the advisors and graduate committee agree.

The Math Building at U of C

Harris 150

An Actual Mathematical Thesis

First Five Pages

Harris 151

Harris 152

Harris 153

Harris 154

Harris 155

Proof: An Admirable Approximation of Mathematical Culture By Sara Robinson

After seeing the nationally touring production of Proof in San Francisco, I couldn't figure out what all the critics were raving about. The play was entertaining, but for the winner of both a Pulitzer and a Tony award, I expected more depth. Then I read the script, and realized that the problems were with the production---particularly the interpretation of Catherine, the protagonist, by actress Chelsea Altman. David Auburn is no Tom Stoppard, but his play is a gem. I only wish I had seen the original Broadway production in New York.

Proof is about the tension between the intensely creative but emotionally limited world of mathematics and the world of ordinary human relationships. This clash plays out through 25-year-old Catherine's relationships with her father, Robert (Robert Foxworth), a brilliant but mentally unstable mathematician, Robert's former student Hal, and her sister, Claire, a determinedly ordinary young woman. Catherine appears to have inherited some of her father's talent for mathematics, and perhaps, as Claire believes and Catherine fears, some of his mental instability.

The play begins just after Robert's death from a heart attack. Catherine has sacrificed her own development and education to take sole responsibility for the care of her father through an incapacitating mental illness. The action takes place in flashbacks to Catherine's interactions with her father, as well as in scenes in the present with Claire (played brilliantly by Tasha Lawrence) and Hal (Stephen Kunken), a worshipful disciple of Robert's who is romantically interested in Catherine.

The title of the play refers both to the proof of an important theorem in number theory, found in Robert's desk, and to the "proof" of its authorship. Auburn suggests that the second "proof" is only a leap of faith. Of Catherine's honesty and, more important, her sanity, there can be no proof.

David Auburn spoke about the role of mathematics in his play in an opening-night "conversation" hosted by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley. Modeling the event on an earlier program about Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia, MSRI special projects director Bob Osserman questioned David Auburn about several elements of the play, particularly the implied connection between mathematical talent and insanity. Auburn, a young and witty graduate of the University of Chicago, the setting for the play, replied that the stereotype of the insane mathematician provided the dramatic elements he needed.

Harris 156

In Catherine, a brilliant, young woman unsure of her own sanity but mature and stable enough to take care of her crazy father, Auburn created an interesting and challenging role. Unfortunately, Chelsea Altman's Catherine is one-dimensional. Her Catherine is perpetually angry; all her lines are delivered as emotional outbursts, spoken in a whiny, sarcastic tone. It was only after reading her lines that I could appreciate their content.

The other three actors, thankfully, are far better. I particularly liked Lawrence's portrayal of Claire, the intellectually ordinary, socially able character, who doesn't share the emotional and intellectual intensity of the other three. Yet she, too, has sacrificed, paying all the bills for her father and Catherine and providing their only link to normalcy. Auburn gives her a priceless line that says it all:

"You [expletive deleted] mathematicians, you don't think," she cries to Hal. "You don't know what you're doing. You stagger around creating these catastrophes and it's people like me who end up flying in to clean them up!"

The premise of Proof requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of mathematicians. Not being a mathematician, Auburn has created a plot centered around a world he doesn't know. The result is elements of plot and dialog that are a little off.

For instance, Hal describes a math conference where the older mathematicians all take amphetamines to ensure that they can compete with the younger crowd. Tossed off as the norm, this is, perhaps, an impression Auburn gained from his readings about Paul Erdös. Elsewhere, descriptions of the proof found in the drawer are in terms unlikely to have been uttered by a mathematician---Catherine, for example, describes the proof as "lumpy."

Most problematic, the central question of the authorship of the proof just isn't plausible: The most important evidence, a deep understanding of the proof, is not pursued.

But aside from details such as these, which might trouble only a mathematician, the play does a remarkable job of approximating some of the elements of mathematical culture. Auburn understands that mathematical research is highly creative and imaginative, and that mathematicians are, in many ways, akin more to poets and artists than to engineers.

The dialog captures poignant aspects of the mathematical ego, both the pride and the insecurity. Robert and Catherine both fear mediocrity and struggle to grasp an elusive genius. In the conversation with Osserman, Auburn said that the idea for the play had grown out of an imagined conversation between a girl and her father. He chose to set the play within the world of mathematics, he said, because it's a field where people tend to do their best work when young.

Harris 157

He also captures cultural details, such as mathematicians' tendency to have incongruous outside hobbies (Hal plays drums in an all-mathematician rock band), and Auburn even manages a slightly awkward rendition of mathspeak---the use of mathematical metaphors and attention to precision in ordinary conversation.

Robert remarks to Catherine, for instance, that Hal is in the "infinite" program: "As he approaches completion of his dissertation, time approaches infinity." Catherine, irritated with Claire, argues that it's not possible to make hair healthier since it's dead tissue.

The play is by no means a perfect portrait of the world of mathematics, but it's not a bad approximation and it's worth seeing. I suggest that you read it first, however, so you can hear the nuances of the dialog through Altman's temperamental acting.

Proof's national tour will visit Sacramento, Houston, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles, following its opening in San Francisco. See http://www.proof-mtc.com/tour.htm for details. In New York, Proof continues at the Walter Kerr Theatre, with a new cast that includes Jennifer Jason Leigh as Catherine (http://www.proofonbroadway.com/).

Sara Robinson is a freelance writer and part-time journalist-in-residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley.

©2002, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Harris 158

Harris 159

Harris 160

Harris 161

Osserman Interviews David Auburn, author of Proof

By Gerald L. Alexanderson

The play Proof, as everyone associated with mathematics must know by now, has been an enormous success on Broadway. Now it has begun a national tour at the Curran Theatre in San Francisco. To mark the occasion the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) at Berkeley arranged to have the playwright, David Auburn, interviewed by Robert Osserman on stage at the theatre two days after the play opened its month-long San Francisco run, on November 29. The San Francisco Chronicle reported a $2 million advance ticket sale. Not bad for a play about mathematics and mental illness!

MSRI has arranged events of this kind before, an interview with George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory, and the actor Michael Winters, on the occasion of a Bay Area production of Brecht's Galileo, and an interview with Tom Stoppard about his play Arcadia. Previous settings for these interviews have been the Berkeley Repertory Theatre and Hertz Hall on the UC Berkeley campus. The Curran is quite another matter, a large and elegant house, built in the 1920's, and home traditionally to traveling companies of Broadway musicals. Never before has there been so much mathematical talk heard in the lobby and in the auditorium.

Auburn is not a well-known name in the theatre like Brecht or Stoppard, at least not until Proof, which was his second full-length play. From an initial off-Broadway run at the Manhattan Theatre Club it moved up Broadway to the Walter Kerr Theatre and now to a national tour, after picking up the Joseph Kesselring Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, the Drama Desk Award, and the Tony Award for Best Play of 2001. The New York run continues.

One of Osserman's opening questions concerned Auburn's background. He attended the University of Chicago where he studied political philosophy and where his formal mathematical education ended with calculus. But he had an interest in theatre and wrote sketches in the tradition of Second City and a one-act play while still in college. After graduating he went to New York and worked for a chemical company writing copy for labels for a carpet shampoo! And then he attended Juilliard, acting and writing until he decided to give up acting.

Proof is a play about a young woman who had taken care of her mathematician-father for several years prior to his death that came after a long bout with mental illness. Auburn was asked whether he had planned from the beginning to write about a mathematician. He did not. He started out by being interested in the question of whether mental illness, as well as talent, can be inherited — the mathematical connections came later.

Harris 162

As part of the interview Osserman and Auburn read two provocative and very amusing passages from the play (Osserman played Catherine, the young woman, and Auburn played Hal, a young protégé of Catherine's father). The passages touched on various misconceptions (or are they?) about mathematicians — (1) that it is a young man's profession (and here we emphasize the word "man"), (2) that there is something that predisposes mathematicians to mental instability, and (3) that only brilliant results count in mathematics and that less exalted research and teaching (high school teaching is referred to as a sign of failure) are lesser activities, to be eschewed by those in the lofty realms of the highest level of mathematical research.

Catherine in the play has been trained (up to a certain point) as a mathematician, so a question is raised and tackled in the play — can a woman really do highly original work? The lack of a woman on the list of Fields Medalists and the appearance only a few years ago of the first woman to place among the top five in the Putnam Competition — both of these were cited in the discussion. Clearly, in this area at least, perceptions have changed in the last decade or two. Then the question arose: whether the mathematical life is really all over at the age of 40 (as is implied by the tradition in awarding Fields Medals). Osserman pointed out that though great original breakthroughs might be seen more often in the young, mathematicians continue to carry on productive lives into their 50s, 60s and 70s. The idea that what really matters in mathematics is the highest level research probably still dominates the thinking in many circles.

Auburn touched on all of these questions. He described mathematics as a remarkable subculture. But how did he find out so much about the culture without having seriously studied mathematics? It became clear that he has read a lot and has considerable familiarity with the biographies of Erdos, Nash, Ramanujan, and others. He was asked why the principal character is a woman and he responded that a man would not be expected to stay home to take care of an ailing father.

There are a few claims made in the play that one might question — the level of drug use among mathematicians, for example, obviously something suggested by one of the Erdos biographies. Occasionally there are bits of mathematics. At the mention of Sophie Germain, Hal recalls, after a slight hesitation, Germain primes and Catherine blurts out "92,305 x 216,998 + 1". Hal is startled that she seems to know this, but then Catherine claims that it is the largest one known — not so, though it may have been at the time of the action of the play, which is left ambiguous in the printed version. (According to the web page, http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/lists/top20/SophieGermain.html, the largest Germain prime is 109433307 x 266452 – 1.)

Osserman raised the question of whether Auburn was consciously aware of the parallel between Arcadia and Proof. In both plays there is a very clever young woman who has remarkable insights into mathematics and is "mentored," in a

Harris 163

way, by a slightly older man who is well-trained in mathematics but much less original in his thinking. Auburn appeared unaware of the parallel but admitted to being an admirer of Stoppard and his plays. But when asked whether he was strongly influenced by Stoppard, he said that he was more influenced by the people who wrote sketches years ago, like Mike Nichols and Elaine May, and by John Guare and David Mamet.

A much discussed aspect of Proof has been made even more interesting of late with the imminent appearance of the film, A Beautiful Mind, based, we understand, quite loosely on the biography of John Forbes Nash by Sylvia Nasar. What about this connection between insanity and mathematics? Is it really true that a special kind of person is drawn to mathematics? Auburn had said earlier that he was fascinated by the "romantic quality of mathematical work," the solitary worker in an attic somewhere (obviously an idea inspired by Andrew Wiles) working on a problem and coming up with something entirely original. He also said that mathematicians have rather edgy personalities and they make leaps of the mind that most people just cannot make. So he thinks there may be some kind of causal relationship between being a mathematician and suffering from a mental breakdown. Osserman cited four people whom he considers to be "romantic" figures in mathematics: Hypatia, Galois, Turing and van Heijenoort. Their stories are well-known to a mathematical audience — but others could be added to this short list: Abel and Ramanujan (if Hardy was a good judge) come to mind. But not one of these could be viewed as being insane — eccentric in one or two cases, maybe, but not insane.

Osserman cited a study that ranked various professions by the numbers of adherents to the field who have also suffered from mental illness. Poets ranked at the top of the list. People in the creative arts are two or three times as likely to suffer from psychosis as scientists (mathematicians were not cited separately), according to K. R. Jamison in Touched with Fire. Auburn said he had read of enough cases to justify writing his play about mathematicians. Besides, people are used to hearing about mad scientists. Who would want to read about a perfectly sane scientist? Osserman responded by saying they might want to read about mad poets.

Those who have seen the excerpts of Proof on the Tony Awards or the interview on the Charlie Rose Show with the Tony Award winning star, Mary-Louise Parker, from the New York cast, may not realize how funny this play is. The excerpts at the Curran were read to a very receptive audience. They picked up every joke.

So what will the author do next? He said he has decided not to follow Proof with another mathematical play. He's working on two projects, one on the Spanish Civil War and the other on twentieth-century spiritualism, including Houdini!

Harris 164

Meanwhile, until he produces another mathematical play, watch the MSRI website for the next event in this series, an interview with Michael Frayn, author of Copenhagen, the play about Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg which won the Tony Award for Best Play the previous year. That play opens at the Curran in San Francisco in January.

Copyright &copy2003 The Mathematical Association of America Please send comments, suggestions, or corrections about this page to webmaster@maa.org.

Harris 165

Works Consulted

Alexanderson, Gerald L. “Osserman Interviews David Auburn, author of Proof.”

7 April 2003 <http://www.maa.org/features/proof.html>.

Andrews, P. B. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To

Truth Through Proof. Orlando: Academic Press, 1986.

Auburn, David. Proof. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 2001.

Barnes, Clive. Rev. of Proof, by David Auburn. Walter Kerr Theatre. New York.

The New York Post 19 July 2002: 45.

Brockett, Oscar G. The Theatre: An Introduction, 3rd ed. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, 1974.

Congdon, Constance. “God is in the Numbers.” American Theatre Sept. 2000:

72.

Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences NYU. “Proof: A Symposium.” 2003.

The Courant Institute. 16 Oct. 2003

<http://www.cs.nyu.edu/faculty/berger/proof/>.

Dragalin, Al’bert Grigor’evich. Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof

Theory. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1988.

Dreamtown.com. Dream Town Realty. 7 July 2003

<http://www.dreamtown.com>.

Gluck, Victor. Rev. of Skyscraper, by David Auburn. Araca Group at Greenwich

House Theater, New York. Back Stage 10 Oct. 1997: 64.

Hofler, Robert. “Review of Proof, by David Auburn” Variety 29 May 2000: 33.

Harris 166

Lazan, Michael. “Review of Proof.” Back Stage 2 June 2000: 56.

Novick, Julius. “Review of Proof.” Back Stage 27 October 2000: 53.

Pohlers, Wolfram. Proof Theory: An Introduction. Berlin; New York: Springer-

Verlag, 1989.

Robinson, Sarah. “Proof: An Admirable Approximation of Mathematical Culture.”

5 April 2002 <http://www.siam.org/siamnews/01-02/proof.htm>.

Solow, Daniel. How to Read and do Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical

Thought Process. New York: J. Wiley, 1982.

Thomas, James. Script Analysis for Actors, Directors, and Designers. Boston:

Focal Press, 1999.

Vanden Eynden, Charles. Number Theory; An Introduction to Proof. Scranton,

PA: International Textbook Co., 1970.

Weber, Bruce. Rev. of Proof, by David Auburn. Walter Kerr Theatre. New York.

New York Times 27 Oct 2001, late ed., sec. A: 11.

“Willpower.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. 2000.