AN RESTORE“. AND ANALYTICAL \STUDY OF THE PLAYWREGHTS‘ COMPANY Thais fer the Dean. of M. A. MSCHKSAN STATE UNEVERSITY Warner Thelma: Dahiberg i963 LIBRARY Michigan State University AN HISTORICAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE PLAYVRIGHTS‘ COMPANY by Warner Thomas Dahlberg A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1965 ABSTRACT AN HISTORICAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE PLAYWRIGHTS' COMPANY By Warner Thomas Dahlberg This study is intended as an historical-analytical research project on the Playwrights' Company from its begin- ning in 1938 through the season of 1958-59. Historically, it traces the major economic, political, and business events which influenced the Company during the twenty-year history. It analyses and evaluates the contributions made by the Play- wrights' Company to the American theatre and considers the degree to which the Company achieved the goals and purposes for which it was formed. In order to be as objective as possible, the study is based primarily on public information available through newspapers, magazines, and other published sources. A thorough search of the New York Times during the twenty years covered in the study and reference to other newspapers provided much of the information about Company activities. The Burns Mantle series The Best Plays supplied information about the plays and their production while several theatre histories were used for background material. The collection of information on the productions of plays by the Company which is contained in the chart in Appendix I provided a basis for the organization of work and material. From this study has come a more thorough understanding of play production in New York and a realization of the impor- tant role which the founders of the Playwrights' Company have played in American theatre. The company which they formed in 1938 has made a major contribution to theatre in this country in terms of the plays it has produced as well as the careers it has furthered. Most important, the Playwrights' Company proved it could be successful and attained many of the goals set at its conception. This study presents information which verifies these achievements. Cws Wag/34 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER I. THE THEATRE AND THE PLAYWRIGHTS . . . . . . . . 7 II. THE FORMATION AND FIRST THREE YEARS . . . . . . 28 III. THE WAR YEARS AND POST-UAR DEVELOPMENTS . . . . 50 IV. ROGER L. STEVENS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 110 LIST OF APPENDIXES ’ Page I. PLAYWRIGHTS' COMPANY PRODUCTIONS . . . . . . . . 88 II. DIRECTORS AND DESIGNERS OF PLAYWRIGHTS' III. ACTORS ANDACTRESSES WHO HAVE BEEN IN PLAYWRIGHTS' COMPANY SHOWS . . . . . . . . . . 97 IV. CO-PRODUCERS OF PLAYWRIGHTS' COMPANY SHowS O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O O O O O O l O 7 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated in appreciation to the late ProfessOr Donald 0. Buell of Michigan State University who was its inspiration and contributor and who served its author with dedication and wise counsel. iv INTRODUCTION This study had its beginning in 1958-59 with a paper written for a course in Contemporary American theatre. At that time, the Playwrights' Company had completed its twentieth year of Operations as one of the foremost produc- ing organizations in the professional theatre. Two of the original five prominent playwrights who founded the company in 1958 were still active in its Operations, Maxwell Anderson and Elmer Rice. The other three, S. N. Behrman, Sidney Howard, and Robert E. Sherwood, had departed, Mr. Behrman by resignation and the other two by death. But there still remained a significant continuity of management from the first years. Soon after this time, in the spring of 1959, Mr. Anderson died and Mr. Rice resigned, and the last of the original five had left the management. The Playwrights' Company, although continuing its Operations, had reached the end of an era. It seemed to be a prOpitious time to under- take a more detailed study of the organization's first two decades, and the work was begun under the direction of the late Professor Donald 0. Buell. This study is intended as an historical-analytical research project on the Playwrights' Company from its beginning in 1958 through the season of 1958-59. Histori- l cally, it traces the major economic, political, and'business events which influenced the Company during the twenty-year history. This period has been selected as it is the span of years in which two or more of the original members of the board have been actively associated with determining the governing policies of the Company. It also completes two decades in which the policies of the Company have gradually changed, yet have maintained a continuing similarity of purpose and action. Major changes in personnel and Operating policy form the basis for the organization of the study into five chap- ters. The first chapter sets forth the conditions which obtained in the American theatre prior to 1938 and which in part motivated the formation of the group. Chapters II, III, and IV trace the Company's activities during these twenty years, and the last chapter is a summary of the conclusions drawn from this study. Chapters II, III, and IV are established according to natural periods into which the Company's history seems to be divided by the group's activities, the conditions of the times, and associations with other theatrical pe0ple.1 Thus Chapters II, III, and IV are arranged as follows: 1This tendency of the Company's history to be divided into periods can be clearly seen in Appendix I. II. 1938-41. The first division covers the forma- tion of the Company and.the first three seasons in which it proved that it could Operate suc- cessfully. III. 1941-50. The second period covers the ten A years of HOrld War II and the immediate recovery period. IV. 1950-59. The third period begins with Mr. Roger L. Steven's election to membership on the board and completes the Company's history to 1958-59. The first two periods are made up of seasons in which all or a large majority of the plays produced were written by member-playwrights. The third period reflects a change of policy which to some extent precedes the official announce— ment of that change. It is also noticeable that certain designers and directors appear in the various periods, tend- ing to group the seasons into related blocks. The second period is definitely marked by limited seasons. It is on the basis of such indications derived from the record that these chapter divisions are made. This study additionally analyses and evaluates the contributions made by the Playwrights' Company to the American theatre and considers the degree to which the Company achieved the goals and purposes for which it was formed. Such evaluation can be only tentative at this time, for the proximity of the study to the actual events does not permit a prOper historical perspective in terms of the entire theatre scene in America. However, on the basis of the record which it has made and the stated ambitions and reasons given for its formation, some conclusions can be drawn regarding the Company's success. Thus, this record which makes possible the analysis, is an integral and important part of the total study. The important events and policy decisions which seem to have affected the course of the Company's activities comprise the major content of the study. A record of the seasons and the plays produced in each is included for its importance in determining the success of the Company, indi- cation of trends, and the reasons for them. This record is brief, however, as a completely detailed account of each production and the various individuals involved would be both too voluminous for inclusion here and unproductive in the light of the study's purpose. Where associates of the Company seem to have been particularly significant or indi- cative of trends, attention is devoted to them. Brief summaries of the production record and individual associa- tions have been included in the appendices. The study is based primarily on public information available through newspapers, magazines, and various books dealing with the New York theatrical seasons. The New York Times was found to be a most ready source and is probably the most widely used reference for contemporary events. The Burns Mantle The Best Plays series and Daniel Blum's Theatre Eggld series were found useful as they recorded information about the seasons and the plays produced. Laurence Langner's 222.fl2522 Curtain supplied background material and informa— tion about the member-playwrights' associations with the Theatre Guild. Several books of the history of the American theatre also furnished valuable background material, notably Edmond Gagey's Revolution in American ygama and Barnard Hewitt's Theatre g;§;A.: Iggg‘gg $922. It was found impossible to make direct contact with the two living former members of the Company, Elmer Rice and S. N. Behrman, for first-hand information. The former's recent book, The Living Theatre, was useful for some speci- fic information. However, it was felt that a more objective viewpoint might be gained by the use of non-partisan sources. A great deal of information was gathered from the scrapbooks of the Playwrights' Company's publicity agent, William Fields, who also helped by filling in details during a personal interview. Thus, the material for this study has been gathered to present a brief history of the Playwrights' Company. From this history is derived an analysis of the Company's importance in American theatre and its success in terms of its goals. This analysis has been made as objectively as possible at this time considering the information available. CHAPTER I THE THEATRE AND THE PLAYURIGHTS With the death of Maxwell Anderson in February, 1959, and the resignation of Elmer Rice in April of the same year, the last of the original members have left the Playwrights' Company management. Maxwell Anderson, S. N. Behrman, Sidney Howard, Robert E. Sherwood, and Elmer Rice formed the Company in 1938 to produce their own plays. Mr. Howard died the following year, and in 1946 Mr. Behrman, dissatis- fied with managerial responsibilities, resigned. The three remaining members continued with the Company until Mr. Sher- wood's death in 1955 decreased the number once again. During the twenty-year period these men were active, the Company was a leading producer on Broadway with a total of fifty-eight productions to its credit. The Company is and m, Dream Girl, The Eve of St. Mark, The Bad Seed, $132 Fourposter, and 993 92 _a_ 335 fig 393;. It has starred such well known personalities as Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne, Katherine Cornell, Jose Ferrer, Ingrid Bergman, Helen Hayes, and Raymond Massey. In its twenty-year history the Playwrights' Company has worked with some of the most important designers in America and employed some of the tOp directors in the field. ’D Now that all of the original five members of the Company are gone from its board, there is no reason to believe that the Playwrights' Company will be dormant. Resultant changes will undoubtedly occur with a change of management. Since the change in management is completed, it is logical at this point, to take stock of what has tran- spired over the years: the events and achievements which have determined policies that have made the Playwrights one of the most important producing companies on Broadway. The five playwrights, Anderson, Behrman, Howard, Rice, and Sherwood, met in the Spring of 1938 to form a producing company. They were visionaries of the time and, according to William Fields, the press agent for the Company, they were the "first such group in the history of our stage to "1 They planned to contribute survive mere than a year. $10,000 each and begin prOducing their plays. Each play- wright would have Company backing as he produced his own works. The plan was a daring one. The organization on a permanent basis was a new approach to theatrical production. Furthermore, many of the founders' contemporaries predicted sudden and disastrous failure for the venture, since play- 1William Fields, Twenty Years 1938-58, Fulfillment and Promise, The Playwrights ompany Celebrates Twenty Years, News release, Issued William Field's office 1959, unpub- 11.8th. wrights were thought to be temperamental and difficult with which to work. Lewis Nichols and Charlotte Hughes, both with the New 123k Times, mention the "cynics" and "old guard producers" who referred to ”temperamental" playwrights and foresaw a short life for the new company.2 Eugene Burr in "The Theatre" said, . The soothsayers had a certain amount of common sense on their side, for the Company had in its community coffers just funds enough for two shows and no more; and everyone knows that the long established and constant Broadway ratio of success is just one in five 0 However, the five playwrights were visionaries in still another sense. Although not denying the monetary gain they hOped to receive, they hOped that their experi- ment would stimulate and benefit the American stage. They were interested in presenting well-written, thought-provok- ing drama and hoped thus to improve the quality of production and script. According to Maxwell Anderson, they wanted to "help each other on scripts and on production problems" by a "pooling of brains and experience" which would give each of-them a "better chance to say his independent say."4 2Charlotte Hughes, ”Portrait of the Big Four," New York Times, August 25, 1940, sec. 9, p. l. ewis Nichols, "Dramatists on Their Own," New York Times, June 27, 1943, sec. 2, p. 1. 5Eugene Burr, "Anniversary,” The Zeigfeld Theatre, n.d. 4Maxwell AnderSon, "The Playwrights' Birthday," New York Times, October 10, 1948, see. 2, p. 5. - 10 The need these playwrights felt for a producing company of their own develOped from a dislike of existing conditions in the New York theatre. These conditions had originated during the preceding century and matured in the 1920's and 1930's, the period in which Anderson, Behrman, Howard, Rice and Sherwood all started to write and develOp. Elmer Rice, who was then Eisenstein, was the first of the five to have a play produced. His first production was On Trial in 1914. The others appeared on Broadway soon after- wards; Robert E. Sherwood was the last to have his initial play produced, in 1928. Maxwell Anderson began writing with Laurence Stallings in 1924 when their What Price Q1231 was a hit, and Howard and Behrman made their debuts in 1921 and 1923, respectively. By 1926 all of the founders were active on the Broadway scene and were writing successful plays. In order to understand better the desire to risk the hazards of independent production, a brief review of the theatre of the turn of the Century and the conditions which resulted from the twenty years prior to 1938 is necessary. Economic and national trends and reactions affected the develOpment, and the basis these conditions in the 1930's was laid in an earlier theatre. Edmond Gagey, in his Revolution.ig American Drama, describes the theatre at the beginning of this century: 11 In the years before our entry into the First WOrld War, smugly indifferent to artistic and social forces threatening its own complacency, Broadway went on its merry way, attempting to live up to its appellation of the Great White Way and dispersing entertainment to an eager public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At the sedately ornate Empire Theatre, for example, he (the playgoer) might view the latest offering of Charles Frohman, the 'Napoleon of the Drama,‘ with at least one of the galaxy of Frohman stars. If the eager customer happened to be interested in novelty of staging, he might attend a production by David Belasco, famed as a wizard of lighting... Belasco, too, would provide a star.... In a lighter mood the enterprising playgoer might purchase a ticket for the most recent George M. Cohan show -- review or farce -- ... or he might select one of Charles Dillingham's spectacles at the Hippodrome with such features as a parade of suffragettes.... Whatever performance was finally chosen, the Broadway seeker after amusement would know there was little chance of his being disturbed unduly by contemporary prob- lems or driven to painful thought.5 The theatre of the period was one of melodramas, tear- ful comedy, and romances. According to Barnard Hewitt, theatre historian and professor of theatre at the University of Illinois, ”The trend toward Spectacular realism . . . was now the vogue in the production of ShakeSpeare, contemporary melodrama, or romantic drama."6 This theatre world was ruled by the producer. He now had become the producer-manager-director who often combined the function of all three in his own person. This producer 5Edmond M. Gagey, Revolution in American Drama (New York: Columbia University Press, 19477, pp.I-2. 6Barnard Hewitt, Theatre U.S.A. 1668 tg'l (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19595, p. . 12 could be "czar and curmudgeon to his players."7 He often wrote or adapted his own plays or at least clOsely super- vised their construction, and the playwright was "powerless 8" Hewitt to demand reSpect for the letter of his script." states that "producers and managers were comparatively free to express through the theatre their individual tastes and ideals."9 AS a result, "by the time the directors, actors, and the play doctors had finished their amputations and revisions, his (the author's) Opus was often scarcely recognizable."lo Thus, at the turn of the Century, the producer had virtually unlimited power in his theatre. He was the dominant force: be selected the play, cast it, commissioned scenery and costumes, rented a theatre if he did not own one, directed the actors, and provided the money, often out of his own pocket, to cover production costs.11 For the first twenty years of the new century, the theatre remained much the same. David Belasco continued to produce until his death in 1931 and Charles Frohman was active much of that time. Both had their theatrical begin- nings in the latter part of the nineteenth century and, as 7Gagey, 92. cit., p. 5. 81bid., p. 2. 10 9Hewitt, 0 . cit., p. 278. Gagey, gp. cit., p. 2 llHewitt, gp. cit., p. 330. 15 other producers, were unhampered by the restrictions of Equity and other union control, for "theatrical unions were neither as powerful nor as exacting as they eventually became."12 This power of the producers was further strenth- ened, according to Hewitt, by their financial positions and by the realistic style at which they were experts and which pleased audiences at the time.15 This realism was the important movement in American theatre and with it the producer remained supreme. Later in the first quarter of the century, this realism met strong Opposition in the imaginative writing of Eugene O'Neill and his contemporaries, the younger men in the field of playwrighting, who worked for more truthful and imaginative eXpression in drama. Their work was allied with the art theatre and "the new stagecraft" so strongly advanced by Max Reinhardt, Jacques COpeau, Granville-Barker, and later, Robert Edmond Jones. These tendencies toward the use of more imagination in scripts and scenery had been develOping in EurOpe for some time, but were new to the American stage and Belasco and others like him strongly Opposed the new move- ment in this country,although they were unable to stem it. Anderson's poetic drama gained pOpularity as did the prose 12Gagey, 2p. cit., p. 3. laHewitt, 92. cit., p. 287. 14 of O'Neill, and their works, with those of their followers, were first produced by art theatres out of the established "Broadway" district. An emphasis on social statements and human relations typified this movement and was reflected in such works as Rice's On Trial, Anderson's Saturday's Child- ren, and Howard's The Silver Cord, all works by men later to become originators of the Playwrights' Company. A In Gagey's words, the welcome of authors who consider- ed themSelves primarily as poets was made easier by theatrical events and develOp- ments between two world wars. While the little theatre movement soon lost its vitality, devoting itself more and more to the production of the pre- vious season's Broadway successes, its mission had been accomplished and its influence lived after it. The imaginative and poetical play was taken over by progressive producers like Arthur HOpkins and by the Theatre Guild ... the Guild's success encourag- ed numerous other groups and organizations, among them the Equity Players, Eva Le Gallienne's Civic Repertory Theatre, the Group Theatre, the Play- wrights' Company-~widely different in aims but with a common dislike of the commercial play.14 During this period, the theatre experienced a boom which lasted until the great depression of the 1930's. Pro- ducers continued to control strongly the production of plays, the choosing of casts and stars, and the selection of designers and directors. However, with the increasing importance of Max Reinhardt and his contempories with their 1#Gn‘atsey. 22o .C_._i._t_-. pp. 71-2. 15 new stagecraft, designers and directors gained more control of production. They were, however, still at the beck and call of the man with the money. Gordon Craig's conception of the artist-director and unified production was making itself felt. But the playwright, in the American theatre, was relegated to a position of relative unimportance with little say in the matter of how his script was to be handled. In the 1930's the movement toward a more serious and thoughtful treatment of drama and playwriting was fostered by economic develOpments in the nation. During the great boom years of the 1920's the average number of new produc- tions per year on Broadway was as high as 240, as Holly- wood producers added their newly acquired wealth to the Broadway production scene. Then, in the 1930-31 season, came a sudden drOp to only 190 new productions.15 During the next four years the Broadway seasons grew smaller and smaller. The number of revivals increased, and the fre- quency of new plays decreased along with the total count of productions. Money lost in the economic depression was no longer available for the backing of expensive plays. Pro- ducers found that it was necessary to examine carefully the 15Burns Mantle, The Best P1 s g; 1930- 1 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, Inc., I9 , p. 1 . 16 scripts they prOposed to present and began to rely on proven playwrights and tested patterns for scripts. Many producers quit the stage altogether. Hollywood money was more selectively doled out and by 1936-37 began disappearing entirely. In the Opinion of Mr. Mantle, this was partially due to a fight with the Drama- tists' Guild regarding a more generous treatment of the 16 Hollywood made an additional drain on the playwrights. legitimate theatre by offering glowing Opportunities for improving personal fortunes, and much of Broadway's person- nel moved to the West Coast. Some moved only to return as conditions improved in New York, but many were to stay. Economic conditions not only caused pe0p1e to leave New York, but brought forth the formation of relief groups as well, working to provide for the large numbers of actors and other theatre peOple still in the city without jobs. Numerous benefits were organized with the proceeds from a night's performance going to relief organizations or to unemployed actors. It was during this period that the WPA Federal Theatre Project was created to help provide jobs. Although many theatre devotees hOped that the Project might be extended to become a national theatre, its primary func- 1(”Burns Mantle, The Best Fla 8 9; 1936-32 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company,-Ific., I9 , p. v. 17 tion was to furnish work for theatre peOple through govern- ment subsidized productions. During the same period of depression, the Actors' Relief Fund was created. Each of these organizations, though by different means, was aimed at relieving the plight of the jobless actor and indirectly giving playwrights a chance to be heard. The depression years were hard on playwrights. The relief programs, though providing some new productions, were not creating a ready market for scripts. As producers be- came more selective, it was more difficult to find financial backing for plays. Furthermore, many scripts of the younger authors "were of the type labled 'socially significant,’ and while of immediate prOpaganda value, had no lasting intarest as works of art."17 Producers were seeking plays of imme- diate public interest and commercial value, and playwrights were finding it difficult to get their shows produced. Many were leaving New York or simply not writing, while new play- wrights were not develOping. By 1932 with 180 productions on the boards for the season, Mantle noted that many playwrights were ”sold down 18 to Hollywood." The 1936-37 yearbook again mentions the 1‘7Laurence Langner, The Ma ic Curtain, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, Inc., 1 5 , p. 263. 18Burns Mantle, The Best Pla s 9; 1932—33 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, Inc., I9 3 , p. 10. 18 19 Higher pay on the shortage of playwrights in New York. ‘West Coast and difficult production conditions made Broadway an undesirable place to which to bring a new and imaginative script. This same exodus to Hollywood was to hinder the Playwrights' Company in the years after its formation. ‘With the disappearance of readily available funds and producers, an increase in the quality of productions and scripts is yearly noted by Mantle. During the 1932-33 season no more than half the theatres in New York were in use, but, ”artistically the drama has made progress by 20 The following sustaining previously attained levels." season brought a new low in the number of productions, but Mantle notes that the average of failures was less and "all the better plays have represented 'good theatre%"2l That was the season in which audiences began returning to the theatre, and the drama, ”given up a little sadly but quite positively as approaching a state of rigor mortis," began to emerge.22 lgMantle, 1956-37, 220 £1.20, P. v. 2OMantle, 1932-55. 22. cit., p. v. 21Burns Mantle, The Best Pla s 3; 1933-34 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, Inc., 19 , p. v. zaIbido , p. 50 19 The days of the depression, which improved the quality of production and sent so many of Broadway's personnel to Hollywood, were hard on the commercial theatre and particu- larly hard on the playwright, and the boom period of the twenties never returned. The number of productions per season continued to decrease, despite the financial emer- gence. By 1936-37, many of the prominent Hollywood producers, who had been assuming larger and larger portions of the pro- duction scene in New York ”went home to resume their respec- tive places in the California sun,"25 and the season's total was reduced to ninety. The following year was to see even fewer shows Open.24 Hollywood interests were greatly les- sened by the promise of decreased profits, as a result of the new Guild Contracts. It was in the 1936-37 season, as it became increasingly difficult for a playwright to get his script produced, that the Dramatists' Guild began its battle for more prominence for the author in play produc- tion and a larger share of the profits. The day of author's agents had not yet come, and each playwright had to make his own rounds calling on each pro- ducer and begging for production. The situation in the 1930's is described by Hewitt: The producer decided which plays should be produced. In order for his work to reach an audience, the 24 252.21g. mantle, 1956-57, 220 Cite, p. v. 20 playwright had to convince a producer that it would succeed in the theatre. As long as the demand for plays was large, the playwright did not often suffer under this arrangement, but when production shrank . . . and instant and lasting success became more and more essential, the beginning playwright found it all but impossible to gain a hearing. Even established playwrights found it more and more dif- ficult to secure production fog plays at all out of the pattern of past successes. 5 Once an author's script was finally accepted for pro- duction, the producer chose the stars and production staff. The author's preferences were usually considered, but it was the producer's final decision. This practice led to Maxwell Anderson's statement that one of the things he liked most about the Playwrights' Company was that he could produce his own show as he liked-~He was free:26 The playwright's meager role in the production of his scripts and low share of the profits caused the Drama- tists' Guild to begin its new contract negotiations. The negotiations indicated a general dissatisfaction of the playwright with his role in the production of his scripts. The Dramatists' Guild's efforts were of great con- cern to the five playwrights in question. Sidney Howard was president of the Guild and Anderson, Sherwood, and Rice were active members. The effort preceded the Playwrights' Company's formation but expressed the same idealistic goals. 2 25Hewitt, 0 . cit., p. 414. 6Anderson, loc. cit. 21 Dissatisfaction with production procedures was the primary reason mentioned by the five in 1938 when they formally incorporated to produce their own plays. Interest in a playwrights' company was first expressed in 1935 when Robert E. Sherwood, Maxwell Anderson, and Sidney Howard discussed the possibilities. Little is known of the circumstances, but the prOposal came to nothing, and no actual organization was attempted. Two of the three men were later involved in the first meeting from which the Playwrights' Company develOped, and the third was included in the second meeting and ultimate organization. This 1935 meeting was contemporary with the Dramatists' Guild's new contract negotiations, indicating a similarity of view- points. 9 Another indication of the dissatisfaction with Broad- way conditions was Elmer Rice's efforts at production and his continued threats to leave the theatre. Following his §gg Naples Egg 2T3 in 1929-30, as produced by Louis Gensler, he appeared on the Broadway scene in 1931-32 as his own producer with Thg_Lg£t_Bank_and Counsellor-ggeggg. Until that time he had had ten‘plays done in legitimate theatres by ten different producers. The theatre Guild had produced one, ng Adding Machine. Arthur HOpkins, William A. Brady, and Guthrie McClintic also were among those with whom he had worked. He had had one play done at Columbia University 22 and a one-act produced off-Broadway. Each show had been individually contracted for and each required repeated effort to get it accepted by a producer. At the time he began producing his own scripts, Mr. Rice established a precedent for individual production which he did not break until he helped form the Playwrights' Company. Following his Counsellor-ggsggg, be repeated his role as independent producer four more times. Only one of these productions was a success, Judgement Day in 1934-35. With the Playwrights' Company, he continued taking charge of the production arrangements on all of his own plays and directing each with the exception of the musical version of Street §g§gg in 1947 directed by Maurice Abrovanel. Mr. Rice's earlier experiences, prior to the production of ng L2£3.§2£E9 apparently convinced him that he was no longer interested in outside producers. This resulted in his inde- pendent efforts which were joined to those of the Playwrights' Company in 1938. Of the four playwrights who joined Mr. Rice in forming the company, none had attempted to produce his own scripts, but each was recognized as a leading playwright on the Broad- way scene. They had all worked with various producers. A large majority of their shows had been done by the Theatre Guild, but they had also worked with Arthur HOpkins, Guthrie McClintic, Gilbert Miller, William A. Brady, and others. 23 Though each of the producers working with these five men developed profitable relationships, the variety and number of producers involved indicates the lack of a home, which Anderson stated they were seeking by forming their own producing company.27 NO single producer stayed with any of the playwrights for any length of time, and each production was an individual problem that had to be nego- tiated on its own. This meant a repetition of the process of going from one office to another until the author could find someone interested in putting the script on Broadway. Unless the playwright "produced his own play in daring isolation there was no office in which he could feel at home and his business arrangements were no less transient than the run of the play."28 Each of the five playwrights in the Playwrights' Company began writing professionally for the stage during the time the art theatre and the new stagecraft were gain- ing support in America. Through the twenty years proceed- ing 1938, the five became leading playwrights on Broadway, and conditions develOped which they wished to remedy by forming their own producing company. That their writing carried an impact can be shown by a brief review of their work. 27Anderson, loc. cit. 24 Elmer Rice was immediately successful with his 92 IEEEA when it appeared in 1914. His next success, produced in 1920, was Eggg yp Jonathan. Later he returned to subjects dealing with the law practice which he knew, and he scored with T3 T5 EQ3_T§!. However, he is better known for his experimental work in ng Adding Machine and his realistic Street §gg§g, the latter produced in 1929. With his independent productions, Mr. Rice was less successful and the first two, T g ERIE £32! and Counsellor-gg-ng, produced in 1921-22, were the only big hits. ng Addigg Machine was a sociOIOgical review of which Hewitt says, "Elmer Rice had presented his critical view. . . in dry, chard expressionistic symbols, not without mordant humor, but predominantly emotional."29 In Street §gggg, he again dealt with sociological problems in a different and highly successful manner. The most prolific writer of the group was Sidney Howard. He had had twenty plays produced by various indi- viduals and groups. One interesting group, made up of Kenneth McGowan, Robert Edmond Jones, and Eugene O'Neill, produced his translation from the French of TTé,Tg§§‘TTgQE 2£.22£.EE§E° They had also produced Maxwell Anderson's Outside Lookigg IE in 1925. 29H9Witt, 22. SEE-o, Po 553. 25 Maxwell Anderson is best known for his poetic drama as exemplified in Elizabeth Egg Qgggg and ngy 9T Scotland. His first play, 222 HEATS Desert, in 1923-24 was a failure, but in 1924 his What Price Glory, written with Laurence Stallings, ran for 299 performances and was followed by Outside Looking IE and, after several failures, Saturday's Children, both running over a hundred performances. Probably his best-known play is Winterset, a poetical treatment of the Sacco-Vanzetti case which was produced in 1935 and ran for 179 performances returning the following season. He scored again the next year with the imaginative gigg T33 which ran for 171 performances and the successful The Wingless Victory, followed in 1937 by Tge §3§£jggggg which ran for 223 per- formances. The last of the playwrights to make his appearance on Broadway was RObert E. Sherwood. His first play, ng 392g 29 393g, ran for 159 performances and firmly established Sherwood on the Broadway scene. By 1938 he had provided only nine scripts for Broadway producers but of these nine, six ran over one hundred performances. Idiot's Deliggt, starring Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne and produced by the Theatre Guild, returned a second season to run for 179 performances after an initial run of ninety-seven perform- ances while ng Petrified Forest and 222 Queen's Husband were also well received. 26 Of the ten plays S. N. Behrman had written prior to 1938, only two could be counted real failures. His Biograpgy was a great success in 1932-33 and returned the following season to run for sixteen performances after an Opening season of 219. His The Second Man, Brief Moment, and Egg QT Summer all ran over a hundred performances. Amphityron Tfig, an adaptation from the French of Giraudoux, was done by the Theatre Guild for Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne and was another of his big successes. Behrman was well regarded on Broadway and was considered one of the foremost play- wrights in the field of comedy. The five playwrights who in 1938 formed the Play- wrights' Company, were, by their prolific and imaginative writing, among the top authors in New York by the time they decided to produce their own scripts. They had scored and missed, but continued to provide numerous scripts of good quality which they had to market one by one. With the depression years, they found the control of the producer and the sparse financial returns which the playwrights received a deterrent to the type of writing which they desired to do. Their dissatisfaction finally expressed itself in the effort of Sherwood, Anderson, and Howard in 1935 to become their own producers. It was also evident in the action of Mr. Rice who refused to submit to others' production methods and set out for himself. 27 Thus, it can be seen that the conditions which caused these feelings on the part of such playwrights were a result of the economic system which develOped after 1900. The producer was supreme at the turn of the century. During the 1920's and early 1930's the advance of the art theatre and new stagecraft tended to give importance to directors and designers, lessening the vice-grip which producers had held earlier. Their power was limited even more by the growing strength of Actors Equity and the Dramatists' Guild. How- ever, in 1938, conditions still existed under which Maxwell Anderson, S. N. Behrman, Sidney Howard, Elmer Rice, and Robert E. Sherwood felt they could not work. It has been necessary to trace the history of the American Theatre very briefly since 1900 and these play- wrights' parts in it in order to explain the reasons behind their move in the formation of a playwrights' producing company. As a result of the conditions traced in this beginning chapter, the five men set out on a new venture of their own to try to remedy the faults which they found in the existing theatre of their time. CHAPTER II THE FORMATION AND FIRST THREE YEARS Formal organization of the Playwrights' Company took place in the spring of 1938. The news release announcing their intentions was followed by a description of the season planned for the fall. Maxwell Anderson, S. N. Behrman, Sidney Howard, Elmer Rice, and Robert E. Sherwood were the five playwrights involved, with John F. Wharton acting as legal advisor and member of the board. Wharton drew up the necessary papers for formal organization, and the Company was on its way. The Company was organized on the basis that each playwright would personally supervise the production of his own plays. He could direct them himself or, if he preferred, he could engage someone else to direct them. However, he was in complete control of the total production even though he could call in the other members for advice and suggestions. This was often done, and the playwrights seem to have managed well among themselves and to have held a.mutual respect and admiration for each other that made work with the company a pleasure. It was agreed that any play by a member of the company should receive production; gen- erally, however, scripts which did not meet the approval 28 29 of the group were not produced and could be taken to another producer. Only two, Truckline Cafe by Anderson and Dunnigan's Daughter by Behrman were subsequently taken to other producers. Rejections, apparently, were well accepted by their authors. The idea for the formation of such a company was first considered by Anderson, Sherwood, and Howard in 1935, but did not grow into Operation. A stormy meeting of the Drama- tists' Guild apparently set the idea into motion again. Following the meeting, Rice, Sherwood, and Anderson met to discuss the subject. Rice reports that the plan was simply I but Sherwood told the story with more detail. mentioned, Fact or imagination, it was an interesting evening. Ander- son and Sherwood did not know Mr. Rice too well, as he "had quit the Broadway theatre several years before, angered by what seemed to him its shocking indifference to serious playwriting." Rice was known for his frequent but short retirements, and, according to Sherwood, Rice was asked when he was going to return to the theatre. His reply was, "When there exists a theatre that's attractive enough to get back into." This prompted the disclosure of the desire of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sherwood to form a producing company of playwrights.2 Rice apparently liked the idea, and 1Rice, loc. cit. 2Seymour Peck, "Mr. Sherwood Discusses a Combine," Ne! York Times, December 28, 1952, see. 2, p. l. 30 several meetings followed in which Sidney Howard and S. N. Behrman were included as well as John F. Wharton, their legal consultant. According to Lawrence Langner, Eugene O'Neill was also asked to join but declined as he was work- ing on his cycle of six long plays. Before the summer departure from New York, arrange- ments had been made with each author for a script for the following season. Sidney Howard was working on Summer TTgQE, a title which never appeared on Broadway, while Maxwell Anderson was in California working with Kurt Weill on a musical, Knickerbocker Holiday. Rice spent the sum- mer of 1938 in Athens, Greece, working on a second play. He had already completed The Siege 9T Berlin which was never produced. His American Landscape was eventually presented for production in the first season. According to official press releases, these play- wrights formed their own producing company because of "existing conditions." ”Mr. Anderson early took a dislike to the power that producers had to choose and reject the plays," according to the Times' statement made at his death in 1959.4 He was interested in a "local habitation" in 5Lawrence Langner, The Magic Curtain (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 19517] p. 268. 4New York Times, March 1, 1959, p. 84. 31 which the playwright could, "put an end to . . . migratory careers."5 Sherwood, on the other hand, has stated that the Company was "largely an expression of grievance against the Theatre Guild."6 These statements do not conflict if it is understood that all of the playwrights, excepting Rice, had been very active with the Theatre Guild and this organization was representative of the existing power of the producers. While they were quite active with the Guild, having done some eighteen shows for the group, these playwrights had no surety that it would produce their shows. This made it necessary for them to "sell" each script individually and bargain with other producers. At no time did they have any standing agreement with a producer which lasted for a period extending beyond the "run-of-the-show." Thus, the play- wright never had any assurance that he would be able to get a show produced and never knew with whom he would be able to work. The problem became a double one in that it was diffi- cult to get a show produced and once it was contracted, the author had very little to say about how it was to be handled and who would be engaged to direct, design, and star in the play. -—._ 5Maxwell Anderson, "Author Looks Back Over Ten Years 31,15. Concludes That the HOpes of His Company Have Been Ful- filled," New York Times, October 10, 1948, sec. 2, p. 2. 6Peck, loc. cit. 52 According to a statement by Elmer Rice written at the Company's formation, the group "had no quarrel with any individual or group of individuals," nor was there "any chip upon our collective shoulder."7 The statement was made at a time in which tempers might have been involved had a strong denoucement been made against any group in New York. However, on the basis of the Sherwood statement and the stand taken by Mr. Langner in his autobiography,8 the theory that at least Sherwood, Anderson, Howard, and Behrman might have been dissatisfied with their recent associations with the Theatre Guild seems to hold some truth. Subsequent indications, however, point to the fact that it was not the Theatre Guild alone, but tendencies possibly represented by it and other producers collectively which caused the playwrights to break off on their own. The Theatre Guild, at the time of the playwrights' incorporation, was having difficulties. Depression years had taken their toll and, while some of the productions were successful, others failed, and "those that failed were dire failures."9 Many of the Guild's subscription cities had dropped out of its circuit, thus limiting resources from which to draw, and tensions within its 7Rice, loc. cit. A 8Langner, gp. cit., p. 268. 9Langner, gp. cit., p. 257. 53 management became apparent while tempers often flared. Such internal problems made production problems more difficult to solve, and it was in this reSpect that the playwrights would have been involved. The Theatre Guild's policy of having two board members serve as production committee while the Board as a whole participated in productions broke down into constant bickering between the Board, the committee, the authors, and the actors. Added to that, certain Board members had even suggested that the Theatre Guild be dis- solved entirely.10 As problems developed in the Board and. committee, relations with authors and actors were strained, causing discouragement and dissatisfaction among casts and generally disrupting production schedules. Anderson reports that the Board, made up of Laurence Langner, Theresa Helburn, ZMaurice‘Wertheim, Lee Simonson, Philip Moeller, and Helen ‘Westley, "would descend on rehearsals and fight among them- .selves and fight with the author and get the actors and the (director demoralized."11 The Playwrights' Company‘s incorporation was an added Lllardship, for it left the Theatre Guild without four of its major playwrights. Problems in the Theatre Guild, were such :inn.l938 that, after the playwrights had organized, Langner esrpproacbed the group and suggested ”somewhat bitterly" that _ 1oLangner, gp. cit., p. 273. 11Peck, loc. cit. ¥ 34 they take over its subscription series, "since I saw little l2 prospect of the Guild being able to run the theatre." How- ever, the offer was not accepted and during the spring and summer of 1939 plans for a "new regime" were drawn up by the Guild Board.15 Antagonism with the Theatre Guild, if it existed, was soon quieted, for during their second season in 1939-40, the Playwrights' Company enlisted the cooPeration of the Theatre Guild on 222 g §E§ll T3 T3 TTgQ_. Langner, in his book, says that the Guild asked Mr. Sherwood to revise his AcrOpolis for the Lunts, but that instead Mr. Sherwood presented the famous couple with a new play in which they were very interested. .Alfred Lunt was raised by a Finnish stepfather and, as nggg 4§§§TT 32 fig TTgQE was a declaration of the Finn's bravery during the Russian invasion, he felt the play was of imme- diate and timely importance.1A It was produced by the {Theatre Guild and the Playwrights' Company jointly as the CEheatre Guild had the Lunts under contract and thus would llave to be represented in any productiOn in which they took IIDart. The play scored an immediate hit and ran for 181 I) erformances . Joint efforts with the Theatre Guild were repeated in 211941 and 1942 as well. Anderson's Candle $2 the Wind and 15Langner, gp. cit., p. 274. 14Langner, gp. cit., p. 327 55 Behrman's ng Pirate carried the names of the Theatre Guild and the Playwrights together. However, both productions starred actors which the Guild had under contract at the time. In order to get these actors it was necessary to enlist its aid. Helen Hays, for many years a leading actress with the Theatre Guild, played in Candle l2 Egg 2229 for Mr. Anderson while the Lunts starred in The Pirate. The neces- sity of working with the Theatre Guild to obtain the Lunts and other actors under contract to this producing company was to occur several more times in subsequent years. Beside the two reasons already given for the Company's formation, (a) the playwright's difficulty in getting a script produced, and (b) as an "expression of grievance against the Theatre Guild,” Anderson indicates an addition- al closely related cause. Maxwell Anderson wanted an Office where he could feel "at home." He cited the instances in the seventeenth century in which the ”best writing that was done for the stage” was done by men "who were associated with stable producing companies composed of playwrights and actors."ls He hOped that in the "home“ which they would establish, they would be able to help each other with scripts and production problems. He felt that it would be to the advantage of all "to work with craftsmen whose work 15Anderson, loc. cit. 36 we respected and whose advice was always worth considering because it came out of long experience in playwriting.“16 Elmer Rice, on the other hand, stressed the business possibilities Of the venture. He, too, was dissatisfied with the difficulty involved in getting a show produced. However, he saw it from a more practical viewpoint in his explanation of the Company's formation written in 1938. He admitted that they had no "immediate program," but stated that the "practical considerations" had to do with their wish "to have our plays produced as well and as advantageous- ly to ourselves as possible." Play producing is "one of the most precarious of all enterprises," but "There is no reason why play-producing should be quite as haphazard, quite as hit or miss, quite as much.of a.gambling enterprise as it is."17 He found practical reasons for the company's incor- poration. Such a program would leave out the middle-man in the production scheme. It would also allow the playwrights to share the profits to a larger extent. "The coordination of these elements, (financing, theatre bookings, actors, etc.) is the managerial function," he said, and "if a play- wright or a group of playwrights can successfully do the job, there seems no good reason why he or they should not pocket the resultant profits."18 This seemed to him good business, 16Ibid. 17Rice, loc. cit. 18- 57 and the success of the company has indicated that it was. Mr. Rice also added another practical reason and an idealistic one to his explanation for their company. He states that the group was drawn together by ”common interest." The fact that they were interested in good theatre and advan- tageous production of good plays made their OOOperation in a closer bond natural. Each of the five was interested in the democratic way of life, human relations, human freedoms and the Opportunity to present his ideas in production. The plays of each of these men had firmly established these interests. The ideal which Mr. Rice gave as a reason for their corporation dealt with new and promising playwrights. The group hOped that they would be able to "create opportuni- ties and provide training for young playwrights, young actors, young directors."19 This could be done with "Team- work and with the kind of enthusiasm that is generated among individuals engaged in a common enterprise." With enthu- siasm and new talent, the playwrights hOped to be able to present high quality theatre. They wanted to "bring back the theatre to those who are hungry for it . . . and to introduce to it those who have never tasted its delights."2O These were great and ambitious hOpes and indicated that 19Ibid. Ibid. 38 the group was truly made up of visionaries with desire and foresight for the future. The lack of definite statements from Mr. Behrman and Mr. Howard prevents a clear view of their reasons for enter- ing the company and their hopes with regard to its program. However, it can be assumed that their very affiliation with the three others who have expressed definite views indicated they were in agreement and in sympathy with statements which are available. As for S. N. Behrman, Mr. Sherwood states that the other four "had great difficulty persuading Behrman to come into the company--and great difficulty keeping him in."21 Behrman resigned in 1946, expressing a dislike for the time which production required. He was interested in writing and was not interested in managerial activities.22 However, had he not held similar views with the others in the beginning, there is room to doubt that he would have let the others talk him into participating in such an undertaking. Interests among the five playwrights were similar enough so that the company survived its first year and continued to Operate. William Fields reported that in August 1939 the members of the group were getting along 21 22Sam Zolotow, "Behrman Resigns from Stage Unit,“ New York Times, June 24, 1946, p. 27. Peek, 1000 Cite 39 well together and were being quite "faithful in attendance at business sessions and production conferences. Very few of these seances have had fewer than four of the five pre- sent."23 8. N. Behrman was elected the first president and was the only one to have his name printed on the door. Reportedly, he was elected at a meeting from which he was the only one absent. John F. Wharton usually presided at Board meetings regardless of who was president at the time.24 Mr. Rice and Mr. Sherwood appear to have been the members with the most business interest. Maxwell Anderson usually attended Board meetings throughout his career with the company, but was not often involved with other business matters. Behrman, despite his early start as president, was the least interested in company business and preferred to stay out of the office. As for Howard, he was only with the company for one year prior to his death. Mr. Anderson, in a report on the company in later years, said that Howard had a real business sense and, had he been with them longer, they might have been able to prevent S. N. Behrman from resigning, as Howard often liked the work in which Behrman preferred not to take part.25 The Company's Board was not 23william Fields, "Here's a Rookie Batting .750 First Time Up," New York Herald Tribune, August 6, 1939, p. u.k. 24Interview with William Fields, Press Agent for the Playwrights' Company, July 23, 1959. 25Anderson, loc. cit. 40 to be without its disagreements, but the playwrights were able to get along well enough together to stay in Operation for twenty years. In the fall of 1938 following their incorporation, the playwrights all returned to NewYork. Their first pro- duction, which Opened on October 15, was Sherwood's T93 Lincoln.Tg Illinois. It starred Raymond Massey and was an immediate hit. The play ran for several seasons and had a coast-to-coast tour. With 592 Lincoln, the Company had a great beginning for it represented the type of cooperation and quality which the playwrights had hOped to achieve. Elmer Rice, as a member of the Company, directed the show and the facts that it was so well received and won the Pulitzer Prize for 1939 well indicate its success. Of the four productions done by the Playwrights' in their first season, three were on democratic themes. The playwrights had desired a theatre in which they would be able to have their say regarding patriotism and human rela- tions in their own way. With three plays their first season dealing with American democratic themes in a time of world strife and a period of indecision and controversy in this country, these men were making their stand and voicing their opinions. EurOpe was already in the midst of war, and the United States was debating isolationism or war. 41 Summer announcements indicated that the first produc- tion by the new company would be Knickerbocker Holiday. Max- well Anderson.in association with the composer Kurt Weill wrote the script, but it was not ready soon enough to have the distinction of being first and Opened on October 19, just four days after ARE Lincoln. It was the second suc- cess for the Company and, with two under their belt, their season got off to a good start. The first disappointment of the Playwrights' career came in December of the first season with Elmer Rice's American Landscape. The play, directed by the author, ran for only 42 performances. Its patriotic theme did not take on Broadway. To conclude the season of 1938-39 the Company Opened S. N. Behrman's HE.I$EE.£2£ Comedy. It was another first for the Company, for it was their first co-production.with Katherine Cornell who starred with Laurence Olivier. The play ran for a total of 185 performances. It closed a season in which the group proved that they could not only get along together well but could operate in the black. .A season in which three out of four productions were consider- ed hits was a record of which no one could complain. Sid- ney Howard was the only one of the five who had not provided a script for this season. 42 The success of the first season allowed the Play- wrights' Company to offer Christmas bonuses to the casts and crews of the production running during the holidays. They also found that they could move their offices from their original site at 230 Park Avenue to the thirty-eighth floor of the International Building, Rockefeller Center, and send dividends to their stockholders. With the first year so well received, the Company made tentative plans for the following season and, having concluded business matters, left for their summer retreats. Behrman went West to Holly- wood as did Howard. Anderson was in New England, while Sherwood and Rice left for EurOpe, Rice going to Paris and Sherwood heading for London. During the summer, William Fields, the Company's press representative, kept the newspapers well supplied with reports of plans for the following season. The Tribune men- tioned that they had a full "budget" for 1939-40, "fuller probably than any other one company theatrical budget in ”26 Indications which would cause the stage world today. such a statement can be drawn from summer activities of the playwrights. Howard was working on two plays. His Summer TTgQE, which had been planned for the first season, was renamed Madam, Will You.Wa1k and prepared for a fall 26Herbert Drake, "The Playbill," New York Herald Tribune, July 30, 1939. 45 opening. He had also started another script on the life of Benjamin Franklin. Rice was again working on The Siege 2T Berlin and another drama,'both of which he planned to have ready when he returned to New York. Sherwood had a script in preparation, and Maxwell Anderson was ready with another musical and his §9y_Ta£g_. Despite such bright prospects, the season proved to be of minor importance. However, it was sufficient to prove that the Playwrights' Company was still active and healthy. Howard's Magag, ETTT XQE‘EETE closed out of town. Paul Muni had been on the West Coast for seven years and returned specifically for the Anderson play, receiving excellent notices. Even though the critics were more reserved regard- ing the script, the play had a successful run. Supporting Mr. Muni were two young actors, later to become stars, Jose Ferrer and Uta Hagen. Sherwood's There Shall gg T3 Night was the other hit of their second season. It was produced with the Theatre Guild in order to star Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne. The show won the Pulitzer Prize for 1940 and was well received by critics and public alike. It took a stand on contro- versial issues and definitely established Mr. Sherwood's view toward America's duty in world affairs. The Company stepped into world affairs on its own during the season. On Memorial Day, the proceeds from the plays which the Company had playing were sent to Polish Relief. Two thousand, four hundred ninety-eight dollars were collected from Key Largo, There Shall Tgyflg Night, T9 Tng T23 Comed , and Abe Lincoln TE Illinois, the latter two plays having been held over from the preceding season.27 With the reurn of Abe Lincoln T3 Illinois, the Company was also able to put into action one of its more idealistic goals. In an effort to present good theatre to more peOple, the Company moved the play to a larger house and by so doing could offer it for lower prices aimed at a wider audience. Prices for tickets ran from 55¢ to a tOp of 31.10. This season saw the Company planning to extend its span of Operations to radio. The original plan was to go into production on September 13. Original shows, as well as the playwrights' own, would be presented over radio on the last half of the Star Theatre program sponsored by Texaco. The Columbia Broadcasting Company was to handle the shows.28 Later the plans were put off until the following fall and eventually discarded altogether. The tragedy of the 1939-40 season and one to present a continued loss to the Company was the death of Sidney '27"Playwrights' Aid Finns and Poles," New York Daily Mirror, December 8, 1939. 28kg! Yank Ems. August 18. 1939. p. 17. 45 Howard on August 23, 1939. He was killed in an accident on his farm in Tyringham, Massachusetts. At the time, his Madame, ETTT TQE‘TETT was in rehearsal and Benjamin Franklin was still being written. Madame, ETTT TQEITETT was delayed and, when finally Opened in Baltimore, was not considered satisfactory for a New York Opening. It closed in Washington on November 27. Robert Sherwood was to have finished Benjamin Franklin but it was later decided that the script should be put off for a season and it never reached produc- tion. Mr. Howard.had been an important part of the theatre since 1924, and, although active with the Playwrights' Company for only a year, had made himself a definite asset, particularly when dealing with production matters. His death was a great personal loss to his associates and a great professional loss to the Company. As an expression of their respect and feeling of loss for him, the Company established the Sidney Howard Memorial Award in the spring of 1940. The award reflected their interest in new playwrights and their desire to help and encourage them in the professional theatre. It carried a cash prize of 31,500 for a young playwright who, "without previous substantial success in the theatre, had one or more plays produced during the season."29 The first winner 29"Ardrey Received the Howard Prize," Ngy‘lggg EEEQEI April 15, 1940’ P0 21. of the prize was Robert Ardrey for his Thunder Rock, produced in 1940. It was awarded on the basis of his 1939-40 season and previous plays, Star-Spangled, How 33 Get Tough About T3, and gaggy ggggg in which he had shown ”a genuine talent for the theatre which merits every possible encouragement."50 A New York release soon after Mr. Howard's death stated that several playwrights were interested in his posi- tion with the Company and that Philip Barrie had been 31 "guessed at" as the one most likely to be included. How- ever, the membership did not change, although Mr. Barrie was officially considered by the Board.52 The 1940-41 season was the last before the nation be- came involved in WOrld War II. The playwrights were active off Broadway as well as on. All of them had been alert in foreseeing the coming struggle and urging their country to be prepared and stand firm. Each season the Company produc- ed plays which dealt with the problem at hand. In this last season prior to actual warfare, the Playwrights' produced Rice's Flight 39 Egg Eggg. Its theme was timely, pleading for strong action and democratic principles. Anderson's Journey fig Jerusalem and Behrman's The Talley Method 50Ibid. Blflgfl 1253 DaiTy News, February 6, 1940. 32 Fields Interview. 47 completed the season but were not enthusiastically received. The season as compared to its predecessors was disappointing. During this 1940-41 season, prior to the United States involvement in actual fighting, Sherwood was already busy urging that the nation mobilize and employing his eloquence to Oppose such anti-war supporters as Colonel Lindberg and General Robert E. WOod. At the same time he was active with Behrman in the campaign for Roosevelt while Maxwell Anderson was working for the election of Wendell Wilkie. The play- wrights were not only interested in putting their views on stage, but were willing to stand behind them and actively support them in the political world. The first period discussed in this chapter and includ- ing the Company's formation and the first three years, is characterized by the use of member-playwright scripts exclu- sively. Ten plays were produced by the Playwrights' Company during this time. Each of the playwrights except Sidney Howard provided several scripts, two each from Robert Sher- wood and S. N. Behrman and three each from Elmer Rice and Maxwell Anderson. The Company's first musical, prepared by Mr. Anderson with the help of Kurt Weill, was produced dur- ing this period. Of the ten shows, six were directed by Mr. Rice, while Guthrie McClintic directed two. Alfred Lunt was the director of the show, nggg §Q§ll.§2 T9 NTgQE, in which he 48 and Lynn Fontanne were starred. The musical, Knickerbocker Holid , was directed by Joshua Logan. It is interesting to note that Mr. Rice was active as a director as well as a playwright-producer. He had pre- viously directed most of his own shows following Street §3333 in 1929. He directed all of his own plays which the Playwrights produced in this first period, and he also. handled one each for Sherwood, Behrman, and Anderson. He directed all productions of the Company during the 1940-41 season. In later seasons other directors were used, while Mr. Rice limited himself to working only on his own scripts. This early period is also distinctive in that the Company used Jo Mielziner almost exclusively as designer. Eight out of the ten productions were designed by Mr. Mielziner. The exceptions were Sherwood's There Shall 33 N3 Ni ht, designed by Richard Whorf, and Rice's American Landscape, for which Aline Bernstein designed the setting. The Company began to use many different designers in other periods, and Mr. Mielziner's name appears less and less in connection with Playwrights' Company productions. With the conclusion of their third year, the Play- wrights' Company members had proven that they could work tOgether and could produce their own plays successfully. They had produced a total of ten scripts by members of the Company. Of those ten, six were hits, two had won Pulitzer 49 Prizes, one was a moderate success. Only one play had closed before coming to New York. The playwrights had presented their plays on stage in the manner which they felt would most advantageously present their views. In a very real sense, they had tried to fulfill the desires and dreams which they had expressed with the Company's conception. CHAPTER III THE WAR YEARS AND POST-WAR DEVELOPMENTS The season of 1941-42 Opened in a nation at peace and ended in a nation ajar with delayed preparation and armament for the war in which it was already taking part. For the theatre it marked a year of depression. Broadway was in an uproar and, according to Brock Pemberton, the New York Times reporter, the theatre was ”picking up the pieces? far into the following season. In December of 1941 he stated, Except for the hits protected by advance sales, audiences dwindled to nothing and lobby lines for successful attractions disappeared. Engagements have been cut short, bookings shifted, plays closed and abandoned, domestic political gags and dialogue deleted, while house staffs have been coached in blackout and bombing procedures. For the Playwrights' Company such conditions began a slump which was to continue until the following decade and which formed the second period in the Company's history. This was a period of slim seasons and busy men. . This second period, including the years from 1942 to 1949, generally indicates two trends. The first trend is noticeable during the war years. Other designers and directors began to appear in connection with Company produc- tions. Between 1941 and 1945, Howard Bay became the major 1Brock Pemberton, New York Times, December 28, 1941, sec. 9, Po 1. 5O 51 designer, preparing four plays for the Company. Joe Mielziner continued to work with the Playwrights, but in five seasons he designed only three productions. Following the war four shows were designed by Mr. Mielziner, and Howard Bay does not appear between 1946 and 1950. Lee Simonson, Donald Oenslager, and George Jenkins each set a play for the Company during the latter years of this decade. Lee Simonson designed 3333 3T Lorraine; Mr. Oenslager did Kanin's The Smile 3T the WOrld; and Mr. Jenkins did the settings for Anderson's T333 T3 the Stars. Lemuel Ayers and Boris Aronson were the designers who appeared with Mr. Mielziner and Mr. Bay in the years between 1941 and 1945. Lemuel Ayers designed The Pirate by Behrman, and Boris Aron- son did Anderson's Truckline Cafe. Over this period of 1941-50, directorial policies of the Company changed also. Whereas in the early period most of the productions were directed by Mr. Rice, he directed only two plays between 1941 and 1946, and he did not direct any during the second part of the decade. It may be noticed also that the two which he did direct were his own scripts. He did not handle scripts by any other author following 1941. However, during the ten years following 1941, numerous new names appear on the Company's record as directors. Garson while Alfred Lunt, Michael Gordon, Harold Clurman, H. C. 52 Potter, Maurice Abrovanel, and others directed productions. Joshua Logan and Guthrie McClintic, who had directed plays for the Company in its first three seasons, did not return during this decade. The second trend involves changes in Company policy in the seasons of 1943 and 1949. The Company did not offi- cially announce a change in policy regarding the use of scripts by non-member authors until 1951. However, the first play under Company production by an outside author was Sidney Kingsley's The Patriots in 1943. It was not followed by another play by an outsider until 1949 when Garson Kanin's T33,§3TT3 3T 333‘T33T3 was produced. From that time on, each season included more and more plays produced for out- side authors. The period from 1942 to 1949 began slowly for the Play- wrights' Company. During the first season, the Company pro- duced only one play, Candle $3,333_HT33 by Maxwell Anderson. The Theatre Guild had been arranging for Helen Hays to tour with Twelfth Night, but she felt that the Anderson play "had 2 " an important message for the war, so the Guild and the Playwrights' Company co-produced the play. It met little enthusiasm, although it ran for 135 performances. Langner says that Candle T3 the Wind "ran its course briefly, its 2Lawrence Langner, The Magic Curtain (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., I951}, p. 335: 53 flickering flame unable to withstand for long the cool winds of Broadway."3 However, Mantle reported that it "found an interested and considerable public."4 The production later toured and was considered a success by the Company. The slack season and those immediately following it are best explained by the beginning of the war and the trans- fer of energies to the war effort. Robert Sherwood was prob- ably the most active of the playwrights in that respect. He was made deputy coordinator of information for the government and also wrote numerous pleas for more active participation on the home front. Maxwell Anderson was also doing some writing about the war effort and was involved in personal matters.5 Behrman disliked production problems. As a result, Elmer Rice was the only one actively engaged in Company management much of the time. The newly established Sidney Howard award for young playwrights was passed during the year 1941. The playwrights could not agree upon a deserving new author. It was later given to the New School of Social Research to produce Winter Soldiers. Although this did not comply with the terms of the 3Ibid. 4 Burns Mantle, The Best Pla 3 33 1241-33 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, I9425, p. 9. 5Robert Coleman, “Playwrights' Company Reviews Its Sixteen‘Years," The Sunday Mirror, February 14, 1954, n.p. 54 memorial, it was felt that this use of the money was justi- fied by making possible a new play which otherwise might not have seen production. The following season, 1942-43, found Sherwood even more actively participating in the affairs of government as the director of the overseas branch of the Office of War Information. His work took him to London and Africa and left him little time for Company activities. The other authors in the Playwrights' Company were also busy with activities which kept them away from New York. Elmer Rice was working with Metro Goldwyn Mayer in Hollywood and was also busy attacking the Post Office censorship. lThroughout his career, Mr. Rice disliked the power of the Post Office to censor scripts and was active in fighting this control. He was also an active member of the Writers' War Board. Mr. Behrman was preparing a script of Quo Vadis for Greta Garbo and was doing war service work. John F. Wharton, legal counsel for the Company, was taking part in Civilian Defense activities. Philip Stevenson, an assistant, took over the activities of William Fields, the Company's publi- city agent who joined the Canadian army. S. N. Behrman and Maxwell Anderson both had scripts which the Company produced during the season, T33 Pirate and T33 333 3T 33. 3333. However, Broadway activity was still hampered by the war, and the Playwrights' Company felt the 55 need for all of its board to be active. Anderson had written T33 313 3T 33. 3333 earlier for the National Theatre Confer- ence. Its acceptance by conference audiences was good, and the Company exercised its Option to bring it to Broadway.6 It was well received, but suffered from the fact that it was a war play. Mantle states that by the 1942-43 season plays of the Second WOrld War had almost been "bombed out."7 By January Mr. Anderson had decided to go to Africa to obtain material for another play. T33 Pirate was the second play produced during the season by the Playwrights' Company. It Opened at the Martin Beck Theatre on November 25, 1942. The play ran for 177 performances, and its pOpularity was due more to its stars, Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne, than to the play itself, 8 according to Burns Mantle. The Pirate was published by Random House in the spring of 1943 and carried an introduc- tion by Mr. Behrman which was a tribute to Ludwig Felda, the author of the book from which this play was taken.9 6Burns Mantle, The Best Plays 33 1342-53 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, I943}, p. 5. 7Ybid., p. 68. 8Ibid., p. s. 9"BehrmanTribute to Fulda," The New York Times, February 7, 1943, see. II, p. l. 56 The third play of the season was a departure from the Company's previous unofficial policy of producing only scripts by member authors. It was the first of a series of departures which eventually led to a general acceptance of scripts by non-members. This seems to have been a