“Metaphysical Playgrounds for the Actor”: an interview with My Children! My Africa! Set Designer Matt Saunders

You’ve made your mark in Philadelphia as both a set designer and an actor, which is somewhat unusual. How did you begin this dual career path?

I grew up in southwestern Virginia. There was a great deal of emphasis placed on athletics, more than academics and certainly more than the arts. Being rather slight of frame, I never made the cut for high school sports. Desperate to occupy my extracurricular time, I auditioned for a school production of Robin Hood. I was cast as his friend, Will Scarlett. The script called for the character to be perched in a tree for most of the play. It was directed by the English teacher who (from what I could tell) viewed the experience as more of an obligation than anything else.

The set consisted solely of a 20-year-old wooded backdrop that had served as the scenery for any show set in a nature. When I asked the teacher about the tree, she told me not to worry about it – it wasn’t that important. I thought otherwise: I had never been in a play before, didn’t know much about acting, but I did know that I needed that tree. I stayed after rehearsals and converted a backstage stepladder into a chicken wire and paper mache tree. I also painted a new backdrop.

That was in tenth grade, and I haven’t looked back since. I continued through college and now professionally to cultivate both careers. Occasionally (with much stress and fulfillment) the two disciplines converge on a single production.

You’re probably known best for your work with New Paradise Laboratories. Aside from the budget, what are the major differences between designing for NPL and designing a play such as My Children! My Africa!?

NPL creates ensemble-generated new work.  All that exists prior to the rehearsal process are complex ideas from the head of our Artistic Director, Whit MacLaughlin. Nothing has been authored. MacLaughlin and I have an ongoing relationship fueled by constant artistic dialogue concerning projects past and future. We have worked very closely for ten years to establish a specific visual style and aesthetic.

The way we make our work, the way the pieces get authored, is by a method of “channeling” the swirl of ideas overhead into a dense and multi-layered work. The visual environment is often an amalgamation of seemingly disparate objects that are perpendicular to each other to create meaning. The process of gathering these mixed metaphors lasts the duration of the creative process. In fact, shows that we made years ago, upon remounting, often get new scenic treatments. The pieces are in a constant state of collaborative creation, it’s wonderful.

Designing a set [for an existing] play such as My Children! My Africa!  is more structured. There is a playwright and a script. A script is absolute. It narrows the possibilities and presents a specific request. It is structure that I welcome and enjoy, and fortunately, the creative process Blanka Zizka defines allows for the utmost of creativity within that structure.

How does your acting inform your set design and vice versa?

My inability to answer this question with an objective and systematic response has led me to believe that dialogue between performance and design is subjective and ethereal. With New Paradise Laboratories, I always design the sets while rehearsing the work. It has been a delightful experience working on NPL projects. I feel that this work synthesizes the two disciplines.

In adherence to NPL’s physical aesthetic, I find myself creating abstract worlds that aspire to be metaphysical playgrounds for the actor. I think that my ten years of research and training as a physical performer with NPL have provided an understanding of the body in space, how to frame it, enhance it, support it, and hopefully add to its meaning.

What is the most daunting task of designing a set?

Each project is different. Every show I’ve worked on has come with different requests and challenges. One thing remains constant though, and while I don’t necessarily consider it daunting, it is always my chief concern – capturing the “essence.”

That is the goal. It is the broad brushstroke made early in the conceptual process that is the foundation for the design. It is the informed visual proposal stemming from a deep understanding of the particular project and its collaboration. If this proposal is correct, it captures this essence, sparks a series of discoveries, and the remainder of the design falls into place.

Tell us a little about the design process for My Children! My Africa! What sort of ideas did you and Blanka talk about? How have you approached the set design for My Children! My Africa!? What do you hope to emphasize in the design?

The design process for My Children! My Africa! has been thoroughly enjoyable. It has remained productively open, and I have seen my ideas challenged and nurtured from start to finish. From our initial conversations, Blanka and I agreed on a simple, “not-too-poetic” minimalism. It was our feeling that Fugard’s text presents itself in a way that prohibits the imposition of complicated scenery.

The issue of depicting specific locales was alleviated in our minds by the desire to serve the poetry of the language. When scenic elements of architectural value were introduced they seemed out of place and unnecessary. What seemed to work and what we were left with was (much to my satisfaction) bold, confidant brushstrokes. The design is an arranged composition of classroom symbols and the South African landscape. In this respect, the juxtaposition of these elements in the same space is an echo of my tendencies as a designer, primarily my work with New Paradise.  I am thankful to Blanka for allowing me to use the style and voice to express myself.

Often though, when designing minimally, the few elements that are used carry a great deal of weight and significance, and the feel can be quite poetic. This was a concern of Blanka’s. She challenged me to curb a natural design instinct of making it too “pretty” or precious. She wanted the visual poetry but with a “Brechtian” or (for lack of a better word) “utilitarian” frame around it. There was the desire to transport the audience, sure, but always to acknowledge that they were in the theater. This is a smart and sophisticated directorial take that is in keeping with an aesthetic that Fugard himself is known for. 

Spatially, the design is both expansive and claustrophobic. It carries tonal values of both hope and despair. I believe the design to be simple, yet complex, and I hope that it captures the essence of the play.

In his Notebooks, Athol Fugard writes “the stage and writing for it only becomes compulsive when I approach it with images and not ideas.” He quotes Ezra Pound that “An image is the presentation of a psychological and emotional complex in an instant of time” and says “Pound’s definition explains my meaning completely. I cannot add a word to it." Does this feel true about My Children! My Africa! and the design approach to the play?

I like to have scenic elements onstage that do not logically connect they wouldn't necessarily exist in the same real world setting.  This by no means a new or original method or style of stage design, in fact it is an aesthetic that the Wilma uses quite often and with much success. But with MCMA, I have juxtaposed elements such as school desk, chalkboard with red earth platform and giant Acacia tree. This poetic scene is then encased and opressed by a steel cage structure for theatrical equipment. I feel that these elements together constitute something like the "psychological and emotional complex" that Pound refers to.  It is such a complex due to a tender and respectful collaborative response to Fugard's text. It is not easily decoded, to the point of being slightly abstract, it is a complex image that I hope prompts a variety of emotional responses and interpretations of meaning. 

The images below represent stages in the design process for My Children! My Africa! The first image was the starting point for discussions.  Set Designer Matt Saunders described it as akin to throwing in the kitchen sink, trying to include every idea he and director Blanka Zizka had discussed in their preliminary meetings.  The second represents the next pass at a design.  The third was never intended as a literal design - it represents a moment that occurs offstage - but captures the mood of the last scenes exquisitely.  The fourth image is the penultimate design.  All the pieces are in place, except for adding the metal lighting cage to increase the "Brechtian" theatricality of the design, which is shown in the final image.
(click on the images below to view in larger windows)