The Flexible Theatre

The Schaubühne holds 1500 spectators at maximum capacity. One cannot really speak of seats because they are removable (in fact, seats are optional and in some productions, the audience sits or stands on the floor). The floor is constructed of 76 moveable platforms that can be raised or lowered up to three metres, by means of hydraulic lifts. The main hall, an enormous space built of uncovered concrete, can be divided into three separate halls by rollable walls – so in fact the Schaubühne am Lehniner Platz is three theatres. These halls can be used separately (even simultaneously) or combined. The first hall is the smallest and semicircular, reminiscent of a Greek amphitheatre. It holds 300 spectators. The other two halls are rectangular and hold 600 spectators each. Together, depending on how the halls are combined, the theatre holds either 900, 1200 or 1500.

The ceiling is a large black grid covering the entire hall. It is nine meters high if the floor elements are in the lowest position. This grid can be removed. The advanced technical equipment (lighting, wings, walls) can be installed anywhere in the theatre, thanks to this grid. Because of the moveable walls, the changeable floor platforms and the extensive grid, any thinkable spatial arrangement is possible in this theatre. Therefore, the Schaubühne can be called a multiple-form theatre and a multiple-use theatre. According to Izenour (1977), a multiple-use theatre is a theatre that can be used for different purposes. A multiple-form theatre is defined by its spatial flexibility.

The flexibility of the Schaubühne is aptly described by Rufolo-Hörhager (1984, 37): ‘In the space which the directors and the actors decide to designate as the performance area, any kind of stage can be created: proscenium, arena, amphitheatre, thrust, forestage - proscenium – even an opera stage, complete with orchestra pit and loges, can be created. The collapsible chairs can either be anchored or left unanchored; they can be arranged however the director decides’. This ingenious theatre looks remarkably simple. It is constructed of functional materials: concrete, glass, brass and steel. Its value lies in its use, not in its appearance. The graphical table of possible spatial arrangements (in fact listing about all fixed theatre forms known to history) gives a fair indication of the possibilities of the Schaubühne (see picture).

If one takes a look at history, this is exactly the kind of theatrical space Adolphe Appia (1862-1928), the famous Suisse scenographer and scholar, described already in the 1920’s. Rufolo-Hörhager (1984), in her article for Theatre Research International, compares the writings of Appia, especially the essay called ‘Monumentalité’ (around 1922). With the lay out of the Schaubühne, she comes to the conclusion that Appia envisioned a theatre remarkably close to this theatre. Appia wrote that a theatre should be a living space – fluid was the word he used. All too rigid, fixed spatial and architectonic arrangements kill the functionality of a space; in Appia’s vision, this functionality was predominantly social. Rufolo-Hörhager links this Appian (at the time still idealist) theatre to the ‘adaptable and functional’ space of the Schaubühne. She describes the Appian theatre in words that equally apply to the Schaubühne: ‘A flexible stage – one capable of responding to the exigencies of the actors’ body in full vibrant movement (…) and an audience which would feel an intimate part of the performance’. (Rufolo-Hörhager, 1984, 31). To Appia, it was important that the space was neutral in a way; that it constituted possibilities. The space was not to be definite: it had to be defined by its use and as such had to offer the right circumstances for a varied use. It is not the space itself that matters as a work of art, but the way this space is used as a meeting point of actors and audience. Architecture is ascribed a new function here: as a preliminary for art, and the art itself holds an important social function. The theatre, according to Appia, should ‘be defined not as a building housing a stage and an auditorium but as a meeting place for “the fusion of actors and audience members in a collective action” ’ (Rufolo-Hörhager, 1984, 32). In this sense, the Schaubühne differs from Appia’s concept: the focus is not so much on the social aspect but rather lies on the aesthetic purposes. At least the exterior of the building is a historical reference to architecture as an art. The building’s exterior has now become a monument itself, an autonomous work of art, regardless of Mendelsohn’s functionalistic approach to the design. The social purpose of the Schaubühne, moreover, is probably less strong in the new building than it was at the Halleschen Ufer. On the other hand, theatre is always a social event and the auditorium-stage arrangement strongly influences the theatrical experience. In the Schaubühne am Lehniner Platz, the audience-stage relationship can be redefined (manipulated) at will. This comes very close to the Appian vision: the theatre adaptable to any demand of the performers in the present and in the remote future: only this would make the theatre building a living monument to the art of theatre.

The Schaubühne is devoid of external references because decoration is absent. There is little symbolic reference to theatre history or to the position of the theatre in contemporary society. The building’s exterior was not even designed with a theatre in mind, but a cinema. Perhaps it is this very absence of reference to the art of theatre that constitutes the link with today’s society, a society in which the social and aesthetic norms are growing diffuse. Appia, in any case, thought so: ‘The theatre architect will recognise that the strictures of our unpeaceful, godless era require that functionalism takes precedence over aesthetics’ (Rufolo-Hörhager, 1984, 32). Leaving apart the blunt statement about our state of grace, Appia has a point in that the modern variety of style and aesthetic values, the access of the theatre to a broad segment of the public, and the multidisciplinary approach of many artists demand adequate accommodation. There are little uncontested norms left today, nor a defined etiquette. If the theatre wants to express this diffuse and complex reality it has to find an adequate form that may well be the multiple-form theatre.