ORAL INTERPRETATION As ,A‘ FORM j   ;_-
OF PROFESSIONAL THEATRE . »,   _
ON THE NEW YORKSTAGE , .: : 1
FROM 1945'1‘0 19655 f. _ ” '

   

Thesis for itheDegree-ofPth,‘ _ ‘ ’
MICHIGAN STATE-“UNIVERSITY- : A - '
ALICEL-JASWAL » > '
.1968

finial!

  
   
   

  

mm A R Y A
Michigan State

Univ «mm;

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

ORAL INTERPRETATION AS A FORM OF PROFESSIONAL
THEATRE ON THE NEW YORK STAGE
FROM 1945 TO 1965

presented by

Alice Jeanette Jaswal

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D . degree in Theatre

Majv’g/(Ofessor

Date Au ust 29 1968

 

 

ORAL :

The D111“
OMEN-On a
a” D

M 01 W

0‘
I L
R

Q \l ‘0 at.
233101131 19
Safari 0::
iéaccom

Ttrfior

EN . s '
teamed

N“

EMined

 

 

ABSTRACT

ORAL INTERPRETATION AS A FORM OF PROFESSIONAL
THEATRE ON THE NEw YORK STAGE
FROM 1945 To 1965
By.

Alice J H." J aswal

The purpose of this study was twofold: ’l) to compile the
information available on oral interpretation productions which were
a part of the New York professional theatre scene from 1945 to 1965,
and 2) to attempt to determine if oral interpretation, on the pro-
fessional level, represents a separate and distinct genre, or if it
is a form of theatre which makes selective use of stage techniques
and accouterments.

Information was obtained from the reviews of productions which
emphasized the aural rather than the visual aspects of presentation
and from correspondence with thirty—two people connected with these
productions as performers, directors, or adaptors. Thirty~one
presentations were considered.

Chapter I presented the statement of the problem and the
definition of terms. Chapter II dealt with the Readers Theatre
productions of Oedipus Rex and The Malor of Zalamea. Chapter III
examined the Laughton—Gregory productions, Don Juan in Hell and

John Brown‘s Bde. Chapter IV discussed productions which presented

u '5

TI)»

TI“.
\LE

L

6:5}

need

it

.
«AH.-

"C
“‘3

an.

swim:

‘tfiN
x!‘

.I-V
y

 

 

JASWAL
material from several authors concerning a specific theme or idea.
This included An Evening of European Theatre; Five Queens; MILI-
Ma Child: 313 Hollow Crown; In White America; and W-

Chapter V considered productions which featured a collection of

material from a single author. Included in this chapter were a solo

311d a group presentation of Spoon River Anthology; Ages of Man;
Emlyn Williams' two Dickens programs, Mark Twain Tonightl; Theatre

of Peretz; and The World of Carl Sandburg.

 

Chapter VI examined
productions which presented experiences from an author's life as

well as his works. Presentations in this group were A Boy Growing

Hp; A Lovely Light; The Importance of Being Oscar; The Brontes;
Brecht on Brecht; An Evening's Frost; and the three dramatizations
from O'Casey's autobiography, I Knock at the Door, Pictures in the
Hallway, and Drums Under the Windows. Chapter VII dealt with the
remaining productions which did not fit in the earlier chapters.
These included Moby Dick; U_np1£r Milk Wood; U.S.A.; Dear Liar; and
Telemachus Clay. Chapter VIII presented summaries, conclusions,
and suggestions for further research.

The following conclusions were reached:

’1. Obvious differences exist between the majority of oral
interpretation presentations and conventional productions in the
warmer of presentation used. Scripts were used in nearly three~
fourths of the presentations. Performers in more than half of the
productions were limited in their movement. Several productions
utilized narrators.

2. Another significant difference between oral interpretation

presentations and conventional productions is in the material, with

 

Tee-fourth:
handed for
it lend its

mic and E

 

 

JASWAL
three—fourths of the productions using material not originally

intended for the stage. Practically any type of material seemed

to lend itself to oral interpretation presentation if it was dra—
matic and had a clear central theme or idea.

3- The majority of oral interpretation productions made some
use of scenery and lighting. Only about one—third of the productions
used costume. ‘

Ll-. The performers in nearly all the oral interpretation
productions had appeared in previous conventional theatre productions.
More than half of the productions featured well—known actors.

5. The majority of the theatre critics were willing to accept
at least some oral interpretation productions as "theatre." The
criteria generally applied to these productions seemed to be the
same as the criteria applied to conventional theatre productions.

Although oral interpretation productions frequently differ
from conventional productions with regard to the manner of pre—
sentation and the type of material, the writer feels that oral
interpretation, on the profeSSional stage, is not a separate and
distinct form of entertainment, but a specialized form of theatre

utilizing selected stage techniques and accessories.

.1?»

v'qzrv‘v'. -

 

ORAL INTERPRETATION AS A FORM OF PROFESSIONAL
THEATRE ON THE NEW YORK STAGE
FROM 1945 TO 1965
By

Alice Jeanette Jaswal

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Theatre

1968

 

Copyright by
Alice Jeanette Jaswal
1969

O———0
a
3

r. encom

A CKN OWLEDGEMEN TS

I am extremely grateful to Dr. E. C. Reynolds for his guidance
and encouragement during the writing of this thesis. I would also
like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Sidney Berger,

Dr. John Waite, and Dr. David Ralph for their suggestions.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the staff in
- charge of the Theatre Collection in the Library of Performing Arts
at Lincoln Center in New York for their assistance. Finally, my
thanks to the theatre critics, directors, and performers who took

time out from their busy schedules to answer my letters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF
TERMS . . .

Statement of the Problem . . .
Justification of the Problem .
Review of the Literature . . .
Limitations of the Study . . .
Methods and Procedures . . . .
Preview of Remaining Chapters

READERS THEATRE INCORPORATED . .

Oedipus Rex . . . . . . . . ~
The Mayor of Zalamea . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
THE LAUGHTON—GREGORY PRODUCTIONS

Don Juan in Hell . . . . . . .
_________________

John Brown's Body . . . . . -

Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

ANTHOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . .

An Evening of European Theatre
Five Queens . . . . . . - . .

When I Was a Child . . . - - .
__________________

The Hollow Crown . .
_________________

iv

20
23
25
28
38
43
45
46
75
91+
97
98
99
103

112

 

 

 

CHAPTER

V.

VI.

VII.

Page

In White America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
The Golden Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
COLLECTIONS OF AN AUTHOR'S WORKS . . . . . . . 146

Mixed Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

 

Bleak House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Ages of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Mark Twain Tonight! . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

The World of Carl Sandburg . . . . . . . . . 195

Spoon River Anthology . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Theatre of Peretz . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
__________________

 

Summary . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . 227

AN AUTHOR'S LIFE AND WORKS . . . . . . . . . . 234

A Boy Growing Up . . . ..... . . . . . . 235
A Lovely Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

 

The Importance of Being Oscar . . . . . . . 256
The Brontes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
270

Pictures in the Hallway . . --------

I Knock at the Door . . . . . . . . . . - . 279

————————____________
Drums Under the Windows . . . . . . . . . . 285
Brecht on Brecht . . . . . . . . ...... 295
An Evening's Frost . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Summary . . . ...... . . ....... 315
MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTIONS . - . . ..... . . 322

ITEZ_212E . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . 323

Under Milk Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
________________

V

El.

3mm

 

 

CHAPTER Page
U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

Dear Liar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Telemachus Clay . . . . ....... . . . 370
Summary...... ....... ..... 379

VIII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
Conclusions and Summaries . . . . . . . . . 584
Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . - - 389

BIBLIOGRAPHY I I Q I O I Q ...... l O I 0 I U . . . 39"

vi

 

ml!

and a1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS

I. Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study will be twofold: first, to compile the
information available on the oral interpretation productions which were
a part of the New York professional theatre scene from 1945—1965; and
second, to attempt to determine if oral interpretation, on the profes—
sional level, represents a separate and distinct genre, or if it is
merely a form of theatre which makes selective use of stage techniques
and accouterments. A more complete discussion of what constitutes an
oral interpretation production will be given in the discussion re—
garding the limitations of the study, but in order that the reader may
have a general idea as to the nature of the study before proceeding
any further, a brief definition will be included here. An oral inter—
pretation production will be defined as a production which attempts to
recreate a literary experience in the mind of the listener through an

aural emphasis rather than an emphasis upon the visual aspects of

the presentation.

II. Justification of the Problem
There are indications that oral interpretation is becoming a
Part of our entertainment world. Although the number of professional

oral interpretation productions done in New York each season is not

1

 

 

aerial]; impressi
tree tines as my
mind under cousin
liter of colleges :
ml interpretation
a; be classified a
team or some 0th
the Medal used,
Want to recreate
he Interpretation
} ' neatly compiled z
Nilege and univer.
Messianal stage
ofpoetry, and 139

“’9 read by amp

.1131 Tetra J on

“4 universities

    
  
    
 
   

 

Tum play rea
"Wemus ar

““115 referrin

1
My Tech Ass
’ 'Readers'

l
A . 1966,

    

Tammie

 

2
numerically impressive, it is interesting to note that there were
three times as many productions presented during the second ten—year

period under consideration as during the first. Also, an increasing

 

 

 

number of colleges and universities are offering different types Of
oral interpretation presentations to their patrons. These productions

may be classified as Readers Theatre, Interpreters Theatre, Chamber

 

Theatre or some other form of "reading" or "theatre," depending upon
the material used, and the inclination of the director, but they all
attempt to recreate a literary experience in the mind of the listener.
The Interpretation Interest Group of the Speech Association of America
recently compiled a list of materials presented in group readings on
college and university campuses across the nation as well as on the
professional stage. They reported 131 plays, 3'? poems or programs
of poetry, and 139 prose selections or programs of prose selection
were read by groups:I The most recent five year survey the E32—
jcional Theatre Journal concerning play selection in American colleges
and universities found that out of nearly 3,000 full length productions,
475 were play readings.2

Numerous articles have appeared in theatre magazines and speech

journals referring to various aspects of oral interpretation or to

h

1Speech Association of America, Oral Interpretation Interest
Group, "Readers' Theatre Bibliography," Central States Speech Journal,

February, 1966, pp. 35—39-

2Educational Theatre Journal , May, 1966 , p- 139-

 

 

 

 

specific oral inte

liclentley, Jo
interpretation b '
some!+ and autho
sional oral inte
considered owl '
Second, a s
of professional
electors concern
lle collection of
record of what ty

on the profession

There is a
Tim as a form
Motions of t1
u“ H is partim

RiEIembers entit:

 

 

 

5

specific oral interpretation productions.5 Theatre critics such as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eric Bentley, John Gassner, and George Jean Nathan mentioned oral
interpretation briefly in their consideration of the recent theatrical
scene, and authors Of textbooks on oral interpretation mention profes-
sional oral interpretation briefly, but no systematic study has
considered oral interpretation as a form of professional theatre.

Second, a study which considers oral interpretation as a form

 

of professional theatre would be of interest and use to scholars and
educators concerned with either oral interpretation or with theatre.
The collection of the available data on these productions provides a
record of what types of materials and techniques have been successful

on the professional stage and suggests areas for further study.

III. Review of the Literature

There is a conspicuous lack of material examining oral interpre—
tation as a form of professional theatre. Information concerning
productions of this nature presented in New York City since World
War II is particularly scarce. An article by Keith Brooks and John
Bielenberg entitled "Readers Theatre as Defined by New York Critics,"

does deal with several professional Readers Theatre productions;

M

3A representative sampling might include: "Readers‘ Theatre
on TOur," Drama Critiggle, Fall, 1965; "Interpreters' Theatre,"
Ruérterly Journal of Speech, October, 1963; "Staging Don Jfian in Hell,"
Mfgtern Speech, May, 1954; "Charles Laughton on Oral Reading," Central
étgtes Speech Journal, December, 1951 , and similar articles.

Eric Bentley, The Dramatic Event: An American Chronicle,
(New York: Horizon Press, 19510, 1313- 83-85, 123-127; John Gassner,
Theatre at the Crossroads: Plays and Playwrights of the Mid-Century
American Stage (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 286?
George Jean Nathan, The Theatre in the Fifties (New York: Alfred A.
KIIOPf, 1953: PP' 36‘371 391 117: 21%-

 

   

 

 

Tuner, the autho

cpl: of these pro
. as flat lmovledge

lomlation of an

lithe authors do
“so, the selec '
appears to have b
than to providing
E. A. Hon]!
Essence and lest]
reading of drama
dose production
Mingle play.
“f tare on the
muttered oral

Irene Cog

 

 

 

 

4
however, the authors were trying to ascertain the professional philos-
ophy of these productions, as expressed by selected critics.5 The hope
was that knowledge of this professional philosophy might aid in the
formulation of an educational philosophy of Readers Theatre. This
study was limited to a twelve year period and dealt mainly with pro—
ductions which appeared on Broadway. Some of the conclusions reached
by the authors do not seem valid in light of more extensive research.
Also, the selection of critical opinions to be included in the article
appears to have been made with a view toward proving a point rather
than to providing a comprehensive picture of critical reaction.

E. A. Monroe‘s dissertation, "The Group Reading of Drama: Its
Essence and Aesthetic Principles," considers professional group
reading of drama briefly;6 however, Miss Monroe limited her study to
those productions which had more than two readers and which presented
a single play. Much of her material was concerned with group reading
of drama on the college and university level. Linn's dissertation
considered oral interpretation as professional theatre in London:7

Irene Coger and Melvin White, in their recent book, Readers ~
_T_h_eatre Handbook, cite various successful professional oral inter—

pretation productions, but they do not consider them in detail.

_.__

5 Keith Brooks and John E. Bielenberg, "Readers Theatre as
Defined by New York Critics," Southern Speech Journal, Summer, 1966.

6

Elizabeth Annette Monroe, "The Group Reading of Drama: Its
Essence and Aesthetic Principles," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1963).

rzJames Reive Lindsay Linn, "A Historical Study of Oral Interpre-
tation in London,"1951-1962 as a Form of Professional Theatre,"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964),

8
Irene Coger and Melvin White, Readers Theatre Handbook (Chicago:
Scott, Foresman and Company, 1967).

 

 

 

‘v-w

 

mentioned previous

or trend, towards

elahomte other t]

W- new;
The min 1):
definition of on
pretation texts I
ha Geiger points
M, "Em
to define it."9
of 0131 interpr
01 the listenel
“311 by “a litt
Another
Meter Should
imaginations
experimce.
m the inte
intelMeter

Am, a,

 

 

 

5
Thom time to time, articles have appeared in various newspapers and
magazines concerning specific productions or people concerned with
specific productions, but no comprehensive study has appeared. As
mentioned previously, theatre critics occasionally write of the fad,
or trend, towards oral interpretation presentations, but they do not

elaborate other than to refer to a few productions of this sort.

IV. Limitatigns of the Study

 

The main problem in this study has been to find a workable
definition of oral interpretation. Various authors of oral inter—
pretation texts have attempted to explain what it is and what it is not.
As Geiger points out in his text, The Sound, Sense, and Performance of
Literature, "Everyone knows what oral interpretation is until he begins
to define it."9 There seems to be general agreement that the purpose
of oral interpretation is to recreate illiterary experience in the mind
of the listener; however, none of the authorities explain what they
mean by "a literary experience."

Another difficulty lies in trying to determine what the inter—
preter should and should not do to help his listeners use their
imaginations most effectively to mentally recreate the literary
experience. The questions which inevitably seem to arise are: How

can the interpreter best accomplish this? and, at what point does the
interpreter cease helping his listeners to imagine what the author had

in mind, and present his own interpretation of the material so

——-—-————-——_—_

9Don Geiger, The Sound, Sense, and Performance of Literature
(Chicago; Scott, Foresman and Company, 1963), p- 79-

 

hterelly that it
listener, but a 1“
succinct, at what
senator or the ac
.415 is an
held by the autht
is to head and ‘
titer felt thrt
to thin of oral
soothing which
the problem of
tattoo ceases a

Moon too deli

them to an and

preter does no
rem-HS t0 hit

There a]

h 1‘
.rtcmE‘ N011

one r019; end

the chel‘ hm.

fttouently P(

relationship

l \
file actor me
Restore.

: he

flew

tilted by

10
m

 

 

 

6
literally that it is no longer a recreation in the mind of the
listener, but a recreation on stage for the viewer? Or, to be more
succinct, at what point does the oral interpreter become the imperu
sonator or the actor?

This is an extremely difficult question to answer, and opinions
held by the authorities in this area differ widely. Because the field
is so broad and the productions to be considered are so diverse, the
writer felt that, for purposes of this study, it would be more feasible
to think of oral interpretation in terms of a Continuum rather than as
something which can be clearly defined and limited. This alleviates
the problem of attempting to determine at what specific point interpre—
tation ceases and acting begins. As Geiger notes, "The actor is a
person who delivers a literary author's sentences out loud, delivers
them to an audience, and tries to deliver them well. If an oral inter—
_ preter does not do these things, it may well be asked what function
remains to him."’'0

There are some obvious differences between acting and inter—
preting. Normally the actor is concerned with only drama; plays only
one role; and does not acknowledge the presence of the audience. On
the other hand, the oral interpreter is not restricted to drama; he

frequently portrays several parts; and he usually maintains a direct

relationship with his audience. The other differences are less obviouS.

The actor memorizes his lines; he is free to move about and to use
gesture; he becomes the character; he relates to other actors; and he

is aided by theatrical accessories such as costume, scenery, and

“—

"Onbid.

 

tinting.
about the
to other g
those holt
informer

theatre ,

pry

 

7
lighting. Some oral interpreters also memorize their lines; move freely
about the stage; assume a character——or often many characters; relate
to other performers; and make use of costume, scenery and lighting.
Those holding a strict view of oral interpretation would say that these
performers were not interpreters, while those holding a strict view of
theatre would be unwilling to accept them as actors.

Charlotte Lee insists that a script be used in oral interpretation,

  
    
   
  

and warns that the interpreter who has committed his material to memory
risks losing the sense of direct communication he needs to have with

11 Bertram emphatically states, "Memorization followed

his audience.
by presentation without the script is clearly not oral interpretation.

. . . Unless the reader refers to his script from time to time, the
presentation is in some medium other than interpretation."12 Smith and
Linn suggest the use of a book helps to "aline" the reader with his
audience and to make the reading "less obviously a 'performance'."13
Lynch and Grain, on the other hand, maintain that memorization should

not be a matter of concern; what is important is the effectiveness with

which the interpreter communicates.14

 

11Charlotte J. Lee, Oral Inter retation (Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin Company, 1952), pp- 3-12.

12Jean De Sales Bertram, The Oral Experiepce of Literature

(San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1967), p. 72.

13Joseph F. Smith and James R. Linn, Skill In Readin Aloud
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. E26.
14

Gladys E. Lynch and Harold C. Grain, Projectsiin Oral Inter-
pretation (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959), pp. 4—6.

 

 

 

 

not aft

attenpt -

Ltd to

 

 

 

8

It should be noted here that the authorities who have been

quoted are writing specifically for amateur interpreters. It is diffi—
cult to conceive of a professional performer giving the same material
night after night and not memorizing it, even if he did not deliberately
attempt to do so. Sir John Gielgud, in his Ages of Man presentation,
actually used his script to read from when he first started giving the
program, but after he had presented it many times, he no longer needed

it for reading purposes, although he continued to use it "for certainty
and to turn to, to break the continuity."15 Similarly, Staats Cotsworth,
who served as narrator in I Knock at the Door and Pictures in the Hall—
E213 reported that he pretended to read certain sections of O'Casey's
prose long after he knew them by heart.’16 The First Drama Quartet, in
their presentation of Don Juan in Hell, used manuscripts strictly for
effect. The story is told that one night, as they were performing on
tour, Charles Boyer suddenly forgot his lines in the middle of one of
his long Shavian discourses. After the performance, when the others
asked him what had happened, he replied that as he reached to turn a
page in the script, his eye happened to catch the line he was speaking
and it completely distracted him.’]'7

It would seem then, that as far as professional oral inter—

pretation productions are concerned, it is unreasonable to insist the
Performers must not have their material memorized. However, the ques-

tion then becomes, must the performer use a script or book or some

 

 

15Letter from Sir John Gielgud to the author, June 13, 1968.

16Letter from Staats Cotsworth to the author, June 9, 1968.

17Robert Beloof, The Performing Voice in Literature (Boston:
little, Brown and Company, 1966), p. 76-

 

 

 

hteraty

recreatic

 

 

 

9
literary symbol to remind his audience that his purpose is the
recreation of a literary experience even though he does not read from
it? If so, how often must he refer to it? Emlyn Williams, in his pre—
sentation of A Boy Growing Hp, brought a pile of manuscripts on stage
ndth him, indicated the material for his program had come from the
manuscripts, and then did not refer to them the rest of the evening.1

In Ages of Man, Gielgud referred to his manuscript only between

 

selections.19 Finally there is the problem of productions such as

John.Brown's Body, which did not use manuscript.20 If the use of manu—

 

script is a criterion for oral interpretation, then this presentation
could not be considered as such. One is then faced with the question,
if it is not oral interpretation, what is it? Certainly other aspects
of the production were more closely related to interpretation than to
a "regular" theatre production. DeSpite the lack of scripts, many
critics called John Brown's Body a "reading."21 It would seem then,
that the presence of a script and the use of a script should not be set
forth necessarily as rigid requirements for oral interpretation.

There is also a great deal of controversy among authorities
regarding how much gesture and movement an interpreter should use.

There seems to be general agreement that the majority of the action

*—

18Emlyn Williams, "My Unfavourite Word is Reading,” an article
found in the New York Theatre Collection, probably taken from the

Playbill, p. 33.
19John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, January 3, 1959.

2 .
OJohn Mason Brown, Saturday Rev1ew, March 14, 1953, p. 34.

2IIJohn Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, February 21, 1953.
George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, March 24, 1953.
Sam Zolotow, New York Times, March 27, 1953: P- 28-

Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, February 16, 1953.

’ --a',-.—.._._.. ._.__ ,

 

 

mold occur
moon
finalize th
the inpom

testion, but

Dnei

pot-Urey» .
36cm note
to the can
it warns ,
Sometimes
Elitelin,
ECOHOWI,
Lt
totem
these,
it“ det

“lucid,

Surge

441d

 

 

10
should occur in the mind of the listener, but there is wide disagree—
ment as to what the interpreter may or may not do to help the listener
visualize the action in his imagination. Brooks, Bahn and Okey stress
the importance of the interpreter's use of vocal and physical sug—
gestion, but caution if he goes beyond suggestion he is overstepping
his role.22 Unfortunately, they do not give specific criteria for
determining what should be considered as "going beyond suggestion.”
Simley writes that if the reader uses anything other than "suggestive
gesture," the listener is taken out of the realm of imagination.23
Bacon notes that, while the primary appeal of oral interpretation is
to the ear, the bodily activity of the interpreter is also important.
He warns that if the interpreter "fails to practice economy, he is
sometimes said to be acting rather than interpreting"?+ Again, no
guidelines are offered as to when the interpreter ceases ”to practice
economy."

Lynch and Grain refer to the difference between acting and oral
interpretation as the difference between the degrees of literalness or
suggestion used by the performer, but they offer no explicit criteria
for determining at what point the suggestion becomes too literal to be

considered suggestion.25 However, in another part of their book they

 

2
2Keith Brooks, Eugene Bahn, and L. LaMont Okey, The Communi-
cative Arts of Oral Interpretation (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,

19375, pp. ~36, 47—48.

2BAnne Simley, Oral Interpretation Handbook (Minneapolis:
Burgess Publishing Company, 1960), p. 2-

24Wallace A. Bacon, The Art of Interpretation (New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966), P- 47-

2
5Lynch and Crain,__p. cit., pp. 4—6.

 

 

to to define
a‘oility to st
of fitness i
he not enot

its action 1

meter is 1
"file that ,
Clos

0’3 channel,
enttate b,
one dime
“ll the (
Einterim

identity

For em

chicks

 

at 510‘] 6,

tie}; J

 

 

 

11

try to define "good physical behavior" in terms of clarity of meaning,
ability to evoke an emphatic response from the audience, and the sense
of fitness it engenders.26 Crocker and Eich stress that words alone
are not enough. ”The reader must be alive physically. He must suit
the action to the word.”27 Smith and Linn maintain that, "within the
limits imposed by the reading situation," (use of a script) the inter—
preter is limited in his movement and gesture only by his ability to
make what ever he does convincing.28

Closely associated with the problem of movement is the problem
of characterization. Woolbert and Nelson, in their efforts to differ-
entiate between interpretation and acting, point to the difference in
the directness of communication and the performer's non—involvement
'En the character of another individual.”29 Similarly, Brooks,
Henderhan and Billings insist that the reader should not loose his
identity to the extent that he "becomes" a character.50 This would
not allow us to consider some productions which should be included.
For example, in Gielgud's portrayal of Richard II, tears ran down his
cheeks as he, in the character of the unhappy king, parted with his
beloved crown. There would be little question in the minds of those

who saw Ages of Man that Gielgud became involved in the character of

___________________
26.
Ibid, p. 132.
27Lionel Crocker and Louis Eich, Oral Readin (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 2d ed., 1955), P- 166-

2 . .
8Smith and Linn, 22. cit., p. 311.

. 29Charles H. Woolbert and Severian E. Nelson, The Art of Inter-
REEE;X§_§2§ggh (New York: Crofts and Company, 1945), pp. 5.

. 30Keith Brooks, Robert C. Henderhan, and Alan Billings, 'm
Philosophy on Readers Theatre,” Speech Teacher, September, 1963, p. 230.

 

 

 

 

 

ind yet,
he would
feels he
on on

is thou:

._:

 

 

12
another individual, in fact, in the character of several individuals.
And yet, somehow, there was a difference between his reading and what
he would have done had he been acting. Gielgud has stated that he
feels he is too old to play Romeo in a regular production, but the
form of presentation he used in Ages of Man permitted him to show how
he thought Romeo should be played.“

Lynch and Grain suggest that as long as the interpreter is
attempting to "recreate for an audience an experience of what he
finds on the printed page, he is performing as an interpreter."32
Parrish, who incidently included a chapter on impersonation in his
text, Reading Aloud, refers to three successful professional oral inter—
pretation productions: Don Juan in Hell, Mark Twain Tonight!, and
Enlyn Williams' Dickens programs, as proof there is no sharp distinction
between acting and reading. The question, as Parrish sees it, is not
which of the two to use, but rather ”a question of finding the appro_
priate place on the continuum between acting and plain reading."

This will depend on the situation in which the reader finds himself

and on the nature of the material he is presenting}3 Dickenson

expressed a similar viewpoint in his article "Readers or Rhapsodes?".
. . . one can regard acting and interpretation as belonging to
the same continuum——that of performance, and therefore to be
distinguished largely on the basis of their primary appeals:
acting as largely visual, interpretation as largely aural.

As performance, they may be regarded as different in degree,
rather than in kind. The possible distinctions between them

 

3llHenry Hewes, Saturday Review, December 27, 1958, p. 20.
32Lynch and Grain, _p. cit., p. 3.

33Wayland Maxfield Parrish, Reading Aloud (New York: The

Ronald Press Company, 1966), P. 3

 

 

 

will be m
end-fast
genre '10
Certaj—T
gmiessional

ma?“ 1“ I

men-t She I“

The (
frequently
several rc
impersona“

no hath

2"

/s/

 

 

 

13
will be matters of emphasis, rather than of clear—cut, hard—
and—fast definitions——ultimately referable to gge literary
genre to be served, as the determining factor.

Certainly there can be little doubt as to whether or not the
professional readers use characterization. Nancy Wickwire, who
appeared iD-EEEEF Milk Wood and The Golden Age, wrote of the enjoy—
ment she received from developing several characterizations in one
evening.35 Likewise, William Redfield, who considers himself pri—
marily a character actor, found a great deal of satisfaction in
portraying many characters in U.S.A.56

The question of impersonation as opposed to characterization
frequently presents itself when the performers are not handling
several roles. Obviously Emlyn Williams and Hal Holbrook were doing
impersonations of Dickens and Twain; however it is not always easy
to distinguish between impersonation and characterization. Dorothy
Stickney, in her program, A Lovely Light, did not try to impersonate
Edna St. Vincent Millay,37 although some of the critics thought she
"became" the poet.38 The other performers who presented the life
and works of an author often confused the critics.

In Dear Liar, Miss Cornell wore her hair in a style similar to

the way in which Mrs. Campbell had worn hers, and wore a gown similar

".——-—-—————__—__

h
3 Hugh Dickinson, "Readers or Rhapsodes?" Quarterly Journal of

Speech, October, 1959, P- 261'
35Letter from Miss Nancy Wickwire to the author, June 3, 1968-

36Letter from William Redfield to the author, July 5, 1968.

37Letter from Miss Dorothy Stickney to the author, June 17, 1968.

38Frank Aston, New York World—Tele ram and Sun, February 9, 1960,
New York Theatre Critics' Reviews, Zhereafter referred to as NYTCR), p. 375,
John McClain, New York Journal American, February 9: 1960,
ME: 9. 374 _'" '
Lewis Funke, New York Times, February 7, 1950, 590° II, Pc 7-

 

W
:75??—

 

 

to one the. Campbell might have
impersonating Mrs. Pat, at leas
that she assumed the character
here characterization stops as
tifficult, if not impossible tr
Wilson, who, after seeing

hr. Kilty implies his t‘n
andShaw. One wonders. I
At the end she has faded e
remins volatile, voluble.
close to death she is a he
TEbelhous, sentimental—~e
trillltph to despair. wealtl
timely a desirable won

If this isn‘t impersona
If the players do use 0

appropriate to the material,

a ' I
$80 mteract with each othe:

is ‘ n
tcussmg the mm of oral ?

Theatre, suggests that the p

with their minds and ther

 

4‘
W "—U'W—

 

 

 

14
to one Mrs. Campbell might have worn in that era, but she was not

impersonating Mrs. Pat, at least not in her opinion. She did feel

39

that she assumed the character’of the actress, however. Exactly
where characterization stops and impersonation begins is extremely
difficult, if not impossible to determine, as illustrated by critic

Frank Aston, who, after seeing Dear Liar wrote:

‘Mr. Kilty implies his two are not impersonating Mrs. Campbell
and.Shaw. One wonders. In the beginning they bloom with vigor.
At the end She has faded and he totters. Through the years he
remains volatile, voluble, amusingly petulant. Until she is
close to death she is a hard-headed spitfire, proud, pliant,
rebellious, sentimental--a bundle of contradictions that from
triumph to despair, wealth to poverty, health to weakness remains

primarily a desirable woman.

If this isn't impersonation it is marvelous suggestion.

If the players do use characterization and do use movement
appropriate to the material, it would seem logical that they would
also interact with each other on stage. However, Irene Coger, in
discussing the form of oral interpretation she calls Interpreters
Theatre, suggests that the performers should visualize the scene
only in their minds and therefore should not even look at each other.41
Brooks, writing about Readers Theatre, forbids the players to
"physically interact," but does not forbid them to look at each
other.#2 .A strict application of a criterion prohibiting interaction

among the performers would again necessitate the exclusion of

productions which should.be considered.

39Letter from Miss Katharine Cornell to the author, June 11, 1968.

L,
OFrank Aston, New York World-Telegram and Sun, March 18, 1960,

MEL p. 317.

kqlrene Coger, "Interpreters Theatre: Theatre of the Mind,"
Slarterly Journal of Speech, April, 1963, po 157.

42Keith Brooks, "Readers Theatre: Some Questions and Answers,”
Dramatics, December, 1962, p. 11+.

 

 

 

 

' h in

The performers in Do
' but

hrectly to the audlence,
' r look

redomers and frequently

. - v," c
. - IaCta “
was hemg said. In

tothelhes of the other to;

t ‘ T
omlirecL’3 John Brown S 30
l ._ u x

w e
theplawers, such as T ymne
, . s‘r.
Putting his arm around her .
‘v
a“tomography, Drums Under t.
- \

hrectly to the audience, ou

. N , 5
mteraeted as they presented

1‘ r“ me ire
413, Cornell and nhe-

came together to act out see

the one may generalize th’

AC

interact with each other to

Melines can be establish

The extent to whicho

Scenery 15 also not clearh

Unreaders theatre, state t

”fill selectively implié

Mreference to

readers th.
\\\1;-““‘~y

Joseph Wood Krutch

1+SMOHI‘Oeygn‘ Q‘ E
Howard Taubman, Ne
ht

‘

e. 320. J°hnM°°1ain» ”a

CW and White,

 

##—

H
“a
‘ww—‘h.

-s—-—‘__
W- ‘4‘.—.

 

 

15

The performers in Don Juan in Hell delivered many of their lines
directly to the audience, but they also directed comments to fellow

performers and frequently looked at each other and reacted to what

was being said. In fact, Miss Moorehead was praised for her reactions

to the lines of the other three as well as for her presentation of her

own linesfl3 John Brown's Body had some physical interaction between

the players, such as Tyrone Power's kissing Miss Anderson's hand and

putting his arm around her shoulder. The third volume of the O'Casey

autobiography, Drums Under the Window, used a narrator who spoke

directly to the audience, but it also featured players who definitely

45

interacted as they presented vignettes from O'Casey's life. In Dear

liar, Cornell and Aherne frequently spoke to the audience, but they

46

came together to act out scenes as well. It would seem then, that

while one may generalize that performers in oral interpretation do not

interact with each other to the extent that actors do, no concrete

guidelines can be established.
The extent to which oral interpreters may use costumes and

scenery is also not clearly defined. Coger and White, in their book

on readers theatre, state that "scenery and costumes are not used or

are only selectively implied.” Brooks, Henderhan and Billings, also

in reference to readers theatre, accept the use of ”visual and

—___

43Joseph Wood Krutch, Nation, December 22, 1951, p- 554-
h

4Monroe,.gp. cit. p. 32.

1,

5Howard Taubman, New York Times, October 14, 1960, p. 26.

46 .
John McClain, New York Journal American, March 18, 1960, NYTCR,
p 0 320.

h
rzCoger and White,_gp. cit., p. 19-

 

 

 

auditory aids, so long as the z
anddonot interfere with the
am in reference to readers
elem, scenery, and props sh
keeping the scene essentially
”Whit them as a matter of
success with his Dickens prog:

effective use of costume?0

Several oral interpreta
scenery, and the difficulty C
hint does the (:05th and
the audience to accept what :'

audience to use what is 8110“
imagination? Critic Martin ,
thing to determine at what
Litera that the production
pretation presentation when
tTote:

thit‘ts time that Produc
idiom ust because so
Ofaut S e‘t’, there a
hut :blogmphiest roe
whichuopzlhdneed for fa
e .
I’rgsentatiomlast nlght
as it :1" flat matter,
I 0 .
thirteenth ed mm a]

it

Brooks
5 Hend
[*9 erhan
con 0 .
50G ,‘E‘ \clt'r r
eigera 0 ‘
. c1 .
51 ‘2 \t ,

“111 Gottfried

 

 

16

auditory aids, so long as the aids are kept in the realm of suggestion
and do not interfere with the function of the listener."br8 Bacon, once
again in reference to readers theatre, suggests the use of costumes,
nuke up, scenery, and props should be limited, "in the interest of
keeping the scene essentially off stage," but he sees no reason to
"prohibit them as a matter of definition."49 Geiger cites Williams'
success with his Dickens program as an example of an interpreter making

50

effective use of costume.
Several oral interpretation productions have used costume and

scenery, and the difficulty of degree is again apparent. At what

point does the costuming and scenery cease to be suggestive and cause
the audience to accept what is shown rather than to encourage the
audience to use what is shown as a generative point of their own
imagination? Critic Martin Gottfried encountered the problem of

trying to determine at what point the costumes and settings become so
literal that the production can no longer be considered an oral inter—
pretation presentation when he reviewed An Eveningfs Frost. Gottfried

wrote:

It's time that producers stopped palming off readings as
theatre just because some lighting and prop or two have been
added. Surely, there are enough people interested in recitations ,
of autobiographies, poetry and assorted literary bric—a—brac
without any need for false pretentious. "An Evening's Frost,"
which opened last night at the Theatre de Lys, is not‘a theatrical
presentation.

But for that matter, it isn't a reading either. Not so long
as it is dotted with artificial and unnecessary theatrical
equipment.51

Brooks, Henderhan and Billings, loc. cit.

49Bacon, 22. 9_i_t_., pp. 313-311».

50Geiger,|gp, cit., p. 86.

51Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, October 12, 1965.

 

 

  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
    
    
   
      
     
 
   

   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  

hattenpting to define
holly oral interpretation 0
concluded there cannot be a 8
uttwities would seem to bea
pretation as “an untomulable
critical reaction, and sympal
that owl interpretation, (or
an enomous pmvince, extend:
Sonnet) extempore speaking
“P to (and partially inclu '

 

and Blunders, in their treat
J ~ , 'hecause of its experimen
' ' In Bacon’s consideration of

admits, "There are no set, 5
modes, any more than there a
actors. There are conventi4
_. —* ‘ there are outer limits (tho
When one searches for

it relates specifically to
limits become even more ne
note that Brooks, who has
theatre, in a 1963 article

their own identities to th
‘____________
. 526mg”, 93. cit.,
’; 5km

Literature (New York:

  

55335011, 22. 053‘“ 3

 

 

 

17

In attempting to define oral interpretation, and more speci—
fically oral interpretation on the professional level, the writer has
concluded there cannot be a single, exact, definition. Various
authorities would seem to bear this out. Geiger defines oral inter-
pretation as "an unformulable amalgam of acting, public, speaking,
critical reaction, and sympathetic sharing."520rocker and Eich write
that oral interpretation, (or "spoken reading" as they call it), "is
an enormous province, extending all the way from (and overlapping
somewhat) extempore speaking, with many and variegated gradations,
up to (and partially including) the realm of acting."53 Armstrong
and Brandes, in their treatment of staged readings, note that
"because of its experimental nature, there are no exact rules."5h
In Bacon's consideration of various forms of group presentations he
admits, "There are no set, inflexible rules for the various group
modes, any more than there are for plays meant to be performed by
actors. There are conventions (though they must not be rigid), and
there are outer limits (though they are not easy to define).55

When one searches for a definition of oral interpretation as
it relates specifically to professional presentations, the outer
limits become even more nebulous. The writer finds it interesting to
note that Brooks, who has written several articles on readers
theatre, in a 1965 article suggested the readers "Should not lose

their own identities to the extent that they 'become' a character,"

_—__

52Geiger, pp. git” p. 86. 55

Sushloe Armstrong and Paul D. Brandes, The Oral Interpretation of

literature (New York: McGraw Hill Book.CompanY’ In°° 1963), P- 295-_“*
553

Crooker and.Eich, 223 cit., p. 59.

acon, op, cit., p. 306.

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
    
   
   
   
 
    
 
 

nlreoomended on]: symbolic

  
  
 

i ow.56 but in his 1966 articl

heetre, included such presen

_ _-_ . Widens propane, Drums Under

ho pmductions were mnleniab

elements of costume and scene
.r I then symbolic or suggestive.
finger and White aclmou

Utilized in professional pro

“"1891! from actors on stools

- 5 ‘ to readers who had their lin
I “‘1 used tables and chairs.

in the professional theatre

j __ WSequently there was "no c

We reports professional

Moteristics: “a bare s

costume; restricted physioa

character interaction, cl

,'.‘ ‘ ' chacter, representations

on oral interpretation as

included "just about eve

 

56Brooks, Henderhan

5713rooks and Bielen

  
   

58003er and White 3

59Monroe, 22. cit- .

 

 

 

18

and recommended only symbolic or suggestive costume and scenery be
used, 6 but in his 1966 article on professional productions of Readers
Theatre, included such presentations as Mark Twain Tonightl, Williams'
Dickens programs, Drums Under the Window, and Dear Liar.5l7 The first
two productions were undeniably impersonations and the latter two used
elements of costume and scenery which one might argue were more literal
than symbolic or suggestive.

Coger and White acknowledge the wide variety of techniques
utilized in professional productions. They found that the performers
ranged from actors on stools with scripts on lecterns in front of them
to readers who had their lines memorized, moved freely about the stage,
and used tables and chairs. They concluded that oral interpretation
in the professional theatre was in the experimental stages and that.
consequently there was "no one established form of presentation."58
Monroe reports professional group readings have exhibited the following
characteristics: "a bare stage, a full set; anonymous dress, complete
costume; restricted physical movement, free use of the stage; no
character interaction, clear character relationship; impression of
character, representations of character."59 Linn, in his dissertation
on oral interpretation as a form of professional theatre in London,

included "just about everything that might reasonably be advanced as

 

 

56Brooks, Henderhan and Billings, loo. cit.

57Brooks and Bielenberg, 2p: cit., pp. 288-502.

58Coger and White, _Jg. cit., p. 15-

59Monroe, 9p, cit., p. 41.

 

 

  
   
  
   
 
  
   
  

similar to oral interpretatio
larynx-poses of this
asthe recreation of a litera
diet is achieved primarily t
satiation. Productions which
meet their imgination, or
Water] emphasizing the
31196111) in the minds of the
let of what to include is ma
occasionally use certain pro
the definition of orafl. inte
their consideration 01‘ other
classified as oral interpret
inmmnation of Charles Dic
03 Subsequent one—man perfot
Sir John Gielgud's Ages of 1
him. Since this stu
Mitre of professional 0

the writer to include prod

 

thigh perhaps not actuall
The study is limited
the twenty-year period fo
confidered generally to be
United States, and the go
Performers aspire, this s

New York.

W

“has. er.” P

 

 

 

 

—7—

19
similar to oral interpretation in its broadest definition."

For purposes of this study, oral interpretation will be defined
as the recreation of a literary experience in the mind of the listener,
which is achieved primarily through the aural aspects of the pre—
sentation. Productions which require the audience to make extensive
use of their imagination, or productions which engender critical
commentary emphasizing the language or the images and illusions con—
jured up in the minds of the listeners will be considered. The prob—
lem of what to include is made more difficult by the fact that critics
occasionally use certain productions which might be considered outside
the definition of oral interpretation as the basis for comparison in
their consideration of other presentations which can definitely be
classified as oral interpretation. For example, Emlyn Williams'
impersonation of Charles Dickens was referred to in several reviews
of subsequent one-man performances. Comparisons were made between
Sir John Gielgud's.Ages of Man and.Hal Holbrook's impersonation of
Mark Twain. Since this study is intended.to provide a comprehensive
picture of professional oral interpretation, it seemed necessary to
the writer to include productions closely akin to oral interpretation,
though perhaps not actually a part of it.

The study is limited to works which have been produced within
the twenty-year period following World War II. Because New York is
considered generally to be the center of professional theatre in the
United States, and the goal toward which most writers, directors, and
performers aspire, this study will be limited geographically to

New York.

*

60.
Linn, 22‘ cit., p. 18.

 

 

 

 

Further limitations rule
menial theatre and not int
he moose of these limitatio
benefits or Special memorial y

fessionals, were novelties rat

 

production. These limitation:
which seem to have been impo
0nd interpretation, such as
Incorporated presentations.
where the productions attract
we theatre critics and late
nm. A final limitation reqr
Iantedan article or review '
mended by my as the most
reasonable to assume that an

heel considered in the theat

V. Methods and Procedures
The first step of the
0? plays produced each Yea
tion of oral interpretatio
of Broadway and off-Broaden
some indication as to the
fireatre column of the New
M were searched for
A tentative list “a

fit the definition and in

 

 

.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllI-l::——————————————

20
Further limitations rule out productions not given in a
commercial theatre and not intended.for more than two performances.
The purpose of these limitations is to eliminate productions done as
benefits or special memorial performances which, though done by pro-

fessionals, were novelties rather than a regular professional theatre

 

production. These limitations have been relaxed to include productions

 

which seem to have been important in.the overall picture of professional
. oral interpretation, such as Under Milk Wood and the two Readers Theatre.
I Incorporated presentations. {Exceptions have also been made in cases
where the productions attracted considerable attention from the New
York theatre critics and later appeared commercially for a longer
run. A final limitation requires that the producibn must have war-
ranted an article or review in the New York Times. This newspaper is
regarded by many as the most prominent one in America. It seems
reasonable to assume that any production of significance would have

been considered in the theatre section of the New York Times.

V. Methods and Procedures

The first step of the study involved an examination of the lists
0f plays produced each year to discover which of them fit the defini—
tion of oral interpretation. Theatre World.offers a yearly listing
of Broadway and off—Broadway productions since 1950, and usually gives
some indication as to the type of production. In addition, the daily
theatre column of the New York Times and the weekly theatre reports of
Variety'were searched for possible oral interpretation presentations.

A tentative list was compiled of productions which seemed to

fit the definition and information was collected on each one.

 

 

 

  
  
  
  
  
   
 
 

critical reviews provided the

for the productions which ap
editions of the New York The
elf-Broadway productions and
rotations were found in the
of clippings located in the
lleviork City. The Reader‘s
suited for articles about th
Biogmphies of actors who ap
vere examined.

Letters were sent to s
aspects of these production:
which twenty were extremely
twenty-three critics who hat
overa period of years. Th
“ith only seven of the revi
were received from Walter K

After most of the ma

divided into groups, prima

 

fie two Readers Theatre In
Separately, as were the tw
(factions within each grou
Presentations, and then c

'35 emndned, insofar as

1) setting and accessorie
her of presentation, 4) C

7) special features , and

 

*1

21

Critical reviews provided the bulk of the information. The reviews
for the productions which appeared.on Broadway were found in the annual
editions of the New York Theatre Critics' Reviews. Reviews for the
off—Broadway productions and additional reviews for the Broadway pre—
sentations were found in the vertical files and the yearly scrapbooks
of clippings located in the Theatre Collection at Lincoln Center in
New York City. The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature was con—
sulted for articles about the productions and the performers.
Biographies of actors who appeared in presentations of this nature
were examined.

Letters.were sent to seventy-one people involved in various
aspects of these productions. Twenty—eight replies were received, of

which twenty were extremely valuable. Letters were also sent to

 

twenty~three critics who had reviewed a number of the productions

over a period of years. The percentage of responses was disappointing,

with only seven of the reviewers answering, but very helpful letters

were received from Walter Kerr, John Beaufort, and Brooks Atkinson.
After most of the material was gathered, the productions were

divided into groups, primarily on the basis of the material used.

The two Readers Theatre Incorporated presentations were considered

separately, as were the two Laughton—Gregory productions. The pro—

ductions within each group were further divided into solo and group

presentations, and then considered chronologically. Each production

was examined, insofar as information permitted, with regard to:

1) setting and accessories, 2) classification by the critics, 3) man-

ner of presentation, 4) critical verdict, 5) acting, 6) material,

7) Special features, and 8) comparison to previous productions.

 

 

   
  
  
  
   
  
 

Because oral interpreta
regular theatre in terms of t
aspects of the manner of pres
to try to apply the traditior

eight-point approach outline

 

treatment of the mterial an
predictions.

Nearly all the review
quently the stage setting
critics concerned themselves
influential in determining ]
the setting consisted only i
called the proceedings some
less sparee, there was a wi

The classification 01
Manner of presentation, th<
”Pact. The critics occas:
01‘ performers had read fro
duction a reading. The 5
ate whether manuscript
Performers employed movem
were not always as thorou
PNsentation as the write

The critical verdi
PIDductions and their re
or would not appreciate

Presentation on the basi

 

 

 

22

Because oral interpretation productions frequently differ from
regular theatre in terms of the material they use as well as in some
aspects of the manner of presentation, it would be extremely difficult
to try to apply the traditional Aristotelian concepts to them. The
eight—point approach outlined above will provide consistency in the
treatment of the material and will facilitate comparisons between the
productions.

Nearly all the reviews considered the first seven points. Fre—
quently the stage setting was the first aspect of the production the
critics concerned themselves with, and it seemed to have been quite
influential in determining how they classified the presentation. If
the setting consisted only of stools and lecterns, most of the critics
called the proceedings some variety ofaa "reading", If the setting was
less sparce, there was a wider range of labels employed.

The classification of the production was also influenced by the
manner of presentation, though not to as great an extent as one might
expect. The critics occasionally wrote explicitly that the performer
or performers had read from manuscript, but still did not call the pro—
duction a reading. The section on manner of presentation should indi—
cate whether manuscript was used, and to what extent the performer or
performers employed movement and gesture. Unfortunately, the critics
were not always as thorough in their discussion of this aspect of the
Presentation as the writer would have liked them to be.

The critical verdict presented the reviewers' reactions to the
productions and their recommendations to their readers as to who would
or would not appreciate it. The critics usually liked or disliked the

presentation on the basis of the acting and/or the material. The term

 

 

 

 

“acting" was used to discuss

reviewers consistently cells
they described the productio
readings." Perhaps this was
known actors and the critics
then in other terms.

The discussion of oat
ature used, the theme or es
the critics' evaluation of
critics thought the nateri
Several of the productions
interludes or background
productions, was not consi
sionally a critic would p0
between a certain product'
this section might sugges
the most significant and v
type of presentation as a

or as a form of theatre.

VI. Preview of Remaining
Chapter II will doe

intelpretation, the Read
he r of Zalamea, an
critical commentary f0?
i116 laughton-Gregorll P“

Mend attempt to exp?

 

 

 

23
"acting" was used to discuss the performances because most of the
reviewers consistently called the performers "actors" even though
they described the production as a "reading" and wrote of the ”skillful
readings." Perhaps this was because many of the performers were well—
known actors and the critics may have found it difficult to think of
them in other terms.

The discussion of material considered the various types of liter—
ature used, the theme or central idea around which it was organized,
the critics' evaluation of the literary material, and how well the
critics thought the material suited the manner of presentation.

Several of the productions had special effects, most often musical

 

interludes or background music. The last point, comparison to previous

 

productions, was not consistently discussed in the reviews, but occa—
sionally a critic would point out the similarities or differences
between a certain production and an earlier one. The writer hoped
this section might suggest which productions the reviewers considered
the most significant and whether or not the reviewers considered this
type of presentation as a separate and distinct type of performance,

or as a form of theatre.

VI. Preview offiRgmaining Chapters

Chapter II will deal with the two earliest examples of oral
interpretation, the Readers Theatre presentations of Oedipus Rex and
The Mayor of Zalamea, and attempt to assess the implications in the
critical commentary for later productions. Chapter III will consider
the Laughton—Gregory productions, Don Juan in Hell and John Brown's

Body and attempt to explain the reasons for their success. Chapter IV

    
   
      
   
  
  
  
  
  
     
  
   
    

will discuss productions Hhi
concerning a specific theme
W; Five
110ch America; and The Go

 

of material from a single 8.
and a group presentation of
Williams' tun Dickens pro
and he World of Carl Sandb
which present experiences f
Included in this group are
@rhnce of Beg” 5 Oscar;
O‘Casey‘s autobiography, I

0mm Under the Windows;

 

chapter VII deals with the
the earlier chapters beca
hese were: Hob} Dick, U

Telemachus Clay. Chapter

311d suggestions for furthe

 

 

 

 

24
will discuss productions which present material from several authors

concerning a specific theme or idea. It includes: An Evening of

 

European Theatre; Five Queens; When I Was a Child; The Hollow Crown;

In.White.America; and The Golden.Age. Chapter V will treat collections

 

of material from a single author. These productions include: a solo
and a group presentation of Spoon River Anthology; Ages of Man; Emlyn
Williams' two Dickens programs, Mark Twain Tonightl; Theatre of Peretz;
and The World of Carl Sandburg. Chapter VI will examine productions
whidh present experiences from the author's life as well as his works.
Included in this group are A Boy Growing Hp; A Lovely Light; The
ggmortance of Being Oscar; The Brontes; the three dramatizations from
O'Casey's autobiography, I Knock at the Door, Pictures in the Hallway,
DmnmsUnder the Windows; Brecht on Brecht; and.An Evening's Frost.
Chapter VII deals with the remaining productions which did not fit in
the earlier chapters because of the type of material they used.

These were: Moby Dick, Under Milk Wood, U.S.A., Dear Liar, and
Telemachus Clay. Chapter VIII will offer conclusions and summaries,

and suggestions for further study.

 

 

 

READERS

Oral interpretation :1
back as far as sixth centu
Indmerica, "readings“ be
century, when theatrical 1
Forrest, Edwin Booth, Mrs.
Gum, motivated by r
acting incomes to a genuin
outstanding literature, a
abbreviated versions of

Besides the actors
country presenting "readir
Period achieved fame and 1
literary greats who becam

talents were Charles Dick

 

1lingene Bahn, “Inte
erl Journal of S ee

finishes Annette
Essence and Aesthetic Pr.
University of Wisconsin,

. 3Theresa Murth an
fessional Render," M3

[*Stanley T. DOD-n9:
°f§peech, October: 191“

 

 

CHAPTER II
READERS THEATRE INCORPORATED

Oral interpretation is not a new phenomenon. It can be traced
back as far as sixth century Greece, and may be much older than that.1
In.America, "readings" became popular in the middle of the nineteenth
century, when theatrical luminaries such as James E. Murdock, Edwin
Fbrrest, Edwin Booth, Mrs. Scott—Siddons, Fanny Kemble, and Charlotte
Cushman, motivated by reasons ranging from the need to supplement their
acting incomes to a genuine desire to share what they considered to be
outstanding literature, appeared on stages and in lecture halls to read
abbreviated versions of plays or excerpts from several plays.2

Besides the actors and actresses who traveled throughout the
country presenting "readings," some of the well-known authors of that
period achieved fame and fortune by reading their own works. Two
literary greats who became widely recognized for their interpretive

talents were Charles Dickens3 and Mark Twain.4

—_._

1
Eugene Bahn, "Interpretative Reading in Ancient Greece,"
anrterly Journal of Speech, June, 1932, pp. 434-436.

2Elizabeth Annette Monroe, "The Group Reading of Drama: Its
Essence and Aesthetic Principles" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1962), pp- 2-5- '

Theresa Murphy and Richard Murphy, "Charles Dickens as Pro—
fessional Reader," Quarterly Journal of Speech, October, 1947, p. 301.
4

Stanley T. Donner, "Mark Twain as a Reader," Quarterly Journal
9£_§EEE§E, October, 1947, p. 308.

 

 

25

   

 

 

Professional readers no

limit (hiring the last part
twentieth century. However,
the popularity of Chautaqu
have continued on a limited
it did not achieve prominen

first postwar presentations

 

Readers Theatre productions
The theatre column 0
Meg contained a bri
culled Readers Theatre Inc
theatre Incorporated prese
Momma. Six weeks
ho performances under th
Play was also intended 0
Although the limited run
mquires that only produc
were to be considered, th
for three reasons. First
Productions to attract of
second, the critical com

to be of significance .fO

W

5hydiu Joan Reyna?
1961.1). 15.

6New York Time‘s: :

 

 

##—

26
ProfesSional readers were a popular feature of the Chautauqua
Circuit during the last part of the nineteenth and early part of the
twentieth century. However, with the advent of radio and motion pictures,

the popularity of Chautauqua faded rapidly.5

Oral interpretation may
have continued on a limited basis after the decline of Chautauqua, but
it did not achieve prominence again until after World War II. The

first postwar presentations to attract critical attention were the

Readers Theatre productions of Oedipus Rex and The Mayor of Zalamea.

 

The theatre column of the November 11, 1945 issue of the New
York Times contained a brief referrence to the formation of a group
' 6
called.Readers Theatre Incorporated. On December 16, 1945, Readers

Theatre Incorporated presented Oedipus Rex for a matinee and an evening

 

performance. Six weeks later, The Mayor of Zalamea was presented for

 

two performances under the auspices of the same organization. This
play was also intended only for a matinee and an evening performance.
Although the limited run violates the criterion of this study which
requires that only productions intended for more than two performances
were to be considered, the writer decided to include these productions
for three reasons. First, they were the only oral interpretation
productions to attract critical attention prior to Don Juan in Hell,
second, the critical comments engendered by these presentations seemed

to be of significance for later productions, and third, the instigators

—_*

5Nydia Joan Reynolds, "A Lively Art," Today‘s Speech, April,

1961, p. 15.

6
New York Times, November 11, 1945, Sec. II, p. 2.

 

 

 

of the project suggested the
the hidden magic of the spot
by oral interpretation pro d1

Joel W. Schenker, one
mmted, emplained the inte:

The Readers‘ Theatre
Jr and myself. We wer
never produce mamy grea
we conceived the notion

we could get artists tc

of rehearsaluperformir
Sunday matinees.

the project attracte‘
members of the theatrical
Gelwnions cooperated by I
the productions to be pres

O'Neill, Jr., who served E

to become a member of Act‘

of his Majestic Theatre f
the Ne

w Yolk Times provid
Progress of the venture.

written by O'Neill Jr., E

the ‘
section of December

William Butler Yeats' tr

7
George J ~
iNew York: Alf::n Nathc

8
Letter from Joel

9

%1 Decembe
10

New York T‘
1mesa
“Eu
Yon ‘ gene O‘N ‘
. lenes, Decembi‘lif1

A

 

?——

27
I of the project suggested that the reading approach would "bring out
the hidden magic of the spoken word,"7 an advantage frequently claimed
by oral interpretation productions.

Joel W. Schenker, one of the founders of Readers Theatre Incor—
porated, explained the intentions of the group as follows:

The Readers' Theatre was created by James Light, Eugene O'Neill,

Dr] and myself. We were younger and persuaded that Broadway would
never produce many great plays that lingered on the shelves, and
we conceived the notion (long before the modern recital craze) that
we could get artists to appear and read these plays with a minimum
of rehearsal--performing them for the public at reduced rates on
Sunday matinees.

The project attracted the interest and support of some important
members of the theatrical community. Actors' Equity and the theatri—
cal unions cooperated by relaxing many of their rules--thus permitting
the productions to be presented at minimum cost. (However, Eugene
O'Neill, Jr., who served as narrator in the productions, was required
to become a member of Actors' Equity.)9 Lee Shubert donated the use

of his Majestic Theatre for the performances:10 The theatre staff of

the New York Times provided free publicity by frequent reports on the

 

progress of the venture. A lengthy article about the presentation,
written by O‘Neill Jr., appeared on the front page of the Sunday thea—
tre section of December 16, 1945,/Vl the day of the first production,

William Butler Yeats' translation of Oedipus Rex.

____

 

7George Jean Nathan, The Theatre Book of the Year. 1945—1946
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), p. 292-

8Letter from Joel W. Schenker to the author, March 21, 1967.
9Variety, December 19, 1945, p. 44.

O

ng York Times, November 11, 1945, Sec. II, p. 2.

quugene O'Neill, Jr., "One Solid Vote for the 'Audio'," New
We December 16, 1945, Sec. II, p. 5.

 

 

 

Settng’ and Accessories
The stage was totall

in a semicircle. No attemp

pheric lighting. The cast

All of the ten critiv
verb "reading“ in their st
the fact the initiators of
Nblicize the fact that 1:}:
however, is that two of ti
"reading“ as a descriptive
berger set the term off :
the "reading" should be ,3"
trying to ‘accomplish rath
tion. He was the only or
ferent mode of presentat'
to pass judgment.

Several of the re
innovation," “something

discussion of its novelt

 

at

Lewis Kronenbel‘

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIII-"::______________fi______fifi

28

Oedipus Rex

Setting and Accessories
The stage was totally bare, with the exception of chairs placed
in a semicircle. No attempt was made to provide any sort of atmos-

pheric lighting. The cast wore street clothes.12

Classification

All of the ten critics whose reviews were available utilized the
verb "reading" in their stories. This is hardly surprising in view of
the fact the initiators of the project had gone to some lengths to
publicize the fact that the plays were to be read. What is of interest,

15

however, is that two of the critics, Waldorf and Kronenberger14 used
"reading" as a descriptive term to classify the production. Kronen—
berger set the term off in-quotes and prefaced his critique by stating
the "reading" should be judged in light of what it was and what it was
trying to accomplish rather than how it compared to a regular produc-
tion. He was the only critic to suggest that a "reading"'was a dif—
ferent mode of presentation and required a different set of criteria
to pass judgment.

Several of the reviews referred to the production as "an

innovation," "something new," and "an experiment." The most lengthy

discussion of its novelty came from Burton Roscoe, who wrote:

M

4 12Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt, Catholic World, February, 1946,
P- 57.

13Winnie Waldorf, New York Post, December 17, 1945.

1briLewis Kronenberger, P.M. New York, December 17, 1945.

 

 

 

Of course, readings f
presence and elocutio
cultural fare among the
lecture circuits. But
script by a complete ca
practically bare stage
retell having heard of

heln'iet] critic was at a
he characterized it as "neit

of these plus a taste of ham

tanner of Presentation

‘-————_

the cast consisted of
and fourteen actors. O'Nei
introdzctory and explanaton
Chairs, moved down center,
then returned to their char
Banded scripts, there was
Hhich the scripts were use

deal of negative criticisu

W

A respectable cont'
actors read Oedipus Rex.
Readers Theatre, (to pres

"as an admirable one, bu

tion in detail, none gaV

 

”Burton Roscoe 1 N

166nm. , Variety a

17(ieorge Freedley a

18Kmnenberger , 1

 

 

no

29
Of course, readings from the classics by individuals of stage
presence and elocutionary talent have long been a standard kind of
cultural fare among the women's clubs and on the Chautauqua and
lecture circuits. But the reading of a full length play from manu-
script by a complete cast in street clothes without make up on a
practically bare stage before a paying audience is a stunt I can't
recall having heard of before.15
The Variety critic was at a loss as to how to classify the production.
He characterized it as "neither fish, flesh, nor gory drama, but all

16

of these plus a taste of ham."

Manner of Presentation
The cast consisted of narrator-stage manager Eugene O'Neill Jr.,
and fourteen actors. O'Neill, located at one corner of the stage, gave

17

introductory and explanatory remarks. The actors rose from their
chairs, moved down center, delivered their lines,script in hand, and
then returned to their chairs.18 Although all of the performers
carried scripts, there was a considerable discrepancy in the degree to

which the scripts were used. This discrepancy was the cause of a good

deal of negative criticism.
Verdict

A respectable contingent of critics turned out to watch the

actors read Oedipus Rex, Most of them aCknowledged that the idea of

 

Readers Theatre, (to present the masterpieces in an inexpensive way),
was an admirable one, but of the ten critics who retiewed the produc-

tion in detail, none gave it an unqualified endorsement. Five of the

____

15Burton Roscoe, New York World Telegraph, December 17, 1945.

6 , e
1 Cars., Variety, December 19, 1945, p- 44-
17George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, December 18, 1945.

Kronenberger, loo. cit.

 

 

 

critics appeared to like it,
menus digestions for imp
critic note such an ambiguo
lscertain whether she approv
critics did not like the pre
Gibbs reported that, “

Sylvester urged Daily News 1
the prices were too high fat
scribed the project as well
1393 was a good one, but sh
dvctions needed to nake a g
Mania Yan Renssei
Wed a play must be read
same sentence she complain
the poetry of every line we
did ccngeries of chairs, t
vent-on to admit she sore]
and that when she tried t
and motley attired actors
falling asleep.23 1+. is
Stand just how the reade

aloud to be appreciated.

 

19Violentt Gibbs,
20Robert Sylveste
21Freedley, loo.

23Wyatt, 10c. cit

 

 

30

critics appeared to like it, but with various reservations and

numerous suggestions for improvements in future productions. One

critic wrote such an ambiguous review that it was impossible to

ascertain whether she approved or disapproved of it. The other four
critics did not like the presentation.

"19

Gibbs reported that, "on the whole, it was a stimulating evening.

Sylvester urged Daily News readers to buy tickets, although he thought

 

the prices were too high for what was being offered.20 Freedley de— ‘
scribed the project as well worthwhile.21 Waldorf also thought the
idea was a good one, but she expressed the opinion that future pro—
ductions needed to make a great many improvements.22

Eupheinia Van Rensselaer Wyatt announced that the readers had
proved a play must be read aloud.to be appreciated. However, in the
same sentence she complained about ”having to look at the stage, where
the poetry of every line was challenged by the harsh lights, the sor-
did congeries of chairs, the actors in every variety of suits." She
went on to admit she sorely missed the conventional stage trappings

and that when she tried to blot out the bright lights, unsightly chairs,

and motley attired actors by closing her eyes, she only succeeded in

 

falling asleep.23 It is difficult, in view of her complaints to under-
stand just how the readers managed to convince her a play must be read

aloud to be appreciated.

—-—.___

19Wblcott Gibbs, The New Yorker, December 29, 1945, p- 34-
20Robert Sylvester, New York Daily News, December 17, 1945.
2llih‘reedley, loc. cit. 22Waldorf, loc..gip.

2
3Wyatt, loc. cit.

 

 

 

Pollock found the pla
ference for creating his 0
the play in the privacy of
about the way the cast had
he found his imagined versi
sutisfuctory.25

Nichols admitted the
esting, but thought it was
eluded his remarks by obse
slightly ridiculous, and 1

“Meg critic also temel

. distressed that, besides

the production also had 6
theatre-"memorization oi
'fliere was a ration:
memorized, but there was
0f direction. Waldorf in
apparent inability to (1
reading, a performance.
the part of the directo
host of the critics cen

discrepancies of style.
~.___._..———-—-
2h ck
Arthur Polls
25 Roscoe, loc—
26Lewis Nichols,

27Cars., 100. Ci

 

 

"W... '_—'-—- .. .

31
Pollock found the play "pretty dull."24 Roscoe expressed a pre—
ference for creating his own mental images of the characters as he read
the play in the privacy of his own home. He had no particular complaints
about the way the cast had interpreted their parts, but he maintained
he found his imagined version of the characters and their actions more
satisfactory.25
Nichols admitted the performance could probably be termed inter-
esting, but thought it was somewhat less than satisfactory. He con—
cluded his remarks by observing experiments occasionally appeared
slightly ridiculous, and that Oedipus Rex was no exception.26 The
Variety critic also termed the proceedingsinteresting. However, he was
distressed that, besides dispensing with sets, costumes and lighting,
the production also had dispensed with two other aspects of good
theatre~—"memorization of lines and uniformity of direction."2l7
There was a rationale behind the actors not having their lines
memorized, but there was no justification for the lack of a uniformity
of direction. Waldorf took director James Light to task for his
apparent inability to decide whether the performance was to be a
reading, a performance, or both.28 The lack of a definite style on
the part of the director resulted in a wide range of acting styleS.
Most of the critics centered their discussion of the acting on these

discrepancies of style.

 

24Arthur Pollack, Brooklyp Daily Eagle, December 17, 1945.

25 Roscoe, loo. cit.
26Lewis Nichols, New York Times, December 17, 1945, p. 16.
2? 28

Cars., loo. cit. Waldorf, loc. cit.

 

 

1M

Gibbs reported that
notion of how tragedy shoul
the what Gibbs described a
bible Blanche lurka portray

. . .tbat might occasio:
of Judith Anderson as L
the voice originating i
itself. '

Clearly puzzled by ti:
a variety of interprete
a sound like thunder, e
by the fact that a 1:13.:
glasses and then peer-ii
vis a vis is something

’he most unusual eff
who, conceivably scent
script, shook his abun
to give what looked li
quence in the Lost Hes
easy thing to (10.29

Sylvester praised 1:]
"some of them read their
to add a little acting fr
with the cast as individu
disturbed‘with Frederic
to be very prosaic and
the continuum was Blanch
was“ and added some ac
tremes ranged the rest
that any of the 'in-bet

1
universally adopted.3

.______________..__
2961b“, 10c. cit

31Kronenberger ,

 

32
Acting

Gibbs reported that each actor proceeded according to his own

notion of how tragedy should be played. Frederic Tozere, as Oedipus,

gave what Gibbs described as a polite, "somehow suburban" performance

while Blanche Yurka portrayed Jocasta in a manner:

. . .that might occasionally have been mistaken for an imitation
of Judith Anderson as Lady Macbeth.

It was in the grand manner,
the voice originating in the shoes and the gestures those of fate
itself.

Clearly puzzled by these extremes, the rest of the cast offered
a variety of interpretations, from flat, unaccented discourse to
a sound like thunder, and most of them were rather handicapped 7
by the fact that a player referring to a manuscript through reading
glasses and then peering uncertainly over the tops of them at his
vis a vis is something less than Greek.

The most unusual effort was contributed by the Second Messenger,
who, conceivably scenting a talent scout in the house, ignored his
script, shook his abundent hair down over his face and proceeded

to give what looked like a parody of the delirium——tremens se—
quence in the Lost Weekend.

He startled me——not, as a rule, an
easy thing to do.29

 

 

Sylvester praised the cast as being first rate——but noted that
“some of them read their roles straight out and some of them managed
to add a little acting from memory.50 Kronenberger was not impressed
with the cast as individuals or as an ensemble.

He was particularly

disturbedkwith Frederic Tozere, finding his interpretation of Oedipus
to be very prosaic and unroyal rendition, while at the other end of

the continuum was Blanche Yurka, who "read like the tragedy queen she

was“ and added some acting to her reading. In between these two ex—

tremes ranged the rest of the cast. Kronenberger concluded by stating

that any of the ‘in-betweens' styles might have been effective if
universally adopted.31

 

29Gibbs, loc. cit. 5OSylvester, loc. cit.

5

whronenberger, loo. cit.

 

 

Nichols reported Miss
"wmng the hand not holding
mtter-of-fact way, which p
complained that the members
individual whims. "One ore
third acted (and well, as i
3191”, as in the case of Fre
wmbined several styles of

Freedley thought T02
and creihted him with havi

h *
ecas». The Second Mess

d“Pleasure as mentioned a
., ‘ T
“011 'deserwed applause.">1

Wyatt, the contradil

credite L '
d the entire cast

Elallldtl "
.011 ‘
03. TOZQI‘G' S pe

Fred

 

 

 

 

33

Nichols reported Miss Yurka was "highly intense," Mr. Tozere

'muung the hand not holding the script," while others "just read in a
matter—of~fact way, which probably was best."52 The critic for Variety

complained that the members of the cast performed according to their

individual whims. "One orated, another read almost monotonously, a

third acted (and well, as in Blanche Yurka's case), while still ano—

ther, as in the case of Frederic Tozere, seemingly couldn't decide and

"33

combined several styles of reading and acting.

Freedley thought Tozere was quite moving in the role of Oedipus,

and credited him with having done more acting than the other members of

the cast. The Second Messenger, who had met with Wolcott Gibbs' immense

displeasure as mentioned above, was singled out by Freedley as having

won "deserved applause."3 ‘
Wyatt, the contradictory critic of the The Catholic World,

credited the entire cast with having given excellent readings. Her

evaluation of Tozere's performance was an interesting one.

Frederic Tozere imparted a new angle to Oedipus, consciously
or unconsciously and made his insistence for the truth in the
face of everyone's warning as fatuous as a 19th century moralist.
His tragedy was not so much a strong man broken as a weak man

trapped by his own self-righteousness.

This would have constituted a distinct departure from the traditional
approach to the role of Oedipus, but aside from mentioning it, Wyatt
made no judgement as to whether she found it effective, disturbing, or

ridiculous.

Five of the reviewers expressed dissatisfaction with Tozere‘s

3ZNiohols, loc. cit. 53Cars., loc. cit.

3LlFreedley, loc. cit. 35Wyatt, loo. cit.

 

5t
mum-1,115, although Gibbs a1
whereby adding that Tozere wa
dong) Only one reporter: Freedley
Sevemlof the critics singled 0
Engexcepiionally effective. Blanch
do nyhg degrees of enthusiasm.

Besides the commentary regardin
in reviewers concerned themselves it
“Moor. It was his responsi‘ci
been, and provide any necessary
it. long O'Neill seemed an e:
MWUClOH. Not only was be we
“‘Wlm'essor in Greek at Yale
ismtmdumry I‘eInarks were
'" “MW mind to appreciate i
not his O‘Neill addressed

*Stges
Ltd they imagine themselv

woo -.
en'pus Rex at the Theatre

hoo
“the reViewers felt the

Mimi.
h 00m

its not
so much of a narra

itlll’t an
’ that like most lecti

rminn wer
complained that

“it

3

his
“all
$ jOkes havm
36

Gibbs
11h- cit , and We]
h
eedley, 1°C T
\Q| Clt. >8
\ (

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

portrayal of Oedipus, although Gibbs and Waldrof hastened to soften

their censure by adding that Tozere was one of Broadway's finest

37

actors. Only one reporter, Freedley, praised his performance.

Several of the critics singled out Henry Irving (Tiresias), as

being exceptionally effective. Blanche Yurka was frequently mentioned

with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Besides the commentary regarding the style of the performers,

most reviewers concerned themselves with Eugene O'Neill Jr.'s efforts

as a narrator. It was his responsibility to introduce the play, set
the scene, and provide any necessary information during the course of

the play. Young O'Neill seemed an excellent choice for this parti—

cular production. Not only was he well—rounded in theatre, he was an

assistant professor in Greek at Yale.

His introductory remarks were intended to put the audience in the

proper frame of mind to appreciate what they were about to see. To

accomplish this, O'Neill addressed the audience as "fellow Athenians"

and suggested they imagine themselves as Athenians attending the

tragedy 0_edipus Rex at the Theatre of Dionysos.

Two of the reviewers felt that these introductory remarks were

more suited to O'Neill's classroom than to the theatre. One wrote

that it was not so much of a narration or introduction as it was a

lecture, and that, like most lectures, it was much too long.
Another reviewer complained that the speech was "ornamented with

several small, doomed jokes having a classroom flavor,"39 but he

*-

Gibbs, lOCo Citg, and Waldorf, 10C. ,Cito

37 .
Freefley, loc. cit. 58Cars., 100. cit. 59Gibbs, loo. Cit.

 

 

 

35

addttedthe remarks served their 3
hmhat they were in for.

tilella Waldorf took issue w.
oersmde the audience to imagine t?
untamed the audience should hav-
Here-hen Yorkers who have come t
tmeuetl readfio Kronenberger ‘

’flthas‘hxcessive and a trifle

Sylvester, on the other han

Henna.he Freedley reported 0'

lective and that the concept of E
h

W

me

he did not elaborate on 3

we raised about the use of a

C“ ‘
med with the appropriatene

Three of the critics took
demure convinced that the au<
oMe, while one critic hedg
dimly" attentive and inter
Mien“ (winch he thought rese

his
need and irritable abo

h to L
”p." Th
‘3 Worl
h \nr\e1e£
Who 11

and suspected the

ut

wished
Sort of Production. 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

admittedthe remarks served their purpose by letting the audience

know what they were in for.

Wilella Waldorf took issue with O'Neill's jocular attempt to

persuade the audience to imagine themselves as Athenians. She

maintained the audience should have been considered just what they

were-~"New Yorkers who have come to hear a piece of dramatic litera—

Kronenberger thought the introductory enlighten-

. 1+1
ment was "exce551ve and a trifle condescending."

ture well read." 0

Sylvester, on the other hand, found the text both colorful and

humorous.42 Freedley reported O'Neill's reading was extremely ef—

fective and that the concept of a narrator was "basically" a good

4 . . . .
one. 3 He did not elaborate on his qualification. No ObJeCthIlS

were raised about the use of a narrator. The criticism was primarily

concerned with the appropriateness of the information he gave.

Three of the critics took note of audience reaction. Two of

them were convinced that the audience had been dissatisfied with what

they saw, while one critic hedged a bit, saying that the audience was

"generally" attentive and interested. Critic Gibbs described the

audience (which he thought resembled refugees from a baseball park),
"depressed and irritable about this sudden excursion into culture at

32.40 top."l+5 The World Telegraph reporter characterized the audience
aS'buzzled," and suspected that many of them had been expecting a

different sort of production.

M

Waldorf , loo. cit . 1Kronenberger , loc . cit.

2 o
SVlvester, loc. cit. hBFreedley, loc. cit. 1+4Ibid.

45

Gibbs, loc. cit. 1+6Roscoe, loc. cit.

 

 

 

iflg

Only four of the critics 00!!
he expressed the opinion less fan
hoiher thought the Yeats' Englis]
among

ho critics wrote specifics
in the tanner of presentation ac
1hiked U'dt hellfk9 and Kronenbn
hiked well.

"M9115 Rex“ . . . [is] a

lends itself to being read I

hi on action in the modem
severity of form and develoi
it is compact as dynamite a]

1A .
hansons

mi two critics attempte

in; .
J

dung else. Roscoe noted re

UFLTldi"1611315 on the Ghatauou:

the with any sort of grou
thesihilarity between the 1‘65
hereadiog of a play on the i
‘53 lore effective because th

hem v ‘
.e to disrupt whatever i

dida‘ ‘
he while listening to the

top
lWollock, 1°\° Ci
Freedleya 10

C.
\L

H

Rose
0% .
1 10C . 01-h.

 

 

 

56
Material
Only four of the critics concerned themselves with the material.
(Me expressed the opinion less familiar plays would be more interesting.47

Another thought the Yeats' English version of Oedipus Rex was "uncommonly"

 

good.")+8

Two critics wrote specifically of the suitability of the material
for'fluenenner of presentation accorded it. Freedley thought it
49

"worked out well," and Kronenberger attempted to eXplain why it

worked well.

"Oedipus Rex" . . . [iS] a play which more than most others
lends itself to being read rather than acted. Its appeal rests,
not on action in the modern sense, but on an intensity and
severity of form and development that the modern world has lost;
it is compact as dynamite and inexorable as doom.50

Comparisons

Only two critics attempted to compare the presentation with

anything else. Roscoe noted readings from the classics had been done
by individuals on the Chatauqua and lecture circuits, but he was un—
familiar with any sort of group reading of drama.51 Nichols noted
the similarity between the reading of a play on the bare stage and
the reading of a play on the radio. He felt that the radio reading
was more effective because there were no actors in everyday Clothes

visible to disrupt whatever illusions the audience might be able to

. 2
(meats while listening to the v01ces.5

—___

47p

ollodk, loc. cit. 48Waldorf, loc. cit.

50

Kronenberger, loc. cit.

49F

reedley, loc. cit.

1Roscoe, loc. cit. 52Nichols, loc. cit.

 

 

 

lethnehdations
"—-—-

Sixef the reviewers had spe
hmhcesihaddition to the need
here. These other suggestions c<
sheets. The recommendation was
shines to give the proceedings 9.
thievetit‘h actors wearing varic
Elhhl and imaginative lightkt
at least a partial illusion. ' It

heatethe effect of the perform

El feces visible. Shadows we:

EE disappear when they were

Eother suggestion for ac

E complained that the lack ot

5th

We that of watching Sp‘

Ere‘
her should make some atte
Enhav * '
e them Just move down

W
Edorf called for the

Edesc
Elbed H
as acting out“

EDIhdhttioh its elf. Sh ‘
e :

TEE1h
g E“ the reading‘ 8 ea

tat
ta 104. cit E

55th \'
3Q 11611er e
hilt? heed f“ ergelgh\ 10C. (
Elfin more unevepnuise
p ay
EQedi‘m
thigigwwltn silt
1ntl’ilmluctionef):

 

F; ' ' ‘ ---«r_..:-_‘_.— In.

37

Recommendations

Six of the reviewers had specific suggestions for future per-
formances in addition to the need for a unified acting style discussed
above. These other suggestions covered a multitude of production
aspects. The recommendation was made that the actors wear dinner
clothes to give the proceedings an air of homogeneity impossible to
achieve, with actors wearing various varieties of street clothes.55
Skillful and imaginative lighting was proposed as a means of achieving
at least a partial-"illusion. It was suggested the lighting be used to
create the effect of the performers being merely voiCes, or voices with
only faces visible. Shadows were recommended as areas where readers
might disappear when they were not involved in the reading?!+

Another suggestion for achieving illusion came from Kronenberger,
who complained that the lack of stage patterns had created an effect
similar to that of watching speakers at a rally. He suggested the
director should make some attempt to position the actors rather
than have them just move down center to read and then back up to
their chairs.55

Waldorf called for the elimination of all elements of what
she described as "acting out" in. the style of the performers and in

the production itself. She insisted the concentration should be "on

reading for the reading's sake——and also for the sake of the play."56

—___

53Wyatt, loc. cit. 54Pollock, loc. cit.
55K

ronenberger, loc. cit. Kronenberger warned that the type of
staging used for Oedipus—Refiould be even more detrimental to a
longer and more uneven play.

56Waldorf, loc. cit. Waldorf had objected to certain aspects
0f diipus Rex wh-i-o—h' she—felt came closer to performance than to reading,
such as the introduction of the King's children for him to weep over.

 

 

 

 

 

33
The next Readers Theatre p1

he reviews of Oedipus Rex, was
scheduled for two weeks later, D
release amouhced that unforseer
several of the contemplated pla;
when of another prospectivl

abandonment of plans to present

Pitt She‘s a Whore would be the

leaders rLheatre presentation fl
ltus’lhe Mayor of Zalamea. I

Epoehed to

Tie Pity She‘s a W

The May'c

Setl

hugs and Accessories
Pollock was pleased to
whet ‘
Oprovide some degree c

he use of softer lights, a l
Site of the stage provided a
seventeenthcehtury drama by
Es time there were no chai

 

 

 

L

38

The next Readers Theatre production, as reported in several of
the reviews of Oedipus Rex, was to be The Mayor of Zalamea and was
scheduled for two weeks later, December 30, 1945. An undated press
release announced that unforseen difficulties in casting, illness of
several of the contemplated players, and the sudden departure for
Hollywood of another prospective cast member had resulted in the
abandonment 0f plans to present The Mayor of Zalamea. Instead, Tis
Pity She's a Whore would be the next play.57 However, when the second
Readers Theatre presentation finally appeared on January 27, 1946,
it was The Mayor of Zalamea. No explanation was found as to what

happened to Tis Pity She's a Whore.

The Mayor of Zalamea

Settings and Accessories

Pollock was pleased to see his suggestion that an attempt be
made to provide some degree of illusion had been adapted. He felt
the use of softer lights, a brown back drop and black drapes at the
side of the stage provided a much more pleasing setting for the
seventeenth-century drama by the Spanish playwright Calderon.58

This time there were no chairs on stage.

Classification

There was no discussion as to what this production should be
called. In most reviews it was simply referred to as the Readers

Theatre.

 

 

57

Marjorie Barkentine, in an undated press release found in the
Readers Theatre vertical file in the Theatre Collection at the Museum
of the Performing Arts in Lincoln Center.

58Arthur Pollock, Brooklyp_Daily Eagle, January 29, 1946.

 

 

 

 

lane of Presentation

Several of the suggestions
hlheeh accepted. As Kronenberg
stayed out of sight when they we:
ill stride avinvardly up to the c

Evolvedih the play]; there W8

‘hriict
_

Fever critics concerned t?
El three papers and two perio
strv mention. These critics
huts which had been made. Po‘

htcohe off very well when it

Tat-fig of 0 '
eih u R -
P 5 9X 0 u o 1

t u
rt Freedley announced tl

Shit i“ '
With this productinn.6

Ellahio .
559mg much smoother

t

ctih

l:

Th .
e acting had also in
W .
who.“ the act‘
5 1113 mm
10%
ct much better than to
E Es ‘
Pleased -
“1th Herb
ert

59
L0 .
his Kronenberger

Polleck
61 , fl. c3140

George Freedley h‘
3

 

 

 

 

 

59
Manner of Presentation
Several of the suggestions regarding the manner of presentation
had been accepted. As Kronenberger noted, "The performers this time
stayed out of sight when they were not involved in the play; they did

not stride awkwardly up to the center of the stage, when they were

Envolved in the play]; there was a greater uniformity of style."59

Verdict

Fewer critics concerned themselves with this second effort.
Only three papers and two periodicals gave the production more than
cursory mention. These critics were quick to acknowledge the improve—
ments which had been made. Pollock wrote, "If the Readers Theatre did
not come off very well when it began life a few weeks ago, with a
reading of Oedipus Rex . . . it justified itself nicely in its second
try."60 Freedley announced that the Readers Theatre had hit its

stride with this production.61 Most of the critics spoke of the

mechanics being much smoother this time.

Acting

The acting had also improved considerably. The critic for
Variety found the acting much more consistent and the overall per-
formance much better than the previous presentation. However, he

was displeased with Herbert Berghof's portrayal of the mayor. He

 

 

59Louis Kronenberger, P.M. New York, January 28, 1946.
60

Pollock, loc. cit.

 

6
1George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, January 29, 1946.

 

 

 

up
noted that reading could be over
homes2 Wyatt, on the other ham
hmrsvperh.63 Pollock did not
but he wrote that the acting was
related to the proceedings than

6A
production.

laterial
‘

The critics were divided
lumehherger, who had approved
iron the reading type of preset

:acvory: "The play itself was

int ~ ‘
.ted sometimes even stilted 1

hr ‘ .

“E38 version must come larg

mm- a . ’—
tw some importanceflfi:

presents“
LlOIl enhanced neither

Oh the other hand, Free

an L -
characterized it as "tmfl
vw L
be that she was unfamili
a:

hg '
3AA thought the characte

‘ espite the general aE
he second production, it 1
h

6,. m, M Jan

9, 55p. phemia Wan Rensse

 

 

 

 

40

noted that reading could be over done just as acting could be over

done.62 'Wyatt, on the other hand, found Berghof's portrait of the I
mayor superb.65 Pollock did not discuss the performers individually
but he wrote that the acting was much more spirited and more closely

related to the proceedings than had been the case in the previous

production.64

Material

The critics were divided as to the suitability of the material.
Kronenberger, who had approved of Oedipus Rex as a play which profited
from the reading type of presentation, found the Calderon play unsatiS—
factory: "The play itself was not too rewarding a choice . . . a
dated sometimes even stilted literary style. Since the power of a
reading version must come largely from the language, this proved a
point of some importance."65 The Variety critic felt the manner of
presentation enhanced neither the story nor the language.66

On the other hand, Freedley found the play "the chief pleasure"
and characterized it as "truly moving and amazingly modern.”67 Wyatt
wrote that she was unfamiliar with the play, but found it most reward-
ing and thought the characters were extremely interesting.

Despite the general agreement regarding the improved quality of

the second production, it proved to be the last endeavor of the Readers

 

62L. N., Variety, January 28, 1946-

6 .
4 3Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt, Catholic World, March, 1946,
p' 550

64 .
Pollock, loc. cit. 65Kronenberger, loc. Cit.

66 . 68
L. N., loo. cit. 67Freedley, loc. Cit. Wyatt, loc. cit.

 

 

[4/
theatre. Attendance dropped Shal
which had attended Oedipus Rex-

With the production of _T_h§
hoppedahrhptly from view. No
is theatre column of the N_ew_Y_<
rich right have been expected ‘

Joel Schenker wrote that
“We“? the ghost when the no:
Emmett, recalled that he :
“Elm that Readers Theatre 1

the productions were "not exci

leumemdations

Twu well known critics <

J r .
ahWathah, wrote about the ‘

Sttdllll p . ~
Cl, Oll~ apparen L—S

hi the *
past.
Young was quite

S ‘

tvth “
ensmg cost of produc

the L
rectors. He felt that

tot ‘
elmProud and he off
ert

 

 

 

 

41
Theatre. Attendance dropped sharply from the near capacity crowds
which had attended Oedipus Rex.

With the production of The Mayor of Zalamea, the Readers Theatre
dropped abruptly from View. No discussion of its demise was found in
the theatre column of the New York Times or in any of the other sources
which might have been expected to report on it.

Joel Schenker wrote that they failed to find an audience and
"gave up the ghost when the money ran out." Schenker, who financed

69

the project, recalled that he lost his total capital. Blanche Yurka

surmised that Readers Theatre failed to attract public support because

'70

the productions were "not exciting enough."

Recommendations

Two well known critics of the time, Stark Young and George
Jean Nathan, wrote about the Readers Theatre concept after the
second production-—apparently with no inkling that it was a thing
of the past. Young was quite positive about the possibilities of
such a venture. He felt that this sort of scheme might be the answer
to the rising cost of production and to the shortage of skilled actors
and directors. He felt that the quality of the presentations needed
to be improved and he offered some suggestions for achieving this.
He believed that more acting should be introduced rather than
allowing the entire effort to be "mere reading." He suggested the

director should attempt to work the Presentation up to a dress rehearsal

6 .
9Schenker, loc . cit .

70Letter from Blanche Yurka to the author, June 4, 1968.

 

t... - fl"

 

1+2

forareglllfl PTOduCtion’ With a
and the script serving primarily
hit this sort of improvement we
ation of this “admirable enteTIJ1
George Jean Nathan was wi:
heatre sounded good on paper a
directed, it might possibly pro
the rest of his comments were I
concerned, the two plays had be
infessional players of the 1" i
tilled direction had been vie

All that the Readers The
Presented plays "without ‘

which account for the larg

pmduotions, “ ' .
to them which it 15
that the Read

ers Theatr

3:21;: than the old Town Ha

on of thin mgmultiplied

he eflooded the land and
rungs 8.27

Nathan noted that then

he
Supposedly knowledgeable

W; " g

u when on the Saturdar R

a’inoff R a:
., who found the e (

Satisfying.

Nathan admitte

hon
ably to 0the presentati

 

this Why he was not
one

 

 

 

 

 

 

42

for a regular production, with actors having their lines well in mind
and the script serving primarily as a stage property. Young believed
that this sort of improvement was essential to a successful continu-
ation of this "admirable enterprise."7’l

George Jean Nathan was willing to grant that the idea of Readers
Theatre sounded good on paper and that, if expertly read and expertly
directed, it might possibly produce satisfactory results. However,
the rest of his comments were uniformly negative. As far as he was
concerned, the two plays had been cast with anything but the promised
professional players of the first rank, and nothing in the way of

skilled direction had been visible.

All that the Readers Theatre has done as promised is to have
presented plays ”without the physical accessories and services
which account for the larger share of the costs of the regular
productions," which it is to be suspected, are rather necessary

to them.
What the Readers Theatre has accomplished, in short, is little

more than the old Town Hall, Women's Club and Chautauqua solo
sort of thing multiplied by eight or ten. That sort of thing
once flooded the land and, was reSponsible for some pretty dread-

ful evenings.72
Nathan noted that there was no accounting for taste and cited
two supposedly knowledgeable and literate peOple, Harrison Smith,
publisher of the Saturday Review of Literature and actress Fania
Marinoff, who found the Readers Theatre productions stimulating and
satisfying. Nathan admitted that there had been others who reacted

favorably to the presentations, but hastened to explain at great

lengths why he was not one of them.

—_._‘

71$tark Young, New Republic, February 11, 1946, p. 189.

72Nathan, pp. 23113., p- 294-

 

 

 

ihave, I think, an irllaeir
Idon't need tons of scenem
into proper action. But I <
classics' word magic from a
bleak platform peopled by a
suits and women in dowdy st
dying out with unorchestra
gestures. Ican also, 1 00
Jones and Chaney scenery, 5
than out of a narrator with
hdl can, hesmirch me, get
under my own reading lamp 2'
half dozen such lecturers i
and mefi

Nathan did set down some
"‘3' : '—
1. mashed the readers needed

,.
n -“ ‘
hseoi actors on the stage i

theli,‘L ‘
-rnced pantomime must be

its.
hm the ‘
power of suggestion

T!
neco '
ncluded his remarks by S

M
‘1le

condensing the Readers Tl

them 1! 1 h
wel considered." A

Th
eReaders Theatre ut
forit ‘
S I
tine. actors readil

 

 

 

43

I have, I think, an imagination as puissant as the next man.
I don't need tons of scenery and costumes to massage my fancy
into proper action. But I can get a whole lot more of the
classics' word magic from a library chair reading than from a
bleak platform peopled.by a number of men in Broadway business
suits and women in dowdy street dresses all carrying scripts and
giving out with unorchestrated elocuticn and periodic high—school
gestures. I can also, I confess, get a deal more out of Mielziner,
Jones and Chaney scenery, even when it isn‘t all that it should be,
than out of a narrator with whiskers describing what isn't there.
And I can, besmirch me, get still more out of a scene transition
under my own reading lamp in my own lounging room than out of any
half dozen such lecturers interposing themselves between the book
and me.73

Nathan did set down some sensible criteria for future attempts.
He insisted the readers needed to have voices at least comparable to
those of actors on the stage in terms of power and eloquence; that
the limited pantomime must be superior to action on the stage; and
that the power of suggestion must be vastly superior in a reading.
He concluded his remarks by stating his approval of experimentation,
but condemning the Readers Theatre experiment as being "ill wrought“

74

though "well considered."

Summary

The Readers Theatre utilized an unusual method of presentation
for its time: actors reading from scripts, no make—up or costumes,
and.nothing in the way of scenery. The main purpose of this mode of
Inesentation, as stated by its instigators, was an economic one——to
pnesent plays which would not normally be produced because of prohibi-
tive staging costs and unlikely box office appeal. It was also sug-

gested this means of presentation might afford.the opportunity to

h

731bid.

741bid.

 

 

 

in

better appreciate the beauty of '

tncting stage properties, scene

Six of the reviewers noteo

hm One critic saw a need :or

75

{is type of production. How1
leveled at the productions, 861d
'1th have been applied to a po
"tenet focused on the mode of
fessional aspects of the prodm
Toenajority of critics :
asaseparate form of entertai

dict had not been entirely 51

ted ' "
pushed, in its use of ti

Freedley described The Mayor

‘1 AL 76
Iuncut." Two critics que

W l V I.
snered theatre. Nichols

tilt) "
at the theatre, se
l 0 a l

,
11% Va ' 1.
r1 1 w
\“l cr1t1c thought T

herdedi
pus Rex ,but couple
lastill not full blooc

wander}, 9p,

Oder
Q1611de artistic fa

io
“5 of Slgflificar

hie $11 3.
t .

75K
I‘ohen
7N berger 10C
Nichol
s 10c \c. \Cit

——f————— "“"~‘A‘,..: 1.: 6.0"” '

 

we
better appreciate the beauty of the spoken word, uncluttered by dis—
tracting stage properties, scenery, or costumed performers.

Six of the reviewers noted the novelty of the manner of presenta-
tion. One critic saw a need for a different set of criteria to evaluate
this type of productinn:75 However, for the most part, the criticism
leveled at the productions, and particularly the initial production,
nught have been applied to a poorly done play. The negative criticism
wasrqufocused on the mode of presentation, but rather upon the unpro—
fessional aSpects of the production.

The majority of critics apparently did not regard the readings
as a separate form of entertainment, but rather, as a form of theatre
wmich had not been entirely successful, (particularly in the case of

OedumusRex), in its use of theatrical techniques and accessories.

 

FEeedley described The Mayor of Zalamea as "good theatrical enter—

76

tainment." Two critics questioned whether the readings should be

considered theatre. INiChols wrote that Oedipus Rex, "as an hour or
1mm at the theatre, . . . seemed somewhat less than satisfactory."77

lbs Variety critic thought The Mayor of Zalamea was an improvement

over Oedipus Rex, but complained that "a group of actors reading a

78”,

 

play is still not full-blooded.theatre."

Sggipus Rex and The Mayor of Zalamea must be classified as

 

cmmmercial and artistic failures. No further oral interpretation
puesentations of significance appeared on the New York stage until
CMtober 22, 1951, When the First Drama Quartet presented Don Juan

in Hell at Carnegie Hall.

___

75K ’76

7‘7

Nichols, loc. cit.

ronenberger, loc. cit. Freedley, loc. cit.

78

 

L- N-, $22.- .93}:-

 

 

 

 

CFAPK

THE LAUGHTON-GR

Circles Laughton became 1'

hlii ice of oral interpretatior

reading to wormded soldiers in
soNp‘nflar with the soldiers t
this who would be interested

M9599“, and other litera:

”11339511111. saying that th

(D

entertain - .
Mia and Since,

(I)

a
this a rabbit hutch, he 1

Shortly after World W61
53hed Paul Gregory saw Laugh
atelevision program. He wa
3me of presentation t‘r
Em mug and proposed a

Tddghton s
11ccessufllbdtoure

finhfl a]
g ”38 audience an

The e1dea for the Fir c

hp
9199190 ’6 Who, after hearir

hThe1 ha mesLaughton"
\ @2311952, See

 

 

CHAPTER III
THE LAUGHTON-GREGORY PRODUCTIONS

Charles Laughton became interested in the profession possi-
bilities of oral interpretation during World War II when he started
reading to wounded soldiers in various hospitals. His readings were
so popular with the soldiers that he began to wonder if there were
others who would be interested in hearing readings from the Bible,
Shakespeare, and other literary masterpieces. His advisers dis-
couraged him, saying that there was no audience for that sort of
emtertainment, and since, as Laughton himself admitted, he could not
organize a rabbit hutch, he temporarily abandoned the idea.

Shortly after World War II, an enterprising young businessman
Iwmmd.Paul Gregory saw Laughton read a selection from the Bible on
a.television program. He was so impressed with the possibilities of
this form of presentation that he managed to corner Laughton the
next morning and proposed a partnership. Under Gregory's management,
Iaughton successfully toured the United States for a few years,
finding a.large audience anxious for high quality entertainment.1

The idea for the First Drama Quartet originated with Dr. Albert

Ibppaport Who, after hearing a Laughton reading in San Francisco,

M

. qcharles Laughton, "How Mr. Laughton Became the Devil," New York
Tease. March 23, 1952, Sec. VI, p. 21. m

L15

 

 

 

approached Gregory and aSKed abc
iourpcople, like Laughton, to I
he idea to laughton as the two
:eotinCanada. Laughton was i
nchhrain—searching came up ..-i
he"play" was actually the thi
ndSuperuan. The act, rarely
tech-contained entity, featu
0fPhysiced action. This sect
Dflmflbecame the not
Pittation production during tl
The informers were kno

turret included, besides Lav

the

.-es Boyer, Cedric Earth-:11
u“ '
Wilding cast and an auth1

the r t
_. Md t0 have possibiliti

1h -
eloh‘llanty it did. Greg

asuc ‘
cessiul touring piece

@

Bond ‘
R Wstar

 

t—————

46
approached Gregory and asked about "the possibility of a drama quartet,
four people, like Laughton, to read a whole play."2 Gregory suggested
the idea to Laughton as the two were on their way to a reading engage-
ment in Canada. Laughton was intrigued with the suggestion, and after
much brain—searching came up with a play he thought would be suitable.
The "play" was actually the third act of-George Bernard Shaw‘s Map
and Superman. The act, rarely performed because of its length, was
a self—contained entity, featuring brilliant dialogue and a minimum
of physical action. This section of Shaw's play, better known as
Don Juan in Hell became the most famous and most successful oral inter—
pretation production during the last twenty years.

The performers were known as the First Drama Quartet. The
Quartet included, besides Laughton who also served as director,
Charles Boyer, Cedric Hardwicke, and Agnes Moorehead. With such an
outstanding cast and an author of the stature of Shaw, the experiment
appeared to have possibilities, though no one expected it to achieve
the popularity it did. Gregory and Laughton had hoped it would be

a successful touring piece. It was.
Don Juan in Hell

Don Juan in Hell started its tour in Stockton, California,_on

 

February 1, 1951. By the time the production made its first appearance
in New York at Carnegie Hall on October 22, 1951, nearly four hundred

thousand people in one hundred and fifteen towns and cities in

 

 

2Kurt Singer, The Charles Laughton Story, (London: Robert
Hale, Ltd., 1954), p. 256.

 

 

 

thirty-tire states and in than
Regardless of whether the
rtent, or an elaborate theatre
houses and received rave review
hiring an artistic success, ti
dust prior to the Carnegie Hall
1

were reported to be $325,000.“
It is interesting and per

towns and cities toured by the
tommities and the production
Mauspices. Many of the p

his solo readings in previous

half of the audience had seen
0111 community in years, but 1:

WWW. Attendance ave

an excellent turnout for any
MM had Pl
New York. Producer Paul Greg
the presentation and would st
e00110111310 ccntrivance to out 1

that it is intended to be."5

‘—-———_—————-—

3Arthur Gelb New York

! _____.——-
l*John Houseman, "Dram:
5Gelb, loc. cit. Acco

Ex[Whine to operate than m
“5111 weekly expenses amount

 

 

7——

47
thirty-five states and in England and Scotland had seen it.
Regardless of whether the company played in a high school gym,
a tent, or an elaborate theatre, they almost always drew capacity
houses and received rave reviews from the local critics. In addition
to being an artistic success, the venture was also a commercial success.

Just prior to the Carnegie Hall presentation, the grosses for the tour

were reported to be $325,000.3

It is interesting and perhaps significant to note that all the .
towns and cities toured by the Quartet were college or university
communities and the production was always presented under their cul-

tural auspices. Many of the places visited had hosted Laughton and

his solo readings in previous years. It was estimated that less than

 

half of the audience had seen a professional performance in their

own community in years, but they were obviously appreciative of the
opportunity. Attendance averaged over three thousand people per night,
an excellent turnout for any form of theatrical entertainment.

Don Juan in Hell had planned originally to completely bypass

 

New York. Producer Paul Gregory feared Broadway would not appreciate

the presentation and would suspect the lack of scenery to be "an

economic contrivance to cut costs rather than the planned stylization

that it is intended to be."5

‘—

3Arthur Gelb, New York'Times, October 21, 1951, sec. II, p. 3.

4

John Houseman, "Drama Quartette," Theatre Arts, August, 1951, p. 96.
5

Gelb, loc. cit. According to Gregory, the show was actually more

Empensive to operate than most Broadway productions that go on the road,
vuth.weekly expenses amounting to 316,280-

 

 

he first tour gained suc

unravel however, that when the

their their second United State
include a one-night stand at Ce
rated, athree to four week B:
hthe season after the tour 0
Within eight hours after
Wmcing the New York-appear
metely sold out. In fact,
furious the miragement did no‘
critics and found themselves
nothing for the gentlemen of
holders was consulted and te
hatched to those holding the
Hmenent's dilemma and pl
of the ticket holders refus
We One woman agreed i

introduction to Charles BOY

successful, as the critics

Settgg‘ s and Accessories
lthe setting consiste
mic stands, and four mic
thick green folders each 1
tone dinner jackets, Miss
Laughton originally had E

W”

6

Gelb , loo . cit -

 

 

-T—-—-————————————_____________________________l
48
The first tour gained such critical acclaim as well as popular
_approval however, that when the Quartet returned from England to
begin their second United States tour, the decision was made to

include a one—night stand at Carnegie Hall. If the reception war-

rented, a three to four week Broadway run would be considered later

 

 

ih.the season after the tour commitments were fulfilled.
Within eight hours after the first advertisement appeared

announcing the New York appearance of the Quartet, Carnegie Hall was

completely sold out. In fact, the onslaught of ticket seekers was so

furious the management did not have time to pull tickets for the

critics and found themselves at the end of the first day of sales with

‘ nothing for the gentlemen of the press. The mail order list of ticket

holders was consulted and telegrams and messengers were hastily dis-
patched to those holding the choicest reservations to explain the
management's dilemma and plead for the return of the tickets. Some
of the ticket holders refused.point blank, others were willing to
bargain. One woman agreed to return her tickets in exchange for an
introduction to Charles Boyer.6 .Apparently the ticket hunt was

successful, as the critics turned out in force.

Ekfitings and Accessories

The setting consisted of a black backdrop, four stdols, four
Hmsic stands, and four microphones. The only props used were the
thick green folders each player used to "read" from. The three men
hmre dinner jackets, Miss Moorehead wore a dark evening gown.

Laughton originally had a more elaborate arrangement in mind.

h.

Gelb, loc. cit.

 

 

he saw the four perched ‘
scorers sit on, and seam
from the pedestals in four
Devil, orange for Don Juan
for Donna Anna-mauve was r

Gregory eventuale manag
evening dress would be more ef
because the play ran for over
consequently there had to be s
has hcrehead described the E
"I can-tell you truthfully 1:115
fortahle on a stage and to be

as ennusting."8 Cedric Bar
note, "‘Nrose damnable stool
fatigue as anything. I camn
irresistahle urgeto burst '
The mum stands were

the piece.“10

The microphon
mvenent as well as to enabl

acoustical quality of the at

 

:Singer, l__o__c. c__i___t.~, P

8Agnes Moorehead: "St
“HI Shy» 195105 I." 165‘

sues Brough, A Vici
Doubleday and Company‘s 111°

 

OHoorehead , 22. 9.233

 

T7

49
He saw the four perched upon high stools such as tennis
scorers sit on, and wearing heavy cloaks which would drape
from the pedestals in four pools of color, scarlet for the
Devil, orange for Don Juan, white for the statue and mauve
for Donna Anna-—mauve was Agnes Moorehead's favorite color.

Gregory eventually managed to persuade Laughton that simple

evening dress would be more effective. The stools were necessary

because the play ran for over two hours with no exits or entrances.
Consequently there had to be something for the actor to rest on.

Miss Moorehead described the stools as "kitchen stools" and wrote;

'E can tell you truthfully that I have been ever so much more com—
fortable on a stage and to be the scenery for my three compatriots
was exhausting."8 Cedric Hardwicke, recalling the rigors of the tour
wrote, ”Those damnable stools were as big a factor in our constant

I cannot sit on a bar—stool today without an

"9

fatigue as anything.

 

irresistable urge to burst into Shaw.

The music stands were used "because of the symphonic nature of
the Piece."1o The microphone served to limit the performers'
movement as well as to enable audiences to hear regardless of the

acoustical quality 0f the auditoriums.

 

7Singer, loo. cit., p. 258-

8A nes Moorehead, "Staging Don Juan in Hell, ” Western Speech,
XVIII (May, 1954), p. 165.

9James Brough, A Victorian in Orbit, (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 196d), P- 270'

qoMoorehead,lgp. cit., p. 264.

 

hesification
he Quartet described Don
aithe critics‘uere content to
mte,“1've called the perform
fieQnartet describes it, but t
'ahiher critic thought that the
scdption insofar as the actors
We of reading, and sat
reading, but he thought that e:
'9‘"? W‘ would have been
Some critics resorted t
fluent in their attempts to
“lepmduction resembled a c
Edie broadcast, with element
hlended in.13 Houseman wrote
Artistically and come
between Chautauqua, the C
tradition of the Strolliu
and trestles in the Marks
are the numerous cultured
is not Show Business, bu‘
Brooks Atkinson charac
Wade and as a ‘Simple but
Might the production bore

cl'itic for Variety wrote thi
w

“Louis snearrer. 312

12Arthur Pollock, P2?

13love, Varietx , Mar
1!;

Housman , 10c - E

15Brooks Atkinson

 

 

50
Classification

The Quartet described Don Juan in Hell as a reading, but few
of the critics‘were content to leave it at that. As one reviewer
wrote, "I've called the performance a reading because that is the way
the Quartet describes it, but their performance is more than that.”11
Another critic thought that the term 'reading' was an accurate de—
scription insofar as the actors stood before microphones, gave the
appearance of reading, and sat silently on their stools when not
reading, but he thought that except for the lack of movement the term
'pure drama' would have been more accurate.

Some critics resorted to comparisons with other forms of enter—
tainment in their attempts to classify the production. Lowe thought
the production resembled a cross between a musical concert and a
radio broadcast, with elements of the conventional speech class
blended in.15 Houseman wrote:

Artistically and commercially the Quartette lies somewhere

between Chautauqua, the Community Concerts, and the ancient
tradition of the Strolling Players setting up their boards

and trestles in the Market Place. The Quartette's market places
are the numerous cultural centers of America. Their merchandise

is not Show Business, but Theatre.’I
Brooks Atkinson characterized the offering as an intellectual
"15

crusade and as a'himple but inspired reading. AOther critics

thought the production bore definite resemblence to a debate. The

critic for Variety wrote that Don Juan in Hell was "more debate than
____________________
11Louis Sheaffer, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 25, 1951.

12Arthur Pollock, Daily Compass, October 24, 1951.
13Lowe, Variety, March 14, 1951: P- 52-
14Houseman, loo. cit.

ll
5Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, October 23, 1951, p. 34.

 

 

ham,“ and that it was presen

wiper-ism:

“Don Juan“ is not a play
debate and that is how the
isbyno reads a stodgy or

... [it is an] enormo
Hit and flashing perfo

The use of music stands

fumehces. Laughton, in disc
its, spoke of being impresse
tuning the pages of their so
minded the performnce was
Elaborate.19 Gassner found

WM much iike the perform
that good actors react to a i

good singers respond to a mu:

hues of Presentation
lI‘he thick green folder
evidence, but as Miss Mooret

A995 to heighten the sense

“ment to occasionale di:
M

168m., W’ Oct

1'zilalter Kerr, New Y

1ghau‘gh’con, log. g1

19(heorge Freedley, N

Eodohh Gassner, Thea
efiah

. and Movements in
Publishers, Inc., 195

 

 

 

 

 

 

_>—

51

dwqu” and that it was presented as a debateil Kerr expanded this

comparison:

"Don Juan" is not a play nor even part of a play. It is a
debate and that is how the foursome is presenting it. But it
is by no means a stodgy or formal, or rhetorical debate . . .

. . . {it is an] enormously exhilarating exhibition of literate

wit and flashing performance.17

The use of music stands encouraged comparison with musical per—

formances. Laughton, in discussing his early inSpirations for Don

Juan, spoke of being impressed by the "drama" of intent musicians

turning the pages of their scores as they played." Freedley

dentioned the performance was done in "oratorio style" but did not
elaborate.19 Gassner found the "virtuoso" delivery of the Drama
Quartet much like the performance of tenors in opera houses and noted
that good actors react to a verbal challenge in the same fashion as

good singers respond to a musical challenge.

Manner of Presentation

The thick green folders containing the scripts were always in
evidence, but as Miss Moorehead pointed out, they were used only as
Inops to heighten the sense of informality and to provide a little

nmvement to occasionally distract the audience when the pages were

6
1 Bron., Variety, October 24, 1951, p. 67.
17walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, October 23, 1951.

8
1 Laughton, loc. cit.

19George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, November 5, 1951,
2 . ' .
OJohn Gassner, Theatre of Our Times; A Survey of the Men,

fiEterials and Movements in the Modern Theatre, (New York: Crown
Publishers, Inc., 1954), p. 161.

 

 

 

timed. It was feared that

etching the actors who moved
ocesionally move towards the
it one a very limited sort of
part in the activities, they
attention to what the others
“Director Laughton was
theperformers‘s movements
reading a dynamic projection
hutch thought that the amo
enough to give the reading

metaken for an imperfect p6

[my

host of the critics w
when); of them cemented
production. .

. . . Though music st‘
speaker, the performan
than a reading, and it
sistent style somewher
and that could be cal]
movement to keep the V
to suggest merely an i
to have understood ex:

 

21Moorehead, $99..
22'I‘hones Dash, W01”
atrium Hawkins,

2“Joseph Wood Krut

 

T7

52
turned. It was feared that the audience might become tired of
watching the actors who moved so little.21 The performers did
occasionally move towards the audience or towards each other, but
it was a very limited sort of movement.22 When they were not taking
part in the activities, they were perched on their stools paying close
attention to what the others were discussing.

‘Director Laughton was credited for his skillful integration of
the performers's movements and subtle reactions which ”made the
reading a dynamic projection rather than a static exercise."23
Krutch thought that the amount of gesture and movement was excellent;

enough to give the reading life, but not so much that it might be

mistaken for an imperfect performance.

 

: Verdict
Most of the critics wrote rave reviews about the presentation,

and many of them commented about the effectiveness of the method of

 

production.

. . . Though music stands with a text are placed before each
speaker, the performance is by now obviously a recitation rather
than a reading, and it is also something which maintains a con—
sistent style somewhere between what could be called declamation
and what could be called acting. There is enough gesture and
movement to keep the whole thing beautifully alive; never enough
to suggest merely an imperfect performance., The Quartet seems
to have understood exactly what it wanted to do and to do just

2
1Moorehead, loc. Cit.

22Thomas Dash, Women's Wear Daily, October 23, 1951-

23William Hawkins, New York World-Telegram and Sun, October 23, 1951.

24
Joseph Wood Krutch, Nation, December 22, 1951, p. 554.

i

that with a soreness of t4
at ease and never for a no
method is a bastard rathe
presentation. Moreover e
as well as admirably fitt

Halter Kerr observed c

  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
   
 

everything with an over abun
hope that the frills would
whereas the First Drama
out “everything that was e
mom with fire, inteZL'Lig
Noon-ted he had just discov
and costuming was not neces
“It is enough when the
spoken by a small handful
Robert Coleman found

he cautioned his readers t
audience willing to think.

that compazable to sitting

 

to four charming, intellig
had just read. Only the
William Hawkins des
exercise, a relaxing pasd
a Iadiantly dramatized l

0'01 invention . . . .“29
M
25mm.
2
6Kerr, loo. cit.
.- ' 28Robert Coleman

. . I 291mm , ioc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

53
that with a sureness of touch which puts the audience instantly
at ease and never for a moment creates the feeling that the
method is a bastard rather than a perfectly legitimate form of
presentation. Moreover each individual is admirably cooperative
as well as admirably fitted to his particular role.25
walter Kerr observed contemporary theatre usually smothered
everything with an over abundance of scenery and costuming in the
hope that the frills would mask "a stupefying dramatic vacancy,"
whereas the First Drama Quartet reversed the procedure by throwing
out "everything that was expensive and unnecessary and filled the
vacuum with fire, intelligence, and.emotional power."26 Sheaffer
reported he had just discovered a stageful of actors, much scenery
and costuming was not necessary to hold an audience spellbound.
"It is enough when the dialogue is worth listening to and it is
spoken by a small handful of players who know their job.”27
Robert Coleman found the evening diverting and enjoyable, but
he cautioned his readers that it was an evening which required an
audience willing to think. He thought the presentation was some—
what comparable to sitting in one's own living room and listening
to four charming, intelligent talkers discuss a great book they
had just read. ’Only the drinks and canapes seemed lacking.28
William Hawkins described the production as a "mental limbering

exercise, a relaxing pastime, or a gay appeal to the imagination . . .

a radiantly dramatized lecture, or a play designed to inepire your

own invention . . . ."29 Regardless of what one might choose to call

__

25Ibid.

Kerr, loo. cit. 27Shaeffer, loo. cit.
28Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, October 23, 1951.
29

Hawkins, loc. cit.

 

i

it,hwkins assured his reader:
ooedmce in the theatre. Thy
credited the four actors with

notation one of the outstan

 
  
  
  
   
   
  

called it a distinguished per
Nathan wrote that Don
oeenon the Broadway stage f0
hiveandexcitement. He co
to fools not to see the pres
tweeter.32
Critics Gibbs and Clu
, -. ‘ 'preview' but were favorabl
I I 1 limited run in November. G
emexience,"53 while 011).

intellectual filmy
Thxee reviewers voic

had been enjoyable, but ex:

 

short of what Maurice Evan
(Evans had presented Man a

“matey some years befor‘

\_._________ .

. 3oliewark Evening Ne
1

3 Emma, lg. cit

32George ,Jean Neath
33Wolcott Gibbs, I

3“Harold Clurman ,

 

54
it, Hawkins assured his readers they would find it an unforgettable
experience in the theatre. The critic for the Newark Evening News
credited the four actors with making "this unique sceneryless pre—

"30 Variety

sentation one of the outstanding delights of all time.
called it a distinguished performance.31

Nathan, wrote that Don Juan in Hell was superior to anything
seen on the Broadway stage for years in terms of sheer theatrical

drive and excitement. He concluded by warning his readers they would

be fools not to see the presentation when it returned to New York in

November.32
Critics Gibbs and Clurman apparently missed the Carnegie
'preview' but were favorably impressed after seeing it during its

limited run in November. Gibbs called the performance "a stimulating

experience,"33 while Clurman described it as an evening 0f superb

intellectual fun.

Three reviewers voiced reservations. Garland admitted the evening

 

had been enjoyable, but expressed the opinion the Drama Quartet fell
short of what Maurice Evans would have done with the same material.
(Evans had presented Man and Superman without the Hell sequence on

Broadway some years before.) Garland was also displeased with what

 

30Newark Evening News, October 23, 1951.
3

1
Brons., loo. cit.

32George Jean Nathan, New York Journal American, November 5, 1951,

35Wolcott Gibbs, The New Yorker, December 8, 1951, p. 64.

4
3 Harold Clurman, New Republic, December 24, 1951, p. 22.

i

boarded as an improper adj
in terns of volume.35
heedley, who had been
efforts a few years previous ,
although he praised the cast
response had been most favors.
hction was a "stunt."36 Be
of an observation than a co
ivplied objection to the £0
Praising the Drama Qua
to do without scenery.
stage scenery, but I am
is the assvmption that ,
_ ‘ missing but decor. Or
, . . lake them actors?37
Various critics had
“Mutation. Atkinson w'ro
- ‘ had seen the Carnegie Hall

While everything looked inf

 

mmill}; planned and rehea
Sewing Simplicity and tern
”Wet-Han also cautioned ago

if Don Juan.

35Robert Garland, y
, _ 36Freedley, loo. _c_i.

3WEI'ic Bentley, T3
M: Horizon Press, 195
agBmoks Atkinson,

, 39Time , November =

a

 

 

 

55

he regarded as an improper adjustment of the microphones, apparently

in terms of volume.35

Freedley, who had been a strong supporter of the Readers Theatre
efforts a few years previous, did not appreciate the presentation,
although he praised the cast and acknowledged the general critical
response had been most favorable. He personally thought the pro-

duction was a "stunt."36 Bentley's comments were more in the form

of an observation than a complaint, but there does seem to be an

implied objection to the form:

Praising the Drama Quartet, people are saying how nice it is
to do without scenery. I do not share their implied disdain for
stage scenery, but I am not surpriSed at it. What surprises me
is the assumption that, when a play is read to us, nothing is
missing but decor. Or does the fact that the readers use gestures

make them actors?

Various critics had pointed out the apparent simplicity of the
presentation. Atkinson wrote a follow-up article two weeks after he
had seen the Carnegie Hall performance in which he pointed out that,
while everything looked informal and impromptu, it had all been
carefully planned and rehearsed.38 22mg magazine also noted the
seeming simplicity and termed it "deep theatrical cunning."39
Houseman also cautioned against being misled by the apparent simplicity
of Don Juan.

__________________
35Robert Garland, New York Journal American, October 23, 1951.

36

 

Freedley, loo. cit.

37Eric Bentley, The Dramatic Event: An American Chronicle, (New
York: Horizon Frees, 1954), P- 82'

38Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, November 4, 1951, Sec. II, p. 1.

39Time, November 5, 1951, p. 64'

 

 

 

't is high grade theatr
shrewdly executed. Only
goer could mistake its 51'
informality for accident
deliberately and meticul<
of scenery, hundreds of i

havkins was impressed '
tation gave each individual
his own optimum mount of ac
evasion had achieved much mt
could have been achieved if

In
memes” Atkinson als

creating an "overwhelming"

read, either by Laughton or

beyond those of even an in:
The fact that the ca

Iinvent
also contributed

stilt gl“al‘hl'ellv, and
l he aware that the

Undoubteuy a 1”
First g“
D

 

_>—

56

 

It is high grade theatre . . . cunningly conceived and
shrewdly executed. Only a very unobservant or ignorant theatre-

goer codld miStake its simplicity for spareness, or its deliberate
informality for accident . . . in its total effect it is no less

deliberately and meticulously planned than if it contained tons
of scenery, hundreds of light cues and elaborate stage moves.4O

Hankins was impressed by the way in which the manner of presen-

tation gave each individual in the audience the opportunity to supply

his own optimum amount of action and setting. He felt Shaw's dis-

cussion had achieved much more life and vitality in this way than
could have been achieved if it had been "embellished with elaborate

trimmings."41 Atkinson also referred to the actors' effectiveness in

creating an "overwhelming" illusion. Shaw's stage directions were

read, either by Laughton or Hardwicke and managed to ”achieve effects

. . 4
beyond those of even an inspired scenic des1gner." 3

The fact that the cast pretended to read and utilized little
nmvement also contributed to the illusionary effect of the production.

Only gradually, and sometimes not at all, do theatregoers
become aware that the cast is acting, without seeming to act.
'Every movement of the body, even the turning of the pages,
becomes important,’ explains Laughton. 'You mustn't move,
except for a startling effect . . . .' As theatrewise Director
Jed.Harris pointed out, 'By appearing to read, but actually
knowing their parts by heart, they make the whole thing come
alive. In a theatrical4£roduction, the power or illusion would

be much more difficult.

Acting

Undoubtedly a large measure of the phenomenal success of the

First Drama Quartet was due, as wyatt suggested, to the fact that

. . 2 .
Houseman, loc. cit. 41Hawklnse lOC-_E£E- Atkinson, loc. cit.

1+
3Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, October 23, 1951.

1,
Laughton, loo. cit.

 

“the qmtet happens to be a i
a respected theatrical vete
been seen more often on the E
oreceeding Don Juan.

With four outstanding }
no it have prevailed. Howev
as well as performer, was as
in that had wreaked havoc i
Gibbs practically went into

wetting then with a “styl
hi'enconter in the theatr

The most lengthy dis<
h Whitney Bolton.

Bolton

tart . .
i Lei because of his ave

'e

vy stage, but was 13163815m

‘s is theatre

| su <

accomplishment . . Pr

132nm evening dress
his and studied the
e .

Whitney Bolton.

I? __

57

4
"the quartet happens to be a pretty Big Four." 5

The players were
all respected theatrical veterens, though Moorehead and Boyer had
been seen more often on the screen than on the stage in the years
preceeding Don Juan.

With four outstanding performers, four different acting styles
might have prevailed. However, Laughton, who functioned as director
as well as performer, was able to conquer completely the style prob—
lem that had wreaked havoc in the Oedipus Rex presentation. Wolcott
Gibbs practically went into ecstasy over the acting of the four,

crediting them with a "style and humor and discipline that you sel~

6

 

dom encounter in the theatre.”4

The most lengthy discussion of the companygs acting was offered
by Whitney Bolton. Bolton confessed to having been suspicious of the
Quartet because of his aversion to Hollywood performers on the Broad—
way stage, but was pleasantly surprised with what he saw:

This is theatre superb, this is acting at the top level of
accomplishment . . . This is not just four players standing in
modern evening dress . . . but four who have taken the Shaw
words and studied them for intent, for depth and for color.

They plainly have studied every line and phrase, have worked
over it with affection and concern and the result is perfor—

mance in each case so brilliant that once gore hope for the
profession of acting takes a happier turn. 7

Atkinson commented that a play about brains requires actors
with brains to find the ideas amid the dialogue and skill enough to

present them effectively, and he believed the First Drama Quartet

 

45Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt, Catholic World, 174:390
(February, 1952).

I

46Gibbs, loc. cit.

h .
7Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 23, 1951.

 

, , _ . . .
met both requirements admrao.
Sheafier wrote that the
. u 1+9
coulonot have been better.
“gifted actors“ and their per
Capra: described them as Che
The one negative react
learned American, who was ne
\
tIOduction. he was particnl
Which he LIBintained disturb
Charles BOYer had bee
am because he was at“ ram
111910 55
11% Speeches. Many
butmost of .h
~ ~ em were quit

periorflamce.

Atkinson perhaps be:
them he Wrote, "Boyer giV
[at be judiciously applie
because his accent is tr<

idiom ‘
lledging there were

ht‘fll ‘
filing," but noting

E . .
sciphne seldom found

N I
atham passed ove
lip
glasses a small mat
t8
Atkinson,

51
. Chapman, loo
, ‘~ \‘ .

\ Atk‘
lnson, 104.

 

 

58.
. . 48
net both requirements admirably.

Sheaffer wrote that the actors were excellent, in fact, they
could not have been better}+9 The Variety critic termed the quartet
"gifted actors" and their performance "a brilliant tour—de-force."5O
Chapman described them as charming and resourceful. ~

The one negative reaction came from Robert Garlandwof the

Journal.American, who was negative about almost all aSpects of the

 

..

production. He was particularly disturbed by Charles Boyer's accent

wmich he maintained disturbed the three other readers.52

Charles Boyer had been reluctant to accept the role of Don
Juan because he was afraid his French accent might cause trouble in
the long speeches.53 Many critics did find his accent troublesome,

but most of them were quite impressed with the total effect of Boyer's

performance.

Atkinson perhaps best expressed many of the critics' reactions
when he wrote, "Boyer gives a performance to which the word 'great'

may be judiciously applied . . .His success is all the more remarkable

because his accent is troublesome."5l'L Gibbs sounded a similar note,

acknowledging there were times when the pronunciation was a "little

bewildering," but-noting that the acting had a style, humor, and
"55

discipline seldom found in the theatre.

Nathan passed over Boyer's occasional problem with the English

56

language as a small matter in light of his overall excellence.

48Atkinson, loc. cit. 49Sheaffer, 100- 213' 50Bron., loc. cit.

5thapman, loc. cit. 52Garland, loc. cit. 53Singer, loc. cit.

_ a , 6
EaAtkinson, loc. cit. 55Glbbs. _I_L_o_0_~ £13- 5 Nathan: lgg- _C_i__t_-

 

 

lollock found him elocuent 9“
sectioned the slight handicap
delivering the 1011895t speech
passion.58
Clurman thought perhap:
French for Don Juan, but fell
vhning.“59 - Dash, on the 0t
”nexcellent choice to port}
libertine and lover. Dash
Particularly notable becaus
cient diction of Laughton e
Shaeifer also found 3
when.“ Shaeffer made
Elms, uho spoke of Boye
“3'19le delivery and u:
the accent in his praise
“01101“ “a series of long

Kerr found Boyer‘ S
tee
"use of the French ac

ill L
the latter part Of ti“

57p
Ollock, loo. c
onah ‘ ‘
s ,10\C. Ci\t

John (31,,mea h

59
5'7

 

Ebllock found him eloquent even with his slight accent. Variety
nwntioned the slight handicap of the accent, but credited him with
delivering the longest speeches in the play with tremendous fire and

58

passion.

Clurman thought perhaps Boyer was a bit too romantic and too
Phench for Don Juan, but found his reading of the part "altogether
wdnning."59‘ Dash, on the other hand, thought the French Boyer was
an excellent choice to portray the magnetism of the irresistable
libertine and lover. Dash suggested Boyer's accent might have been
particularly notable because it was juxtaposed against the magnifi—
cient diction of Laughton and Hardwicke.

Shaeffer also found Boyer admirably suited for the philosophizing
Ibn Juan.61 Shaeffer made no reference to Boyer's accent, nor did
Hawkins, who spoke of Boyer's "matchless magnetism" and magnificient
variety of delivery and use of vocal color.62 Chapman did not mention
the accent in his praise of Boyer's engaging and persuasive presenta—
tion of "a series of long speeches that would kill the ordinary actor."63

Kerr found Boyer's performance in the first act disappointing

because of the French accent and inflection, but wrote of his work

in the latter part of the play:

59

57Pollock, loc. cit. 58Bron., loc. cit. Clurman, loc. cit.
6ODash, loc. cit. 6IIShaeffer, loc. cit. 62Hawkins, loc. cit.

63John Chapman, New York Daily News, October 23, 1951.

 

 

 

 

.. .Boyer rises to a leve
not have been matched on i
rthere is a moment when he
forward in a spasm of urg
as the top thrill in an o
the finest performers we

Boyer's command 0f Eng]
'iht one would wish, but appé
Liniiicant in relation to
"he part requires a lively
deans wit plus the convic
M with all this, superior
Wt requirement."65

The Tony Award was pr
"LIME for assisting in a new,

thluation of

the 1951-195:
Airlormence as Don Juan "i.
Ax

Charles Laughton ori

M,
vet, recruited the per

fl .
so introduced the prese
l
1 .
Do 11 the introduction
H
van legend on which

he“ i
he (”her Players.é

6h
err,
6 W

C

~

John B
eauf
66 ort,

Vari
67%, April ;

Atkinsgfls NEW

A

Coleman‘ 10

4‘8

 

 

60
. . .Boyer rises to a level of emotional performance which may
not have been matched on the New York stage for some years.
There is a moment when he seizes his microphone and thrusts it
forward in a spasm of urgency which is at least twice as exciting
as the top thrill in an ordinarz melodrama. Mr. Boyer is one of
the finest performers we have.

Boyer's command of English diction might not have always been
what one would wish, but apparently this fact proved to be relatively
insignificant in relation to the other aspects of his performance.
"The part requires a lively intelligence, physical vitality, a
gleaming wit plus the conviction that comes from a deep sincerity--
and with all this, superior thchnical equipment. Mro Boyer meets
every requirement."65

The Tony Award was presented to Boyer by the American Theatre
Wing for assisting in a new theatre trend.66 Brooks Atkinson, in his
evaluation of the 1951-1952 theatrical season, labeled Charles Boyer's
performance as Don Juan "the finest acting of the year."67

Charles Laughton originated the idea of the First Drama
Quartet, recruited the performers, and directed the production. He
also introduced the presentation and portrayed the Devil.

In the introduction, Laughton offered a brief background of the

Don Juan legend on which the play was based, set the scene, and intro-

duced the other players.68 His introduction was a carefully studied,

 

6LiKerr, New York Herald Tribune, October 23, 1951.
65

 

John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, December 8, 1951.

 

66 .
Variety, April 2, 1952-

67Atkinson, New York Times, April 20, 1952, Sec. II, p. 1.

68Coleman, 100. cit.

 

 

though apparently adlibbed pr

jolly, scholarly host and inv
nes of a reading by him and
piece of contemporary litera‘
reading would require concen
This introduction was
normal and surprisingly cc
thesametime . . . a canni?
hind-notion and Laughton‘ s
taughton opens the ev

setting of the stage.

EOE conceed the fact tl

10? blood, and within a

page his head, chucks l
“We and double-ten"

5?“ damage is to be a

“it with Shaw's blasti

with death, in a We

sense of the Speech.
TE also noted an i
hm, but the critic did 11
note that Laughton's Fal
dearest of the four char
Me a bit cute at time
Mfiy reported Laughto
tell for the most part,
temples Sufficient se?

1n
es appeared "a bit
0
tea
0113mm
5 O ,
7o ‘E 5

 

6’1

though apparently adlibbed presentation. He assumed the role of a

jolly, scholarly host and invited the audience to share in the pleas—
ures of a reading by him and his associates of a lesser known master—
piece of contemporary literature. He warned his audience that the

69

reading would require concentration and effort on their part.

This introduction was characterized by one critic as "deliberately
informal and surprisingly coy . . . arousing interest and sympathy at
the same time . . . a cannily conceived stunt."7O Kerr wrote of the

introduction and Laughton‘s characterization of the Devil:

Laughton opens the evening with a modest and ingratiating
setting of the stage. But the shyness, the coy mannerisms, do
not conceal the fact that he is a killer. Mr. Laughton is out
for blood, and within a very few minutes he is drawing it. He
wags his head, chucks his chin into his collar, goes in for the‘
twinkle and double—twinkle and then——just as you are afraid that
some damage is to be done by way of excessive cuteness——he lets
rip with Shaw's blasting of man as a creature essentially in love
with death, in a manner that tears him to tatters, but not the
SenSe of the speech. ‘This may be ham, but it is deliciousj’1

Time also noted an occasional tendency on Laughton‘s part towards

ham, but the critic did not find it "delicious" as had Kerr:72 Pollock

wrote that Laughton‘s Falstaffian interpretation came across as the
clearest of the four characters, but noted that he had a tendency

to be a bit cute at times, as if he were "still touring the sticks."73
Variety reported Laughton had some of the best lines and handled them
Well for the most part, but in his enthusiasm he occasionally neglected

to employ sufficient self—discipline and as a result, the devil some-

times appeared "a bit of a pansy-"74

 

9Houseman, 2p: cit., p. 14.
70Lowe, loc. cit. r“Kerr, loo. cit. 72Time, loo. cit.
75Pollock, loc. cit. Lowe, loo. cit.

 

 

Other critics found nc
Sheaiier thought him an uno:
hephistopheles.75 Dash 8.18
ml mentioned the way laugh
hatched the other actors p6

Atkinson was quite V
is the Devil, moon-f
gusto and gives dramat
long, closely-reasoned
putting the emphasis v
pointing the meaning u
masterful performance

Eric Bentley, comme

“85ml portrayal of the

0f "hm aCting." Bentle

'06 successful when done ‘

~Eiciency at it came not

but from his years of p1
M in acting for sum
the earlier Readers The,

again in later Producti

British star ged]

tar .
dhcke, reuliniscing

 

 

62

Other critics found nothing to critize in Laughton's rendition.

Sheaffer thought him an unorthodox but wonderfully ingratiating

Mephistopheles.75 Dash also approved of his portrayal of Lucifer

and.mentioned the way Laughton sat back and beamed gleefully as he

watched the other actors perform:76

Atkinson was quite taken with Laughton's presentation.

As the Devil, moon-faced Mr. Laughton acts with diabolical
gusto and gives dramatic weight to the Whole performance.

The
long, closely-reasoned speeches he gives with great spontaneity,

putting the emphasis where it belongs, using the words carefully,
pointing the meaning with gestures and movements. Call it a
masterful performance and you can not be wrong.

Eric Bentley, commenting some years later on Laughton's suc—

cessful portrayal of the devil, described his performance as a sort

of "half acting." Bentley emphasized that "half acting" could only

be successful when done by "Whole actors" and that Laughton's pro~

ficiency at it came not from his years of experience in reciting,

but from his years of practice in acting. 8 The prerequisite of

skill in acting for success in reading was mentioned in relation to

the earlier Readers Theatre presentations and will be mentioned

again in later productions.

British star Cedric Hardwicke portrayed the stuffy Statue.
Hardwicke, reminiscing about his experiences with the production

wrote, "When Paul Gregory first broached the idea of Don Juan , I

thought I was listening to a raving maniac."79 The part of the

Statue was considerably smaller than those of his male counterparts

75Sheaffer, loo. cit. 76Dash, loc. cit.

77At‘kinson, New York Times, October 23, 1951, p. 34.
78Bentley,'2p3 cit., p. 85-

79Brough, 2p, cit., p. 267-

 

 

 

 

1i
interns of the number of
number of lines earned him I
. , .
Beaufort wrote of him: '51
jamtiness of manner and de
speeches with a comic delit
Kerr was impressed wf
. 81 . . . ‘
Playing. Other critics
' | . 82
moving Comic relief ,"
"- “8} l
WOW Even Garlano he
“the "hadn‘t much to dc
le We forth whenever Be-

Miss Agnes Moorehea
hdhr. HerOWicke, hilt pe

51mm, she attracted morr

that Hollywood had contit

was especially impressed

I
horehead wrote of the c

completely
I 6y are usuall
miss so compliment
”Idling gratituc

Other reviewers \
toB

eaufort, lo\c
86 sh} 10\CI g

Moorehead, Q1):

 

63
in terms of the number of lines, but his skill with his limited

number of lines earned him rave reviews from nearly all of the critics.

Beaufort wrote of him: "Sir Cedric plays the Statue with majestic

jauntiness of manner and delivers the slow witted military man's

speedhes with a comic deliberateness that is altogether delightful."8O

Kerr was impressed with Hardwiokés skillful sense of under—

playing.81 Other critics cited.him for providing "perfectly timed,

drawling comic relief,"82 and "little wry rejoinders that are delectably

funny.“83 Even Garland had words of praise for Hardwicke, commenting

that he "hadn't much to do . . ; [but he] did that little well.
He came forth whenever Bernard Shaw let him and talked up like a man."84
Miss Agnes Moorehead, as Donna Anna, had even fewer lines than

did Mr. Hardwicke, but perhaps because she was the only woman in the

group, she attracted more commentary than he did. One critic, noting

that Hollywood had continually cast her in scraggly old maid parts,

was especially impressed with her aristocratic beauty.8 Miss
hborehead wrote of the casting:

I sometimes wonder how they ever saw me in such a glamorous
role for usually I am relegated to those dreary, drab characters
that are completely void of charm and beauty, (though I must
say they are usually the meatiest roles to play). Nevertheless

I was so complimentedggo be their choice for Donna Anna they have
my undying gratitude.

Other reviewers were also impressed with her beauty. One

. 8
OBeaufort, loo. cit. 1Kerr, loo. Cit. 2Pollock, loc. cit.
. . 8
3Dash, loo. cit. Garland, 100- Clt- 5Shaeffer, loo. cit.

Moorehead, gp, git., p. 164.

 

 

described her as “a haunting
hr with having "the crisp, C
n she supmlm the dewmtiv'
home writer her manner of
movements provided the chiEf
rthough hiss Moorehead
hteresting lines, she made
found her to be “an intelle
marten"91 Atkinson paid
of respectability and prop:
herability to remain
"‘espl'cLised. m sing
improve "her idle moments
ahmpriate background ge
hightoms aPlfirent enjoy

bill has Moorehead was a}

“M wrote of her-

 

 

 

64

described her as "a haunting Florentine paintingg"87 another credited
her with having "the criSp, clean, elegance of a lily." 8 Not only
did she supply the decorative note in the offering,89 but according

to one writer her manner of striking regal poses and her queen-like

9O

movements provided the chief visual attraction of the play.

Though Miss Moorehead had the fewest and possibly the least
interesting lines, she made the most of them, and at least one critic

found her to be "an intellectual match for the male members of the

quartet.”91 Atkinson paid homage to her tongue-in—cheek presentation

of respectability and propriety.

Herability to remain in character during her long silences

was praised. Variety singled her out as the only performer to

improve "her idle moments with a bit of 'hamming' in the form of
appropriate background gestures."93 One reviewer had mentioned
Iaughton's apparent enjoyment as he watched the other performers,9

but Miss Moorehead was apparently an even more outstanding listener.

Krutoh wrote of her:
As Donna.Anna,.Agnes Moorehead has the fewest words to speak
but for all that gives what may be the most remarkable performance.
She is silent for all but a few minutes of the time, but she is
surely one of the best listeners three talkers ever had. With
an occasional gesture of the hands, a sudden turning of the head
and above all by means of a perpetually fluid flow of quietly

modulated expression across a singularly mobile countenance
who provides a running commentary on the discourse without
which it would lose a very considerable part of its comic

effectiveness.
Two critics had negative comments about her performance.

8
7Oarland, loo. cit.

91 .
Beaufort, loo. Cit.

 

gqfiawkins, loo. cit.

S92.14tkinson,New York Times, October 23, 1951, p. 34.

93
B 9éDash, loo. cit. 95Krutch, loc. cit.

Ion., loo. cit.

 

 

 

Pollack disliked her interpr‘
uemihai."96 Nathan accu
the end of the performance,
forgave her, "since otherwis
host of the critics in
hemenbers of the quartet.
criticism, as did Laughton‘
Verdict was that, individue
Quartet had provided New Yr
mind Certainly the ski

Emily to the success and

Besides the scatter

m" ‘ ‘
the critics had reserv

the Don

dilan in hell epis
h and
\Sum for goo<

he r
deem sequence const

second, the lengthy disc
is .
“idly quite prone to 2'

hi
s Flatt never insist

1%th wrote melting S

 

65

 

Pollack disliked her interpretation altogether, labeling it

n96

"artificial. Nathan accused her of going "slightly askew" near

the end of the performance, (he did not elaborate), but magnanimously

"97

forgave her, "since otherwise she too is excellent.

Most of the critics were quite taken with the performances of

 

the members of the quartet. Boyer's accent did engender some
criticism, as did Laughton's tendence to over play, but the general
verdict was that, individually and as an ensemble, the First Drama
Quartet had provided New Yorkers with a superb example of the art of
acting. Certainly the skill of the performers contributed signif—

icantly to the success and popularity of Don Juan in Hell.

 

Material
Besides the scattered criticisms about accents and hams, some
of the critics had reservations about the material. Traditionally

the Don Juan in Hell episode had been eliminated from productions of

 

Mhn and Superman for good reasons. First, Man and Superman minus
the dream sequence constituted a full evening's entertainment, and
second, the lengthy discourses were considered unplayable. Shaw,
usually quite prone to irritability when material was excluded from
his plays, never insisted the scene be presented. In fact, when
Laughton wrote asking Shaw for permission and terms to do the inter—
lude, the old man wrote, "The Hell scene is such a queer business
that I can't advise you to experiment with it, but I should certainly

like you to try it."98

h

96 97,,

Pollack, loo. cit. athan, loc. cit. 98Time, loo. cit.

 

 

 

Although most critics t
admirably, there was some cri
the discussion were a bit to
the production at all, wrote
by, while reporting the of
concede that, like most of g

been shorter.100

Kerr, who termed the
ambition of wit and flasl
aiew restive moments. Sh
every question caused some
hlularity and applicabili

their being cribbed and 0.‘
~ some of their original i1!
observations had become E

For the most part ‘
and of its appropriatene
thought the manner of pi
1011“Adriatic dialogue,
Waiting than the so

have be611.103 "Since it
ill '

F
medley1 104‘

102
Coleman

1o;
Atkinson

a 10\c

v e
‘

66

Although most critics thought the experiment had succeeded

 

 

admirably, there was some criticism. Two reviewers felt portions of

the discussion were a bit too long. Freedley, who did not care for

the production at all, wrote that "the spate of words seemed endless."99
EEEEJ while reporting the offering to be immensely enjoyable, did

concede that, like most of Shaw's writings, the Hell scene could have

been shorter.’IOO

Kerr, who termed the evening "an enormously exhilerating

exhibition of wit and flashing performanceflnofl admitted there were

a few restive moments. Shaw's enthusiasm for taking all sides of

every question caused some passages to become verbose. Also, the

popularity and applicability of many of Shaw's lines had resulted in

 

their being cribbed and quoted to such an extent that they had lost

Coleman felt that some of Shaw's

observations had become a bit outdated.102

isome of their original impact.

FOr the most part however, the crtics approved of the material
and of its appropriateness for a reading presentation. Atkinson
thought the manner of presentation was ”just about perfect" for the
long dramatic dialogue, and suggested the presentation was more
stimulating than the scenic style of conventional theatre would

have been.103 “Since it was written separately, it is logical to

play it, as an independent enterprise, and since it looks almost

ggFreedley, loo. cit. quTimea 106- Cit- qquer 3 leg. Cit-

02
1 Coleman, loc. cit.

703Atkinson, New York Times, November 4, 195% Sec- 11, 10° 1'

 

 

 

 

nactable in the texts, the
not only legitimate, but 1115
towarn future imitators the
covldbe done this way, eve
Chapman had never hea
hcthongt the method of p]
so certain. He stated tha‘
hthe conventional way, w
he actnowledged there were

it it were acted ou‘
who are skeptical of
would complain that t'
physical action. Don
piece, there can be a
of the evening which

hawkins characteri:
the for the nature of th
0'1 its own terms, and ti

Clurman eXpressed
5“testing that the Fir
umecessary elements in

“rubbish“ and insisted

theatrical way to pres
Alt that this by no me

not
Atkinson, NEl
m5 ‘

, Ne
vce\ ‘

Chapman, 3

 

 

67

unactable in the texts, the scheme of presenting it as a reading is

104

not only legitimate, but inspired." Atkinson also felt it necessary

to warn future imitators that not every piece of dramatic literature
could be done this way, even by fine actors.105
Chapman had never heard or seen Don Juan in Hell before, but
he thought the method of presentation was perfect.106 Watts was not
so certain. He stated that he would like to see the segment presented
in the conventional way, with setting, costumes, and make up, but
he acknowledged there were great advantages to doing it as a reading.
If it were acted out in a conventional sense, many playgoers
who are Skeptical of stage works that are entirely conversational
would complain that the episode was "talky" and lacking in

physical action. Done frankly as a vast theatrical conversation
piece, there can be a proper concentration on the real business

of the evening which is ideas.’I

.Hawkins characterized the presentation method as a brilliant
one for the nature of the script. The discussion progressed completely
on its own terms, and there was nothing to interfere with the words.108
Clurman expressed concern over "people about town" who were
suggesting that the First Drama Quartet proved stage settings were
unnecessary elements in the theatre. He characterized that as
"rubbish" and insisted that the reading presentation was the best

theatrical way to present the "philos0phical essay in dialogue form,"

but that this by no means should be taken as an indication that

 

 

1OLiAtlkinson, New York Times, October 23’ 1951’ p. 34'
, ew York Times, November , 1951, Sec. II, p. 1.
. 108 .
106Chapman, loc. cit. 107Watts, loco __Clt- Hawmns’ -——l°°° Cit’

 

 

 

conventional presentations w

Most critics felt the
fortunate choice for the Fit
cautioned that not all dram
tothe reading manner of pr

patterned along similar lir

Comparisons

is noted previously
as a distinct innovation 2
or what to compare it to.
"a method not quite like

hother critic wrote:

For the first time
professional actors
at first in
the actor

placed on stands bef

\
a 0011081"

This seems to be E
actors on the Chautauqué
Plays for commercial co
‘real' theatre perhaps.
actors reading plays ir

no

0111mm, 104-

110
K

9°th of

Mile rath

hmthes‘ er

‘ 1

overhead if that pro,

L Sts 0
It on Shch a la P?

 

 

Ti

68
109

conventional presentations were passe.

Most critics felt the Don Juan in Hell sequence had been a
fortunate choice for the First Drama Quartet. Some critics however,
cautioned that not all dramatic material would lend itself as well
to the reading manner of presentation. Subsequent productions

patterned along similar lines were to bear out this warning.

Comparisons

As noted previously most of the critics regarded the production
as a distinct innovation and were at a loss as to how to label it

or what to compare it to. Krutch wrote that the production utilized

"a method not quite like any I have ever seen exploited before."/l’IO

Another critic wrote:

For the first time in America, a professional play with
professional actors was given for commercial consideration,
at first in a concert hall and later in a theatre in which
the actors merely read their parts from manuscripts, which were
placed on stands before them.111

This seems to be somewhat of an oversimplification. Professional
actors on the Chautauqua Curcuits and in Lecture Halls had read
plays for commercial consideration many years ago, though not in a
'real' theatre perhaps. The Readers Theatre had presented professional

actors reading plays in a theatre and had charged admission, though

109Clurman, 3523. EEEE'
qqurutch, loc. cit. Sam Zototow, in a New York Times theatre
column of July 16:-7957:—also hinted that there might be an economic
motive rather than an artistic one behind the lack of scenery. He
hypothesized that producers had dreamed of such a scheme to reduce the
overhead costs of productions for years, but that no one had ever tried
it on such a large scale before.

 

111Jacob A. Weisner, Variety, January 2, 1952, p. 268.

 

 

the primary purpose was to p

rather than to achieve come

the one critic who recognize

significant enough to report

r Theatre productions and the
Jean Nathan.

The late Readers‘ The
it was a failure for 56
readers; the direction
reoiters, a lot of uno
matters worse; and ins
tion, it accordingly 5
a company of incompete
hardwicke, and Boyer a
excellent reader-actor

Although Nathan was
Theatre productions, the
teen basically the same~
that the Readers Theatre

The First Drama Qua

N“ .
nostrate." The direc
'V

Kate and enabled the for
new their lines and us

Sak
e. There was some or

The setting was t

Provided the performer:

y: I a
“This backdrop and s‘
. their .
7 W11 Illusion ore
from

0 aSPECts whic

112G
\ Gorge J
alfredlthopf1 195:1:

 

'F———

69
the primary purpose was to present little known dramatic masterpieces
rather than to achieve commercial success. Interestingly enough,
the one critic who recognized, or at least the only one who felt it

significant enough to report the similarity between the two Readers

 

Theatre productions and the Don Juan in Hell presentation was George

Jean Nathan.

The late Readers' Theatre attempted much the same thing, but
it was a failure for several reasons. Its company were poor
readers; the direction imposed upon the readers, or rather
reciters, a lot of uncomfortable, extrinsic business that made
matters worse; and instead of encouraging the auditors' imagina—
tion, it accordingly stifled it as it would have'been stifled by
a company of incompetent stage actors. But the Messrs. Laughton,
Hardwicke, and Boyer and Miss Moorehead are admirable readers and
excellent reader-actors, and that is the difference.112

Although Nathan was the only critic to refer to the Readers
Theatre productions, the format of the presentation appears to have
been basically the same. Don Juan in Hell did not make the mistakes
that the Readers Theatre presentations had made.

The First Drama Quartet consisted of actors who were truly
"first rate." The direction, provided by Laughton was also first
rate and enabled the four to perform together as an ensemble. They
knew their lines and used the scripts only as props and for atmosphere's
sake. There was some movement and some use of stage patterns.

The setting was unobtrusive and functional. Evening clothes
provided the performers with an air of homogeneity. The use of a
curtain backdrop and skillful lighting allowed the audience to use

their own illusion creating capacities to the fullest. The unpro_

fessional aspects which had clouded the "beauty of the spoken word"

_—

Tlageorge Jean Nathan, Theatre in the Fifties, (New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1953), pp- 117-118-

 

 

 

hthe Readers Theatre pm d“
The commercial and art
tunable. ln summaries 01" "
frequently mentioned as the
success. Atkinson hYPOTheE
the Quartet‘ s performance \-
sason, with Boyer' s perfO?
finest acting of the year.
few York performances was
Commitments, the run woui
The Drama Circle, i
rote ever to be taken by
500m meetings), awardec
maimed and original
block of critics wanted
“T “reign play" of the
performed Professionall‘
eligible for honors in
Temps it shoulc'
season Was extremely 11]

Presentation, which se

Nan more. Four an
suc

o

131a Quartet made th

’HB
Atkinsons N6
no ‘

AtkinSon, N
115 ‘

Bro
11.
3 lo\c,

 

 

70

in the Readers Theatre productions were absent from Don Juan in Hell.

‘ The commercial and artistic success of the venture was unques—
tionable. In summaries of the 1951—1952 season, the production was
frequently mentioned as the "outstanding" or the "most noteworthy"
success. .Atkinson hypothesized that, from the commercial standpoint,
the Quartet's performance was probably the biggest success of the
season, with Boyer's performance of Don Juan standing out as the
finest acting of the year.113 Attendance at the one hundred and four
New York performances was such that, had not the four stars had other
committments, the run would undoubtedly have been much longer.

The Drama Circle, in what Atkinson labled the only unanimous

vote ever to be taken by the Circle, (except for one never to hold
social meetings), awarded'a citation to Don Juan in Hell as a "dis—

114

tinguished and original contribution to the theatre." A sizeable

block of critics wanted to vote for Don Juan in Hell as "the best

new foreign play" of the season, arguing that it had never been

performed professionally in New York before and consequently was

eligible for honors in that category. However, they were overruled.
Perhaps it should be noted that the early part of the 1951—1952

season was extremely undistinguished except for the Don Juan in Hell

presentation, Which served to set off the excellence of the production

even more. Four unsuccessful plays opened the week before the First

115

Drama Quartet made their Carnegie Hall presentation, and as Bolton

113Atkinson, New York Times, April 20, 1952, 580- II, P- 1-

qquAtkinson, New York Times, April 13, 1952, SeC- II, p. 1.
115

Bron., loc. cit.

 

 

 

note, “After weeks of trasl
rerard to hear those four a'
The phenomenal succes
enhanced by the dearth of g
the main reason. A great c
atone, and an ingenious met
bilities of the script wit]
i0have been the primary e

enticed success of Don Ju
hture Possibilities
Despite the success

rereom " - -
iy a Iew critics w

no form of theatre, and
usual

tutick to point or

Totaling the method of ‘
Problems of the theatre.
of the theatre and must

T311 Juan in Hell had bee

read “7
hrs. RObert Colc

oft '
his form of present

 

 

71

wrote, "After weeks of trashy playing in trashy plays, it is a joy and
reward to hear those four at the peak of talent."lel6

The phenomenal success of the First Drama Quartet may have been
enhanced by the dearth of good theatrical fare, but that can hardly be
the main reason. A great cast, an outstanding piece of dramatic liter—
ature, and an ingenious method of presentation which blended the possi-
bilities of the script with the potentialities of the performers seem

to have been the primary elements responsible for the popular and

critical success of Don Juan in Hell.

Future Possibilities

 

Despite the success and popularity of Don Juan in Hell, there
were only a few critics who suggested it might be the forerunner of a
new form of theatre, and those who did mention the possibility were
usually quick to point out potential problems. Bentley warned against
mistaking the method of the Drama Quartet for the solution to all the
problems of the theatre. He maintained acting was an essential part
of the theatre and must remain so. He pointed out the performers in
Don Juan in Hell had been superbly trained actors rather than simply
readers.117 Robert Coleman recognized the possibilities and problems
of this form of presentation when he wrote:

There's a new show business, It lines up a few stars, micro-
phones and props and takes to the road. It laughs at elaborate,
expensive settings and costumes and consequent high transporta—
tion costs. There is only one catch to it. You've got to have
a superlative script . . . In case other impresarios may wish to
emulate his BEregory's] example, it might be well to warn them
that they'd better start with a Shaw or Shakespeare and then have
the good fortune to find such ingratiating personalities as the

members of the First Drama Quartet. You really don't need a stage
full of scenery if you have genius there.ll

_________________
. 118
116Bolton, loo. cit. 117Bentley, 22- 232- Coleman, loc. cit.

F“--IEEE'€E

Coleman's words of warning I
factions which failed ’00 gaf
content with respect to 5‘
unsuccessful ventures being
Many of the critics C
of theatre. A few point 01
Circuit production, and Na'
Theatre presentations of f
experienced difficulty in
"reading" was frequently t
Sone tried to solve their
Opera, dramatized lecture
Entertainment. Nathan co
TWP“: he called them
Nearly an the crit
Test of then thought the
Nssitle way of Staging

future for the Khmer f
- o

for ‘ ‘
1t cautioned that it

 

s“liable as DOD Juan .
r , \m
lrst Drama (hart t
e .
Perhaps it was in
Necess 0
fDon J
nail in
into
meta who“ Present
119

N8 sues
out things tbathe M0
a\n

Wm

 

 

72
Coleman's words of warning proved to be quite accurate. Later pro—
ductions which failed to gain popular or critical support were usually

deficient with respect to script or performers, with some extremely

 

unsuccessful ventures being deficient in both.

Many of the critics considered Don Juan in Hell as a new form
of theatre. A few point out the similarity to Chautauqua and Lecture
Circuit production, and Nathan cited the likeness to the Readers
Theatre presentations of five years before. Most of the critics
experienced difficulty in describing the production. The word
Freading" was frequently used, but few critics were satisfied with it.
Some tried to solve their dilemma by comparing it to such things as
opera, dramatized lectures, debates, and various other forms of
entertainment. Nathan coined a term for the performers which seemed
appropos, he called them ”reader—actors."

Nearly all the critics were very impressed with Don Juan in Hell.
Most of them thought the oral interpretation approach was the best
possible way of staging the Hell scene, but only a few foresaw a
future for the manner of presentation. Those who did see possibilities
for it cautioned that it would be difficult to locate a script as
suitable as Don Juan in Hell and performers of the caliber 0f the
First Drama Quartet.

Perhaps it was inevitable that the artistic and commercial
success of Don Juan in Hell would start a trend towards more oral

interpretation presentationsfl’19 even though most critics did not
_____________________
119 . .
Miss Agnes Moorehead, in a letter to the author dated July 6,

19681 agreed that Don Juan in Hell started a trend, but she pointed
out this was not a new trend, but one revived from the Greek theatre.

 

 

 

anticipate it at the time.
several productions similar
none were as successful witl

several of them were failur
n

For their second orai

Gregory decided to stage S

tohn Brown's Body. This i
laughtou initially vetoed
few sections from it on ’0
been revised so that it 1
1finally pursuaded him to
Engaged in condensing thi
epic poem.
It has decided to

Judith Anderson, Raymom
we? of presentation '
tith some significant It

as '
had its predecessor

sensation

“W

i Wlth bOX Of‘
.121
e play

S
buddy,February15 1
i
It was inevitab'
Emu: -
W
and
D°\“
120$.
l“Ber 0
121 3‘2'
John Chapman

 

 

 

'73

anticipate it at the time. During the next fifteen years, there were

several productions similar in basic format to Don Juan in Hell, but

 

none were as successful with the critics or with the public, and

several of them were failures.
John Brown's Body

For their second oral interpretation venture, Laughton and
Gregory decided to stage Stephen Vincent Benet's award winning poem
John Brown's Body. This time it was Gregory who suggested the material.
Laughton initially vetoed the Benet selection because he had done a
few sections from it on the radio, and as he recalled, "The poem had
been revised so that it looked like a leftist tract."120 Gregory
finally pursuaded him to read the entire piece, and Laughton was soon
engaged in condensing the three hundred and fifty page, twelve hour
epic poem.

It was decided to use a trio of actors rather than a quartet.
Judith.Anderson, Raymond Massey and Tyrone Power were selected. The
manner of presentation was to be similar to that of Don Juan in Hell,
with some significant modifications. The production took to the road,
as had its predecessor, and proved to be an artistic and financial
sensation, with box office receipts on the tour surpassing those of
Ibn Juan.121 The play opened in New York at the Century Theatre on
Sunday, February 15, 1953.

It was inevitable that comparisons would be made between £929

.EBDKUS Body and Don Juan in Hell. Not only was the basic format

 

—___

120 .
Singer, pp. cit., p. 274.

121
John Chapman, New York Daily News, February 16, 7953-

 

 

 

 

 

 

the sane, the director and ‘
critical commentary therefo
hiferences present in the

being judged second-best Inc

simplicity that had chemC
the performers wore evenir
front of a black back dro
The stools and the music
nooden halustrade with an
and as a variety of other

were red—topped chairs f

pagers

.L
The three actors,

located on one side of '
stage were bleachers fo

the *
twentymember chore

Welling dreSS 123

 

74
the same, the director and the producer were also the same. Much of the

critical commentary therefore, was based on the similarities and

 

differences present in the two presentations, with John Brown's Body

being judged second—best most of the time.

Setting and.Accessories

John Brown's Body retained the visual austerity and stark

 

 

simplicity that had characterized Don Juan in Hell. Once again

the performers wore evening dress, stood behind micrOphones, and in

front of a black back drop. There were some differences however.

The stools and the music stands were gone, while a low unpainted

wooden balustrade with an upholstered red top served as a bench

and as a variety of other things. Back in the shadows on either side

were red-topped chairs for the actors to use when they were not on

stage.122
The three actors, the three microphones, and the bench were

located on one side of the stage. Located on the other side of the

stage were bleachers for one of the more significant innovations,

the twenty-member chorus. The men and women of the chorus also wore

123

evening dress.

Eggssification
The problem of terminology again confronted the critics.

Three of the reviewers described the presentation as a "recitation"

 

 

——

2 .
1 2BrooksAtkinson, New York Times, February 16, 1953, P. 17.

9 123William Hawkins, New York World-Telegram and Sun, February 16,
1 53-

 

 

 

or "recitel'nq21+

"Reading"
,1
frequently employed terms.
"reading" more or less by d
to classify the production.
inthat he felt "reading" \
emotional richness and pas
tuner of Presentation
One reason why the t
has that there was no atte
actors were reading. The

Quarter pretended to read

the three referred to boc

to the folks back home, <

te ' ‘
ncmg, but their lines

There were some in

afitment. the performer

TILL \ .,
tth what little movemer
"Y
rhound each microphone.
'n e"

motion, moving from

ti
austrade and then bac

 

 

75

124 "Reading" or "dramatic reading" were the most

125

or "recital."
frequently employed terms. Sheaffer complained that he used
"reading" more or less by default because he did not know how else
to classify the production. He was dissatisfied with the terminology
in that he felt "reading” was misleading and gave no indication of

emotional richness and passion the performers brought to their lines.126

Manner of Presentation

 

One reason why the term "reading" did not seem quite accurate
was that there was no attempt this time to create the illusion the

actors were reading. The thick green notebooks the First Drama

127

Quartet pretended to read from were not in evidence. Occasionally
the three referred to books when reading bits of the soldiers' letters

to the folks back home, or John Brown's long speech after his sen—

128

tencing, but their lines were obviously memorized.

There were some innovations in staging which were readily
apparent. The performers in Don Juan had been almost stationary,
with what little movement there was limited to the immediate area
around each microphone. .Anderson, Power and Massey were frequently

in motion, moving from one microphone to another, crossing up to the

129

balustrade and then back again.

A

L,
12 Hobe., Variety, February 18, 1953, Po 58-

John McClain, New York Journal American, February 16, 1953.
Chapman, loc. cit. '

125John Beaufort, Christian Science Mbnitor, February 21, 1953.
George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, March 24, 1953, p. 28.
Sam Zolotow, New York Times, February 15} 1953-

Richard watts, New York Post, February 15, 1953.

126 ‘*
Louis Sheaffer, Brooklyn Eagle, February 16, 1953.

127John Mason Brown, Saturday Review, March 14, 1953, Po 34-

128 .
Shaeffer, loco cit. 129Brown, 100. Cit.

 

 

 

the trio in John Brown‘ 5 Bo
they were not reading, or p
tnderson has a long speech
moments and Mr. Massey may
playing area. There are a

platform style of directic

"Jerdict
__

rthe majority of the
response was not as overt
reviewers were enthusias

it as a piece of vivid t

v ,_ 11 .
hearty."3 Watts chart

fh'dmratic event . . . a I

Beaufort found th

of the 19524953 season

greatness. Instead of

thought the evening wa

, . It
stherh acting.H so

not been enthusiastic
"are to his likingfif
Other critics,

l
to
offer on various 3

d
“E“hhaught on pre:

130
Brooke htki
131

\3 E
132w
atts
134B
mm: loo

1
a fi

 

76

The trio in John Brown's Body did not have to serve as scenery when
they were not reading, or perch on uncomfortable stools. "When Miss
Anderson has a long speech, Mr. Power may leave the stage for a few
moments and Mr. Massey may relax in one of the chairs outside the
playing area. There are a number of effortless variations on this

platform style of direction."130

Verdict

The majority of the critics endorsed the production, though the
response was not as overwhelming as it had been for Don Juan. Some
reviewers were enthusiastic about the production. Atkinson described
it as a piece of vivid theatre . . . a stage performance of fire and
beauty."151 Watts characterized it as ”a stirring and impressive
dramatic event . . . a distinguished evening.“32

Beaufort found the presentation a welcome change from the fare
of the 1952—1953 season. "In place of meaness . . . it gives us
greatness. Instead of depressing, it inspires.”133 John Mason Brown
thought the evening was a memorable experience, deeply moving, with
superb acting.154 George Freedley, one of the few reviewers who had
not been enthusiastic about Don Juan, found John Brown's Body much
more to his likingfl35

Other critics, even some of those who had favorable comments

to offer on various aspects of the production, thought that the second

Gregory—Laughton presentation did not measure up to the first. Bolton

 

 

130Brooks Atkinson, New York Time, February 22, 195}, Sec. II, p. 1.

131 , New York Times, February 16, 1953, p. 17.
132Watts, 100. cit. 133Beaufort, loc. cit.

134 .
Brown, 100. Cit. 135Freedley, 322: £23-

 

 

fl ""

wrote of W’
complete enthrallment that ‘

ngthought the perf
hadheen such an outstandir
expressed the opinion the :
anyhow}57 Clurman endors
really did not care for it

Chapman acknowledger
done," but admitted that ‘
and served to remind him

treetrtean."139 George <

despite the nobility of ‘

of it, a triaquL'LO

Specific critical

mused concerning the me

turns, with some review

others hemoaned the lac

and its critics. Seve'

Some of the crii
thlth the actors appr‘

w
henentlt Opposed to

136

Whitney B01
1 7 .

wt Decem

Hatfield Slur
139

Chapman, 11
rho ‘

George J ea

 

 

 

 

 

 

77
wrote of John Brown's Body, "It all adds up and yet it all has not the
complete enthrallment that was in Don Juan in Hell."136

Time thought the performance ladked the uniformity of style which
had been such an outstanding feature of the previous productiOn, but
expressed the opinion the story and the stars would insure its success

137 Clurman endorsed John Brown's Body but complained that he

really did not care for it.158

anyhow.

Chapman acknowledged the presentation was "high minded and well
done," but admitted that it struck his as being a "synthesized trick,"
and served to remind him that the "theatre is a place for things
theatrical."139 George Jean Nathan reported that ”the occasion,

despite the nobility of its ambition and purpose is, after a half-hour

of it, a trial."140

Specific critical commentary was quite varied. Objections were
raised concerning the manner in which the performers approached their
parts, with some reviewers complaining about too much movement while

others bemoaned the lack of movement. The chorus had its supporters

and its critics. Several of the critics found fault with the script.

Acting

Some of the criticism of the acting centered on the way in
which the actors approached their roles. Bentley was the most

vehemently opposed to the combination of acting and reading.

k

6 .
13 Whitney Bolton, New York Morn1ng_Telegraph, February 17, 1953.

1 .
37Time, December 22, 1952, p. 55-

fi

1
38Harold Clurman, Nation, February 28, 1953, p- 193-
139

Chapman, loc. cit.

140 -
George Jean Nation, New York Journal American, March 1, 1953.

 

 

 

 

 

is non-actors they 0°
they proceed to imperso
raidcns in distress? tr
is awkward is the tram
cisely, the war “I“ La‘
kissing a hand, encirci
under romantic lightin
sublime simplicity the
which it affects to 68
speakers and a poem; 3
with fancy lighting, E
wishing this great an
of the regular articl
Other critics thong
added to the evening‘s e)
lights was the scene in ‘
0f land while describing
BTW praised Laughton i
thought prevented the (1:
also approved of the we
critics were not all it
i
ncreased[myement1 the
’9 °f a Presentation
“\ell had been.
Amthel" area of
filth w ‘
hich the three
former
had to Portray
@5th t .
he asslgnmenw

V0 .
0.3.1 vamety rather

the .

l 2
Hawkins, 1‘

1
Mkinson ,

 

 

 

 

 

78

As non—actors they come before us in evening dress. As actors
they proceed to impersonate soldiers in uniform or Confederate
maidens in distress; this is in itself an exciting feature; what
is awkward is the transition back into non acting--or more pre—
cisely, the way Mr. Laughton has them act while not acting,
kissing a hand, encircling a neck, sitting in pictorial attitudes
under romantic lighting. Why there is more artifice in this
sublime simplicity than in the complexities of regular theatre
whidh it affects to eschew. No scenery, no action, just three
Speakers and a poem, yet Mr. Laughton so complicates the formula
with fancy lighting, grouping, and movement, that I again end
wishing this great artist would accept the everyday complication

of the regular article.1 1
Other critics thought this dual approach and increased movement
added to the evening's excitement. Hawkins thought one of the high—
lights was the scene in which Power used the balustrade as a ridge
of land while describing Pickett's last desperate charge at Gettysburg.142
Brown praised Laughton for his use of imaginative staging which he
143

Ithought prevented the dramatization from becoming static. Atkinson

also approved of the way the actors moved about.144 Although the
critics were not all in agreement as to the effectiveness of this
increased movement, they did agree that John Brown's Body was clearly
more of a presentation in terms of movement and gesture than Don Juan
in Hell had been.
Another area of disagreement among the critics was the success

with which the three stars handled their various roles. Each per-
former had to portray a wide range of characters. One critic sug—

gested the assignment of characters had been made primarily to provide

Vocal variety rather than to match specific actors to specific

h

 

11w . .

1Eric Bentley, New Republic, March 21 1953, P- 23-
142Hawkins, loc. cit. 143Brown, loc. cit.
1th

Atkinson, New York Times, February 22, 195}, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

characters,“*5 but as later
indicate, it would seem tha
actor was employed-

The consensus of exit
easily into the roles of ti
objected to the multiple 0
tassey‘s portrayal of Linc
resembled an amateur perfr
show. Freedley felt it w
Power impersonate both tic.

also felt the mass charaw
Changes and facial expre
dFathom confessed to beir
Ihave just as city

When one minute 1 am

an the next as anc

Score that he makes
the pltgh Of his VC
ole | 1t is beyond

, er suit as e, ,
not else merel o:-
°r the otherflfl?

Nathan not only
was dissatisfied with
not think the three p
“name outstanding cali
%'8 critic also fc
uiified style of act
not present in John

$530M, loo.
\

ct?
Nathan, 1C

_[_________________——————————————7 "“‘iiiiiifl

79
characters,145 but as later discussion of individual performers will
indicate, it would seem that at least some matching of character to
actor was employed.

The consensus of critical opinion was that the three stars moved
easily into the roles of the many characters. At least two reviewers
objected to the multiple characterization, however. Freedley found
Massey's portrayal of Lincoln superb, but thoughthis Negro characters
resembled an amateur performance of an old-fashioned Negro minstrel
show. Freedley felt it was confusing to the audience to have Mr.

Power impersonate both the Northern and Southern heroes.1u6 Nathan

 

also felt the mass character switching was confusing. With only vocal

changes and facial expressions to delineate the different characters,

 

Nathan confessed to being exasperated.

I have just as expansive an imagination as the next man, but
when one minute I am asked to regard an actor as one character
and the next as another and totally different one simply on the
score that he makes a different kind of face and alters somewhat
the pitch of his voice, I confess I find myself pretty bewildered
. . . it is beyond my range of fancy to visualize an actor in a
dinner suit as everything from Lincoln to a Negro slave and what_
not else merely on the ground that a narrator announces he is one
or the other.1 7

Nathan not only objected to the multiple characterizations, he
was dissatisfied with the quality of the acting as a whole. He did
not think the three players in John Brown‘s Body were of quite the
same outstanding caliber as those of the First Drama Quartet.148
Iimg's critic also found the acting less satisfactory. The brilliantly
unified style of acting which had characterized Don Juan in Bell was

not present in John Brown's Body. Each of the three stars seemed to

 

145 1H6

Hobe, loc. cit. Freedley, loc. cit.

. H .
147Nathan, loc. cit. 148Nathana lOC- 01t- 1 9Time, 10c. cit.

 

 

go his own individual wail-
mnmer, Tyrone Power seems
the most effective perfomé
seems at times a little tol
ehcotionary."1M9
Bentley, who was uni
the players, was also unhz
spend the evening posing
high in the balcony; other
when silent they gaze mi:
Many of the review
itkimson thought all thr

"three first-rate reade‘

and tragedy in Benet‘ s
thought the trio had dc
the three as exception:
haw any comparisons a

such reservations and

The performer w'
f1pm the critics was
theotrical family, hw

here before. His 0

_’_____f

80
go his own individual way. "With his clear, Midwestern voice and

nanner, Tyrone Power seems the more American, the most unobtrusive,

 

the most effective performer. In contrast, Judith Anderson's manner
seems at times a little too elevated, Raymond Massey's a little too
elocutionary1349
Bentley, who was unhappy with the amount of movement used by
the players, was also unhappy about their delivery. "The three stars
spend the evening posing for an imaginary photographer seated rather
high in the balcony; when speaking they gaze misty-eyed at the camera;
when silent they gaze misty-eyed at their speaking colleague."150
Many of the reviewers thought the performers were excellent.
Atkinson thought all three were superb.151 Bolton described them as
"three first—rate readers" who conveyed the joy and sorrow, compassion

152

and tragedy in Benet's work in an admirable fashion. McClain

thought the trio had done a wonderful job.155 Beaufort described
the three as exceptionally talented and expressed a reluctance to

151+

draw any comparisons among them. Most critics however, had no
such reseraations and commented at some length about each individual.

The performer who came in for the lion's share of attention
from the critics was Tyrone Power. Although Power came from a

theatrical family, he had foresaken Broadway for Hollywood many

years before. His only legitimate theatre experience since leaving

149Time, 100. cit. 150

15

Bentley , log. 93.2.

 

1Atkinson, New York Times, February 22a 19533 390- II. p. 1.

154

152Bolton, 100, cit. 153M0Claina $233 222: Beaufort, loo. cit.

 

 

headway had been a summer 2
. 15
htestport, Connecticut-

Power‘s good looks ha
leading men and he had: as

exactly set the screen on
surprised to find him an a
01" the three princi}

toast to Tyrone Power
eonssary from Hollywo

ions from the stage,
able to match them in
Power‘s part requii
most of the younger men :
Alva oi the North. As
deSCI"Illltion of the Georg
heASE- es the Norther:
of a Union soldier awai
MijlSon found 13(

“(termites and qui

 

‘ es ‘ '
peciflll impressed \

i i
he seizes upon a phy

ment guard, the Sigh

 

 

81

Broadway had been a summer appearance in Lilliom at a straw—hat theatre

in Westport, Connecticut.155

Power's good looks had confined him to portraying romantic

leading men and he had, as one critic politely phrased it, "never

exactly set the screen on fire."156 The critics were pleasantly

surprised to find him an accomplished actor.

Of the three principals, all eminent, one must propose a small

toast to Tyrone Power who succeeds in holding his own as the single
emissary from Hollywood.

Here he is, surrounded by two valedictor—
ians from the stage, and he comes away with colors flying.

He is
able to match them in poise and performance.157

Power's part required considerable versatility. He portrayed

most of the younger men and the two heroes, Wingate of the South and

Ellyat of the North. As the Southerner, he had the dream—like

description of the Georgia countryside which garnered considerable
praise. As the Northerner, his description of the emotions and fears

of a Union soldier awaiting a Rebel charge at Gettysburg was considered

by many to have been the high point of the evening.158
Atkinson found Power to be an actor of candor, skill, and

understanding, and quite worthy of the company he kept.159 Kerr was
especially impressed with Power‘s kinetic response to the Benet poem.

“He seizes upon a physical sensation——a prod in the back from an

enemy guard, the sight of a dead cat on the road back from Bull Run——
____________________

155Freedley, loo. cit. 156Sheaffer, loc. cit. 157McClain, loo. cit.
158

Hawkins, loc. cit.

Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, February 16, 1953.

Bolton, loo. cit.

Watt, loo. cit.
l59

Atkinson, loo. cit.

 

 

 

 

and gives it accurate and C
0mm was particulé
voice and his outstanding
Power‘s voice and diction,
hasnot yet learned much
the evening goes on."162
Bentley thought bot
within a narrow span."163
negative commentary, the
Pover had given an outst
Raymond Massey p01
m critic thought i
Performances of his car
Success in R. E. Sherwo
his portrayal of the t1
thiai'iiiisgsiey i5
, re51

lilo forceful but
a“ 91108 spellbour

AS Kerr wrote, 1

L1
ma deeply touchi
his best "When a pas

Ev Into a ve11~tried

160
Walter Kerr

161
Chapman, 1(
161+ ‘
Robe.) 10C
166K \
err) 10¢.

 

82
and gives it accurate and compelling :i.ntensity.”l|6O

Chapman was particularly impressed with Power's magnificent
voice and his outstanding diction.161 Nathan also paid tribute to
Power's voice and diction, but complained that "the screen beauty . . .

has not yet learned much about modulations and becomes monotonous as
the evening goes on."162

Bentley thought both Power and Massey had "real enough gifts

within a narrow span."163 Despite Bentley's reservations and Nathan's
negative commentary, the overwhelming opinion of the critics was that
Power had given an outstanding performance.

Raymond Massey portrayed the older men in the Benet epic. The
Variety critic thought Massey's presentation was one of the outstanding
performances of his career.164 Several critics mentioned his previous
success in R. E. SheerOd‘s "Abe Lincoln in Illinois" as they discussed
his portrayal of the troubled Lincoln. Coleman noted that:

Raymond Massey inevitably was given the passages devoted to

the harassed President's anxieties, hopes, and eventual triumph.

With forceful but bea%tifully controlled acting, he held the

audience spellbound.1 5

As Kerr wrote, "He is——to the surprise of no one at this late
date—-a deeply touching Lincoln."166 Chapman found Massey to be at
his best “when a passage of the poem involves Abe Lincoln and he can

16’?

go into a well—tried characterization."

“~—

160Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, February 16, 1953.

161Chapman, loo. cit. 162Nathan, loo. cit. 163Bentley, loc. cit.
16HHobe., loo. cit. 165Coleman, loo. cit.

’\66

Kerr, loo. cit. 167Chapman, £22- 232'

 

 

 

 

Massey had what one c
lot only did he have the Li
concerning John Brown and }
invest moments were not th
ithem tremendously WOVing'
er oi
. . . a long descript'
eloquence, about the
Mr. Massey, SCWPulou
delivers it with hear
enigmatic leader. AI
Freedley, as noted
old Negro slave, althoug
torrents as Lincoln.“7O
hilassey‘s variety of j
perfection allows contr
SOTEhUm- His slack-jay
are OPPOSite poles of ‘
Nathan thought M
[Writ occasion" thax
“asset too, had a hart
m091v varied, [he] i
“Monte his various
mm in Pain rather to
homes to portraydfl?
16
ghetts, 104‘
170Freed1e
Vs .

1?
athan) 1C

g’

83
Massey had what one critic termed the most fortunate assignment.16

Not only did he have the Lincoln scenes, but also very moving episodes

concerning John Brown and Robert E. Lee. Sheaffer felt the actor's

finest moments were not those concerned with Lincoln, though he found
f

them tremendously moving. He was most impressed with Massey's deliv—
ery of

. . . a long descriptive passage, thrilling with quiet penetrating
equuence, about the iron—grey Lee . . . the marble man . . .

Mr. Massey, scrupulously restraining all personal mannerisms,
delivers it with heart felt sincerity and admiration for the
enigmatic leader. An infinitely touching passage.16

Freedley, as noted before, disliked Massey's portrayal of the

old Negro slave, although he acknowledged Massey "has his superb

moments as Lincoln."1l7O ‘Hawkins, on the other hand, was impressed

by Massey's variety of portrayals. "Mr. Massey's quiet, polished

perfection allows contrasts as strong as that between clabber and

sorghum. His slack—jawed house slave and the mighty, humble Lincoln

are Opposite poles of the actor‘s art.”171

Nathan thought Massey had adjusted more successfully to the

“hybrid occasion“ than the other two performers, but noted that

Massey too, had a hard time of it. "While his vocal delivery is

nicely varied, [hel is driven to such distortions of his features to
indicate his various incarnations that he intermittently suggests a

man in pain rather than the possibly less afflicted character he
hoPes to portray.“l\l72

 

168Watts, i3: cit. 169

170Freedley, loo. cit. W7

Sheaffer, loc. cit.

“Hawkins, loo. cit.

«72Nathan, 322: cit.

 

 

fl

Nathan heartily dislil
leadmowledged her talent
she appeared uneasy and em‘r
accused her of substituting
having room gestures, and

meaning of her lines into
circumstances she would b<
: ‘ . Freedley was also 5
. . . , fr. ' . » sentation, but he credits
}. N ' -. 1 ‘ “recreate so many potent:

that it is a wonder she
Many of the critic
101), although several a1
of the three. Among ot
Praying for John Brown;
girl in her love affai:
plantation mistress, a
sported the scenes de
that Miss Anderson lat
thought her “distingu
not to the success c

Anderson‘s scenes we

w

 

whathan, l9}
. 175,

err, lac:
1??

Atkinson,

 

84

Nathan heartily disliked Miss Anderson's bevy of characters.
He acknowledged her talent and her usual excellence, but he thought
she appeared uneasy and embarrassed in her current assignment. He
accused her of substituting ". . . a repertory of roguish smiles,
drawing room gestures, and vocal shadings that sometimes throw the
meaning of her lines into the shadow for what in normal dramatic
circumstances she would be the full mistress of!“73

Freedley was also somewhat critical of Miss Anderson's pre—
sentation, but he credited her problems to the necessity for her to
"recreate so many potential roles foreign to her in time and in sex
that it is a wonder she survived."174

Many 0f the critics thought Miss Anderson had done an excellent
30b, although several acknowledged her part to be the most fragmentary
0f the three. Among other roles, she portrayed a Northern mother
praying for John Brown; two very different Southern belles; a young
girl in her love affair and motherhood; a Yankee-hating, God—admonishing
“75 Watts

plantation mistress, and a Northern slavery ship captain.

reported the scenes dealing with women were the least rewarding and

that Miss.Anderson lacked.an outstanding shOW piece. However, he

thought her "distinguished forcefulness and strength" contributed

nmch to the success of the reading/176 Atkinson wrote that Miss

. 177 -
Anderson's scenes were brief, but tremendously movnng. The Variety
1 .
73Nathan, loo. cit. 174Freedley, loc. 01t-
175 176

1
77Atkinson, New York Times, February 16, 1953, P- 17°

Kerr, loo. cit. Watts, 100. cit.

fl

critic noted that while Hi:
to “rend a passion to shre
and occasionally affecting
Some of the comment:
illusions they were able
nuns thought that the
was quite successful in 1
images. "When for insta'
about the tuning mansio
or fire was there before
abilities in this capac:
hr. Power as a Un
sees things that ar
Power has a treasui
you walk gBtysburg
with him.1
Bolton thought t
_ , pmduotion to create 3'
criterion for judging

The test, I wou
for rising above
make you never mi
make you create :
managed what is 1

Kerr thought :1
immine their own se

Settings than could

V...—

178Hobe., _l_o_<

181%-

 

 

85
critic noted that while Miss.Anderson had a tendency once in a while
to "rend a passion to shreds," her catalogue of characters was vibrant
and occasionally affecting.178

Some of the commentary regarding the actors dealt with the

illusions they were able to create in the mind of the listeners.
HaWkins thought that the oral interpretation manner of presentation
was quite successful in enabling the audience to create their own
images. "When for instance, Miss Anderson completes the passage
about the burning mansion, it is an effort to admit no such house
or fire was there before your eyes."179 Bolton wrote of Power's
abilities in this capacity:

Mr. Power as a Union Soldier needs no scenic help. When he
sees things that aren't there at all, you see them too. Mr.
Power has a treasure of believability in his creation: and
you walk thtysburg and all of the other roads of heartbreak
with him.1 0

Bolton thought that perhaps the ability of an oral interpretation

Production to create illusions should be considered as one of the
criterion for judging their effectiveness.

The test, I would think, of any reading work is its power
for rising above the lack of settings and props. If actors can
make you never miss a painted wall or a glass window, if they can

make you create your own settings in your own mind, they have
managed what is most difficult. 81

Kerr thought John Brown's Body_not only made the audience
imagine their own settings, he thought they were more effective

Settings than could have been created in a "normal" production-

178 180

Hobe., loc. cit. 179Hawkins, loc. cit. Bolton, 100. cit.

181Ibid.

fl

A looting member of S

the echoing halls of a

realized than he might
ransacked for literal 1

Ghfl

Perhaps the most outsi
the introduction of a twe:
lalter Schumann, supplied

as well as sound effects
like shouts of exhausted

charging in battle, the

Sometimes the chorus

members of the chorus w:

chorus was favorable, t

ttkinson, Bentley, Che]

; l . ‘ , ‘ Singing added much to
. l ' drew comparisons betwe
j. chorus.185
Other gentlemen 0
Nathan made mention c
that the singers had
W

182Kerr, _l_._o_c_. _c_i
181lhtkinson, l2}
Bentley, 3.23
Chapman, 1.93
Watts, lop,
B01t0n, .193:
185Coleman, lg
Sheafier, l

 

 

 

86

A looting member of Sherman's army, shouting his way through
the echoing halls of a deserted mansion, is far more vividly
realized than he might have been had the scenic warehouses been

ransacked for literal props.1 2

Chorus
Perhaps the most outstanding innovation of John Brown's Body was

The group, directed by

 

the introduction of a twenty member chorus.
Welter Schumann, supplied ballads, spirituals and Civil War tunes

as well as sound effects such as "marching feet, the tired ghost—

like shouts of exhausted prisoners, the blood hungry yells of men
83

charging in battle, the giggling of young girls."’]

Sometimes the chorus spoke in unison, other times individual
members of the chorus would speak, Generally the reaction to the
'Critics

chorus was favorable, though it was by no means unanimous.

Atkinson, Bentley, Chapman, watts, and Bolton all felt the choral
Coleman and Sheaffer

singing added much to the performance.

drew comparisons between the twenty-member chorus and the Greek

chorus.185

Other gentlemen of the press were less favorably impressed.
Nathan made mention of the robust lunged chorus, but complained

that the singers had to resort to "the hokum of the marching songs

182Kerr, loo. cit. 183Sheaffer, loo. cit.

184Atkinson, loo. cit.
Bentley, loo. cit.

Chapman, loo. cit.
watts, loo. cit.

Bolton, loo. cit.

1BEColeman, loo. Cit.
Sheaffer, loo. oit.

 

 

 

 

fl

and tunes of the Civil War ]
choral accompaniment 'appro
entirely too much time char
Gibbs found the chant
‘eniless‘, and charged that
with the central theme: I
distracting grace notes, 1
air."188 ELE‘S critic w

The chorus is well
For every lusty “Jubi
like vocal gadgets at
chorus-in a goblins
Body lies a moolerin

Clurman found the
illustrative“ that he we

mentioned, the “aroma w

"190

some novel device.
John Mason Brown
induction and he pres

If it is pointed
and supply the son
or rising gales, 1
pmviding the equ‘
he further from t‘.
his chorus a styl
style, a frieze-l

a ballet.191

~—..._._._.._._—-
186Nathan, l9};

188\mwtt Git

189E122» 2%

 

 

 

87
and tunes of the Civil War period." McClain considered the

(moral accompaniment 'appropriate,' but thought the group Spent
87

entirely too much time chanting "John Brown's Body is a Mouldering."
Gibbs found the chanted songs, (especially "John Brown's Body")

'endless', and charged that the songs had no real organic connection

with the central theme: rather they were "merely arbitrary and
distracting grace notes, put in to give things a more portentous [slot

188 Time's critic wrote:
The chorus is well trained, but trained to do popular tricks.
For every lusty "Jubili, Jubilo" there are a number of radio
like vocal gadgets and sound effects. Thus, over and over the
chorus-~in a goblins'll—git—you voice intones: 'John Brown's
Body lies a moolerin' in the grave."189

air."

Clurman found the special effects and offstage noises "so naively

illustrative" that he was afraid when the smell of a girl's hair was

mentioned, the ”aroma was going to be wafted through the theatre by

. 0
some novel dev1oe."19

John Mason Brown was thoroughly entranced by the entire

production and he presented this defense of the use of the chorus.

If it is pointed out that its members sing background music
and supply the sounds of trains, guitars, crowds at a station
or rising gales, this may seem to indicate that they are merely

Nothing could

providing the equivalent of radio sound effects.
be further from the truth, for Mr. Laughton has managed to give
It is a visual

his chorus a style distinguished in its own right.
style, a frieze—like quality, unobtrusive yet as definite as
a ballet.191

186Nathan, loc. cit. 187M0Claina.l22°.2ii°
788 olcott Gibbs, The New Yorker, February 21, 1953, po 60-

W
. 1 1
189Time, loo. cit. 19oClurman loo. olt. 9 Brown, loo. cit.

 

 

 

 

fl

late—rial
Perhaps the most freq
_ iii-gyms the material. Cor
‘ the tenet poem and the Sha‘
worstoi it. One critic c
inlight of the fact they
“One was a dazzling ping-j
and Bernard Shaw; the oth
and beautifully performer
gripping emotional power
ban in hell was written
written to be read by ir

When Charles Lang
inthe form of a '1‘
work conceived as d
of the world's majc
Bod , hr. Laughton
Benet's poem, thou:
theatre in mind .

Shaw had no stor

a debate, conducts

at his command. . .

and an excellent I

his concerns were

was interested in
of individuals so
for a distressed
many stories to i
national saga an

M

1()ESheaffer, 2

”human, 1
Bolton, lg

I
19hBrown, lgg

 

 

 

88

Material
Perhaps the most frequently criticized aspect of John Brown's

Body was the material. Comparison after comparison was made between
the Benet poem and the Shaw play, with the Benet poem getting the

worst of it. One critic complained that this comparison was unjust

in light of the fact they were two very different literary forms.

'KMe was a dazzling ping-pong game of ideas between Bernard Shaw
and.Bernard Shaw; the other is stirring poetry, passionately American

and beautifully performed, a sumptuous feast of fine language and

gmipping emotional power."192 Other critics pointed out that Don

Juan in Hell was written to be played, while the Benet poem was

 

written to be read by individuals.”93 Brown wrote:

When Charles Laughton brought Don Juan in Hell to the stage
in the form of a 'reading' he had at his disposal a literary
work conceived as drama, meant to be acted, and written by one

In the case of John Brown's

of the world's major playwrights.
Body, Mr. Laughton faced a very different assignment as director.

Benet's poem, though stirringly dramatic, was literature without
His drama was

theatre in mind . . . .
Shaw had no story to tell in the usual sense.

a debate, conducted with all the eloquence and forensic Skill
at his command.. . . Although Benet wrote from fine perceptions

and an excellent mind, he wrote as a poet, not as a dialectician.
He, too,

His concerns were emotional rather than intellectual.
was interested in ideas, but his ideas were expressed in terms

of individuals subject to love, exposed to death, and speaking
for a distressed country while Speaking for themselves. He had
pgit of a tremendous

many stories to tell, all of which were
national saga and he told them movingly.

192$heaffer, loo. cit.
qgjhtkinson, New York Times: February 22’ 1953’ Sec. II’ p. 1'

Bolton, 100. cit.

I
19%Brown, 100. cit.

 

 

 

 

is Brown indicated’ I
test- It was necessary to
into the conventional leng
the richness of the poem.
ml the Southerner, Clay ‘
traditions and wieW'POintE
characters were eliminaté
partial treatment.195

Laughton had to gi
it was at this point, sc
bwte to Laughton‘s skil?
felt the materials Lang
Nathan was willing to a
but because it had not

mess and clarity, and
difficult to keep trac

Whirled the readin,
themed recitation o

59911.1‘196

.L
other reviewer,

a .
rtued that, even if

willing to concede,
not for the theatre
adapted it, in his
librarng? Gibbs

t . .
EtrltlQiZed the

195
AtkiHSQn

89

As Brown indicated, Laughton was confronted with a tremendous
teak. It was necessary to condense more than twelve hours of poetry
into the conventional length of a theatrical performance without losing
the richness of the poem. The stories of the Northerner, Jack Ellyat,
and the Southerner, Clay Wingate, representative of the two opposing
traditions and viewpoints, had to be trimmed considerably. Many
characters were eliminated completely and many more received only
partial treatment.195

Laughton had to give the poem some sort of dramatic form, and
it was at this point, some critics felt, he failed. Nathan paid tri—
bute to Laughton's skill as an arranger and as a director, but he
felt the materials Laughton had to work with defeated his efforts.
Nathan was willing to admit that Benet's poem had dramatic elements,
but because it had not been intended for the stage, it lacked direct-
ness and clarity, and despite Laughton's efforts, it was frequently
difficult to keep track of the diverse threads of the story. Nathan
maintained the reading amounted to little more than a "second—hand
extended recitation of plot and dialogue of some play one hasn‘t
seen."196

Other reviewers took issue with the poem itself. John Chapman
argued that, even if the Benet poem were great, which he was not
willing to concede, it had been written for reading in print and
not for the theatre. Thus, regardless of how well Laughton had
adapted it, in his opinion, it was still better suited for the

197

library. Gibbs also questioned the excellence of the material.

He criticized the verse for having forced, predictable rhymes which

__

195 196

Atkinson, loo. cit. Nathan, loc. cit.

197

 

 

 

 

o-r_.—

he found "painfflld' flat 31

and the chorus with trims

they were “all substantial
8
though.19

Another reviewer whc

winning epic was Harold C?

It is a highly resp

memories and ready ma

no true characters.

not on what it create

which-apart from th:

scent of old time Ci‘

the first section is

another excellent pi
self-doubt is also 3

Other critics th01
hr the reading. McCla
imbmative.200 Shaeff
“had: to our language-1
motion and soaring ell
the Benet production a

discussiorl.202
The critic for ’

the Benet chronicle o

‘l .
Mme morn debai

of stage dialogue lil
filter Kerr describe
198 .
dlbbs, 10\o
McClain, 1

~

20
EHfiwkins, 1

 

 

u.“ ,m h

90
he found "painfully flat and monotonous." Gibbs credited the actors
and.the chorus with trying, but wrote that, due to the poor script,

they were "all substantially defeated" before the evening was

through.198

Another reviewer who did not appreciate the Pulitzer Prize-
winning epic was Harold Clurman, who complained:

It is a highly respectable literary gloss on traditional
memories and ready made reactions. It has no real story and
no true characters. Its pathos depends on its associations,
not on what it creates itself. There are narrative passages
which—-apart from the distinction of the writing—-are remini—
scent of old time Civil War movies. The outstanding bit from
the first section is a literal quotation from John Brown and
another excellent piece which describes the anguish of Lincoln's
self-doubt is also partly quotation.199

Other critics thought the Benet epic was an excellent choice
for the reading. McClain thought the legend was exciting and

informative.200 Shaeffer credited John Brown's Body_with bringing

 

"back to our language—poor theatre the lyric beauty, full—throated
emotion and soaring eloquence of fine poetry."201 Hawkins found
the Benet production a worthy successor to Shaw's intellectual

discussion.202

The critic for Timg suggested that, in terms of popular appeal,
the Benet chronicle of the Civil War had more to offer than Shaw's
"dazzling moral debate," and that, while not the work of a master
of stage dialogue like Shaw, it adapted fairly well to the stage.203

Walter Kerr described it as a narrative rather than a sparkling

__‘.__

198 199

Gibbs, loo. cit.

aooMcClain, loo. cit. 201

Clurman, loc. cit.
Sheaffer, loc. cit.

2OZHawkins, loc. cit. 203Time, loc. cit.

 

 

 

dialogue; a vast panorama <
theatrical climax. Kerr t;
nadaptiug the poem for s
and largely forgotten lite

201+
he read aloud."

he noted thmughoui
on Brown‘s Body to Do_n
merits and demerits of t
Brown‘s Body was more of
it had a chorus of twen
its three principals to
and the actors used a g
as in Don Juan in hell
Language and the liter
duel rather than on -
Financially the
at least according tc

predecessor. The ma

faction about the DI
material, with many
bility for drawatic
he that the Shaw de

{New eVaanti-on

act
Kerr, 10¢

 

 

91

dialogue; a vast panorama of fragmentary scenes with no natural
theatrical climax. Kerr thought Laughton had done an excellent job
in.adapting the poem for stage purposes, and noted, "It is an old
and largely forgotten literary notion that epic poetry was meant to

be read aloud."204

Comparisons
As noted throughout the preceding pages, many critics compared

John Brown's Body to Don Juan in Hell as they discussed the various

 

merits and demerits of the second.Laughton-Gregory production. HEHE.
Brown's Body was more of a "production" than its predecessor had been.
It had a chorus of twenty, an epic story, and a variety of roles for
its three principals to cope with. There were no scripts in evidence
and the actors used a great deal more movement and gesture. However,
as in Don Juan in Hell, the focus of the production was on the
language and the literature, and thus the emphasis was still on the
aural rather than on the visual aspects of the production.
Financially the production was a success.205 Artistically,
at least according to the critics, it was not as impressive as its
Predecessor. The majority of complaints and expressions of dissatis—
faction about the production seemed to center around the choice of
material, with many of the critics questioning the epic poems suita~
bility for dramatic presentation. The general consensus seemed to
be that the Shaw debate had been much better suited. Although the
overall evaluation of Massey, Power and.Anderson was favorable,

they did not quite measure up to the First Drama Quartet in the

—_

204Kerr, loc. cit.

205Variet , May 27, 1953, p. 74.

 

 

 

 

judgment of some of the re‘
with the necessity for eac
taps the novelty of M
greater success, but it a?
the oral interpretation 1"
better performers .

Frequent mention w;
productions, though the
besides Don Juan in Hell
Charles Dickens, which '
cited the popularity of
°i 0361‘ng classics t<

appeal might fade even

excitement.206

The Variety cri‘

lashionable for the i
productions would be
curiosity seekers har

n
wed John Brown‘ s B

to uid-lictorianism
Chapman described J

Such increments to

Wilde, and the ded‘

can,

i as HSUQ h
reading.

\

206
Watts, 1
act ‘
Freeflex

 

92

judgment of some of the reviewers. A few critics were also displeased
with the necessity for each actor to portray several characters. Per-
haps the novelty of Don Juan in Bell was partially responsible for its
greater success, but it also appeared to have had better material for
the oral interpretation form of presentation and to have had slightly
better performers.
Frequent mention was made of the 'fad' for oral interpretation

productions, though the only other Broadway presentation of that type

besides Don Juan in Hell was Emlyn Williams‘ program of readings from

 

Charles Dickens, which hardly seems indicative of a trend. Watts
cited the popularity of what he described as "this specialized method
of offering classics to playgoers” and commented that, while its
appeal might fade eventually, right now it offered fresh theatrical
excitement.206
The Variety critic acknowledged that bare stage shows had become
fashionable for the intellectuals, but he questioned how long such
productions would be able to draw sufficient audiences once the
curiosity seekers had been satisfied.207 Freedley, although he en~
joyed John Brown's Bgdy, spoke out against what he termed "this return
to mid~Victorianism in public readings of plays and poetry."208
Chapman described John Brown's Body_as a "showmanlike descendant of
such increments to.American education as the lectures of Dickens and
Wilde, and the dedicated tent shows of the Chautauqua Circuit . . . "209

Nathan, as usual had a great deal to say about the subject Of oral

 

reading.
206Watts, 100. cit. 207H0be«, 100-,223-
208 209

Freedley, loc. cit. Chapman, loo. cit.

 

 

 

 

that may be called t?
with the performance b
Hell and has since del
E010 and group copy
some scenery and costt
one day he a novel and

It may be ventured ‘
prosperity of the rea:
course. The novelty
as fully competent an
pops up out of nowher

pops up with it, the

found in its old secr

periormamces.2H Gregor
the popularity of the pC
continued to draw crowd:
but the public apparent
Perhaps Laughton
“prosperity of the read
ootproduoe any more 0:
LLDtether on The Cains

a reading.

Interestingy er
originated from an

1x311dhton

tho
to 60 a dram
l t
if -

the
Rent for a "reg

did
eventually diner
Court We

When

21o
Nathan» 1:

 

 

93

What may be called the reading-theatre, which got its start
with the performance by the First Drama Quartet of Don Juan in
Epll_and has since delivered of itself nationally such a profusion
of solo and group copycats that seeing a play with a drop curtain,
some scenery and costumes, will, if things keep up, conceivably
one day be a novel and exciting experience . . . .

It may be ventured that, with this presentation, the local
prosperity of the reading theatre has just about run its short
course. The novelty it had is gone and, unless another group
as fully competent and engaging as the Drama Quartet miraculously
pops up out of noWhere and unless another great wit like Shaw
pOps up with it, the theatre as we have always had it will be
found in its old secure place . . . .210

 

John Brown's Body closed its Broadway run after sixty—five
performances.211 Gregory sent it on another cross country tour and
the popularity of the poem and.the fame of the trio of readers
continued to draw crowds. The critics may have had reservations,
but the public apparently did not.

Perhaps Laughton and Gregory agreed with Nathan that the
"prosperity of the reading theatre" had run its course, for they did
not produce any more oral interpretation productions. They did work
together on The Caine Mutiny Court Martial, but it was not staged as
a reading.

Interestingly enough, the play The Caine Mutiny Court Martial
originated from author Herman Wouk's attempt to persuade Gregory and
Laughton to do a dramatic reading of the trial scene in his novel,
Efig Caine Mutiny. Laughton did not think the novel was suited for
a reading presentation, but he thought the trial scene would be
excellent for a "regular" play. Laughton helped Wouk with the script
and eventually directed the Broadway production of The Caine Mutiny

qurt Martial with Henry Fonda, Lloyd Nolan, and John Hodiak in

—_._

210

Nathan, loc. cit. 2

qqulotow, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

212
the reading 1‘0185'

The Laughton-Gregory
hterpretatiou production:
featured “big name stars"
as well as being box-offi
My little movement and

the actors (hd not real
more of a production. T
WN- They used a gre

the members of the Firs

played an important par
The majority of <

used some form of the l
suggested that one cri

hterpretation present

Succeeds in making it:

None of the rev
3o

W cons

“This is Theatre! ,"2.
help Theatre at Its

212 .
Slnger, .B'
21
ohm: 10‘
21h \
Walter Ker
215 .
Whitney Br

 

the leading roles.2’12

Summary

The Laughton-Gregory productions were the first successful oral
interpretation productions to be done on Broadway. Both productions
featured "big name stars" Who were very capable and talented performers
as well as being box-office attractions. The first presentation had
very little movement and prominently diSplayed the manuscripts, though
the actors did not really "read." The second presentation was much
more of a production. Theymade no pretense of reading from a manu—
script. They used a great deal more movement and gesture than had
the members of the First Drama Quartet. A twenty—member chorus
played an important part in John Brown's Body.

The majority of critics approved of the presentations, and most
used some form of the word "reading" in their reviews. One critic
suggested that one criterion which should be used in judging oral
interpretation presentations should consider how well the production
succeeds in making its listeners create illusions in their minds.213

None of the reviewers expressed any doubt as to whether or not

anchuulin.flell constituted theatre. Kerr headlined his report,

 

 

"This is Theatre!,"2’14 and Bolton entitled his review, "'Don Juan in
2
Hell' Theatre at Its Most Triumphant." 15
212Singer,._gp. cit., p. 282.
213Bolton, loc. cit.
214Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, October 23, 1951.
215

Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegram, October 23, 1951.

 

 

“There
3 uiort declared,
ea
“216 Nathan c
this season.
we ha
the realest theatre

ed a
"ton really don‘t ne

 

there.“218 Sheaffer wro’i
of actors, a lively stor]
hold and fascinate an an
worth listening to and i
21?
who know their jobs."
rthree critics did
My should be consider
had spawned “such a prr
tailors were no longer
@0111) as fully compete
““813 Poms up out or
St“ has up with it,
maid in its old, sec
Bidl SeI’Ved to remind
mean-10,1...221

Fre

216John 13,,qu
217690rge Jezao

Elbpobert C01
219mm gm
arrange Jez
2219mm, ,

 

95

Beaufort declared, "There has been no better theatre on Broadway

216 Nathan described Don Juan in Hell as "just about

217

the realest theatre we have had in some thne." - Coleman observed,

this season."

"You really don't need a stage full of scenery if you have genius

there."218

Sheaffer wrote, "It doesn't necessarily take a stage full
of actors, a lively story, much scenery and costuming to do it — to
hold and fascinate an audience. It's enough when the dialogue is
worth listening to and it is spoken by a small handful of players
who know their jobs."219

Three critics did have reservations about whether John Brown's
.Eggy Should be considered theatre. Nathan complained Don Juan in Hell
had spawned "such a profusion of . . . copycats" that reading presen—
tations were no longer welcome. He declared that "unless another
group as fully competent and engaging as the Drama Quartette mirac—

ulouSlY POPS up out of nowhere and unless another great wit like a

Shaw POPS up with it, the theatre as we have always had it will be

foupd in its old, secure place.”220 Chapman reported that John Brown's

EEQX Served to remind him that "the theatre is a place for things

theatrical."221 Freedley preferred John Brown's Body to Don Juan in

¥

216

John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, December 8, 1951-
2 a - .

17George Jean Nathan, Theatre in the Fifties, p. 200.
18Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, October 23, 1951-

2 .
19Louis Sheaffer, Brooklyn Daily'Eaglea October 231 1951’

2 ' . .
2OGeorge Jean Nathan, New York Journal Americana March 1, 1953

221
Chapman, loc. cit.

 

 

21.» but still had reset“
with all this return to 1m
and poetry, or even the f
to see a play acted on ’01”-
great the literature heir
Three other critic:
Atkinson called it "a mi
it as “an evening of exc
m critic found it
The success of th
hill—ally responsible T
which followed. Don Ju
‘

Tiled—y presented as a ‘
naterifl not originallj
a” “reading." Unfor
did m full?! apprecia
had some form of drama

'~ 1
dented readers

 

 

96
lel, but still had reservations about readings. ”I can't go along
with all this return to mid—Victorianism in public readings of plays
and poetry, or even the flavorsome stories of Charles Dickens. I like
to see a play acted on the stage more than anything else no matter how
great the literature being read, theoretically, is.”222
Three other critics felt John Brown's Body was "theatre."
Atkinson called it ”a piece of vivid theatre,"223 Coleman described

24

it as "an evening of exciting and rewarding theatre,"2 and the

Variety critic found it "compelling theatre."225
The success of the Laughton—Gregory ventures enjoyed is undoubtedly

partially reSponsible for many of the productions of a similar nature

which followed. Don Juan in Hell proved that drama could be effec—

tively presented as a "reading." John Brown's Body proved that

material not originally intended for the stage could be successful

as a "reading." Unfortunately, several of the subsequent presentations

did not fully appreciate the necessity for selecting material which

had some form of dramatic impact, or the necessity for having very

talented readers.

222Freedley, loc. cit. 223Atkinson, loc. cit.

22l‘LColeman, loc. cit. 225H0be9 22$..EEE'

 

 

The classificatiOI
productions in which th'
from two or more author
selections may be eith€
of both, but they must

it is the intent

tion fitting this desc
the following questior
How did the critics C
the farmer or" present

Success? Who were ti

to them? that type
oral interpretation
any marked similari‘
interpretation prod
the productions?
Not all of t'
m Productions in
not always considt
Other aspects of

1mm Will also

CHAPTER IV
ANTHOLOGIES

The classification of "anthologies" is used in reference to
productions in which the literary material consists of selections
from two or more authors and is related to a central theme. The
selections may be either prose or poetry, or possibly a collection
of both, but they must relate to a single idea or theme.

It is the intention of this writer to examine each presenta—
tion fitting this description in an attempt to determine answers to
the following questions. What settings and accessories were used?
How did the critics classify the production? What was unique about
the manner of presentation? Was it a critical and/or popular
success? Who were the performers and what was the critical response
to them? What type of material was used and how did it adapt to the
oral interpretation manner of presentation? Did there seem to be
any marked similarities between these productions and previous oral
interpretation productions? Were there any special features about
the productions?

Not all of these questions can be answered for each of the
Six productions in this category. Unfortunately the critics did
not always consider all the aspects this writer wished to consider.
Other aspects of the productions which seem interesting and Signi—
ficant will also be discussed.

97

 

Only two anthologie
es and 1965. Both pen
were failures. On April

of selections from Schil.

 

Cocteau entitled we}.
opening night at the ME
intheatre circles, as C
newspapers.

Neither Whitney B
tell: of the New York Ti
wlfich Miss Fein present

against her perforrn’anC
noted that "readings"
light assume he classi

Gelb described 1
Wk gown, pearls, a

seated at a table dec

2
candles‘ Apparentl:

Bolton gave wh:
the entertaimnent .
difficult to do, ant
had overcome this d

to ‘
dld cmoment favo

l .

Whitney Bolt
2

Arthur Gels

Bolton1 M

 

98
Only two anthologies were presented by solo performers between
1945 and 1965. Both performers were women and both productions
were failures. On April 25, 1960, Maria Fein appeared in a program
of selections from Schiller, Shaw, Schnitzler, Shakespeare and

Cocteau entitled An Evening of European Theatre. Apparently her

 

opening night at the 41st Street Theatre did not attract much attention
in theatre circles, as only two reviews appeared in the New York
newspapers.

Neither Whitney Bolton of the Morning Telegraph, nor Arthur
Gelb of the New York Times gave any description of the manner in
which Miss Fein presented her program. Gelb launched into his tirade
against her performance without attempting to classify it. Bolton
noted that "readings" were extremely difficult to do well,ll so one
might assume he classified the evening's entertainment as a reading.

Gelb described Miss Fein as "a red—haired woman wearing a
black gown, pearls, and a toothy smile," who began the proceedings
seated at a table decorated with a red velvet tablecloth and lighted
candles.2 Apparently this constituted the scenery.

Bolton gave what might be considered a lukewarm endorsement to
the entertainment. As mentioned above, he spoke of "readings” being
difficult to do, and though he did not specifically say Miss Fein
had overcome this difficulty, neither did he say she had failed.

3

He did comment favorably on her vocal variety.

___________________
1Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, April 27, 1960.

2Arthur Gelb, New York Times, April 26, 1960, p. 41.
3

Bolton, 100. cit.

 

 

 

Gelb also commented
to cited the scene from it
only Nary, but Elizabeth,
each in a different voice

A
aliennese accent.“
Gelb thought the p
notl‘n'ss leis appeared E
tnought he had heard enc

“escaped.“ Neither cri‘

The second solo l
though it did attract ‘
the heroines from Euri
with and both nu:
The program was entiti
Commented, “It was a

N variety of la
CIitics used the ten

described the procee

rexerred to the even

Gelb, lo\c 2

Jay Carr, Ne

Martin Gotti
William Bent

' JOh11 Mitche?

Whitney 301

 

 

99

Gelb also commented on her vocal variety, but less favorably.

He cited the scene from Mary Stuart in which "Miss Fein played not

 

only Mary, but Elizabeth, two Earls, a knight, a guard, and a nurse-—
each in a different voice ranging from bass to soprano and all in
a Viennese accent.”

Gelb thought the program would have been extremely funny had
not Miss Fein appeared so serious about what she was doing. He
thought he had heard enough by intermission and, as he put it,

”escaped." Neither critic wrote of Miss Fein's choice of material.
Five Queens

The second solo presentation of an anthology fared even worse,
though it did attract more critical coverage. Sala Staw presented

the heroines from Euripides'.Andromache, Racine's Phaedra, Shakespeare's

 

Macbeth, and both Elizabeth and.Mary from Schiller's Mary Stuart.

The program was entitled Five Queens, and as one caustic critic

"5

 

commented, "It was a losing theatrical hand.
A variety of labels were applied to the presentation. Two

critics used the term "readings" in their reviews.6 Two others

described the proceedings as a "tour de force."7 One reviewer

referred to the evening as "a re—enactment of dramatic moments."

_-

Gelb, loc. cit.

5Jay Carr, New York Post, September 11, 1963.

 

6Ibid.

Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daile September 11, 1963-
7William Bender, New York Herald Tribune, September 11, 1963.
John Mitchell, New York Journal.American, September 12, 1963.

8Whitney Bolton, New York Morning_Telegraphs September 12, 1963.

 

 

 

onertmtelva 11° one saw
hscuss the manner of pI‘e
style.

None of the seven ‘
lost of their criticism
them seemed to feel some
Speak unkindly about Mi:
imaged to do a very th

The My criti

Stew trying her best, '

01".le to convey the

Gala credited her wit

Wind in forcefulnes

She knew all the word:
Bender thought
“treble, but that

Nutchell apparently 1

expression and a Voi

h

abundaan Of it ‘

Kenn” Varie
10

Louis Calte
11

Bolton» 101

13 .
Mltehell,

 

 

 

100

Unfortunately, no one saw fit to describe the stage setting or to

discuss the manner of presentation apart from Miss Staw's acting

style.

None of the seven critics in attendance liked the production.

Nest of their criticism was directed toward the acting. Several of

them seemed to feel some pangs of remorse that duty forced them to
speak unkindly about Miss Staw's histrionic abilities, but they

managed to do a very thorough job of it despite this.

The Variety critic found the evening a painful one, with Miss
Staw trying her best, "but failing vocally, visually, and histri-
onically to convey the power and drama of the excerpted scenes.n9
Calta credited her with earnestness and high purpose, but found her
lacking in forcefulness, variety and eloquence;IO Bolton complained
she knew all the words, but not how to color them.11

Bender thought the technical aspects of her performance were
acceptable, but that she failed to go beyond the externals.12
Mitchell apparently had similar feelings. "Sala Staw conveys
expression and a voice strong enough to fill an empty stage. She

has grace of movement and sense of timing. She has courage, an

abundance of it . . . but these are not enough."3

g;

9Kenn., Variety, September 18, 19651 P. 70.

0Louis Calta, New York Times, September 11, 1963, p. 46.

quolton, loc. cit. 12Bender, loc. cit.
13 . .
MitChell, loc. Cit.

 

 

 

 

Gottfried ree‘retfun
years too late, and from 1
action, the writer tends ‘
Gottfried found the eveni

Pathetic because Mi
so faithfuuy and car
so incapable of. Ant
that the sort of act:
since been packed "tn
half-century agofl

Niss Stew apparent
repl ladies. During ti
the audience was enterta
mizatbethan songs and a
01“ the critics cited hi
the evening.15
Some of the hlam
to the choice of mater

imitated and that t

“N sort of dramatic :

to character so of ten
with grief and Sufi” e1

Gottfried thou;

Swle‘fln’rlShamefly c

it
Gottf Tied, ]

list The bright

Q1doll when he and
A Elevator whi I
' 53 Stem Ch '

 

 

 

101
Gottfried regretfully labeled Miss Staw's acting about fifty
years too late, and from looking at the pictures of Miss Staw in

action, the writer tends to think his evaluation might be correct.

Gottfried found the evening pathetic.

Pathetic because Miss Staw had prepared so mightily, believed
so faithfully and cared so deeply about a kind of drama she was
so incapable of. .And pathetic because it was painfully obvious
that the sort of actress she was trying so hard to be has long

since been packed fiway with the theatrical memorabilia of a
half-century ago.1

Miss Staw apparently used a different costume for each of her

regal ladies. During the time between scenes while she was changing,

the audience was entertained by Daniel Elliot, a young man who sang

Elizabethan songs and accompanied himself on the lute. Nearly all

of the critics cited his interludes as the only enjoyable part of

the evening.15

Some of the blame for the unsuccessful evening was attributed

to the choice of material. Bender thought the program was too

fragmentary and that the audience found it difficult to maintain

any sort of dramatic involvement when the focus shifted from character

to character so often.16 ‘Mitchell felt the program was too filled

with grief and suffering.17

Gottfried thought Miss Staw‘s material matched her acting

style--unashamedly classical, with the most melodramatic passages

k

14Gottfried,loc. cit.

5The bright spot of the evening for Calta was during inter—
nfission When'he and six other reviewers found themselves trapped in
an elevator whiCh "refused to rise to the occasion.“ He missed
Nhss Staw‘ s Andromadhe, but, on the basis of the other four, doubted
thathis verdict would have been any different had he seen it.

Bender, loo. cit. 17Mitchell, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

selected from each play-
room the BreateSt scene
chided Miss Sta“ for mak
closed after eight perfc
No reference was 1

that "theatregoers who 1
given here in recent se
he did not specify to h
ody parallels to be (11
that both performers w<
material, and both. wer
Perhaps these pr

”r18 "solo acting preset
ten "reading," the bi
hues' acting abilit
36511 nor Niss Stew we
has PTObahly the mail
factor may have been
mst‘erlliéaces, lacked
the selections seem
Nresenting five llnhg

from fille plays

Gottfried,

 

 

 

 

102

selected from each play. He did acknowledge the selections as being

among the greatest scenes in the English speaking theatre and he

chided Miss Staw for making such a mess of them.18 Five Queens

closed after eight performances.

No reference was made to Miss Fein's production. Carr mentioned

that "theatregoers who have attended any of the first rate readings

given here in recent seasons will find this one a letdown,“19 but

he did not specify to what readings he referred. It would seem the
i
only parallels to be drawn between these two solo anthologies are

that both performers were women, both used the classics for their

material, and both were unsuccessful.

Perhaps these productions might better have been classified
as "solo acting presentations," for, despite the critics' use of the

term "reading," the bulk of their commentary was centered on the

ladies' acting ability, or lack of it. Apparently, neither Miss

Fein nor Miss Staw were outstanding actresses to start with, and this

was probably the main reason their presentations failed. A contributing

factor may have been that the material, although taken from dramatic

masterpieces, laCked dramatic unity. The connecting links between

the selections seem to have been rather superficial, with one program

presenting five unhappy queens and the other, a variety of characters

from five plays.

__

18Gottfried, loc. cit. ngarr, loc. cit.

 

 

B

information regamt

was more abundant than 1

 

critical reation was r1101
non-solo anthology was 1
Theatre. titled W
of short stories about
Shirley Jackson, Virgil

latherine Anne Porter.

The stage was r2
varying sizes, and a
the different stories
for the show by Stepl
t'Uhtil Union difficu'

lighting was describ

Taubmc'in credit
to create an illusii
bed by the actors.

well, "despite thej

ZOLetter fro
when, E
2261mm .1
amt, E

Howard Ta

5G
11y Savi]

 

 

103

When I Was a Child

Information regarding the four anthologies performed by groups

was more abundant than it had been for the solo presentations, and the
critical reation was more favorable to three of the four. The first

non-solo anthology was presented December 8, 1960, at the 41st Street

Theatre. Entitled When I was a Child, it consisted of adaptations

of short stories about various youngsters written by Dylan Thomas,

Shirley Jackson, Virginia Woolf, Frank O'Connor, Sholem Aleichem, and

Katherine Anne Porter.

Setting and.Accessories
The stage was rather bleakly furnished with a scrim, stools of

varying sizes, and a hat rack. The stools were shifted around for

The background clarinet music was written

the different stories.
21

for the show by Stephen Richard, Jr., and played by Scoville Browne

. . . . 2 .
(until Union difficulties nece551tated taping it.) 2 Ruth Esherick's
"23

lighting was described as ”an important supplement to the action.
Taubman credited both the lighting and the music with helping

to create an illusion. He also referred to the "suggestion of costume”
Another critic reported the performers looked

used by the actors.
"25 According to

well, "despite their Bennington College costuming.

‘

Letter from.Miss Gaye Glaeser to the author, July 6, 1968.

2 . .
1Kall., Variety, December 21, 1960, p. 56-

2
EGlaeser, loo. cit.

2%B.I.A., women's wear Daily, December 13, 1960.

waard Taubman, New York Times, December 9, 1960, po 38.

2
jhuy Savino,.Newark.Evening.News, December9, 1960.

 

 

 

 

actress Gaye Glaeser, the
ho of the women wore ju
wore a skirt and blouse.
shawls, were located on

times throughout the 9V1

Classification
The critics had <
presentation. The pI‘OE
referred to it as an e
critics used this tern
appearing in the theat
mentioned six one-act
The most freque
critics writing of "c‘
Teadintsi“30 and anot
hone Bartenieff tn

"thEEd reading.‘y52

he referred to the

Glaeser, 10

Saving i 10C
JOSeph MOT‘E

2
John MCClaz‘

29
R‘I'A‘i 10
Sandra SOT)

Tauhman, l

31 ,
“They a

in, f,

 

104

actress Gaye Glaeser, the three men wore black pants and white shirts.

Two of the women wore jumpers and colored blouses and the third actress

wore a skirt and blouse. Various bits of costume, such as hats and

shawls, were located on the hat stand and were used at different

times throughout the evening.2

Classification
The critics had considerable difficulty classifying this
presentation. The program note, appearing in several of the reviews,

referred to it as an evening of dramatized stories. Two of the

critics used this terminology in their reviews.27 The program note

appearing in the theatre column of the New York Journal American

28

mentioned six one—act plays, and McClain used this description.

The most frequently employed label was "readings," with two

critics writing of "dramatized readings,”29 one writing of ”illustrated
readings,"30 and another writing of "staged readings."31 Actor
George Bartenieff thought the program could best be described as a

"staged reading.”32 Two reviewers concocted their own terminology.

One referred to the proceedings as a ”concert version of six pieces

 

26Glaeser, loc. cit.

2 .
7éav1no, loc. cit.
Joseph Mergenstern, New York Herald Tribune, December 9, 1960,

28 .
John McClain, New York Journal American, December 9, 1960.

2
9R.I.A., loc. cit.
Sandra Schmidt, Village Voice, December 15, 1960.

3OfI'aubman, loc. cit.
37Whitney Bolton, New York Mbrning Telegraph, December 10, 1960.

3%Letter from George Bartenieff to the author, July 9, 1968.

 

.—

 

 

or" recollective writing,

adaptations-"3A

lhnner of Presentation
Arnold Tager adap

the production. Tager
the other five to do d.‘
characters and events.
We started off w
{sometimes reading
to each other) but
staging throughout
there was little (
hi the director t<
so strongly on in:

An interesting

actor Barteniefi rece

note that the materf

were used "after the
meant no scripts wer
were given, althoug}
were used once the i
rec'cflled that "free

duction as the mate

”that different fror

Five critics

detail and there w

3
rank Astc

Kali

l
1 fi

 

 

 

 

105

of recollective writing,"33 while the other spoke of a "program of

adaptations."34

Manner of Presentation

Arnold Tager adapted the stories for the stage and directed
the production. Tager used one performer to do the narration and

the other five to do dialogue, mime, or dance portrayals of the

characters and events. Bartenieff wrote of the manner of presentation:

We started off with the stools, and the scripts in our hands
(sometimes reading from them, but mostly looking up and turning
to each other) but soon we would get up and move around; and this
staging throughOut had a strong formal styalized Lsigfi] flavor——
there was little day-to—day realistic movement. This was chosen
by the director to enhance and physicalize a form which relies
so strongly on imagry [siggl alone.35

An interesting contradiction appears to exist between What

actor Bartenieff recalls and what actress Glasser remembers. She

wrote that the material was completely memorized and that no scripts

were used "after the lines were 'set.'" It is possible that she

meant no scripts were used after the initial lines of each story

were given, although it seems more likely that she meant no scripts

were used once the lines had been memorized. Miss Glaeser also

recalled that "freedom of movement was as much a part of the pro—

duction as the material itself."36 This would appear to be some—

what different from the formal, stylized movement Bartenieff Spoke of.

Five critics considered the manner of presentation in some

detail and there was a definite difference of opinion between them

‘

33FrankAston, New York World-Telegram and Sun, December 9’ 1960'
54

Kali, loc. cit. 35Bartenieff, loc. cit. 36Glaeser,_l_o_g. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

as to how successful it

(as he called the procee

 

narration), distracted e
the recitation detracts
terized the notions as
pushed his actors too t
subtlety.38
Taubman thought
condemned other parts
the still poses Tager
these Poses required
as if they were pract
“mar of Presentatic
but not so well for .
his excellent ma th

to emphasiZe the bee

4
0
Id
f3:
0
r!—

MOSt of the C
recommend It to the
and at times, deep

Cri '
.thS for Variet
\

M0 I‘genst G]
Franoes H
9

Taubman 1

in
BMW, :

 

l

106

 

as to how successful it was. Morgenstern thought the "charades,"
(as he called the proceedings of the five actors not involved in the
narration), distracted attention from the narrator‘s recitation and

n37

the recitation detracted from the "charades. Herridge charac—
terized the actions as "hackneyed," and complained that Tager had
pushed his actors too hard and consequently the staging lacked

subtlety.38

Taubman thought part of Tager's staging was charming, but

 

condemned other parts of it as "arty." He particularly disliked

the still poses Tager frequently had his actors assume. He claimed
these poses required the players to sit or stand in frozen positions
as if they were practicing yoga.39 The Variety critic thought the
manner of presentation worked to perfection for two of the stories,
but not so well for the other four.40 Bolton thought the staging
was excellent and the way in which the stories were presented served

1+
to emphasize the beauty and strength of the language. 1

Verdict

Most of the critics liked When I Was a Child well enough to

 

recommend it to their readers. Salvino termed it "an always interesting,

and at times, deeply moving theatrical off-Broadway exercise."42 The

critics for Variety and.Women's Wear Daily endorsed it as an enjoyable

h._

37Morgenstern, loc. cit.

38Frances Herridge, New York Post, December 9, 1960.

39Taubman, loc, cit. AOKali, loc. cit.

 

1Bolton, 100. cit. 42Saivino, loc. cit.

   

 

 

 

evening}+5 Bolton thoug
attention, but expresset
an audience.
One never knows w
no way of knowing w
earnestly hope, the
musical comedy leve
ment theatre at hp,
McClain approved
way. “it is a sometin
like the little girl w
had it isn‘t by any m
Two of the crit
admitted the presents
lend itself to the up
But Why was it

and a bare stage
he read . . . m
0f it in this p]
do while the he:
can make the me:
Printed pagehg

Hermite was

the b°°k 4L'0 the st;

107
evening.43 Bolton thought the production was worthy of praise and
attention, but expressed concern as to whether or not it would find

an audience.

One never knows what public taste will be and I certainly have
no way of knowing what the response to this will be. I hope,‘I
earnestly hope, that there is a discerning public with minds above
musical comedy level that will respond and crowd the little base—
ment theatre at 41st Street. 4

McClain approved of the proceedings, but in a more qualified
way. "It is a sometimes spotty evening, but when it is good it is,

like the little girl with the curl, very, very good; and when it is
, 45

bad it isn't by any means awful——it is just something less than good."

Two of the critics took issue with their colleagues, Morgenstern
admitted the presentation was well done, but felt the material did not
lend itself to the manner of treatment accorded it.

But why was it necessary for Mr. Tager to put this on a stage
and a bare stage at that? The pieces were written primarily to
be read . . . no amount of ingenuity——and there is a good deal
of it in this production—-can provide the actors with enough to
do while the narrator is narrating and no amount of declamation
can make the meaning any clearer than it would have been on the

printed page.46
Herridge was also critical of the stories being transferred from
the book to the stage. She wrote of When I Was a Child:

There's nothing wrong with the material . . . . The only
trouble is going all the way to 41st St. and paying money to
sit in a theatre and hear them . . . . You come away feeling
that it would be better to stay home where it is warm and com—
fortable and read the books for yourself. There your imagination
could produce far more convincing children.47

n . an
3Kali., loc. cit. and R.I.A., loc. Cit. Bolton, 100. cit.

45

McClain, loc. cit. 46Morgenstern, loc. cit.

47

Herridge, loc. cit.

 

 

Most of the critil

 

included George Barteni
‘w‘ancy Jones-Henry, and
in or about the product
The actions are i
mostly by booming 1
seem disconcerting
suffering of rejec
plaints like a ser

to be bombarded wi
they are yelled at

In a more compl<
highly polished and h
all of the performers
fine.SO

Another crit

three male members or

side.51

\

Perhaps becau:
and its suitability
Share of most of ti.
thout'ht the materie
to the printed pag
unity of adapt er~ d

it

. (
he i-

50
McClain ,
5%

erridge,

 

 

Acting

Most of the critics spolnermarmly of the young performers, who

included George Bartenieff, Gaye Glaeser, Crystal Field, Jerry Weiss,

Nancy Jones—Henry, and Robert Stattel. Herridge, who liked nothing

in or about the production, was an exception. She complained:

The actions are hackneyed and most of the lines are shouted-—
mostly by booming masculine voices that make the childish dialogue
seem disconcertingly foolish. It is hard to picture the inner
suffering of rejected little Stephen when he barks out his com—
plaints like a sergeant at arms. And it's even more irritating
to be bombarded with Miss Woolf's sensitive mood pictures when
they are yelled at you as in a football rally.48

In a more complementary vein, Schmidt described the six as

highly polished and highly talented young actors.49 McClain thought

all of the performers were good, but that Bartenieff was exceptionally

fine.5O Another critic also singled out Bartenieff and noted the

three male members 0f the cast were slightly better than the distaff
side.51

Material

Perhaps because the six authors were so well known, the material

and its suitability for this form of presentation occupied the lion's

share of most of the reviews. As noted above, Herridge and Morgenstein

thought the material was excellent, but would have been better left

to the printed page.52 Bolton and Taubman both commented on the inge—

nuity of adapter—director Tager in revising the short stories into a

W

Li .
81ers. Ligschmidt, loo. Clt.

50McClain, loc. cit. 51R.I.A., loc. cit.

52Herridge, loc. cit. and Morgenstern, loc. 21:.

 

 

 

torn suitable for the t?
was especially impresse
"Adapter-director Arno]
intended for the board:
tired readings which a
tiieiy reviewer enjoy
proved to be unadaptal
tied in view of the c:
The most succes
the tale of a boy whc
labeled it the most a
successful only bees;
old for his years an
5de so incongruous
the Sketch to the if;
was the outstanding
Two critics i
tell to dramatizatf
author had i Mom
attitude, both of
The second Critic
to perfeClinn in g

the narrator and

53
Mon, :
5t '
R‘I‘A‘a .

sailing ,

 

109

form suitable for the theatre.53 The critic for Women's Wear Daily
was especially impressed with the metamorphosis from story to stage.
'Tdapter-director Arnold Tager has taken short stories and poems never
intended for the boards and made of them an integrated set of drama—
tized readings which are graceful, charming, and humorous.54 The
Variety reviewer enjoyed the evening, but thought some of the stories
proved to be unadaptable to the stage.55 This evaluation seems justi—
fied in View of the criticism of the specific stories.

The most successful story was Frank O'Conner's "The Genius,"
the tale of a boy who decided he was uniquely gifted. Even Herridge
labeled it the most successful——but hastened to add that it was
successful only because the boy in the story was supposed to sound
old for his years and therefore the actor playing the role didn't
sound so incongruous.56 Another critic attributed the success of
the sketch to the fact that Bartenieff, who played the leading role,
was the outstanding actor of the group.5'7

Two critics felt that O'Conner's story lent itself particularly
well to dramatization. One pointed out that, in this story, the
author had incorporated an adult point of view and a conscious
attitude, both of which are lacking in most of the other selections.58
The second critic thought the narrator—pantomime technique worked

to perfection in this selection because the main character was both

the narrator and an integral part of the action. Consequently there

'—~—-——————_—

53Bolton, 100. cit. and Taubman, lgg. cit.

. 6 .
543nm” icc. cit. 55Kali, E- 223- 5 Herridge, 332- EL;-
5?

Savino, loo. cit. 58Schmidt, loc. SEE:

 

 

 

wasa greater sense Of C
stories.59
“The Downward Pat
as both the narrator an
successful. Schmidt CI
but most other critics
observed a puzzled rea
found it extremely uns
been sufficiently ill-
‘areak out at any mome
A mixed reactio
it Dear Alphonse," a
for lunch and his mo‘
felt the material di
for the Village poi.
With its narration z
Dilan Thomas‘
critics Primarily j
oNosed viewpoints
Presentation. One
lids farmer of DH
81Tiered. "It is

but the other act

5
9mm

., y
61

Bolton1 '
6 .
319111., 1

5
Rip“)

 

110

was a greater sense of cohesion than was found in most of the other
stories.59
"The Downward Path to Wisdom" also had its main character serving
as both the narrator and a part of the action, but it was not quite as
successful. Schmidt characterized it as "the piece de resistance,"60
but most other critics were less favorably impressed. Bolton
observed a puzzled reaction on the part of the audience.61 Morgenstern
found it extremely unsatisfactory and complained that "the actors have
been sufficiently ill-advised to indulge in baby talk and threaten to
break out at any moment with a chorus of 'I Wuv a Wabbit.”62
A mixed reaction was also accorded Shirley Jackson's "After You,
My Dear Alphonse," a story about a boy who brings a Negro child home
for lunch and his mother's patronizing charity. The Variety critic
felt the material did not fit the presentation,63 while the critic
for the Village Voice thought it was the most successful adaptation,
with its narration and acting resembling a time lapse movie.64
Dylan Thomas‘ "A Child‘s Christmas in Wales" was noted by the
critics primarily for its language and imagery. Two diametrically
opposed viewpoints were expressed as to the effectiveness of the
presentation. One critic felt that Thomas' poem was well suited to

this manner of presentation,65 while the other felt its beauty

suffered. "It is a beautiful piece, well narrated by Robert Stattel,

 

but the other actors intrude rather than add to its effectiveneSS."66
59Kali., loo. cit. 6OSchmidt, loo. cit.

6’lBo].ton, loc. cit. 62Morgenstern, loc. cit.

63Kali., loc. cit. 64$ohmidt, loc. cit.
so '

65R.I.A., loc. cit. Kali., loc. cit.

 

‘h Page from the E
trained for the lyrical
. 67
stage was questioned-
been the least successi
wmflimed,"1 have tr
writing about adults},
gmmmps,she becomes
host of the cri'
reccommended the prod
(at least within the
presented on stage w:
duenflly the critic
successfully for at
however, lacked drat
imnsor references
flme- When I Was a
HisSGlaeser recal
[the Producer] rea
-~.E;________
Schmidt,;
gheton, l9
69mm,

70
Glueser,

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

"A Page from the Song of Songs" by Sholem Aleichem was also
praised for the lyrical quality of the writing, but its success on
stage was questioned.67 Miss Woolf‘s "The Waves” seemed to have
been the least successful. Aston was left "awash."68 McClain
complained, "I have trouble with Miss Woolf sometimes when she is
writing about adults, but when she is writing about children for
grownups, she becomes too oblique and fancy for my comprehension."69

Most of the critics enjoyed at least some of the selection and
reocommended the production to their readers. It was the first time,
(at least within the last fifteen years), that short stories had been
presented on stage with a narrator and various forms of pantomime.
Generally the critics thought the form of presentation worked very
successfully for at least one of the stories. Some of the stories
however, lacked dramatic impact and were not successful. No compar—

isons or references to other oral interpretation productions were

made. When I Was a Child ran for thirty-eight performances.

 

Miss Glasser recalled that, "As they say in N.Y., Mr. Rosenblum

, O
[the producer} really 'took a loss."'7

67Schmidt, loo. cit.

Aston, loo. cit.

69

McClain, loo. cit.

7O

Glaeser, loc. cit.

 

 

 

January 291 1965
(him at the Henry Mil?
the Royal Shakespeare
Company made it a part
Continent with it int<
to the United States.

in contrast to
w, the four men
The hollow Crown were
material was by and 2
title came from Shah
it upon the ground
for within the holl<

keeps Death his 00“
and grinning at his
Setting and Access

A black cyclt
tuth a wine bottle

“new. Slightlx

”Fiber Off to th

1‘
Whalers were in

8““ own With a

71
Sh .
(hubrisgeikeii:

 

 

 

 

112

The Hollow Crown

 

January 29, 1963 saw the opening of an English import, The Hollow

 

,QEEHE.at the Henry Miller Theatre. The production was first done by
the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford on Avon in 1960. The
Company made it a part of the repertory and toured Britain and the
Continent with it intermittently for nearly two years before coming

to the United States.

 

In contrast to the ”unknown” status of the cast of When I Was
a Child, the four members of the Royal Shakespeare Company presenting
The Hollow Crown were accomplished and recognized artists. The
material was by and about some of England's kings and queens. The

title came from ShakeSpeare's Richard II. "For God's sake, let us

 

sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings . . .
for within the hollow crown that rounds the mortal temples of a king,
keeps Death his court, there the antic sets, sooffing at his state

"71

and grinning at his pomp.

Setting and Accessories

A black cyclorama, four Chippendale armohairs, a low table
with a wine bottle and four glasses, and a leotern constituted the
scenery. Slightly off to one side were a piano and a harpsichord.
Further off to the side were seated four musicians. All the per-
formers were in evening dress. Miss Tutin wore an ivory colored

satin gown with a gold—colored scarf, While the men were dinner
7118hakespeare, King RiChard II, ed. by John Dover Wilson
(Cambridge: University Press, 193951 Po 54-

 

 

 

dimer jackets and sued

lighting effects.

Classification
host of the crit:
lieu elaborated on ex
referred to it as a “6
"stage reading,"7li am
Donn labeled it a “r
“mere reading." ”It i

“’33 any haif-dozen c

\
um

er of Presentatit

The manner of
one critic called "b
the Pmceedjm€s as f

 

113
dinner jackets and suede shoes:72 No mention was made of any special

lighting effects.

Classification
Most of the critics classified the production as a "reading.”
A few elaborated on exactly what kind of a reading it was. Two
‘ '6 ' "73 'b d 't as a
referred to it as a "dramatic reading, one descri e 1
71+ . i H . "75
"stage reading," and another called it a concert reading.
Dorin labeled it a ”reading," but hastened to add that it was no
"mere reading." "It is a presentation that has more inventiveness

than any half—dozen conventional stage productions."

yEpner of Presentation ’
The manner of presentation was characterized by the use of what

one critic called "big prompt books."77 The critic for Show described

the proceedings as follows:

- . .seven men in dinner jackets accompanied by Miss Dorothy
Tutin in full evening dress, clutching stout folders fullhoi
reading matter marched onstage and sat down. And there ey
StaYed for the rest of the evening, like the board of selec
men at a town meeting taking it in turns to read aloud, or
pretend to do 50.78

72Hobe., Variety, February 6, 1963, Po 62-

73Ibid.

“

Time, February 8, 1963, p. 56.

7Liliichael Smith, Village Voice, February 7, 1963-

75Newsweek, February 11, 1963, p. 8#o

76Rube Dorin, New York MorninngelegraEQa January 31, 1963'

77John Chapman, New York Daily News,'§22§§. Po 387°

78Anthony West, Show, May, 1963-

 

Most critics were
presentation. Taubman
and perform "in their <
becomes vibrant with i
and courtiers seem to
be received a more Vi'v‘
presentation than he (

The critics dif:
acted. Clurman maint
LLMush he found the e

dram-"8| Stern was

reviewers wrote of t?
Cooke noted a few sp
attempts at impersor

Director John Barter

terizodn and that t'

The Critical

the most enthusias

9H0Ward Tat
01)“th 101
8
8

Ziial‘old Si
8

aqede-a 3
R°bert c

at .

8

5Letter j

 

 

114
Most critics were more favorably impressed with the manner of
presentation. Taubman wrote that at first the actors seemed to speak
and perform "in their own persons, but it is not long before the stage
becomes vibrant with illusion and comment. Kings, queens, consorts
and courtiers seem to speak in their voices."79 Dorin was convinced

he received a more vivid impression of pageantry from the reading

presentation than he could have from a conventional stage production.80

The critics differed as to whether or not the four performers
acted. Clurman maintained there was no acting in the production,
though he found the evening "as pleasing and precise as a normal
drama."81 Stern was convinced the production was "ACTED."82 Other
reviewers wrote of the skill with which they impersonated the rulers.83
Cooke noted a few spirited moments of acting, but only occasional
attempts at impersonation, except through the use of voice.84

Director John Barton wrote that most 0f the selections were "charac—

terized" and that the manuscripts were not always used.8

Verdict
The critical verdict was overwhelmingly favorable. Perhaps

the most enthusiastic review came from the critic for Cue who raved:

 

79Howard Taubman, New York Times, NYTCR, p. 386.

8

ODorin, loc. cit.

81Harold Clurman, Nation, February 16, 1963, p. 146.
82Harold Stern, New York Standard, January 31, 1963.

8
3Newsday, February 6, 1963.
Robert Coleman, New York Mirror, NYTCR, p. 386.

8LiRichard P. Cooke, Wall Street Journal, January 31, 1963.

85

 

Letter from John Barton to the author, June 10, 1968.

 

“The entry is a cause fc
tintage champagne reseI“
on t. I succest tha
it "dramatic, wildly f“
melodious. 1’0 is spokf
joy by a company 0f suj
not only was this "CiV
was absorbing, vibrant
Other critics, ‘
were not sure of its
theatregoers seeking
(him, but recommendt
tiring their minds a
readers that this we
but added that anyor
"dried-90 Cooke la'
itself much more to
there would be some
The critic fl
inSt“lction concea

“at to learn.92 p

didactic at times

0&5 Febr

9Coleman ,
9
2Newsday ,

9
3Ljohn McC

 

i.

115
"The entry is a cause for celebration, a reason for Opening that
vintage champagne reserved for special occasions . . . it is a royal
delight. I suggest that you rush to buy tickets."86 Stern found
it "dramatic, wildly funny, touching, wryly amusing, literate and

melodious. It is spoken, sung and acted with taste, clarity, and

87

joy by a company of superlative performers." Dorin wrote that,

not only was this "civilized theatregoing in the fullest sense, it

88

was absorbing, vibrant, richly humorous and brilliantly put together."
Other critics, though personally enthralled with the presentation,

were not sure of its appeal for the general public. Coleman warned

theatregoers seeking escapism they probably would not enjoy The Hollow

Crown, but recommended it enthusiastically to those not averse to

89

giving their minds a work out. Likewise, Chapman cautioned his

readers that this was not entertainment for the impatient playgoer;

but added that anyone with patience and insight would be amply re-
90

warded. Cooke labeled the evening as one which would "commend

itself much more to certain playgoers than to others," but thought

91

there would be something to appeal to almost everyone.
The critic for Newsday detected a considerable amount of

instruction concealed in the royal revue, but found it a painless

92

way to learn. McCarten complained the entertainment became a bit

didactic at times, but he hastened to add that it never became dull.93

-__;

86933” February 9, 1963. 87

89 90

Stern, loc. cit. 88Dorin, loo. cit.

91

Coleman, loc cit. Chapman, loo. cit. Cooke, loo. cit.

92Newsday, loo. cit.

93John McCarten, The New Yorker, February 8, 1963, p. 66.

 

 

 

 

Two critics did 11‘

Show, found The Hollow

 

mtheatrical one, amate
needs or possibilities
Theatre Arts thought t'

aninconsistency in th

The four member

The hollow Crown were
Paul hardwick. Most
of the reviewers com
formers. McClain ob
thunciation and the
inspirational."96 t
delivered with such
The reviewer for Ci
Wit these perfon

preCiSQ‘llgg

The Perform;

n w .
l .
mn‘ This was 1

hide an enoellenic

l .L
H the Perform]

mathttic .99 Wat-

\

west: 1C
96 ‘
John Mc(

970mm,,

l

116
Two critics did not like the production. West, writing for

Show, found The Hollow Crown a "literate amusement, but a highly

 

untheatrical one, amateurishly conceived without any regard for the

"94

needs or possibilities of professional theatre. The reviewer for

Theatre.Arts thought the presentation failed to come off because of

95

an inconsistency in the style of the actors.

Acting

The four members of the Royal Shakespeare Company who presented
The Hollow Crown were Dorothy Tutin, Max.Adrian, John Barton and
Paul Hardwick. Most of the critics were favorably impressed. Three
of the reviewers commented about the excellent diction of the per—
formers. McClain observed, "There is the background of training in
enunciation and the meticulous timing which makes excellent English
inSpirational."96 Coleman wrote, "What a joy it is to hear English
delivered with such meaning, such style, dramatically and humorously."97
The reviewer for Cu§_was elated to report there was "not a mumbler
among these performers. Everyone is clear and everyone is elegantly
precise."98

The performer most frequently singled out for praise was Miss
Tutin. This was her first appearance in the United States and she

made an excellent impression on most of the critics. Taubman thought

all the performers were outstanding, but that Miss Tutin was the most

 

 

magnetic.99 Watts was impressed with her excellence and versatility
94West, 100. cit. 95Theatre Arts, March, 1963, p. 64.
96

John McClain, New York Journal.American, NYTCR, p. 386.
97

Coleman, loc. cit. 98Cue, loc. cit. 99Taubman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

inher roles WhiCh rang‘
ardently partisan Jane ‘
noted hiss Tutin seemed
add, "If her material V
splendidly containing
Max Adrian also
felt his was "the 5011'
as "a dark solid f ellv
costume nor crown to
of dorace Walpole‘s (
tracted special attet
reviewer was less in
rule the other thrc
excellent readings t
whatever struck him
The other twt
described as DErso

WW1 and direc

\

100 .
RlChard v

 

 

117

in.her roles which ranged from the young queen Victoria to the

ardently partisan Jane.Austen to the stern Mary Tudor.100 Gottfried

noted Miss Tutin seemed to have the best material, but hastened to

add, "If her material was the juiciest, she did marvelously in

splendidly containing that juice."101

Max.Adrian also received considerable comment. One critic

felt his was "the solidest stage presence."1 Hipp described him

as "a dark solid fellow with a booming voice [who] needs neither

103 . . .
costume nor crown to become a merry monarch." Adrian's rendition

of Herace Walpole's caustic account of the burial of Georgdll at—

tracted special attention from three critics. The Theatre Arts

reviewer was less impressed with Mr. Adrian, complaining that,

while the other three members of the cast were content to give

excellent readings of their parts, Adrian could not stop "guying"

105

whatever struck him as comic.

The other two men received less attention. Hardwick was

described as personable and generally believable. Barton, who

arranged and directed the proceedings received both praise and

 

quRi

701Martin Gottfried, WCmen's Wear Daily, January 30, 1963-

chard watts, Jr., New York PCst, NYTCR, pp. 386—387.

7OgiTime, loc. cit.

7OjEdward Hipp,.Newark EWening.News, January 30, 1963.

7CMiMcC’lain, loc. cit.

Taubman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

Infihfieatre.ArtS: loo. cit. It was also noted that Mr..Adrian

used.haawy stage make—up, while his colleagues did not.

7Oéfiobe, loc. cit.

 

 

 

criticism. Donn though
controlled actor."107 7
although he was amazed
lines.108 Gottfried di
other three players. 1
attractive material.10
The skillful per
of The hollow Crown.
Wind an illusion
critics. "The Royal
0‘1 modern evening at‘

history into dramati

u- - -
Vivid impression of

7:“

m
I-"
O

The Hollow Cr

blended period bal

Stspun Manton, Jot

L I
their accompanist

f .
°~ Period music tc

the umsical inter

107

Dorin, l
108 ‘
Hebe. , '
109 '
Gottfri

110 .
Hire. ;

111
Dorin,

11
2Time ,

 

118

criticism. Dorin thought he was outstanding--"a sensitive, finely

controlled actor."107 The Variety critic labeled Barton "acceptable,"

although he was amazed.to see Barton lip—following the other actors'

lines.108 Gottfried did nd; think Barton was up to the level of the

He also felt Barton had given himself the least
109

attractive material.

other three players.

The skillful performersundoubtedly contributed to the success

of The Hollow Crown. Certainly their talents were reSponsible for

 

creating an illusion of kings and queens in the minds of some of the

critics. ”The Royal Shakespeare Company players, although never out

of modern evening attire, transform many of these shreds of English

Dorin wrote ofci

111

history into dramaticafly stirring vignettes."

 

”vivid impression of pageantry on the sceneryeless stage."

 

Music

The Hbllow Crown also featured a pianist and a male trio who

 

provided period ballads. The Time critic wrote that balladers

Stephen Manton, JOhn Lawrenson, and Richard Golding, together with

their accompanist James walker, provided "a harmonic counter-point

. . . 72 . .
of_period muSic to the proceedings."1 Nearly all the Orltlcs found

the musical interludes entenaining and appropriate.

7O7Dorin, loc. cit.

706B0be., loo. cit.

7O9Gottrried, loo. cit.

770Hipp, loo. cit.

777Dor‘in, loc. cit.

772Time, 100. cit.

 

The material chose
letters, chronicles, die
The program spanned SOUP
Victoria. Taubman wrot

Between prologue
chronicles, letter:
and songs. Front tl
sharp portraits of
see through a thea
rulei‘sfrotn William
the House of Harm

The prologue, 1“:
Shakespeare‘ s W
Torte d‘hrthur. One
epilogue,"m while 4
neiore “the last and
the Holy Grain."MS

The theme of
Infact, one critic
"Unless the histor;
then Victoria is
The Tifl TeViewer
and Etrsonality at

the Common bond h
filth had one thi,
5100““ their

We?“ Circumst

Tl
BTEImea

116
Chapma

 

 

119
Material

The material chosen and adapted by Barton was gleaned from
letters, chronicles, diaries, and speeches of, and about, royalty.

The program spanned some eight hundred years; from William I to

Victoria. Taubman wrote of the production:

Between prologue and epilogue we get excerpts from ancient
chronicles, letters, memoirs, speeches, pleadings, histories

and songs. From these adroitly chosen selections emerge swift,
sharp portraits of sovereigns and courtiers.

It is as if we
see through a theatrical kaleidos00pe droll and wry images of

rulersfrom William I through the Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts,
the House of Hanover, and finally, Victoria.113

The prologue, from which the title was taken, came from

Shakespeare's Richard II. The epilogue was from Sir Thomas Malory's

Morte dflArthur. One critic thought this made ”an eminently fitting

epilogue,"114

While another regretted the evening had not been ended
before "the last and terminable epilogue involving King Arthur and
the Holy Grain."115

The theme of the evening's entertainment was somewhat vague.
In fact, one critic expressed a doubt if a theme or plot existed
"unless the history of the Crown of England from King Arthur to
Queen Victoria is to be considered as one vast dramatic sequence."116

The Time reviewer decided the theme was that "divinity, mortality,

and personality all hedge a king."1q7 The Villager critic wrote of

the common bond between the rulers: "Individual as the rulers were,

they had one thing in common; they never forgot they were of royal

blood and their personal dignity shines through the most abject and

adverse circumstances."118

—__

 

4 . . 11 .
113Taubman, loc. cit. 1 Hipp: loc. Cit. 5McClain, loc. cit.
116

. . 118 .
Chapman, loc. cit. 117Time, loc. Cit. Villager, loc. cit.

 

 

‘ihddocks found two theme;

Then it focuses cl
of high comedy from
pathos. But when it
ultimately it does—-
the evening, quite 1
one feels a little t

Golden Bough: an i
tensions that prom-F
oi authority-4311d C
Jane Austen‘s vei
letter to Henry VIII, ‘
hy, the trial of Char
account of the funerai
tobacco were cited by
the diversity of the
"The material ranges

muse, from the lege

“WT—at from high

entertainment to nut

W
None of the (
0 .
T31 lntenpretatio
t
he Success of in,
g
o” .
”“1 whence to
NH .
the 15 110 mere

cot ‘
.tic described

119
MelVin

120
HOhm,

 

 

 

120

Maddocks found two themes in the evening's material.

When it focuses close on the passing face, it ranges the scale
of high comedy from Regency—vaudeville

to slightly overstylized
pathos. But when it is the enduring crown that fascinates-—as

ultimately it does——a sense of tragedy gives sudden depths to
the evening, quite beyond the limits of national history, and
one feels a little of what one felt upon first reading_The
Golden Bough: an intuition for the practical and mystical

tensions that prompt people to institute and sustain a tradition
of authority—-and occasionally rebel against it.
Jane Austen's version of English history, Anne Boleyn's last
letter to Henry VIII, Queen Victoria's account of her coronation
day, the trial of Charles I for treason, Horace Walpole's gossipy

account of the funeral of George II, and James I's tirade against

tobacco were cited by most critics as outstanding portions. Perhaps

the diversity of the material was best described by the Variety critic.
"The material ranges from eloquently romantic poetry to mundane
prose, from the legendary King Arthur to the literal—minded Queen

Victoria, from high tragedy to broad comedy and from fascinating

entertainment to numbing tedium."120

Comparisons

None of the critics compared The Hollow Crown to any other
oral interpretation production, but it was apparent from the reviews

that the manner of presentation was not unknown. Gottfried spoke of

 

the success of The Hollow Crown in overcoming ”the natural tendency

. . . 121 . .
of an audience to resist a reeltation." Dorin proclaimed,

"Here is no mere 'reading' such as we have known it."122 The Variety
critic described the production as "an elegant version 0f the
_____________________

119Melvin Maddocks, Christian Smnitor, February 2, 1963.
12OHobe., loc. cit. 121

Gottfried, loc. cit. 1 2Dorin, loc. cit.

 

 

familiar dramatic readj
start, black cyclorama
this outing for the co:
The Hollow Crown
strilce,125 but it beca
The production expense
office took in thirty.
show ran for forty-5i
considerably longer h

The notes were cast h

Toll '
ow Crown as the

The success 01"
production was iortv
but they were not p5
(Dorothy Tutin made
consequently nonld
strength of their r

Also, the mat
the selections was
was a good deal of

o '
“hence was somet

Tet l
med Very entt

F
ohe

”l

 

 

 

121
23

familiar dramatic reading,"1 and the Newsweek critic noted "the

stark, black cyclorama, the lecturn, the on-stage prompt books, mark

124

this outing for the connoisseur as a concert reading."

The Hollow Crown got off to a slow start because of a newspaper

125

strike, but it became a financial as well as a critical success.

The production expenses were thirty thousand dollars and the box

126

office took in thirty—seven thousand, five hundred dollars. The

show ran for forty-six performances and probably could have run

considerably longer had not the performers had other commitment.127

Two votes were cast by members of the Drama Critics' Circle for The

Hollow Crown as the "best play" of the 1962—1963 season.128

 

The success of The Hollow Crown was somewhat of a surprise, The
production was fortunate to have recognized and accomplished performers,
but they were not particularly well—known to American audiences,
(Dorothy Tutin made her American debut in The Hollow Crown), and
consequently could not be expected to draw crowds merely on the
strength of their names.

Also, the material was quite diverse and the connection between
the selections was not always clear. As some critics noted, there
was a good deal of British history in the production and an American
audience was sometimes at a disadvantage. Although The Hollow Crown

received very enthusiastic reviews, many of the critics warned that

 

 

124

qZEHobe., loc. cit. Newsweek, loo. cit.

125New York Times, February 14, 1963, p- 5-

126

 

New York Times, May 24, 1963, Po 17-

127New York Times, June 30, 1963i 590- II, P- 1-

128

 

 

New York TimeS, April 26, 1963, p. 25-

 

 

 

 

the general public nigh
sufficiently dramatic E
enough to overcome what
program might have cre
appreciated and enjoye
The Hollow Crown

speare Company. Howe

production now wear g

instead of dinner jar

singers have been re

A Princeton h
successful oral int
hartn B. Duberman
Princeton on the C
the Negro had play
area which needed
thousand pages of
theNegro in whit
After trimr
mnageahle size,

“ho had halldled

 

 

 

 

122

the general public might not appreciate it. However, the material was
sufficiently dramatic and interesting, and the performers skillful

enough to overcome whatever problems the historical aspects of the
program might have created, and the general public in New York thoroughly
appreciated and enjoyed the presentation.

The Hollow Crown is still in the repertory of the Royal Shake-

 

speare Company. However, some changes have been made. The men in the
production now wear grey trousers and black polo-necked sweaters
instead of dinner jackets, and the piano, harpsichord, and three

singers have been replaced by a "guitarist—singer."129

In White America

A Princeton history professor was responsible for the very
successful oral interpretation presentation, In White America.
Martin B. Duberman discovered the students in his lecture course at
Princeton on the Civil War were almost completely unaware of the role
the Negro had played in American history. He decided this was an
area which needed to be explored, and consequently compiled some one
thousand pages of double spaced, typewritten notes on the history of
the Negro in white.America.

After trimming the results of his research down to a more
manageable size, Duberman turned the manuscript over to Claire Degner,

who had handled his previous books.130 Degner passed the manuscript

h‘

129Barton, loc. cit.

130Duberman's previous books had been concerned with nineteenth
century American history. In 1962 he had been awarded the Bancroft
Prize for his biography of Charles Francis Adams, descendant of two
presidents and Lincoln's envoy to England during the Civil War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on to Judith Rutherf or
oft-Broadway shows. S
raising money for the
to get the production
and Oscar Brand was s
into the proceedings.

In White Ameri<

 

Broadway Sheridan Sq
James Greene, Moses

Phkard, and the mus
tere white and thret

theatrical personal

S

ettings and Access

At one end 0:
Which wooden table
mote that the lig
the presentation,
Performer to anot'
dressed in conten
was an antique ta

Thege served to

123
on to Judith Rutherford Marechal, an energetic young producer of
off—Broadway shows. She read it through once and proceeded to start
raising money for the $15,000 budget she estimated would be needed
to get the production underway. Harold Stone was engaged to direct,
and Oscar Brand was selected to choose the songs to be incorporated
131

into the proceedings.

In White.America opened Thursday, October 31, 1965, at the off-

 

Broadway Sheridan Square Playhouse. The cast included Gloria Foster,
James Greene, Moses Gunn, Claudette Nevins, Michael 0'Sullivan, Fred
Pinkard, and the musician, Billy Faier. Three of the cast members
were white and three were black. None of them were well-known

theatrical personalities.

Settings and.Accessories

At one end of the arena theatre was a multilevel platform on
which wooden tables, benches and chairs were situated. One critic
wrote that the lighting added to the theatrical effectiveness of
the presentation, but other than noting the lights shifted from one

132

performer to another, he did not elaborate. The actors were

dressed in contemporary street clothes. At the center of the stage
was an antique table with several old books and documents on it.

These served to suggest the historical basis of the readings.135

__

131Richard F. Shepard, "Professor Talks," New YOTK Times,
December 15, 1963.

132William Bender, New York Herald Tribune, November 1, 1963.
133

Martin B. Duberman, In White America (New York: Samuel
French, Inc., 1964), p. 8.

 

 

 

. . . n
Ciassriicatio

The critics had 6
presentation. Several

readers it was NOT a 15

Still others termed it

dinner of Presentatiox

 

The performers
“is the evening pI‘OEI
upand downstage as 1
spoke of the documen
mote that the actor
moment the opportunz'
mm relish."139 A
script, “Scenes wer
document from the i
from that into act

scene Would remit
n\
1
Edith 01‘
Martin B
RiChard

135
Candide
Robert 1

124
Classification
The critics had difficulty in attempting to classify the

presentation. Several contented themselves with advising their

134 135

Others labeled it a "documentary play."
"136

readers it was NOT a play.

Still others termed it a "dramatized reading.

Manner of Presentation
The performers combined acting and reading. Oliver reported,
"As the evening progresses, the actors switch positions and move

"137

up and downstage as they recite or act out their roles. Bernheimer

dwas

spoke of the documents being "half-read, half—enacte Taubman
wrote that the actors "take turns reading from documents and the
moment the Opportunity offers to embody a character they seize it
with relish."139 According to the production notes found in the play
script, "Scenes were sometimes begun by an actor taking a book or
document from the table, reading a few lines from_it, and then easing
from that into acting out the scene." The players not involved in a

scene would remain seatedflbrO

 

134Edith Oliver, The New Yorker, November 9, 1965, pp. 98—99.
Martin Bernheimer, Christian Science Monitor, November 29, 1963.
Richard watts, Jr., New York Post, November 1, 1963.

135Candide, Villager, November 7, 1963.

Robert Brunstein, New Republic, November 16: 1965» P- 29-
Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily; November 1, 1963.
136John McClain, New York Journaermerican, November 1, 1965.

Kenn., Variety, November 11, 1965, P- 64-
Al Cohn, Newsday, November 5, 1963-
137

Oliver, loo. cit. 138Bernheimer, loo. cit.

1 39,,

oward Taubman, New York Times, November 1, 1965, p. 26.

1%
Duberman, loo. cit.

 

 

Smith complained
staged reading and succ
was impressed with the
“how anything could ha‘
Bender thought the man
effect. "More and mor

acourtroom. This is
level to level, and a
and as the evidence I

43

is on trial.“1

w

rlhe majority r

the critic for Cue
wrote, “This is one
you‘ll find in the
reviewer described
most rewarding prr
it was more drama
terized it as a "

roving, disturbi]

GOttfried

a
few reservatic

hr .
MlChae
rte
Oliver

1H5

 

 

125

Smith complained the production trapped itself between drama and
staged reading and succeeded as neither.141 0n the other hand, Oliver
was impressed with the manner of presentation and could not imagine
"how anything could have made the story more theatrical or moving.”142
Bender thought the manner of presentation created an interesting
effect. "More and more throughout the evening it comes to resemble
a courtroom. This is not intentional, but as the players move from
level to level, and as the lights shift from one character to another,
and as the evidence mounts, one feels with a certainty that someone
is on trial."143
Verdict

The majority of the critics approved of In White America. Again
the critic for 922 was one of the more enthusiastic supporters as he
wrote, "This is one of the most exhilarating and distinguished evenings
you'll find in the American theatre at this moment.””41+ The Variety
reviewer described the production as ”the most unusual and one of the
145

most rewarding productions of the off—Broadway season." He thought

it was more dramatic and theatrical than most plays. Watts charac—
terized it as a "steadily interesting stage presentation . . . a
moving, disturbing and thought—provoking dramatic evening.“I46

Gottfried approved of the evening's entertainment, but he had

a few reservations. He thought the production occasionally became

 

141

1+ . an
1 ZOliver, loc. cit. 143Bender, $29; 232- 1 2112, November 16, 1963.
145 146

Kenn., loc. cit. Watts, loc. cit.

Michael Smith, Village Voice, November 7, 1963-

 

 

 

"so scholarly that it a
audience it attracted V
point the production w:
important production a
which provided a freqr
recommended the evenir
for thoughtful playgo
Two of the crit
thought the idea was
induction was unsucr
and a staged reading

anerrca had some (he

dmma‘lSO

The six actor
and no indication ‘
reviewers wrote fa
Tarrls thought the

Talbman thought sr

147
Gottfrie

 

 

 

 

 

126

”so scholarly that it approaches sleepiness" and pointed out the
audience it attracted would be one that already agreed with the
point the production was making. However, he still felt it was an

important production about an important problem and a production

147

which provided a frequently absorbing and moving evening. McClain

recommended the evening as an engrossing and educational experience

for thoughtful playgoers.148

Two of the critics did not like the presentation. Smith
thought the idea was good, and the timing was good, but that the
production was unsuccessful because it fluctuated between a drama
and a staged reading.149 Harris was willing to admit that In White

America had some dramatic moments, but he found it unacceptable as

drama.15o

Acting

The six actors were listed in alphabetical order on the program
and no indication was given as to who played what role. Most of the
reviewers wrote favorably of the acting, but three had complaints.
Harris thought the entire cast frequently was guilty of overacting.151

Taubman thought some of the attempts at characterization did not

.n—

149

147Gottfried,ll9__c_.£_j;t_. 148McClain,.lgg._g££. Smiths-£33.0it.
150Leonard Harris, New York World Telegraph and Sun, November 1,
1963. .An undated press release found in the Clippings in the vertical
file of In White.America in the Theatre Collection at the Museum of
the Performing Arts in Lincoln Center in New York City claimed that
Harris, who liked nothing about the production, was really the night
club critic for the World Telegram and Sun. Apparently Harris and
the drama critic decided to switch jobs for the evening so the drama
critic reviewed a night club show, while Harris covered the opening of

224White.America.

151

 

Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

wort out-most notably
thought the overall
some of the actors "in

them excellent for th
Nearly all of t

and her portrayal of
central High in Litt
extraordinary, howev
her recitation of th
poignant because it
Gottfried wrote, “G
school girl is heard
through, displaying
wide range of skill
Moses Gunn' s
by two critics as "
O‘Srfllivan' s Presi
his delivery of "E
lynching as a pre

The other t

 

 

127

work out——most notably the portrayal of the Presidents, but he
152

thought the overall quality of acting was good. Brustein noted

some of the actors "indulge a weakness for caricature," but found

153

them excellent for the most part.

Nearly all of the critics singled out actress Gloria Foster
and her portrayal of Daisy Bates, the Negro girl who tried to enter
Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas in the fall of 1957. "Most
extraordinary, however, is a young woman named Gloria Foster . . . .

Her recitation of the Little Rock episode is almost unbearably
poignant because it is built on dignity rather than self—pity."15}+
Gottfried wrote, "Gloria Foster's segregation breaking Arkansas

school girl is heartbreaking. Miss Foster is magnificent the evening

through, displaying an endless variety of Negro dialects and a wide,

wide range of skill."155

Moses Gunn's portrayal of the Scottsboro boy was singled out
156

by two critics as the finest performance of the men. Michael
O'Sullivan's Presidents received the most negative commentary, but

his delivery of "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman's speech in defense of

57

lynching as a preventative for rape was favorably received.1

The other three performers, Fred Pinkard, James Green, and
H

152 154

Taubman, 10c. cit. 153Burstein, loc. cit. Bernheimer, loc.cit.

155Gottfried, loc. cit.
156lbid.

Kenn., loc. cit.
157

Bender, loc. cit.
Watts, loc. cit.
Taubman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

Claudette Nevins attracted les

one has mentioned favorably in
hu_si_'c

A special feature of In
paniment arranged by Oscar B
and banjo. Critical opinion
this aspect of the production
an accomplished musician, but
placement of the songs:158 0

and made an effective bridge

Egan—a1.

Author Duberman arrange
from state papers, official I
journals, diaries, speeches,
The evening started with a s2
conditions below deck and en
Central High in 1957-

The critic for _C_E_e_ re
frightened away by the fact
for the material contained
theatrical.160 The Villa e

based on actual incidents w
‘——

158

Harris, loc. cit.

1590mm, 3.23. cit.

1609112122 iii-

 

 

128

Claudette Nevins attracted less critical attention. However, each

one was mentioned favorably in at least one review.

A special feature of In White America was the musical accom—
paniment arranged by Oscar Brand and played by Billy Faier on guitar
and banjo. Critical opinion was divided as to the effectiveness of
this aspect of the production. The reviewers all agreedFaier was
an accomplished musician, but some disliked the selections and
placement of the songs.158 Others thought the music added considerably

159

and made an effective bridge between episodes.

Material

Author Duberman arranged his collection of documents, excerpts
from state papers, official records, records of conversations, letters,
journals, diaries, speeches, and histories in chronological order.

The evening started with a slave—ship captain's description of
conditions below deck and ended with Daisy Bates' attempt to integrate
Central High in 1957.

The critic for Egg reassured his readers they need not be
frightened away by the fact a history professor assembled the material,
for the material contained humor, passion, and a sense of the

160

theatrical. The Villager reviewer thought the situations and lines

based on actual incidents were far more revealing and overwhelming
.____________________
158

Harris, loc. cit. Gottfried, loc. cit.

159Candide, loc. cit. McClain, loc. cit.

16Oeue,‘ioc. cit.

 

 

 

 

than any fictitious dramatizatic

Some critics had reservat:
note:

His documentary reveals 11
famous people and indicates
resentment of oppression th
very earliest days of slave
of enlightenment than of e:
of many of his vignettegnt
unreal as a text book.’I ‘

 

Harris also labeled the mater-i

While some of it was interest'

Pgmpgrisons
Two reviewers thought _I_Ii_
Federal Theatre‘s Living News
Which opened on Broadway earl
target for comparison. (Thifi
anthology of graveyard epita]
chapter.) Both productions
attendance despite generally
several areas for compariso

The latter [S oon Riv
are dead, while the £0
history of an entire ra
been much better off.
reading which requires
display a wide range 0

W
161Candide, 2.22. _c_:_i_._Ԥ_

16h

Taubman, loc . cit

165Stuart Little, N
166

Cohn, _1_o_g_. cit.

 

 

 

129

161

than any fictitious dramatization could have been.

Some critics had reservations about the material. Gottfried

wrote:

His documentary reveals unpublished and unpleasant sides of
famous people and indicates, a little too reservedly perhaps, the
resentment of oppression that Negroes have harbored since the
very earliest days of slavery . . . . It was more an evening
of enlightenment than of excitement . . . . The classroom aroma
of many of his vignetteg tends to make them seem as detached and
unreal as a text book.1 2

Harris also labeled the material "textbookish," and complained that,

163

while some of it was interesting, almost none of it was theatrical.

Comparisons

Two reviewers thought In White America was reminiscent of the
Federal Theatre's Living Newspaper of the 1930s.164 Spoon River,
which opened on Broadway earlier in the season presented a natural
target for comparison. (This adaptation of Edgar Lee Masters'
anthology of graveyard epitaphs will be discussed in the following
chapter.) Both productions got off to a very slow start in terms of
attendance despite generally favorable reviewer!65 Cohn found
several areas for comparison:

The latter [Spoon Riveri concerns the history 0f people who
are dead, while the former [In White America] details the American
history of an entire race which, in the final analysis, hasn't
been much better off. Like Spoon River, In White America is a

reading which requires of its cast6gersatility and the ability to
display a wide range of emotions.

 

 

_____________________
6
1 1Candide, loc. cit.

164

162 163

Gottfried, loc. cit. Harris, 100. cit.

Taubman, loo. cit.,I Candide, loc. cit.

165Stuart Little, New York Herald Tribune, November 12, 1965,
166

Cohn, loo. cit.

 

 

 

W Proved

interpretation pro duction , “
into rehearsal for a national
pomzlar success, it was also
Vernon Rice Award for 1965-19
Several factors should
of In White America. First,
were extremely talented. Se
hmeriea was just beginning t
hegro had been mistreated.
material, though not intend

compelling.
1h.

On January 21, 1962,
was presented for a single
This presentation had been
at that time, appearing in
Johnson, starring in The
material. Douglas Campbe
the production. As Johns
looking for "something co
Both actors had done a g
aprogram concerning the
“entertaining and instru

167Press release,
collection, New York.

168Letter from Ri

 

 

 

 

130

In White America proved to be the longest running "oral
interpretation production," running for 498 performances before going
into rehearsal for a national tour. Not only was it a tremendous
popular success, it was also a critical success, receiving the
Vernon Rice Award for 1963-—1964.16'7

Several factors should be considered with regard to the success
of In White America. First, the performers, though not well known,
were extremely talented. Second, the timing was fortunate. White
America was just beginning to realize how badly, and for how long, the
Negro had been mistreated. Third, and perhaps most important, the
material, though not intended for the stage, was dramatic and

compelling.

The Golden Age

On January 21, 1962, a production entitled The Elizabethans
was presented for a single performance at the Kaufmann Auditorium.
This presentation had been conceived by two Englishmen who were,
at that time, appearing in successful Broadway shows. Richard
Johnson, starring in The Complaisant Lover, selected and edited the

material. Douglas Campbell, playing the lead in Gideon, directed

 

the production. As Johnson recalled, both he and Campbell were
looking for "something constructive to do during the daytime."
Both actors had done a great deal of Elizabethan drama and they felt

a Program concerning the life and literature of this era would be

168

"entertaining and instructive"-—for them and for the audience.

M

67Press release, dated June 3, 1965, Vertical files, Theatre
Collection, New York.

168

Letter from Richard Johnson to the author, June 11, 1968.

 

 

rs

 

Johnson and Campbell acted in

Squire, appearing at that tim
Nancy Wickwira-apparently th
quartet. The program was des
from the music, the songs an
The production was des‘
out of the four players had
response was so favorable t
would be arranged.170 On No
its initial presentation,
opened on Broadway in the L
were holdovers from the fir

were replaced by Douglas Ra

Settg’ 5 and Accessories
The performers wore
“chairs that were probably

props."172 No further dei

 

IlégNormen Nadel , Ne

WOGuy Savino , Ne

17ql‘lorman Nadel, N
M, p. 191. Nadel s
realized The Elizabethan
office stampede and so 0
attracting more people.
attracting a large audi
title which got people
in unhappy audiences wh

172J0hn McClain,
“YTGR, p. 193.

~—

 

 

131

Johnson and Campbell acted in the presentation, along with William
Squire, appearing at that time as King Arthur in Camelot2 and
Nancy Wickwire——apparently the only "unemployed" member of the
quartet. The program was described as "an entertainment devised
from the music, the songs and the literature of the Golden Age."169
The production was designed for a single performance, as three
out of the four players had other responsibilities, but audience
response was so favorable that one critic prophesied other performances

170 On November 18, 1963, nearly two years after

would be arranged.
its initial presentation, The Elizabethans, renamed The Golden Age,171
opened on Broadway in the Lyceum Theatre. Campbell and Wickwire

were holdovers from the first performance, but Squire and Johnson

were replaced by Douglas Rain and Lester Rawlins.

Setting and Accessories

The performers wore evening dress. The setting consisted of

"Chairs that were probably of the proper vintage and a few limited

172

Props." No further details were given.

 

 

169Norman Nadel, New York World Tele ram and Sun, January 22, 1962.

170Guy Savino, Newark Evening News, January 22, 1962.

171Norman Nadel, New York World Telegram and SEE, November 19, 1963,
T2293, p. 191. Nadel suggested Producer Arthur Canton apparently
realized The Elizabethans was hardly the title to inspire any box
office stampede and so changed the name to The Golden Age in hopes of
attracting more people. Nadel sympathized with Canton's desire for
attracting a large audience, but he felt The Golden Age was a misleading
title which got people to attend under false pretenses. This resulted
in unhappy audiences who felt they'd been sold a false bill of g00ds.

17

 

2John McClain, New York Journal American, November 19, 1963,

 

My 13- 193-

 

The critics were in gener
be classified as a reading, bu'
“reading."lm Two reviewers
one described it as a "concert
"staged reading.“76 Two exit

1 7 ,
“hrertissements,” 7 and on

178

music."

tamer of Presentation
\—

The manner of presenter

M. The performers each

then not performing. Nancy
used only for props, as the
fired. The only movement u
to Speak directly to the au
Although the actors occasic

one performer at a time, or

\—

mime.

\
171+ .
Richard Watts, Ne
pp. 191‘193. ~—

Gewge Oppenheim.
175

Lewis Nukes M

Arthur Sainer, y
177
$3, Novembe

1‘ 3‘
“am Hipp,

E

178
Martin Gottfrie

Letter from Na}

 

Classification

The critics were in general agreement the production should

be classified as a reading, but only one was content to call it just

a "reading."173 Two reviewers classified it as a "dramatic reading,”

"”75

one described it as a ”concert reading,
"staged reading."176 Two critics referred to the proceedings as

"divertissements,"177 and one termed it a "compilation of words and

178

music."

Manner of Presentation

 

The manner of presentation was similar to that of The Hollow
EESEE' The performers each had a manuscript and they were seated
when not performing. Nancy Wickwire wrote that the manuscripts were
used only for props, as the actors' had their lines completely memo—
rized. The only movement used by the performers was "to come forward
to Speak directly to the audience, either singly or as a group."179

Although the actors occasionally functioned as a group, usually it was

one performer at a time, with the other three remaining seated,
___________________
173mm.

174Richard Watts, New York Post, November 19, 1963, NYTCR,

PP- 191-193-
George Oppenheimer, Newsday, November 19, 1963-

175Lewis Funke, New York Times, January 22, 1962-
176

 

Arthur Sainer, Village Voice, October 10, 1963.

17?923’ November 30, 1963.
Edward Hipp, Newark Evening News, November 19, 1963.

178Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, November 19, 1963.

179Letter from Nancy Wickwire to the author, June 3, 1968.

 

174

while another called it a

 

 

pretending to be engrossed in
the critic spoke of the

nntitheatricel implications of

mles.“181 This however, was

acting. Campbell, who along
directing, was chided in one

directing."82 Another critic

    

tines, “almost unbearably co
Campbell for “subtly maneuve

tainment from settling into

M
Host of the critics r
Gottfried noted the program
and complained that this
14ch spoke of the “tast
history,“ but found it “to
enlivening on the stage.“1
belong to Elizabeth 1' rat]:
evening, but he recommendo
Kerr described the

suitable for the Library

 

1golrlaflter Kerr, XE

£013.. 13- 193.
181Melvin Haddocks
18260ttfried ,
18L;

Kipp, 10c. cit

loo

187121chard P. Go:

 

 

133

pretending to be engrossed in what the other was saying.
One critic spoke of the players' attempts ”to counteract the

antitheatrical implications of a reading by acting out and inventing

roles."181 This however, was the only mention of an attempt at

acting. Campbell, who along with performing was resposible for the
directing, was chided in one review for having failed to do much

82

directing.1 Another critic thought Campbell's directing was, at

times, ”almost unbearably coy."183 Still another critic praised

Campbell for "subtly maneuvering the players to prevent the enter—
tainment from settling into a stilted set piece."184
Verdict

Most of the critics reacted negatively to The Golden Age.
Gottfried noted the program called the proceedings ”An Entertainment"
and complained that this was precisely what it failed to be.185
McClain spoke of the "tasteful reconstruction of a period in English
history," but found it ”too placid theatrically to be properly
enlivening on the stage."186 Cooke thought those "whose hearts
belong to Elizabeth I rather than Elizabth Taylor” might enjoy the
evening, but he recommended Cleopatra for the rest."87

Kerr described the evening as "an entertainment entirely

suitable for the Library of Congess."’188 The Variety critic pointed
_____________________
18

0Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, November 19, 1965,
NYTCR, p. 193.

18’lMelvin Maddocks, Christian Science Monitor, November 21, 1963.

182Gottfried, loo. cit. 1830ppenheimer, $99 $-
84 .
1 Hipp, fl. 5,33. 185Gottfried, £92. 933. 186McCalin, £99. _ci_t.

187Richard P. Cooke, Wall Street Journal, November 19, 1963.

188

Kerr, loc. cit.

 

 

ont‘lhe Golden Age was intende
canons bookings and that, w '
gran,“ it was hardly a world-
ladel began his review as to

For 10, there was in t

I mention this not to
of The Golden Age, which
gentle pleasure, but to
verse, song, story and b

Taubman was decidedly

production as “a warm, humo
he admitted The Golden Age
it was far more rewarding t

“as Hipp, who found the ev

 

and claimed that he “relis

dc jag

Most of the critics
thddocks felt that the tot
factory.

Despite individual].
excerpted evening bei
one long lm‘ e of dots
to produce and sustaj

The trouble is tha:
each quick—change ch:
text, carries less w

 

1Sgllarie'bx, Novem}
1gohladel , loc . _c_i
191Eoward Taubman:

1923191), 10c. ci‘

 

 

 

134
out The Golden Age was intended primarily as a vehicle for one night

campus bookings and that, while it was a "modest and acceptable pro—

189

gram," it was hardly a world—beater, even for college audiences.
Nadel began his review as follows:

For 10, there was in the Lyceum a multitude of empty seats,
where formerly had sat people. But intermission had come, and
they had risen up and gone therefrom, for they were ill at ease.

I mention this not to fault last night's opening performance
of The Golden Age, which was, in fact, an occasion of charm and
gentle pleasure, but to point out that an evening of 16th Century
verse, song, story and banter is not everybody's bowl of porridge.190

Taubman was decidedly in the minority as he characterized the
production as "a warm, humorous and charming entertainment."191
He admitted The Golden Age was no substitute for a play, but maintained

it was far more rewarding than a mediocre play. Also in the minority

was Hipp, who found the evening's proceedings "charming entertainment"

and claimed that he "relished every minute of The Golden Age.”192

Acting
Most of the critics spoke favorably of the acting. Some, like

Maddocks felt that the total effect given by the performers was unsatis-
factory.

DeSpite individually brilliant readings, the sense of an
excerpted evening being held together——or is it apart?—-by
one long line of dots finally defeats the purpose of theatre:
to produce and sustain a special singleness of experience

The trouble is that turn follows turn so breathlessly that
each quick—change characterization, like each quick—change
text, carries less weight than it should.l93

_._____________________
18 .
9Variet , November 20, 1963.

1 O
9 Nadel, loc. cit., November 19, 1963-

1
9’IHoward Taubman, New York Times, November 19, 1963, p. 49.

1 . _
92Hlpp, loc. cit. 193Maddocks, loo. Cit.

 

  
  
   
   
  
  
 
    
    
  

Nancy ‘dickwire pleased
presentation of the speeches

exception, complaining that,
seen to have a talent for r
it; in his evaluation of
found fault with Campbell' s
fomance in the acting capac

disagreed, labeling Campbe

195

of the evening . Taubman

a country fellow reading a
oaf extolling the pleasures
Two other critics noted
‘ The other two member
Rain made an impression on
about football and even f
Rawlins was remembered f0
who liked little about the
Mr. Hemline . . . so

now and. then, wanderii
the stage. His sense

. . . . Mr. Rain too
brought the productio

1%Gottffled, loo-
196‘1?aulz>man, 1°C. 2
1970ppenheimer, _]_£

Watts, loc. cit
198

Taubman, 10c- _.

 

 

135
Nancy Wickwire pleased most of the critics, particularly her
presentation of the speeches of Elizabeth I. Gottfried was an
exception, complaining that, despite her glowing charm, she did not
seem to have a talent for reading. Gottfried was also in the minor—
ity in his evaluation of Campbell's acting abilities. He not only

found fault with Campbell's directing, but he thought "his per—

"194

formance in the acting capacity was no more admirable. Hipp

disagreed, labeling Campbell's performance the outstanding feature

of the evening.195 Taubman singled out Campbell's performance of

a country fellow reading a letter to his love, and of a bumbling

196

oaf extolling the pleasures of hunting as especially effective.

197

Two other critics noted Campbell's comic abilities.
The other two members of the quartet received less notice.
Rain made an impression on Taubman with his ”furiously funny bit"

about football and even funnier sermon on the evils of theatre.

198

Rawlins was remembered for his tirade against doctors. Gottfried,

who liked little about the presentation, did like Rains and Rawlins.

Mr. Rawlins . . . seemed to take up his own directorial reins
now and then, wandering over to the musicians and then back across
the stage. His sense of plain enjoyment was remarkably effective
. . . . Mr. Rain too, managed a casual theatricality that almost
brought the production to life in a variety of selections.199

 

 

194 195

Gottfried, loc. cit.

196

Taubman, loc. cit.

Hipp, loc. cit.

1
97Oppenheimer, loc. cit.
Watts, loc. cit.

198

Taubman, loc. cit. 199Gottfried, loc. cit.

 

tpic

  
   
   
   
    
  
 
   

The performers were sup
otmsicians. The music was
an authority on English music
James Tyler, Leonard Bolotin
to the common violin and vio

included virginals, a lute,

and a pandora, "which looks

201

prettily.“ The singers

Gordon Meyers.

Taubman thought the m
classified the songs as be‘
them a light and charming
onpenheimer admitted the s
complained the music was
mnner in which the vocal
"tuned on and off as if e
and lowering the arm on a

The singers were all
found something else to 'J
and a prankish pixie , wh<

any fun to be had."2‘06

 

zooNadel, ig. 5E

szohn Chapman, 3
p. 192.

ZOETaubman, 323::

20L*Oppenheimer, _‘

206Gottfried , l9

 

136

The performers were supported by a trio of singers and a quartet
of musicians. The music was selected and arranged by Sidney Beck,
an authority on English music.200 Instrumentalists Blache Winogron,
James Tyler, Leonard Bolotine and Robert Kuehn played, in addition
to the common violin and viol, instruments from the period which
included virginals, a lute, recorders, tenor and bass viols, citterns
and a pandora, "which looks like an outsized mandolin and plinks
prettily."201 The singers were Betty Wilson, James Stover and
Gordon Meyers.

Taubman thought the musical score was outstanding.202 Chapman
classified the songs as being of the "hey—nonny—noony type,” but found
them a light and charming addition to the production anyway.203
Oppenheimer admitted the singers were sufficiently talented, but
complained the music was repetitious?“L Maddocks disliked the
manner in which the vocal trio was used, grumbling that they were
"turned on and off as if an invisible hand were abruptly raising
and lowering the arm on a record player.”205

The singers were also cited for their acting. Gottfried
found something else to like in Betty Wilson, "cute as the devil,
and a prankish pixie, who seemed to always be there when there was

any fun to be had."206 Oppenheimer was not impressed with the

 

 

2OO
Nadel, loc. cit.

201
P- 192.

John Chapman, New York Daily News, November 19, 1963, NYTCR,

2 .
02Taubman, loo. cit. 203Chapman, loc. Cit.
204 205

Oppenheimer, loc. cit. Maddocks, loc. cit.

206
Gottfried, loc. cit.

—‘i

simgers' theatrical attempts
asif they were doing parodie
displeased with director Camp
figure looking as if she had
we to join in an Irish jig.‘
female member of the trio, i

referred to by Oppenheimer,

pixie“ and "a lady of Junoe

an

The two most frequent
theatrical" material and t
wide variety of material

Christopher Marlowe, Sir W

 

Elizabeth to contributions

tutors. Gottfried conde
208

uninteresting. Watts

 

values.209 Haddocks wrott

Most of the evening
ship and pastorial pa
and street cries, pre
Mr. Johnson has prac't
this bawdy, boistero‘l
result is an enterta‘
anemia and only inte'

Haddocks was also

for the prose and poetry

 

2070ppenheimer , __1_

209Watts , 10c . c_:‘\

 

 

137
singers' theatrical attempts and complained they "too often behave
as if they were doing parodies of Elizabethan song." He was further
displeased with director Campbell for allowing ”a lady of JunoeSque
figure looking as if she had just wandered up from Valkyrie at the

207 Since Miss Wilson was the only

Met to join in an Irish jig."
female member of the trio, it would seem that she must be the one
referred to by Oppenheimer, but the discrepancy between ”a prankish

pixie" and "a lady of JunoeSque figure" seems rather sizable.

Material

The two most frequent criticisms were the choice of "non-
theatrical” material and the apparent lack of a central theme. A
wide variety of material was chosen, ranging from selections from
Christopher Marlowe, Sir Walter Raleigh, Shakespeare and Queen
Elizabeth to contributions from lesser known or even unknown contri—
butors. Gottfried condemned the material as undistinguished and
uninteresting.208 Watts found it lacking in dramatic and emotional

209 Maddocks wrote of the material:

values.
Most of the evening is taken up with lighter matters, court-
ship and pastorial pursuits, drinking and hunting songs, masques
and street cries, precepts on conduct and courtly etiquette.
Mr. Johnson has practically eliminated the blood and guts of
this bawdy, boisterous age in favor of its quaint humor. The
result is an entertainment that too soon languishes with its
anemia and only intermittently thereafter flashes with life.210

Maddocks was also troubled at the lack of a "thematic spine"

for the prose and poetry collection. "Almost 70 fragments, unified

M

2 . .
O7Oppenheimer, loc. cit. 208Gottfried, loc. Cit.
209 210

Watts, 100. cit. Maddocks, loc. cit.

chiefly by the accident of chr
or nudged into artificial cont
craft."2M Kerr complained:

Because arranger Johnso:
pie to link these urgentl
in the unhappy position 0
The very business of bobb
tidy what is being read,
inner ear.212

Here again, there were
known critics thought there '
proceedings. Chapman credit
iously so that it seems to it.

how much continuity and fort

say. Taubman thought J ohns<

testy."

hove, the domestic Vi
drink, the workaday wor
Clty‘of London, the the

the world of nature
gether in this antholog

hiss WickWire recall

not least a rather loose

int‘
mm, but admitted that

t0f0110W.2/‘5 0 son l
, w

u
9‘“ has "an attempt to
l

211m 212
\Ml' err
211iT b a
an
man, loo. 2

 

138
chiefly by the accident of chronology, are set in hopeful juxtaposition

or nudged into artificial continuity by transition tracks of stage-

211

craft.” Kerr complained:

Because arranger Johnson has discovered no controlling princi-
ple to link these urgently or even gently, to one another, we are
in the unhappy position of having to refocus our attention 65 times.
The very business of bobbing up and down from the program to iden-
tify what is being read, produces a certain disturbance of the
inner ear.212

Here again, there were dissenting opinions. Two of the better
known critics thought there was a definite structure to the evening's
proceedings. Chapman credited Johnson with having "arranged it ingen-

213

iously so that it seems to have some continuity and form." Exactly

how much continuity and form is indicated by ”some" is difficult to
say. Taubman thought Johnson had depended on ”the essence of a period
for unity."

Love, the domestic virtues, illness, physical fitness, sport,
drink, the workaday world, the unimaginably varied and amusing
city of London, the theatre, the church, the Queen and the court
and the world of nature are the themes that he has brought to—
gether in this anthology of swiftly changing moods and humors.214

Miss Wickwire recalled the performers were conscious of a theme,

or at least a rather loose form of Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter organ-
ization, but admitted that perhaps it was too subtle for the audience
to follow.215 Johnson, who compiled the material, wrote that the

theme was "an attempt to display the incredible diversity and rich—

ness of the time——in literature, in drama, in poetry, in music, and

“—

212

2
11Ibid. Kerr, loc. cit. 2IIBChapman, loo. cit.

214Taubman, loc. cit. 215Wickwire, loc. cit.

 

the great spirit of adventure
embody." He remembered havin
and arranging the material be

and he wanted “to cover the t

he might have been exp
drawn between W
originally thought perhaps i
something to do with J ohnso:
fOI‘IIIula. However, accordin
emphatically was Lot patter

was quite similar in many I

The Elizabethans, (i. e . TE

Auditorium several months ‘

Johns
on wrote that The Gol
\

m n ‘ n
W11 lnSOIal‘ as I had ap

139

‘ the great spirit of adventure and discovery that the Elizabethans
embody." He remembered having considerable difficulty in selecting
and arranging the material because there was so much to choose from

and he wanted "to cover the whole breadth of the age."216

Comparisons

As might have been expected, there were several comparisons

drawn between The Hollow Crown and The Golden Age. This writer

 

originally thought perhaps the success of The Hollow Crown had

 

something to do with Johnson and Campbell's attempt to use the same

formula. However, according to Miss Wickwire, The Golden Age most
emphatically was not patterned after the English import, though it

was quite similar in many respects. As Miss Wickwire pointed out,

The Elizabethans, (i.e. The Golden Age), appeared at the Kaufmann

Auditorium several months before The Hollow Crown opened in New York.217

Johnson wrote that The Golden Age "was only inspired by "The Hollow

Crown" insofar as I had appeared in the original producfixnlin Stratford .

and London." He noted the differences between the two with regard

to material and manner of presentation.

The materials of the [sic]. "The Hollow Crown" %d "The
Golden Age“ were essentially different in that ”The Hollow
Crown" followed the fortunes of the English Royal Houses
throughout history and "The Golden Age“ treated a particular
short period in which there was an explosion of genius in all
walks of English life. 1 would say that the manner of presen-
tation of "The Golden Age" was slightly more elaborate than
the [sic] "The Hollow Crown" in that we had an orchestra of
several pieces and several singers, whereas "The Hollow Crown"
had merely a pianist and two singers.21 ’

_.___________________
216Johnson, loc. cit. 217Wickwire, loc. cit.

218

Johnson, loo. cit.

 

 

It should be pointed 011
first production of W
papers called the presentatic
then it was produced on Broat
done. It also should be no
W had a trio of s
played the piano and the ha:

Gottfried pointed out
the two productions with T2
Oppenheimer wrote of the tw

Last season's The Hol

: - . delighted audienc

11} royal British histor

with the readers giving
mumcians accompanying
fire the resemblance <
111,th of the sense of
The critic for Varie

"We and -
occasmnally in

1! ~ . .
Pamstakingly researched.

fbogbem‘l warned us g
act, he said they we-
.0 Conth-L . '

 

 

140
It should be pointed out here that Johnson was referring to the
first production of The Golden Age, or The Elizabethans, as the news-
papers called the presentation at the Kaufmann Auditorium in 1962.

When it was produced on Broadway it had three singers and four musi—

cians. It also should be noted that in its American appearance, The

Hollow Crown had a trio of singers as well as an accompanist who

played the piano and the harpsichord.
Gottfried pointed out the similarities and differences between

the two productions with The Golden Age suffering from the comparison.219

Oppenheimer wrote of the two productions:

Last season‘s The Hollow Crown, a pageant of England's rulers
. . . delighted audiences with its fine recreation of moments
in royal British history. The Golden Age is similar in form,
with the readers giving a dramatic reading and the singers and
musicians accompanying them or presenting musical interludes.
There the resemblance ceases, for this current offering has
little of the sense of history or dramatic content.220

The critic for Variety Observed that The Hollow Crown seemed

"alive and occasionally inspired," whereas The Golden Age seemed only

"painstakingly researched."221 Watts wrote:

Dogberry warned us against the danger of comparisons. In
fact, he said they were ‘odorous.’ But it is impossible not
to contrast this pleasant little excursion into a great period
in the English past with the wonderfully moving survey of the
annals of British royalty that gave such delight to The Hollow
Crown last year. Possibly too, we have approached a saturation
point in dramatic readings substituting for plays.222

Another critic who questioned the substitution of readings for

plays was McClain, who, even though he liked some of the "oral

 

 

2"9Gottfried, loo. cit. ZZOOppenheimeTs lOC- Cit-

22anriety, loo. cit. ZZZWattSs 100- Cit-

 

 

‘ H .
interpretation productions , c
they belong in a theatre.

if we are to be lured t
theatre we can reasonably
body would call a theatri

In a close conventionai
suggests sets, costumes e
which removes the pro cee
which might be given in
where in the world.

There have been notabl
Juan in Hell, and The EC
theatrical nature of the
of the performers, lifte
tic importance .

But it is mostly kidd:
have been opposed to it
the price of the ticket
to the clients the sens

the reward for the can

The performers of Th<

T . .I.
eterans of the theatre, at

of their readings. The la
the lack of material with

Probably responsible for t

1' '1

eicited. Deepite McClaii
"L I
theatre," the public had

Broadway rates to see out

Perh
aps The Golden

Specialized audience to ‘
en‘
30le a profitable lim
6 - .
lotion, it was a fail
ur
GOlden

% Closed after

223
McClain ,

22
“Ne

10c.

 

141

interpretation productions," almost invariably questioned whether

they belong in a theatre.

If we are to be lured to what the British call a 'proper'
theatre we can reasonably expect to be rewarded with what any-
body would call a theatrical evening.

In a close conventional sense I believe this kind of evening
suggests sets, costumes and a general atmosphere of make—believe
which removes the proceedings from the level of a 'reading,‘

which might be given in an auditorium or town hall almost any-
where in the world.

 

There have been notable exceptions, like Spoon River, 222
Juan in Hell, and The Hollow Crown, which, by virtue of the
theatrical nature of the material and the exceptional readings
of the performers, lifted them into a particular realm of drama—
tic importance.

But it is mostly kidding the public on a grand scale, and I
have been opposed to it on the basis that it is seldom worth
the price of the ticket, for even the best of them don't bring

to the clients the sense of magic and elegance that should be
the reward for the current Broadway scale.225

The performers of The Golden Age were capable and well—known

veterans of the theatre, and the critics generally spoke favorably

of their readings. The lack of a clearly defined theme, coupled with

the lack of material with dramatic or theatrical excitement was
probably responsible for the unfavorable reSponse the production
elicited. Despite McClain's protests that “readings" were not
"theatre," the public had been, and continued to be, willing to pay
Broadway rates to see outstanding "readings."

Perhaps The Golden Age might have succeeded in attracting a
specialized audience to an off—Broadway theatre where it might have

enjoyed a profitable limited engagementa bUt as a Broadway PTO-

duction, it was a failure. Scheduled for a four week run, The

 

Golden.Age closed after eight performances. The producers lost $27,500.224
225McClain, loo. cit.
22Lildewffcrk Times, June 29, 1965, P- 13-

 

A wide variety 0f mater

he two solo productions 1159‘
the material was not intende
use of short stories by well
ductions utilized a potpourl
court records, letters, 8138'
the type of material was no
material was dramatic and w
focal point. The one critf
lacked both dramatic mater:
The manner of presen

the almost constant preser
GM» to a great dee
as the Players in When I ‘
—-__

s .
cenes. No conclusrons C

L o
nation was the most succe

and financial success, wt

in

mapper of presentatio:
was a failure financiall
c' .

htical reaction, and 1

the public and the crit‘

It is also diffic
‘uel .
1191mm performers p

dictions. The ladi
es :'

t e ‘
X1) henced actresses ‘

 

 

142

Summary

A wide variety of materials were used in the anthologies.
The two solo productions used excerpts from plays, but the rest of

the material was not intended for theatre. When I Was a Child made

 

use of short stories by well known authors. The other three pro—
ductions utilized a potpourri of material, ranging from diaries,
court records, letters, speeches, and history books. Apparently
the type of material was not as important as whether or not the
material was dramatic and whether or not itlmd a central theme or
focal point. The one critical failure of the group anthologies
lacked both dramatic material and a clearly defined structure.
The manner of presentation ranged from limited movement and

the almost constant presence of scripts in The Hollow Crown and The
‘Golden Age, to a great deal of movement and minimal use of scripts

as the players in When I Was a Child and In White America acted out

 

scenes. No conclusions can be drawn about which manner of presen—
tation was the most successful. The Hollow Crown was a critical
and financial success, while The Golden Age, which was very similar
in manner of presentation, was not. Likewise, When I Was a Child
was a failure financially, though it received a generally favorable

critical reaction, and In White America was very popular both with

 

the public and the critics.

It is also difficult to draw any conclusions about the part
well-known performers played in the success or failure of the pro—
ductions. The ladies in the solo anthologies were apparently

experienced actresses with whom the critics, at least, were familiar.

 

 

However, the performances 81V
considered to have been of th
featured a talented and well-
overcome the difficulties cre
also had a talented and well-
huted to the success of that
did not have established the
formers were apparently quit
noted performers are a help
letdown performers who are
Itutorial to work with may a
11“ one examines these
to answer whether they are
The of entertainment, one
The six Productions used v

in When I Was a Child and

re ‘
news, but no special 6*

Five Quee:

m
lsort of costume was W

p
.11 her program,

1 ‘ !
Ht utilizing hats and
col ~ L
Help limited sceneri
or - ‘
,esentations, the mat
er:

How
ever, character

Then
ewae 1‘ ‘
imited st ‘
a
Th gin

were ‘
in

tent ~
and interaction ‘
l

143
However, the performances given by Miss Fein and Miss Staw were not
considered to have been of the highest caliber. The Golden Age
featured a talented and well—known cast, but they were not able to
overcome the difficulties created by the material. The Hollow Crown
also had a talented and well—known cast, which undoubtedly contri—
buted to the success of that production. The other two presentations
did not have established theatre personalities, but the young per—
formers were apparently quite talented. It would seem then, that
noted performers are a help, but not a guarantee, for success.
Unknown performers who are very talented and who have excellent
material to work with may also be successful.

If one examines these productions with a view toward attempting
to answer whether they are a form of theatre or a separate and distinct
type of entertainment, one finds himself in somewhat of a quandary.

The six productions used very few theatrical accessories. The lighting
in When I Was a Child and In White America was mentioned in a few
reviews, but no special effects were cited. Miss Staw used costumes

in her program, Five Queens, but the only group presentation to use

any sort of costume was When I Was a Child, with the actors occasion—

 

ally utilizing hats and scarves. The four group productions used
only very limited scenery. As noted above, except in the two solo
presentations, the material used was not intended for the stage.
However, characterization was used in all of the productions.
There was limited staging and interaction between the performers in
The Hollow Crown and in The Golden Age, and considerably more move—

m

ment and interaction in the other two group presentations. The critics

 

 

wrote of the "acting“ in all
seem that, taken as a group,
made very little use of thea'
made use of at least some of
Several of the critics

or not oral interpretation,
"theatre.“ McClain did not
V617} enjoyable and recommen
ehcomtered his opposition.
quarrel with the material;
T his Opinion, a "theatri

general atmosphere of make

1.
from the level of a ‘readj

and cited Don Juan in Hell"
N
productions which had had

erf
p ormers and consequent

ce 0"

ductions failed to "brin

that should be the rewar

”than co
nceded The Go]

thought it was "infinit

BOROH, in his re

Stirr
ed the emotions of

of
the Negro, and caus
(

225
MCClain, 100
\.

144
wrote of the "acting" in all the productions. In summary, it would
seem that, taken as a group, these oral interpretation anthologies
made very little use of theatrical accessories, but the performers
made use of at least some of the techniques of acting.

Several of the critics expressed their opinions as to whether
or not oral interpretation, (or ”readings"), should be considered
"theatre." McClain did not think so. He found The Hollow Crown

very enjoyable and recommended In White America, but The Golden Age

 

encountered his opposition. He liked the performers and had no
quarrel with the material; he simply did not think it was ”theatre."
In his opinion, a "theatrical evening" meant "sets, costumes, and a
general atmosphere of make-believe which removes the proceedings
from the level of a 'reading.'" He admitted there had been exceptions,
and cited Don Juan in Hell, Spoon River, and The Hollow Crown as
productions which had had dramatic material and exceptionally fine
performers and consequently attained a "particular realm of dramatic
importance.” However, McClain felt even the most outstanding pro—
ductions failed to "bring the clients the sense of magic and elegance
that should be the reward for the current Broadway scale."225
Taubman conceded The Golden A e was ”no substitute for a play," but
thought it was "infinitely more rewarding than a mediocre one."226
Bolton, in his review of In White America, noted the presentation

stirred the emotions of the audience, made them share the suffering

of the Negro, and caused them to think deeply about the race problem.

 

225McClain, loc. cit. 226Taubman, loc. cit.

 

 

He concluded, "No theatre can
recommended In White Americ_a_
staged readings were less re‘
admitted the production coul
had no plot or set cast of c
costumes or special lighting
"it adds up to one of New T
In reviewing The Boll
tendency Of an audience to

' H
costumes and scenery that

world."250 Stern had no r

H r as. He told

ollow (Lown w

adhone professing a love i
In conclusion, some

anthology presentations r

theatre. However, if the

very good, they were wilI
0‘1 professional theatre.
Productions of collectic

Presentations are discus

22 _
'7leth Bolton
228
Robert Brustei
22
9Martin Bernhei-
230
Martin GOtth‘f
231
Harold Stern,

 

 

 

145
227

He concluded, ”No theatre can ask more, or do more.” Brustein

recommended In White.America to his readers, although he thought

staged readings were less rewarding than staged dramas.22 Bernheimer

admitted the production could not be considered a "play" because it

had no plot or set cast of characters and made no use of scenery or

costumes or special lighting effects. However, he still felt that

"it adds up to one of New York's most moving evenings in the theatre."229
In reviewing The Hollow Crown, Gottfried wrote of the "natural

tendency of an audience to resist a recitation," and of the lack of

costumes and scenery "that lend so much to the creation of another

world."250 Stern had no reservations or questions about what The

Hollow Crown was. He told his readers, "It should not be missed by

 

anyone professing a love for the theatre. It is THEATRE!"231

In conclusion, some of the reviewers who considered the group
anthology presentations regarded them as different from conventional
theatre. However, if the material was dramatic and the players were
very good, they were willing to accept oral interpretation as a form
of professional theatre. The critics were quite receptive to several
productions of collections of works by a single author. These

presentations are discussed in the following chapter.

__

228

227Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, November 2, 1965.
Robert Brustein, New Republic, November 16, 1963, p. 29.
229Martin Bernheimer, Christian Science Menitor, November 29, 1965.
230Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, January 30, 1963.

anHarold Stern, New York Standard, January 31’ 1965'

 

ecu——_‘,. . _

 

 

 

Six productions betwefi
the works of a single authOI
three were presented by 8”
material intended for the E
short stories; another uti:
while the sixth offered th-
uell as selections from hi
Two of the performer
and make-up to assume the
were presenting. Simple
two of the group presenta
The players in the two re
Four of the presen‘
these four featured well
1"willed rave notices.

I'dV ‘
6 reviews, another re

mo
Stly negative notices

 

 

 

CHAPTER V
COLLECTIONS OF AN AUTHOR'S WORKS

Six productions between 1945 and 1965 presented excerpts from
the works of a single author. Three were solo performances and
three were presented by groups.’I Of these six, only one featured
material intended for the stage. Two used poetry; one presented
short stories; another utilized short stories and cuttings from novels;
while the sixth offered the author's essays, speeches, and jokes as
well as selections from his novels and short stories.

Two of the performers in the solo presentations employed costume
and make—up to assume the appearance of the author whose works they
were presenting. Simple costume changes were used by the actors in
two of the group presentations to suggest a variety of characters.

The players in the two remaining productions wore evening dress.

Four of the presentations were done on Broadway. Three of
these four featured well—known performers. The three solo productions
received rave notices. One of the group presentations also garnered
rave reviews, another received a mixed response, and the last attracted

mostly negative notices. Apparently all six achieved popular success.

—___~

1A fourth solo production has been included in the chapter
although the material used was a single novel rather than a collection
of an author's works. The writer decided to consider Emyln Williams'
adaptation of Dickens' Bleak House immediately after the discussion
of Williams' Mixed Bill, from Dickens because, except for the material,
the other aSpects of the production were identical.

146

 

 

 

three of the productions ran

the other three, at least ost
E

The first solo perform
works was Emlyn Williams' M}
ot1952. In some respects,
of oral interpretation used
and costume to achieve Dick
attention the presentation

the nineteenth century lite
Dickens reading his works;

of a literary eXperience W

he argued that Williams‘ 1

lzation of Dickens, and H

was
only a means to an en

From what Williams

though, it is evident the

Wished to share this shit

Snttested, by impersonat:

Handed his listeners t

thush ~
ypassmg the quest

ci 2
roles. (In 1860, En:

h
tone of the greatest T

was not shared by many

t

mug}

‘VR- Wyatt, C.

 

A

 

 

147
Three of the productions ran for more than 100 performances, while

the other three, at least ostensibly, had "limited runs" by choice.

Mixed Bill

 

The first solo performance of a collection of an author's

works was Emlyn Williams' Mixed Bill, which was presented in February

 

of 1952. In some respects, this program is outside the definition

of oral interpretation used in this study. Williams used make—up

and costume to achieve Dickens' physical appearance, and much of the
attention the presentation received was due to his skill in impersonating
the nineteenth century literary lion. However, Williams impersonated
Dickens reading his works; so, in a secondary sense, the recreation

of a literary experience was an aspect of this production. It might

be argued that Williams' intention was to present a vivid character—
ization of Dickens, and that the recreation of the literary experience

was only a means to an end.

From what Williams has written about his Dickens' programs
though, it is evident that he thoroughly enjoyed the material and
wished to share this enjoyment with others. Also, as one reviewer
suggested, by impersonating Dickens reading his own works, Williams
reminded his listeners that these works were from a different age;

thus bypassing the question of Dickens' current stature in literary

 

circles.2 (In 1860, English and American critics considered him to
be one of the greatest English writers of all times. This opinion
was not shared by many mid—twentieth century literary critics.)

Another reviewer thought that, because the program was offered as

.u—#

2E.V.R. Wyatt, Catholic World, March, 1952, p. 462.

 

 

asort of "Period piece," the
suspend their sophistication
amused by material which the;
beneath them.3
Although it is diffiCL‘
the Dickens programs had on
no question that critics of
referred to these productio
programs were often used as
hter oral interpretation }
have had the recreation of
listeners as at least a se
have been included in this
Williams, a well-km
been a Dickens fan. When
them ’80 bed by reading fr

ters. S
one years ago, he

Program in New York. In

reading Dickens. The M“

Dickens.

He tried out this

i
951 at a theatrical ch'

148
a sort of "period piece," the audience was willing to temporarily
suspend their sophistication and allow themselves to be touched and
amused by material which they might otherwise have considered
beneath them.5

Although it is difficult to determine what influence, if any,
the Dickens programs had on later solo presentations, there can be
no question that critics of subsequent one—man shows frequently
referred to these productions in their reviews. Because the Dickens
programs were often used as a basis for comparison by critics of
later oral interpretation productions, and because Williams seems to
have had the recreation of literary experience in the minds of his
listeners as at least a secondary goal, the Dickens presentations
have been included in this study.

Williams, a well—known Welsh actor and playwright, had always
been a Dickens fan. When his sons were growing up, he used to bribe
them to bed by reading from Dickens and impersonating the many charac—
ters. Some years ago, he did a reading of Bleak House for a television
program in New York. In this presentation he appeared as Williams
reading Dickens. The next step was to appear as Dickens reading
Dickens.

He tried out this approach for the first time in February of
1951 at a theatrical charity show at the Drury Lane Theatre. The
coordinators of the event were dubious as to whether or not Williams
would be able to hold his audience merely by reading aloud, and

consequently cut his time allotment down from twelve minutes to eight.
.____________________

3Joseph Wood Krutch, Nation, February 23, 1952, pp. 189—190_

 

 

rthe audience loved it and beg
himself so totally exhausted

completely dismissed the ide

the man.

He changed his mind a
the London critics with a 103
stories entitled Mixed Bill

October 29, 1951, received

and attracted the attention

arranged to bring the progl

in the presentation were tl

America in 186?,6 and Will

in Boston on the armiversa

Eighty-five years before.(
Dickens had enjoyed

tours, and his impersonat<

Fixed@was cited as o

theatre season, along wit
\y- .
axed Bill opened on Feb:

I“ 0f Six weeks.

Accorc
“St h
s 9P en Watts "T“
.w .
ehlary 3’ 9521 Set. I
5

tation games Reive Linds

mm“ “don, 195M
1 .

DDDD), phhgg Ph'D‘ (11886

6

Walter Kerr, N eW

Robert Coleman
, l

 

149

The audience loved it and begged for more. However, Williams found
himself so totally exhausted after eight minutes of Dickens, that he
completely dismissed the idea of presenting an entire evening of
the man.4

He changed his mind a short time later, and won the acclaim of
the London critics with a program from Dicken's novels and short
stories entitled Mixed Bill. The production, which opened on
October 29, 1951, received more than twentyefive enthusiastic reviews,5
and attracted the attention of American producer Sol Hurok, who
arranged to bring the program to the United States. The selections
in the presentation were the same ones Dickens had used when he toured
America in 1867,6 and Williams elected to start his American travels
in Boston on the anniversary of the date Dickens started his tour
eighty—five years before.7

Dickens had enjoyed great success in America with his reading
tours, and his impersonator met with similar good fortune. Williams'
ixed Bill was cited as one of the outstanding events of the 1951—1952
theatre season, along with the First Drama Quartet and Don Juan in Hell.

ixed Bill opened on February 4, 1952, at the Golden Theatre for a

of six weeks. According to the program note, it was Williams'

 

AStephen Watts, ”The Man Who Would Be Dickens," New York Times,
ebruary 3, 1952, Sec. II, p. 1.

5James Reive Lindsay Linn, ”A Historical Study of Oral Interpre-
ation in London, 1951—1962 As a Form of Professional Theatre”
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California,

964), p. 77.

6 .
Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, February 53 1952.

7Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, February 5, 1952.

 

 

hope to present Dickens as Si
audience would be persuaded

bookshelves what they had po
and to turn its pages for ti

were about to explore a won:

[rings and Accessories
Williams took full ad

his twentieth century audii

nineteenth century author.

the chin whiskers were car

coat, an old fashioned hig

did a red geranium boutonr

c
ostnme and make-up essen'

Impossible for him to giv

Dick
ens. He was sure the

v . ..
ery inhibited presentat‘

succ
essful. Consequentl'

"of
great psychological

Besides assuming t

150
pe to present Dickens as such an enthralling writer that the
dience would be persuaded to go home and lift "down from their
okshelves what they had possibly thought of as a ponderous classic
.d to turn its pages for the first time, with the feeling that they

8

are about to explore a wonderful new world."

ttings and Accessories
Williams took full advantage of the art of make—up to provide
.8 twentieth century audiences an amazingly accurate picture of the
.neteenth century author. The long gray hair was pushed back and
Le chin whiskers were carefully parted.9 He wore a black frock
bat, an old fashioned high collar, a pair of immaculate white gloves,
ld a red geranium boutonniere.’IO Williams considered the Dickens
>stume and make—up essential. He felt that it would be almost
mossible for him to give the program except in the character of
.ckens. He was sure that if he did it as himself, it would be a
ery inhibited presentation which he did not think would be as
ccessful. Consequently, the Victorian dress and the whiSkers were
f great psychological importance to him.""/l
Besides assuming the physical appearance of the subject of his
ogram, Williams also used an exact replica of the lectern Dickens

rsonally designed for his reading performances. Dickens had

 

 

 

8John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, February 9, 1952.
9Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, February 5, 1952, p. 25.
10Sam Zolotow, New York Times, February 4, 1952, p- 14-

1

1Watts, 100. cit.

 

 

 

wished to provide his audien
oi his performance as POSSj-b
developed a reading stand W1”-
with fringed red velvet and
the author's white gloves, :
tor his left arm. Coleman
important. During the com
gestured with his left harm
The actor and his reading
The only special lighting

State lights for the recii

Ola“;
W2

The most popular te
“a one-man show."15 Bop,

Kerr wrote of "Solo read:

first discussed the prod

1 O

'l
BCOleman,
Dr

Louis Sheaffer‘

loo. 2

 

151

fished to provide his audiences with as complete a View of him and

)f his performance as possible, and after much trial and error, had
ieveloped a reading stand which suited his purpose.12 It was covered
with fringed red velvet and featured a low ledge for a water glass,
the author's white gloves, and a book or two; and a raised arm rest
for his left arm. Coleman thought the arm rest proved to be quite
important. During the course of the program, Williams frequently
gestured with his left hand, which was emphasized by its height.13
The actor and his reading stand appeared in front of dark blue drapes.

The only special lighting effect mentioned was the dimming of the

- . 14
stage lights for the recitation of a ghost story.

Classification

The most popular term for describing the presentation was
"a one—man show.”15 Bolton called it a ”solo performance,”16 and
Kerr wrote of "solo readings.“l7 Atkinson used "readings” when he
first discussed the production,18 but later decided ”reading is a

. . 1
tepid word to apply to Mr. Williams' performance." 9

F—_

12Lewis Funke, New York Times, January 6, 1952, Sec. Ila p- 3-
13C

oleman, loc. cit.
14Louis Sheaffer, Brooklyn Eagle, February 5, 1952-

15Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, February 5, 1952.
John Chapman, New York Daily News, February 5, 1952.
Coleman, 100. cit.

16Whitney Bolton, New York Morning_Telegraph, February 6, 1952.
17

Kerr, loc. cit. 18Atkinson, loc. cit.

19Atkinson, New York Times, February 17, 1952, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

Freedley labeled the e
"no one could call it a read
noted the Williams program v
Dellhad been? Krutch de«

' H
beriormance as a "reading.

Damper of Presentation
r[he evening began wit
briskly out on stage, scru‘
his white gloves and plaCi
oi the books he had carrie
wrong one, put it on the 1
located the correct page,
reading desk, and started
DUliams bowed to the res

and announced to the audz'

return next year?)

in the slightlY mo
entrance and exit, he DI
and excerpts from four I
the start of each story

only for theatrical eff

all the words, absorbed
20
eorge Freedlej

2’1
Newsweek, Febr
2

I'lltch, 22' if,

 

152

Freedley labeled the evening "the performance" and observed that
no one could call it a reading in all conscience."20 Two critics
oted the Williams program was no more a "reading" than Don Juan in
Ell had been.21 Krutch declared it was inaccurate to speak of the

. 22
erformance as a ”reading."

anner of Presentation

The evening began with Williams, attired as Dickens, walking
riskly out on stage, scrutinizing his audience carefully, removing
is white gloves and placing them on the stand. He then opened one
f the books he had carried on stage with him, realized it was the
rong one, put it on the reading stand, selected the right book,
>cated the correct page, rested his left arm on the arm rest of the
aading desk, and started to read. At the close of the evening,
.lliams bowed to the reading stand and to the volumes he had used,
1d announced to the audience, as Dickens used to do, that he would
eturn next year.23

In the slightly more than two hours between Mr. Williams'
trance and exit, he presented six selections; two short stories
d excerpts from four novels. Williams opened various books at
e start of each story, and he turned the pages regularly, but
ly for theatrical effect. As Sheaffer wrote, "He has memorized

l the words, absorbed all their juice, color and meaning, and

 

2O -
George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, February 11, 1952.
2 . .
1Newsweek, February 18, 1952, and Richard Watts, loc. Cit.

2 -
2Krutch,-22. cit., p. 190. 23Beaufort, loc. oit.

 

 

pours them out in a performé
Williams did not simpi
impersonate the characters
impersonating his character
as follows: "As I see it,
Imagine Dickens would ha“
to Put it another way."26

Mr. Williams is acti
in turn, acting parts
performance of a perfc
of this situation, be:
straight down the mid
is not much doubt the
readings an extra, if

It personalizes the
dazzled audiences in
we cannot feel quite
feel pretty generally

Verdict

The critical verdi

favorable. Atkinson, ac

Program. Chapman headl:

e i ‘

c.ta1 is a Fascinatin
fo

Thence was so convinc

Watts labeled the even“

season," He admitt d
e .

2h
Sheaffer, loo.
\
25
John McCarten.
26
Stephen Watts
28

Chapman, 10 C .
\

 

153

2A

ours them out in a performance of tremendous versatility and skill."
Williams did not simply impersonate Dickens, nor did he simply
mpersonate the characters in Dickens. He impersonated the author
mpersonating his characters.25 Williams described his presentation
s follows: ”As I see it, I am playing the people in the stories as
imagine Dickens would have played them-~playing them through him
:0 put it another way."26 Atkinson wrote of the manner of presentation:

Mr. Williams is acting the part of Dickens. Since Dickens was,
in turn, acting parts of his readings, Mr. Williams is giving a
performance of a performance. Let's not go into the methaphysics
of this situation, because it might crack the philosopher's stone
straight down the middle and turn up nothing of value. And there
is not much doubt that the theatrical staging of Mr. Williams
readings an extra, if nostalgic pleasure to the job he is doing.

It personalizes the readings as Dickens personalized them for
dazzled audiences in the middle of the 19th century. Although
we cannot feel quite so ecstatic as apparently they did, we can
feel prdty generally elatedl27

 

The critical verdict was overwhelmingly and enthusiastically
vorable. Atkinson, as indicated above, was delighted with the
ogram. Chapman headlined his review "Emlyn Williams‘ Dickens

cital is a Fascinating One—Man Show,” and reported Williams' per-

rmance was so convincing the audience was practically hypnotized.28

itts labeled the evening "one of the rich delights of the theatrical

aason." He admitted to being a "rabid and rhapsodic" Dickens fan,

____________________
24

Sheaffer, loc. cit.

2
5John McCarten, The New Yorker, February 16, 1952, p. 58.

26 .
Stephen Watts, 100. cit. 27Atkinson, 100- 01t-

28
Chapman, loc. cit.

 

 

but he was sure anyone with
even if they were not Dicke
Kerr wrote that the in

node charm."30 Hawkins nc
fans away from this progra

find it just as fascinatin

hence is extraordinary. h

time. In fact, it sets a

. .. 52
tation."

The only dissenter
was McClain. He acknowle
actor, but, as the title
Talent Don't Justify the
accovnting while William
and decided the overhea<

He is thus laying
D100 for desk, and '
Ve borrowed from
are such that he is
ut the fact remair

On a Critical ba:
Fir“: you have to
to have it read to

.5 PTOVOkes a

read? W111 he 31E
u at home, yourse
enough?

18 this imam
29\

Richard Wat DE

1 .
Wuhan Hawk?
2

33

loc

JOhn M001 all]

 

154

ut he was sure anyone with'"taste and intelligence" would enjoy it,

29

ven if they were not Dickens addicts.

Kerr wrote that the Williams-Dickens combination had "a fascination

d a charm."30 Hawkins noted it would be "impossible to keep Dickens

ans away from this program," but he thought the ”uninitiated" would

ind it just as fascinating.31 Coleman raved, ”The Williams perfor-
ance is extraordinary. We have never seen a better solo show in our

ime. In fact, it sets a new high standard for this type of presen—

The only dissenter among the critics for the major newspapers

as McClain. He acknowledged that Williams was an exceptionally fine

ctor, but, as the title of his review indicated, he thought "Reading,

alent Don't Justify the Price." McClain did some mental cost—

ccounting while Williams presented Dickens presenting his characters
1d decided the overhead on the show must be unbelieveably low.

He is thus laying out about $200 for costumes, $20 for beard,
$100 for desk, and he uses a couple of books which he might easily
have borrowed from the Public Library. I suppose the union laws
are such that he is paying for some unnecessary scene—shifters,
but the fact remains that this kid stands to make a load of loot.

0 things.

On a critical basis I would say you have to accept tw
First, you have to be a big Dickens fan and, second, you must want
to have it read to you-—especially by Emlyn Williams.

This provokes a further point: will he read the things you want
read? Will he also read it that much better than you might read
it at home, yourself, with the light switch handy when you have had

enough?
Is this THEATRE? I wonder.33

 

2 . . -
gRichard Watts, Jr., loc. Cit. 3OKerr, loc. Cit.

3IIWilliam Hawkins, New York World—Telegram and SEE, February 5, 1952.

52
Coleman, loc. cit.

éfiohn.McClain, New York Journal American, February 57 1952.

 

Wyatt had been eXpOSE
and she had enjoyed him th‘
in the theatre} Freedlej
and had detested him. He
Williams‘ talent and admit
mentary notice,“ but comp:
tea, at least after a had“
and maintained that, whil
place was in the side shc
Sheai‘fer thought tl

tour into the great writ
original characters“?7

66 force“ and extremely
marveled that any one m'
"fruitful and beguiling
M called it "an e

McCarten was surw

Wer the Years or are

be edflied and enterta

\

3%

hate, E2. (3,
36 ‘

 

155

Wyatt had been exposed to Dickens as a child, in her own home,
d she had enjoyed him there, but she found him even more enjoyable

'n the theatre.34 Freedley had also been exposed to Dickens as a child

d had detested him. He still detested him.35 Nathan praised

illiams' talent and admitted his program deserved a "highly compli—

entary notice,” but complained it just was not his'personal dish of

ea, at least after a half hour of it!" He regarded it as a stunt,

d maintained that, while stunts were fine in their place, their

lace was in the side show, not the theatre.36

Sheaffer thought the Mixed Bill was a marvelous "conducted
our into the great writer's vivid, teeming 19th Century world of

"37 Krutch thought the production was a "tour

riginal characters.
Bolton

e force" and extremely successful "from every standpoint."
arveled that any one might deliberately choose to miss such a

fruitful and beguiling event in the theatre."39 The critic for
40

iriety called it "an entertaining and even compelling show."
McCarten was sure that, ”Whether you have neglected Dickens

er the years or are a walking concordance to him . . . you will

edified and entertained by Mr. Williams."41 Dash thoroughly

 

34Wyatt, loo. cit. 35Freedley,,;22-_2i2-

36George Jean Nathan, The Theatre in the Fifties (New York:
ed.A. Knopf, 1953), pp. 215-216.

37:Sheaffer, loo. cit. 38Krutch,_2p_. cit., p. 189

39.Bolton, loc. cit.

4O

Hobe., Variety, February 6, 1952: P- 56-

4
7McCarten, loc. cit.

 

enjoyed the program, but C121
appeal McCarten seemed to i
audience of people who stii
up exercise for students i
ature. It is a compact on

the professor of the cours

Even the few critic
spoke favorably of Mr. W
reviewers thought his st:
consensus of opinion was
essential to the ‘flamboy

who had nothing but gooc

wrote:

Mr. Williams' sue
to look like Dicken
as Boz‘s were, upon

is using a desk wt
contraption Dickens

ese outward simii
allor

 

156

njoyed the program, but did not think it would have the general
ppeal McCarten seemed to think it would. "It is meant for a selective
udience of people who still read. It should be a wonderful brushing

p exercise for students in college and for teachers of English liter—

ture. It is a compact one—night course in Dickens, and Mr. Williams,
42

he professor of the course, deserves the summa cum laude."

ctin
Even the few critics who reacted negatively to the production
poke favorably of Mr. Williams' virtuosity as an actor. Some of the

eviewers thought his style was a bit florid on occasion, but the
onsensus of opinion was that the flamboyant style of the acting was
ssential to the flamboyant style of the material. John Mason Brown,

0 had nothing but good things to say about Williams' performance

rote:

Mr. Williams' success does not depend upon his making himself up
to look like Dickens, upon his wearing evening clothes as dandified
as Boz's were, upon his sporting the inevitable boutonnier or upon
his using a desk which is a replica of the specially designed
contraption Dickens evolved after long years of trial and error.
These outward similarities established by the make—up box, the
tailor, and the carpenter play, of course, a helpful part. The
fun they provide would, however, be shortlived and of a childish
kind were Mr. Williams'evocation of a Dickens reading to stop with
them. Fortunately these externals mark the beginning, not the
end, of the evening's genuine and unusual pleasures.

Mr. Williams happens to be by training, temperament, and long
employment what Dickens was only by temperament and inclination.
He is an actor and an exceptional one, proud of his profession

1nd unfrustrated in pursuing it.

watts wrote of experiencing an almost unconquerable conviction

 

4
2Thomas Dash, women’s Wear Daily, February 5, 1952-

4
33John Mason Brown, Saturday Review, February 23, 1952, p. 26.

 

 

at the beginning 0‘3 the eveni
then proceeding to complete];
as the “immortal men and worn
to New rlhere were forty
drew them all clearly, throt
Sheaiier found that there w
performance“ as he became "
melt-satisfied pomposity
haunted man, a shrilly com
and others in rapid succes
Hawkins thought the
Characterizations were 811'

was seeking. “A stammer,

gesture of smoking are al
must have done it himsel'
touring Williams are soo

of these people.“l+6 M}

himself beyond simpleI a

Q "J-
at the costumes, the

and the landscape . Eve

writingyll?

Kerr paid tribut

and vocal virtuosity.

W) literal.48

V
Rlchard Watts
1+6

HaWkth , 10 c
\

 

157

e beginning of the evening that Williams was really Dickens, and
proceeding to completely forget about both Dickens and Williams
e "immortal men and women of the author's imagination" came
‘fefidF There were fortyetwo different characters, and Williams
them all clearly, through changes in voice, gesture, and expression.
fer found that there was "something of quicksilver to his
rmance" as he became "a dreamy small boy, the boy's brusque father,
f—satisfied pomposity, a whispy old maid, a circus dwarf, a
ed man, a shrilly complaining landlady, and cold aristocrat,”
thers in rapid succession.L+ I
Hawkins thought the little touches Williams used to build his
cterizations were superb and achieved whatever effect Williams
eeking. "A stammer, a pointed finger, the tipping head or
ire of smoking are all done so exactly as that particular person
have done it himself, that the theatrical Dickens and the per—
ng Williams are soon as furniture and floor for the live passage
ase people."46 Atkinson was amazed to find Williams extended
,f beyond simply acting out the characters and managed to act
he costumes, the rooms, the furniture, the decor, the weather
a landscape. Everything is highly personalized as in the
.HL“?
err paid tribute to Williams' remarkable range of characters
‘t virtuosity. However, he thought Williams tended to be

cal.

 

ichard Watts, loc. cit. 45Sheaffer, loc. cit.

kains, loc. cit. 47htkinson, loc. cit. 48Kerr, loc. cit.

He adds revealing geS1
lady's purse snapping 5]
He creates an electrify'
shudders and looks behi
Podsnap episode from "O
impressions of inanimat
if anything, Mr. Will
Especially in the first
strong tendency never '
Dickens‘ prose do some
acting out everything
gilding the lily, and
gesture is terribly li
from the face of Dombe
Show, Mr. Williams is

rlwo critics attribu
Dickens' own antics when
author supposedly regards
thought he would do well

programs of readings, he

histrionic abilities to

"laughed and wept in £1
alized that, since repO
tization" of his select

not, Williams had just

McCarten recalle
Unrestrained man on u
in emotion as a revive

and on the basis 01‘ t‘

Lt
91m.
50
Atkinson, Ne‘
51 "
Hob

9.
3 10C.

 

158

He adds revealing gesture. When he speaks of a fashionable
lady‘s purse snapping shut like a pistol, he jumps at the sound.
He creates an electrifying moment as a man in a ghost story
shudders and looks behind him for an oncoming train. And in the
Podsnap episode from "Our Mutual Friends” he even manages elaborate
impressions of inanimate objects.

If anything, Mr. Williams is too eager to illustrate, to enlarge.
Especially in the first three of his selections, there is a
strong tendency never to let well enough alone, never to let
Dickens' prose do some of the visual work. By insisting on
acting out everything down to the commas, Mr. Williams gets to
gilding the lily, and laboring his comic points. Some of the
gesture is terribly literal, too, as when a sheet is drawn back
from the face of Dombey's dead son. In the first half of hi:
show, Mr. Williams is long on emphasis, short on suggestion. 9

Two critics attributed Williams' acting style to the reports of

kens' own antics when he presented his readings. The English

hor supposedly regarded himself as an excellent actor and always
ught he would do well on the stage. When he began to give his
grams of readings, he found in them an opportunity to use his
trionic abilities to the utmost. His audiences reportedly

ughed and wept in fits of hysteria."50 The Variety critic ration~
zed that, since reports indicate Dickens gave "full—blown drama—
ation" of his selections, and since no one could prove that he did
, Williams had justification for his "full—blown dramatization."51

McCarten recalled reading that Dickens was a "singularly

estrained man on the platform,” whose performances "were as rich

emotion as a revivalisus meeting." He supposed that on this basis,

on the basis of the material, Williams' "rather full blown

 

491bid.
5O . .
Atkinson, New York Times, February 5a 1952, p. 25.

5

1Hobe., loc. cit. 52McCarten, loc. cit.

 

 

treatment" of the initial ep

"audiences not accustomed t<
. 52

acting disturbing.

Atkinson readily adm
denied it was over-acting 1:
material:

The Podsnap scene f n
Sawyer's bachelor part;
the ghost story is mor
"A Tale of Two Cities"

underacted they would
across to the audience

Hawkins praised Will

action. He thought they \

a tree," and confessed he

the evening began.5’+ Kru

presentation of the baroc

Dickens. He thought the:

the “theatrical style an

he ‘
terial

Williams took exce

159
aatment” of the initial episodes was justified, but he feared
idiences not accustomed to old—fashion bravura" would find the
wing disturbing.52
AtkinSOn readily admitted the acting was bravura acting, but
ied it was over-acting because it was perfectly suited to the

erial:

The Podsnap scene from "Our Mutual Friend" is gaudy, Bob
Sawyer's bachelor party from "Pickwick Papers" is a boozy revel
the ghost story is morbid, the prelude to the revolution in
”A Tale of Two Cities" is melodramatic. If these scenes were
underacted they would never come to life and would not carry
across to the audience the gusto and fervor of Dickens.53

7

Hawkins praised Williams' embellishments of character and
;on. He thought they were ”as appropriate as the leaves are on
Tee,” and confessed he forgot the actor and the method soon after
evening began.54 Krutch characterized the evening as "a baroque
ventation of the baroque Characters and the baroque language" of
Lens. He thought they were well suited.55 Beaufort also found

"theatrical style and prose style . . . admirably matched."56

rial
Williams took excerpts from four of Dickens' novels and
ented two of his short stories. The evening began on a light

with party scenes from Our Mutual Friend; changed moods with

 

ctions from Dombey and Son, a rather touching tale of a youngster's

y years "in a world of stupid, unfeeling grown—ups”; changed moods

  
  
    

52McCarten, lgg. pip.
54

Hawkins, loc. cit.

tkinson, New York Times, February 17, 1952, Sec. II, p. 1.
55K 56

rutch, loc. cit. Beaufort, loc. cit.

 

I:

again with the drunken bache
on to a grim ghost story, "5
hut grotesquely humorous ta'.
"1h. Chips"; and concluded
which depicted the luxury 8
before the revolution;7

Each of the six were
Williams had tried to adap
unfamiliar with Dickens tl
each character he present

in making each number on
than a random excerpt. 1
156m excellent dramatist

Freedley was the 0?

literary stature. He ca

'L
lil‘lttI‘S known," and obsé

Dickens' humor was, to ‘

6

n .
c stomach for Since."

01 the readings "seemed

critic observed that Di

winded writer,"62 but '

Other reviewers
Wyatt described him ac

hinted out Dickens' ‘

57
Hawkins, loo.
60 \

medley, low

6
Nyatt, 1&9‘

 

160
rin with the drunken bachelor party from Pickwick Papers; moved
to a grim ghost story, ”The Signal Man"; presented the pathetic
; grotesquely humorous tale of a circus dwarf who enters high society,
n Chips"; and concluded with a selection from A Tale of Two Cities
.ch depicted the luxury and contrasting poverty in Paris shortly

57

‘ore the revolution.
Each of the six were "self—contained and self-explanatory.”58
liams had tried to adapt them in such a way as to provide those
amiliar with Dickens the necessary background information for
h character he presented. Coleman wrote that ”this method succeeds
making each number on the bill seem like a complete playlet rather
n a random excerpt. It is skillful dramaturgy, but, then, Williams
an excellent dramatist as well as a fine actor."59
Freedley was the only critic to vigorously challenge Dickens'
erary stature. He called Dickens "one of the most over-rated comic
ters known," and observed he had ”mercifully forgotten how corney
cens' humor was, to which I had been exposed in childhood and had
stomach for since."60 The critic for Variety noted that parts
:he readings ”seemed slightly drawn out,"61 and the Newsweek
:ic observed that Dickens was a "sometimes flamboyant and long~

62

led writer," but both critics liked most of the selections.

Other reviewers paid tribute to Dickens' literary prowess.
"63

:t described him as "a reporter of the first magnitude. Hawkins

Lted out Dickens' ability to involve all the senses of his readers;

 

57Hawkins, loc. cit. 58Beauf0rt, 100- Cit. 59Coleman, loc. cit.
6 . 6
OFreedley, loc. cit. 61Hobe., loc. Cit. 2Newsweek, loc. cit.

6
3Wyatt, loc. cit.

 

 

' a]
his awareness of humanity

“above all, always» there 1
6h
humor.“

As might have been e)
expressed with Williams‘ cl
"The Signal Man" was "rath

" ' H
Pickwick Papers commonpla
All of us who are in
and unfair taskmaster:
and I, who have less
the novels, would hav

tales for, say, more
is the most shameless

worked out provides 8
greatest and most uni
The critic for M

He complained that much
was close to mediocre.“
a "truly top-notch show'
figures such as Mrs. J a

the Weuers.67

W

Several Critics

when

 

 

 

161

3 awareness of humanity and his ability to describe it; and,
Jove all, always, there is the author's warm, piercing, rudimentary
64

nor."

As might have been expected, there was some dissatisfaction

 

~ressed with Williams' choice of selections. Atkinson thought
e Signal Man” was ”rather juvenile," and found the excerpt from
kwick Pa ers "commonplace."65 Watts wrote:

All of us who are frankly Dickens cultists are bound to be hard
and unfair taskmasters, with our own prejudices among the Works,
and I, who have less enthusiasm for the short stories than for
the novels, would have sacrificed at least one of the Christmas
tales for, say, more of my other particular heroes. But this
is the most shameless quibbling, and the program Mr. Williams has
worked out provides a fine indication of the ragge of one of'the
greatest and most unforgettable of all writers.

The critic for Time also took issue with the selections.

complained that much of the material, "by Dickens' standards . . .
close to mediocre." He suggested that Williams might develop

truly top—notch show" if he concentrated on Dickens' great comic

res such as Mrs. Jellyby, Pecksniff, Micawber, Sairey Gamp, and

   
    
  
  
     

Wellers.67

Several critics referred to the First Drama Quartet and

Juan in Hell in their reviews. Bolton spoke of Don Juan setting

 

64Hawkins loc. cit.

6
5Atkinson, New York Tines, February 5, 1952, p. 25.

 

6Richard Watts, 100. cit.

67Time, February 18, 19527 9- 67°

*

  

 

, 68 M
the pace for readin85°
had regarded as a dirty W01
"something to be reckoned V
been set with The First Dn
@359 Kerr warned t
be noted that Mr. Williams
evhilaration of the Drama
with declamation."70 The
to Don Juan in Hell, "thi
theatrical."71
Chapman, whose mail
had been the use of micr.
does not use a microphon
Three critics commented
tation of W

used scripts-but noted

a reading?3 Atkinson

thuman life," it was

0f Dickens performing l

Atkinson was fairly Bu

s“Perior.7k

 

162

pace for readings.68 McCarten notedthot "elocution," which he

regarded as a dirty word when he was a boy, was developing into
mething to be reckoned with on Broadway . . . the trend having
n set with The First Drama Quartet's excellent reading of Don Juan
Hell."69 Kerr warned that "to keep the record sthaight, it must
noted that Mr. Williams' solo readings do not create the heady
ilaration of the Drama Quartet, this season's earlier experiment
:h declamation."7o The Variety critic pointed out that, compared

Don Juan in Hell, "this show is highly, almost flamboyantly
"71

 

eatrical.
Chapman, whose main bone of contention with Don Juan in Hell

,been the use of microphones, rejoiced, ”Thank goodness, Williams

s not use a microphone as did those elocutionists in Don Juan in Hell."72

ee critics commented on the similarity in the manner of presen-

ion of Don Juan in Hell and the Williams program in that both

d scripts-~but noted that neither one could really be considered
eading.73 Atkinson regretted that ”on account of the capriciousness
uman life," it was impossible to compare Mr. Williams performance
ickens performing his works with the original Dickens performances.

inson was fairly sure the Williams program would have been judged

71+

erior.

*—

68Bolton, 100. cit. 69McCarten, loc. cit. 7OKerr, loo. cit.

7

1Hobe., loc. cit. 720hapman, _l_O_C_- 23-

73Richard Watts, Jr., loc.cit.
Beaufort, loc. cit.
Newsweek, loc. cit.

’74

Atkinson, loc. cit.

 

 

Atkinson surmised the
have been less enthusiastic
from a dearth of decent “r:
been partially responsible
W enjoyed, but Mr
talents with the character
writer were undoubtedly m<

eight performances ‘

Early in 19531 Wil-
new Dickens program, Ble.
of the same name. Altho
collection of an author‘
discussed in this chapt'

Place to consider Bleak
111 Edi the other aspect

the production abroad 6

S I
tates, Visiting forty-

w '
66k period, prior to

f . n
or a limited three we

f
natured attraction 01

Present ‘ ‘
‘ his Mixed Bil'
75

Atkinson, New

 

163

     
     
  
 

Atkinson surmised the reception for Williams and Dickens might
e been less enthusiastic if the theatre had not been suffering

m a dearth of decent "regular" dramatic fare.75 This may have

n partially responsible for the critical and popular success the
ed Bill enjoyed, but Mr. Williams' blending of his considerable
ents with the characters and stories of the popular Victorian
ter were undoubtedly more important. The show ran for forty—

ht performances.

Early in 1955, Williams came back to the United States with a

J Dickens program, Bleak House, his own adaptation from the novel

the same name. Although the production was not concerned with a
.lection of an author's works, as are the other presentations

:cussed in this chapter, it was believed this was the logical

ce to consider Bleak House because of the distinct similarities

all the other aspects of the two Dickens programs. He had given
production abroad and had presented it on a tour of the United

tes, visiting forty—six cities in thirty-six states in a twenty

k period, prior to his opening at the Bijou Theatre on April 20, 1953,

a limited three week engagement.76 Although Bleak House was the

 

tured attraction of this engagement, Williams also planned to

77

sent his Mixed Bill three times a week.

‘—

75Atkinson, New York Times, February 17, 1952, Sec. II, p. 1.

6 .
7 John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, April 25, 1955.

77

 

Sam Zolotow, New York Times, March 27, 19531 P- 28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The format for the pI

his program the previous 3‘
tonal attire, red boutonni
replica of Dickens' readin
author presenting his work
between the two productior
classify Bleak House as t'
There was more ment
production. Two critics
to match the differing m.
reading desk being "wrea
selu9n08.80 Williams ag

that Williams pretended

cate a new setting or m

the story.81

Verdict

Bleak House did

predecessor. The rewi

his remarkable charac‘

hot as enjoyable as t

 

164

The format for the presentation was the same as he had used in

is program the previous year. 8 Williams, in beard, white hair,

formal attire, red boutonniere and white gloves, stood before a
"eplica of Dickens' reading desk and proceeded to impersonate the

author presenting his works. The critics did not mention any changes

>etween the two productions and used almost exactly the same terms to
rlassify Bleak House as they had used for the Mixed Bill.
There was more mention of the lighting effects used in the later

‘roduction. Two critics noted the lights changed in color and intensity

 

0 match the differing moods,79 and another reviewer wrote of the

eading desk being "wreathed in eerie light" for one suspenseful

equence.80 Williams again used a book as a prop. Hawkins reported

:hat Williams pretended to read from the book when he wanted to indi—

=ate a new setting or mood, but the rest of the time he simply told

the story.81

erdict
Bleak House did not fare as well with the critics as had its

redecessor. The reviewers were still impressed with Williams and

is remarkable characterizations, but many thought the material was

0t as enjoyable as that contained in the Mixed Bill. Most of them

\—
8 . . .
7 Because the two programs were so Similar, setting and
ccessdries, classification, and manner of presentation were not
scussed in detail.

79Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, April 22, 1955.
William Hawkins, New York World—Telegram and SEE, April 21,195}.

80 . .
Rowland Field, Newark Evening News, April 21, 1953.

8
1Hawkins, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

recommended the program, bu
shown for the PreViouS one.
The critic for the .H.‘

lots or" good characters ’60
not too successful.82 CO1
not seen Williams as Dicke
but he thoug t there were
thm arresting.“85 Beauf
two hours of theatre ente
had been much more enjoy
did not quite measure up

a “sock virtuoso perform
Dash warned his ru

Horde but assured them

Of the rapacious and p1
Callousness, and its jl
might be difficult for
°f the action, but he
Watts Praised Wf

he admitted Much Of t

8
ZLQFQ, New Yo}
83

Coleman, 10C

8
5\Iene, ,
86
Thomas Dash.

87
John Chapman

Va '
rie

 

165

ecommended the program, but with much less enthusiasm than they had
hown for the previous one.

The critic for the New York Times wrote that there were still
ots of good characters to be seen, but that the total effect was
ot too successful.82 Coleman advised those of his readers who had
at seen Williams as Dickens to avail themselves of the opportunity,
ut he thought there were quite a few parts which were "taxing rather
han arresting."83 Beaufort described the evening as a "stimulating
wo hours of theatre entertainment," but thought that the Mixed Bill

ad been much more enjoyable.84 The critic for Variety admitted it

id not quite measure up to last years production, but he termed it
”sock virtuoso performance" anyhow.8
Dash warned his readers they might have difficulty following the
:tory, but assured them they would enjoy "this anatomized dissection
f the rapacious and predatory London society, its hypocrisy, its

allousness, and its jungle savagery." Chapman also cautioned it

ight be difficult for those not familiar with Dickens to keep track
f the action, but he felt it was well done, even if itwas confusing. 7
Watts praised Williams' editorial and histrionic talents, and

e admitted much of the Dickens spirit came through, but he complained

 

82L.F., New York Times, April 21, 1953, P- 33-
83

 

Coleman, loc. cit. ShBeaufOTta ESE-.Eii'

85Vene., Variety, April 22, 1953, p- 58.

86Thomas Dash, Women's Wear Daily, April 21, 1955.
8 .
7John Chapman, New York Daily News, April 22, 1955.

 

 

 

 

the novel was simply "too 6
“only occasionally good (11%
good acting and good Dicke
slightest question but the
is Charles Dickens who has

Gibbs found the ever

91

enjoyable. Freedley de

Dickens,“ and that he "st

performing Dickens .92 M<

the proceedings. He tol

that‘s 311.185

Bolton disagreed.
with considerable passit
But as one who has neit

only a wholly full app:
this is true.“ He hea:

thought it was "good 8

“rare treats . "96

88\-

RiChaI‘d Watts
89
Henry Hewes, ‘
i 90
E‘V oRc Wyatt,

91
Wolcott Gibb;
92
George Freed
93
JOhn MCClair
9h .
whltney B01:
95
waiter Kerr
96 ‘
1401118 sheaf

 

166

novel was simply "too diffuse."88 Hewes labeled Bleak House as

y occasionally good drama," but thought the evening was "always
d acting and good Dickens."89 Wyatt wrote, "There is not the
ghtest question but that Williams is as brilliant as ever. It
Charles Dickens who has failed him."90

Gibbs found the evening admirable, but not particularly
oyable.91 Freedley decided he was "just completely allergic to
kens," and that he "should be kept home" whenever Williams was
forming Dickens.

92 McClain also had not altered his opinion of

proceedings. He told his readers, "You've got to love Dickens,

t's all."93

Bolton disagreed. "They tell me that you have to love Dickens

:h considerable passion to fully enjoy an entire evening . . . .

; as one who has neither disdain nor passion for Mr. Dickens,

.y a wholly full appreciation of his craftsmanship, I don't think
94

s is true." He heartily recommended it to his readers. Kerr
ught it was "good spirited fun."95 Sheaffer called both programs
re treats."96
88Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, April 21, 1955.
89Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, May 93 1953, p- 28-
9OE.V.R. Wyatt, Catholic World, June, 1953, p. 228.

91Wolcott Gibbs, The New Yorker, May 2, 1953, p. 52.

 

92George Freedley, New York Morning Telegraph, April 24, 1955.

93John McClain, New York Journal American, April 21, 1955.

 

9hWhitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, April 22, 1955.

95Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, April 21, 1953.
96

Louis Sheaffer, Brooklyp Eagle, April 21, 1955.

 

 

 

lctin

Williams‘ ability to
ability to convey a mood we
viewers. Dash was particu‘

some of the more bizarre D

9?

suSpense. Coleman obsel
with all types of charactu
as follows: "When the be
assumes a cool, reserved
asharp picture of the sc
himself and become the e
as do, the pathetic stre
Without leaving the read
the personalities of thy
gesture and vocal infle

His Performance i
e turns but never
its own particular
~11 .is descriptive
Various settings, -

lugs, like an en
mice: achieves a
read by Williams.1

Hewes eXpressed

his theatrical device

society caused Willie

its imflbitants. Whe

9?
Dash, E3. 2
100

MCClain, 1C

 

Williams‘ ability to swiftly sketch in a character and his
'lity to convey a mood were the main areas discussed by the re—
wers. Dash was particularly delighted with Williams' creation of

e of the more bizarre Dickens figures and with his skill in creating
pense.97 Coleman observed Williams enjoyed remarkable suCcess

h all types of characters.98 Sheaffer described his performance
follows: "When the bearded actor speaks for Lady Dedlock, he
umes a cool, reserved air and proud stance that conjure [sicJ
harp picture of the society beauty. He appears to shrink into
self and become the essence of a scrawny, frightened street Arab
Jo, the pathetic street cleaner."99 Even McClain admitted that
hout leaving the reading stand, Williams succeeded "in creating
a personalities of the myriads 0f people involved," solely through
ture and vocal inflection:IOO The critic for Variety wrote:

His performance is as subtle as it is varied. From the pages
he turns but never reads, each character springs full-blown with
its own particular movement, expressions and inflections . . .

In his descriptive passages, the actor skillfully evokes the
various settings, the murky London streets . . . . Even inanimate
things, like an engraved brass plate or a society newspaper
notice, achieves a special life and character of their own as
read by Williams. 101

Hewes expressed appreciation for the way Williams coordinated
heatrical devices with the material. Mention of the world of

:y caused Williams' eyes to half close, indicating the boredom of

habitants. When he began to talk about opium, he slowly turned

 

?
?Dash, loc. cit. 9SColeman, loc. cit. 998heaffer, loc. cit.
OOMcClain, loc. cit. 101Vene., loc. cit.

 

 

turned a page of the 900k 1
Field paid tribute to will
moods of the text."05 Cha
listener "feel a London fC
grimy tenementj‘ou
Two critics thought
than it had been in the y
had a tendency to be too
“a habit of laying it on
praised him for showing
hawkins wrote, "From an
become a master of subti
briBhtsn Dickens‘ phras
Eric Bentley atte
in the following discu:
. Williams Will be
ls described in th

We Passage with
111 them. The diag
the reader, is the
911' Where t .
Williams M he a“
heat of the hand
SplaShed in the e
Hepeated turn Of
18 liStening. A1
moments; at the
(filming lights W‘.

107m p
m 22. m Ben“

 

 

168

102

urned a page of the book to indicate how ominous the subject was.

ield paid tribute to Williams' success at indicating the changing

oods of the text.103 Chapman wrote of his ability tormake the

istener "feel a London fog," or shrink back in repulsion from a
non

rimy tenement.
Two critics thought Williams' acting was better in Bleak House

an it had been in the Mixed Bill. Kerr noted that Williams still
d a tendency to be too literal in his pantomime, and still had

habit of laying it on thick as the comedy becomes lower," but
105

aised him for showing more restraint in the second production.

wkins wrote "From an actor with sensational tendencies he has
i 1
His significant readings

come a master of subtle Showmanship.
106

ighten Dickens' phrases without distorting them."

Eric Bentley attempted to analyze Williams' success as a reader

1 the following discussion.

Williams will begin to take on a character's voice when he
is described in the narrative. He will also embellish the narra—
tive passage with any noises and gestures that may be intimated
in them. The diagnostic of Williams the reader, as of Laughton
the reader, is that he has a complete actor's technique to draw

on. Where the amateur would use gestures of mere emphasis,
Williams will choose an action with a reference: a quick move—
ment of the hand to the face will tell us someone has been
Splashed in the eye. Or he will build a whole scene by a
repeated turn of the head——to see if the speaker's companion
is listening. Abstract gestures can be added at more solemn
at the end of a chapter he will ”freeze" under the

moments:
dimming lights with one arm outstretched.

 

1oEField, loo. cit.

70
gHewes,_gp. cit., p- 27-
1O6Hawkins, loo. cit.

104Chapman, loo. cit. 1OEKGI’I‘, 222: jEEE'

1o .
7rric Bentley, "On Being Read To," New Republic, May 11, 1953,

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

Dickens wrote M
attack on the Court Of Cha
system. It contained a m
tors. it was full of Saw
social protest.108 The 11
because Dickens had writt
A note in the progl
its entirety would take ‘.
vised might overtax the

to cut it down to dightl
Williams‘ editing to “r
shrub.“MO The critic
but thought “this pruni
t8 McClain pointed out
retrained "thirty odd,
t0 say nothing of a re
describing London and
The program was
the first act consist
introduction of the I
began to emerge, and

e .
Xeltement and suspe

108

L.F., 10‘0”

ill
L'F‘s 10C.
\

169
Dickens wrote Bleak House in 1852-1853. He intended it as an
iCk on the Court of Chancery and on the entire British legal
tem. It contained a multitude of interrelated plots and charac—
s. It was full of savage caricature, bitter satire, and vehement

ial protest.,‘08 The novel was sprawling and episodic, partly

ause Dickens had written it for serial publication.109
A note in the program reported that, to read Bleak House in
entirety would take more than sixty hours, which Williams sur—
ed might overtax the audience as well as the reader. He managed
cut it down tosiightly more than two hours. Bolton likened
liams' editing to "reducing a great redwood tree to a garden

110

1b." The critic for the New York Times agreed with the simile,

thought ”this pruning process” had not been very successi‘ul.’l’]/1
McClain pointed out, even after Williams' editing, there still

ained ”thirty odd, highly divergent types to be accounted for,

ay nothing of a rash of sub—plots and several thousand words

  
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
   

ribing London and the general state of society of the period."112

The program was divided into three acts. According to McClain,
first act consisted almost entirely of description and of the
oduction of the characters. In the second act the plot gradually
to emerge, and the second and third acts had some moments of

'tement and suspense which culminated in thrilling, though

cit. 1O9Hawkins, loc. cit. 11OBoiton, loc. cit.

1
11L.F., loc. cit. 112McClains 322° 233'

  

 

 

somewhat altered, climax.
many segments which seemed
purpose of allowing MI“ W
Coleman was also (115
rather than on action. 3‘
novel would have a hard t'
Watts thought the charact
jumbled, even "Dickens ve
that Detective InSpector
would be hard pressed to
had become "little more
of the three acts."M6
Beaufort reported
misrepresented in one e
The M critic thou
"those who are trying 1
line may find it rough
clear-headed editing, '
PM is thick and inoi
Among critics e:
the Williams adaptati.
dmmatic impact. He

b - .
egmnlus While mini

113 .
EEEQ' 114

116
err

118
ene‘s 100.
x

a Jéfii‘

 

170

mewhat altered, climax. McClain complained that there were too
ny segments which seemed to have been included solely for the
Ipose of allowing Mr. Williams to portray some unusual characterxj’13

Coleman was also distressed with the reliance on characterization,

ther than on action. He warned that listeners unfamiliar with the

 

vel would have a hard time figuring out what was happening.114
ts thought the characters were so skeletal and the narrative so
ufl15

bled, even "Dickens veterans would have problems. Kerr wrote

t Detective Inspector Bucket, (one of the characters in Bleak House),

 

d be hard pressed to track down the plot. He felt the narrative
d become "little more than a device for opening and closing each
the three acts."/]/I6
Beaufort'reported that so much mood and so many characters
re presented in one evening that the poor spectator was “overtaxed."/l’l7
3 Variety critic thought the plot was quite melodramatic, and that
lose who are trying to follow all the convolutions of the story

118

ie may find it rough going.” Chapman agreed. "Even with Williams'

ear-headed editing, Bleak House is no Mickey Spillane scenario.
)t is thick and incidents are thicker.”119

Among critics expressing the minority opinion, Hawkins thought

  
  
  
   
       
  
   

Williams adaptation had "calmed down" the story and added to its
matic impact. He admitted the novel seemed sprawling at the

inning while Williams was providing the background and sketching

J

113Ibis. 114Coleman, 100. cit. 115

—

116Kerr, loo. cit. 117

Watts, loc. cit.
Beaufort, loc. cit.

118Vene., loo. cit. qnghaPmana l22‘.2i§'

  

 

 

inthe characters, but he f
built up throughout the eve
managed "to weave into his
tension and suspense as th'
its macabre and grisly cli
Eric Bentley thought

was forced to be selectivr
story into two. He credi
satire and bringing out t
confessed to frequently I
and characters, and was ;
of the moralistic rhetor
to seem pretty impressit
The % critic a

band 010 a Story," but 0

was willing to agree ti

happy to haVe "Sweet V-

thought it had more di

(1
hamcery and the panel

eliminated. "An impo

ecom
e an 8LEreeable 5

Com arisons

tb .
e prenous William

1 20
Hawkins: l<

~

12
ZBentler, 1

if W

171
the characters, but he felt an atmosphere of dread gradually
ilt up throughout the evening.120 Dash wrote that Williams had
iaged ”to weave into his interpretation a tremendous amount of
ision and suspense as the turbulent work unfolds and spirals to
- . . H121
3 macabre and grisly climax.
Eric Bentley thought Williams' served as a critic in that he

3 forced to be selective in consolidating sixty hours worth of

)ry into two. He credited Williams with sharpening the Dickens

 

sire and bringing out the author's narrative skill. Bentley
nfessed to frequently neglecting Dickens' plots for his scenes
1 characters, and was amazed to find that, "when stripped of some
the moralistic rhetoric the Gothic narrative in Bleak House comes
seem pretty impressive?122
The Elms critic admfited Williams had provided "a loose rubber
1d of a story," but complained it was no longer Bleak House. He
5 willing to agree that drastic cutting had its advantages, (he was
>py to have "sweet virtuous Esther Summerson” silenced), but he
)ught it had more disadvantages in that the satire on the Court of
incery and the panoramic picture of London were almost completely
.minated. "An imposing novel and a great portrait gallery have

=ome an agreeable scrapbook and an amusing one—man show."123

marisons

The only comparisons made concerning this production were With

: previous Williams presentation. Almost without exception, the

 

12 121

OHawkins, loo. cit. Dash, loc. cit.

2 .
1 2Bentley, loo. cit. 125Time, May 4, 1953a p- 84-

n

 

critics thonght W
hadbeen. The W
his earlier format. "Cert
on the shelves to be dusté
ran for twenty—”501:1r perfOZ
Williams apparently
program. One of the E91
Williams was preparing a
M, Martin Chuz
{111633325 The followi
that "the report that ti
Dickens repertoire ," wh:
Williams‘ appearance wi
Williams recently tried
a tour of Wales and war
fall“ 195“. Mr. Hur
shined to bring this
Of the 1955~1956 seasc
. Werica, it was with ,

tears of Dylan Thomas

chapter.

In cOntrast tc

s.

1211

 

 

172

critics thought Bleak House was not as effective as the Mixed Bill

 

had been. The New York Times critic suggested Williams stay with

 

his earlier format. "Certainly, Dickens left enough of his works

"124

on the shelves to be dusted off for variety's sake. Bleak House

 

ran for twenty—four performances.
Williams apparently did plan to present-another varied Dickens

program. One of the New York Times theatre columnists reported

 

Williams was preparing a "second mixed bill culled from Dayid
Copperfield, Martin Chuzzlewit, Little Dorrit, and.A Tale of Two
Cities."125 The following year, another Tings columnist revealed
that "the report that the Welsh actor had decided to abandon the
Dickens repertoire," which had been circulated shortly after Emlyn
Williams‘ appearance with Bleak House, was inaccurate. He reported
Williams recently tried out a new miscellaneous Dickens program on

a tour of Wales and was planning to take it to South.Africa in the
fall of 1954. Mr. Hurock, who handled Williams' two previous visits,
planned to bring this new program to the United States at the beginning
of the 1955—1956 season.126 However, the next time Williams visited
. America, it was with A Boy Growing Up, which told of the boyhood
years of Dylan Thomas. This production is discussed in the following

Chapter.
Ages of Man

In contrast to Williams' flamboyant impersonation of Dickens,

Sir John Gielgud's presentation of selections from Shakespeare was

k

124 .
L.F., loc. cit. 125Zolotow, loo. Cit.
126

J.P. Shanley, New Ygrk Times, August 8, 1954, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

 

 

 

rather restrained. Grielgu
which he could give for 16
12
festival performances.
interpretation on the Lon
for the program was a rec
for the Arts Council, the
arts. The next August, '
at the Edinburgh Festive
Berlin Festival, and in
te in 1958 he toured '
pearean excerpts.128
Sir John Gielgud
Theatre on December 28

cessful with both the

Setting and Accessori1

The curtain ros
reading stand which i
were the only other :
talist's prescribed
was made of lighting

the light which was

12
7Letter fro
128
Linn, i‘
129
Tom F. Dr
130
JOhn Beau

131
Driver, :

 

i

 

173
rather restrained. Gielgud first developed.Ages of Man as a program
which he could give for lectures, school appearances, and special
festival performances.127 Linn, in his dissertation concerning oral
interpretation on the London stage, reported the immediate impetus
for the program was a recital given in London on August 1, 1956,
for the Arts Council, the government agency for the support of the
arts. The next August, Gielgud gave a program entitled Ages of Man
at the Edinburgh Festival. In October, he presented it at the
Berlin Festival, and in November, he took the program to Paris.

Late in 1958 he toured Canada and the United States with his Shakes—
128

pearean excerpts.

Sir John Gielgud opened in Ages of Man at the 46th Street
Theatre on December 28, 1958. The presentation was extremely suc-

cessful with both the critics and the public.

Setting and.Accessories

 

The curtain rose to reveal Mr. Gielgud standing beside a
reading stand which held a large notebook. Grey drapes and a rug

were the only other furnishings.129 Gielgud wore "the male reci—

"150

talist's prescribed uniform, the dinner jacket. No mention

was made of lighting effects, though one reviewer did comment about

the light which was "reflected from Sir John'srearly hairless head."131

127Letter from Sir John Gielgud to the author, June 13’ 1968‘

128Linn,'gp..git., pp. 247-273-

129

 

Tom F. Driver, New Rppublic, February 2, 1959, P. 20.

130John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, January 39 1959-
131

Driver, loo. cit.

 

 

 

 

Classification
———-— lab
The most POPular

' ' ibed :'
of the critics descr

Wanner of Presentation
Gielgud started off
We gave a few introductor
of Shakespeare‘s more lyi
consulted the notebook 02
to be that it was strict
tation originally was ac

script was used only "ft

continuity.“36 WheneVI

selections with "inf o rm

described the manner of

Mr. Gielgud, in e
an evening of Shake
espearean canor
Speeches and Chara.
actor is the masts:
’5 was by no mea
hr. Gielgucl spoke

132M111 Chapman.
Dr 158.

Brooks Atkin:
901‘86 Oppen‘
Harold C3511]
13
WYT 3mm Aston,
% r» 157.
Robert
W» s 158.
'1
3Liii’CAQilison, 1
136 .
Glelgud, 1C

Coler

 

174

Classification

 

The most popular label for A es of Man was ”readings.“32 Two

133

of the critics described it as a ”one—man show."

Manner of Presentation
Gielgud started off the evening in the manner of ”a casual host."

He gave a few introductory remarks and then began the program with some

154

of Shakespeare's more lyrical passages. Between selections he

155

consulted the notebook on the lectern, but the consensus seemed

to be that it was strictly a prop. Gielgud wrote that the presen—
tation originally was actually a reading, but eventually the manu—
script was used only "for certainty and to turn to, to break the

"156

Whenever necessary, the actor would preface the

137

continuity.

selections with "informative, often witty comments." Watts

described the manner of presentation as follows:

Mr. Gielgud, in evening clothes, simply came out and gave us
an evening of Shakespeare. His program ranged through the entire
Shakespearean canon, including the sonnets, presenting the famous
Speeches and characters with the art of which the distinguished
actor is the master.

It was by no means a mere series of brilliant recitations.

Mr. Gielgud spoke the superb lines with wonderful beauty and

 

13

2John Chapman, New York Daily News, December 29, 1958, NYTCR,
p. 158.

Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, December 29, 1958, p. 21.
George Oppenheimer, Newsday, January 7, 1959-

Driver, loo. cit.

Harold Clurman, Nation, January 10, 1959: P- 59.

133Frank Aston, New York World—Telegram and Sun, December 29, 1958,
NYTCR, p. 157.
Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, December 50, 1958,

CR, P- 158-
134 135B

Atkinson, loo. cit. eaufort, loc. cit.

136 137

Gielgud, loo. cit.

Coleman, $22. 213'

 

 

 

 

 

clarity, but he also a
are, with tremendous s

Werdict

Ages of Man receive
seven major New York news
of the other reviewers.
ation "perfect,“ and warr

which to see it.159 Atki
and wrote that it was a
presented by a "consumma
Aston was amazed at the

brought forth in his pI‘1

in man‘s rush from crib

as "a grand evening, a
Coleman headliner

chupman‘s report read '

1Antisociized that when

the result could not t

possible disadvantage

He Warned that those ‘

138\

p. 159. Richard Watt

9
Walter Kerr.

\CRv P- 159.
do
Atkinson, 1
1A2 7

Coleman. lo

 

175

clarity, but he also acted the characters whose speeches they

are, with tremendous skill and variety.13
Verdict

Ages of Man received unanimous raves from the critics of the

seven major New York newspapers, and enthusiastic approval from most
of the other reviewers. Kerr called the Gielgud—Shakespeare combin—
ation "perfect," and warned his readers theylad only four weeks in
which to see it.139 Atkinson termed the program a ”masterpiece,"
and wrote that it was a "Shakespearean event of first importance,”
presented by a ”consummate artist at the peak of his career."140
Aston was amazed at the variety and abundance of passion Gielgud
brought forth in his program of "excerpts which touch the high spots
in man's ruSh from crib to crematory." He described the proceedings

141

as "a grand evening, a novel one . . . one that was warmly rewarding."
. 1A2
Coleman headlined his review, "Gielgud and Bard a Perfect Pair."
' ‘ ”1 3 Watts
Chapman's report read ”Gielgud's Splendid Solo Evening.
rhaPsodized that when Shakespeare and Gielgudvcre at their best,
the result could not help being magnificent. He found only one

. . H
POSSible disadvantage in this "thrilling evening in the theatre.

He warned that those who saw the Gielgud program were likely to be

____________________
138Richard WattS, Jr., New York Post, December 29, 1958: 32293,
P- 159.

- 8
159Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune» December 29’ 195 ’
m: p- 159.

141 -
140Atkinson, loc. cit. Aston, ESE-.EEE'

h .
142Coleman, loc. cit. 1 3Chapman, £22..2£3°

 

 

 

C
dissatisfied with future

weli
were not performed as
ecstatic.

Sir John Gielgudap
St. Theatre last nigh
the incredible genius
companies. Taking se
traced the progressn
digressions. He cal.

We have all been w
Here he is unencumbe
the best of his writ

respect, appreciatic

mere aid of a dinner
that we will, in on:

with equal passion e

host of the other
the evening an "intelle
anyone who cared anythf
was completely captiva
as one of the happiest

in a dimer deCket alc

Consumate beauty .1118?

Two crimes fel

reWieWer for

m

deficient Value" Was _
m\
Watts, 3-9:“

1A5

JOhn McCla‘l
mic“, 13- 158.

1% .
DereI.’ 1C
1A

7E~W.R. Wye
1A8

JESS. , Va
‘

176

dissatisfied with future Shakespearean productions in which the roles

were not performed as well as Gielgud had done them.144 McClain was

ecstatic.

Sir John Gielgud appeared alone on the stage of the Forty—sixth
St. Theatre last night and brought more meaning and majesty to
the incredible genius of Shakespeare than a platoon of touring
companies. Taking selections from plays and sonnets, he has
traced the progression of man from youth to death, with reasonable
digressions. He calls it "Ages of Man” and it is magnificent.

We have all been witness to Shakespeare in his various guises.
Here he is unencumbered by people who often clutter the stage:
the best of his writing is delivered by a single actor who has
respect, appreciation and the ability to transmit it with the
mere aid of a dinner jacket and a neglected lectern. I doubt
that we will, in our time, hear so many memorable passages read
with equal passion of Lsigq understanding-145

Most of the other critics had similar sentiments. Driver called

the evening an "intellectual triumph” and advised his readers that
' 46

. . 1
anyone who cared anything about theatre should not miss it. Wyatt

was completely captivated. She wrote, "The experience which I count

as one of the happiest in the theatre is the memory of a baldish man

in a dinner jacket alone on a stage whose voice unlocked the gate to

47

consumate beauty.“1

. - ' . he
Two critics felt it necessary to VOice reservations T

reviewer for Variety found Gielgud's artistry compelling, but warned

that the Program was still a "reading” and consequently the "enter—

tainment value" was limited.’148 Clurman, writing in flatign, started

M
144

Watts, loc. cit.

145John McClain, New York Journal American, December 29, 1958,
M
LYTCR, P- 158-

146

Driver, loc. cit.

147E.V.R. Wyatt, Catholic Worlds March, 1959’ pp. 505—506.

148Jess., Variety, December 31, 19587 P- 46-

 

 

 

his review with the observ
about Ages of Man which p1
pleasure," but then he pr<
worrying over comments he

Everyone talked of
the notion that such
made the trapping of
siasm, this observatf
aesthetics it is dep'.

Gielgud is an acto
By themselves they a
cularly apparent to
Measure. I had seer
at Stratford-on-Avor
worm-eaten, crabbed
half sadistic hypoc:
the reading only th
was communicatedfllt

All the critics ‘
and-performance. Seve
he was able to create
feature of the eveniny

Performance to the ma

critics, while heapir

1 u
h. Gielgud, felt 001

limitations. Atkins

considered one of ti

h‘ .
13 mice was rathe'

Atkinson hastened t

instrum
1|
ent because

no
Clurman, ‘

177
his review with the observation that only good things should be said
about Ages of Man which provided a ”splendid evening of educational
pleasure," but then he proceeded to spend the rest of his review
worrying over comments he had overheard on opening night.

Everyone talked of Gielgud as a great actor; and everyone echoed
the notion that such an actor speaking Shakespeare's glorious verse
made the trapping of the stage unnecessary. As a mark of enthu—
siasm, this observation was proper as well as pleasant; as theatre
aesthetics it is deplorable.

Gielgud is an actor 0f high rank, but his readings are Egadingsz
By themselves they are certainly not theatre. This became parti-
cularly apparent to me as I listened to a speech from Measure of
Measure. I had seen Gielgud as Angelo in the play some years ago
at Stratford—on—Avon and was much impressed by the insidious,
worm—eaten, crabbed "medievalism"——half anguished conscience,
half sadistic hypocrisy—-which informed his impersonation. In
the reading only the verbal sense and the inspiration of language
was communicated.1 9

Acting

All the critics wrote in glowing terms of Mr. Gielgud's talent

and performance. Several of the reviewers cmmented on the illusions
he was able to create and many of them thought the outstanding

feature of the evening was the way in which Gielgud subjugated his

Performance to the material. It is interesting that four of the

Critics, while heaping lavish praise on the histrionic abilities of

Mr. Gielgud, felt compelled to point out certain of his natural
limitations. Atkinson observed that although Gielgud had been

Considered one of the top classical actors for a quarter of a century,

his voice was rather high pitched and his volume was limited.

Atkinson hastened to add, however, that his voice was still ”a superb

instrument" because Gielgud's training and experience enable him to
______________________

149

Clurman, loc. cit.

 

 

to use it to its utmost ca

lacked an outstanding voic

Tynan had no quarrei

it was superb, but he had

Gielgud was deficient. E

evident in Gielgud' s 55.9.:
previously.

I have always felt
the finest actor on
his Shakespeare reci
that opinion. Whene
C.E. Montague (my f2
Coquelin: namely, '
three strict elemen
a finished technica
of the character ac
abundance, and is a
notion, he is consi
cords of inhibitior
stand out most ole:
display at the “'65
satisfactory thing
lnpUlse of a speec
right or left and
evening protective

i t claw the air
the better for it
instrument that o
co 0 . The
eKclusively aural
ness does not ext
be; poker-racedr
Passion, and the
features I‘eSpond

Q . .

 

178
150

to use it to its utmost capacity.

151

Chapman also noted that Gielgud
lacked an outstanding voice.

Tynan had no quarrel with Gielgud's voice, in fact, he thought
it was superb, but he had several other areas in which he thought
Gielgud was deficient. He thought these deficiencies were much less
evident in Gielgud's Ages of Man than they were in roles he had acted
previously.

I have always felt (and once wrote) that Sir John Gielgud is
the finest actor on earth from the neck up, and, having heard
his Shakespeare recital, ”Ages of Man," I am in no mood to revise
that opinion. Whenever I think of Sir John, I remember what
C.E. Montague (my favorite drama critic next to Shaw) said of
Coquelin: namely, that ”his power was simply the sum of the
three strict elements of great acting——a plastic physical medium,
a finished technical cunning, and a passion of joy in the thought
of the character acted." Sir John has the last two qualities in
abundance, and is almost entirely deficient in the first; when in
motion, he is constricted, hesitant, and jerky, enmeshed in unseen
cords of inhibition. His exceptional virtues of mind and voice
stand out most clearly in repose, and for this reason the present
display at the 46th Street Theatre seems to me one of the most
satisfactory things he has ever done. Now and then, when the
impulse of a speech demands it, he takes a step or two to the
right or left and permits his hands, which spend much of the
evening protectively clasping each other, to fly up in gestures
that claw the air, but for the most part he is still, and all
the better for it; the voice flows freely among us, a thrilling
instrument that commands the full tonal range of both viola and
cello . . . . The impact of the performance is not, however,
exclusively aural; as I've said, Sir John's physical inexpressive—
ness does not extend above the collar stud. Poker—backed he may
be; poker—faced he certainly isn't. Wherever pride, scorn, com-
passion, and the more cerebral kinds of agony are called for, his
features respond promptly and memorably.’l 2

   
    
    
  
  
 

On the other hand, Driver, who had long considered Gielgud the

best Shakespearean actor on the stages had never noticed that "he has

    

15OAtkinson, loc. cit.

15

1Chapman, loc. cit.

152Kenneth Tynan, The New Yorker, January 10, 1959, p. 60.

 

almost as many natural lie
of Man, Driver became awa:
pitched and not particula‘
physical presence; and th
“One is much aware of his
residue of awkwardness he
words, when I saw him al.
surprised to learn that
The other critics
reminded his readers no
great Shakespearean act<
Gielgud was "perhaps th

.. 1
times." 55 Coleman ack

readers what a magnific
then proceeded to do sc
Whether or not they ob
abilities, they were a

Ages of Man.

The critic for f
Gielgud initially gav'
Dears entirely throng

1n the dinner jacket

Wort 1 157
h' ' Coleman 1

153
Driver ,

156
Coleman, 10

10c

 

 

 

179

almost as many natural liabilities as assets.”

While watching Ages

of Man, Driver became aware that Gielgud's voice was rather high

pitched and not particularly resonant; that Gielgud lacked an imposing

physical presence; and that his movements occasionally lacked fluidity.

"One is much aware of his hands, his stance, his feet, as if some

residue of awkwardness had not entirely been expunged. In other

words, when I saw him alone in evening dress upon the stage, I was

surprised to learn that he is not, as I had imagined, all grace.“53
The other critics did not bother to temper their praise. Watts

reminded his readers no one had challenged Mr. Gielgud's rank as a

154

great Shakespearean actor for many years. Beaufort thought

Gielgud was "perhaps the greatest English speaking actor of our

155

times." Coleman acknowledged it was unnecessary to tell his

readers what a magnificent Shakespearean actor Gielgud was; and he

156 Regardless of

then proceeded to do so at considerable length.
whether or not they observed any weaknesses in Sir John's natural
abilities, they were all aware of his superlative performance in
Ages of Man.

The critic for Newsweek recalled the evening began quietly.
Gielgud initially gave the impression he was going to present Shakes—
peare entirely through the use of his voice, but soon "the quiet man

in the dinner jacket is acting the roles for all the fervor they are

worth."’|5'7 COIeman found Gielgud's voice almost hypnotic and his

 

 

154 155

Watts, l22'.2i£'

157Newsweek, January 12, 1959, p. 56.

153Driver, 100. cit.

156

Beaufort, loc. cit.

Coleman, loo. cit.

 

 

 

characterizations extreme]
episode was the abdicatior
Gielgud's cheeks and many
handkerchiefs at moist ey
aspiring actors make a c2
was inspired acting, act

158

of a master.“
Gielgud began the
as he greeted, "in the '
writer in the English 1
of the evening, Gielgufi
were trying to see bet'
the meanings, the cone
and his consumate ski]
see them as well.160
and thence, with king
Oppenheimer was so tr
saw "not only Richar<
Whom he must surrend
have robbed him of t
Many of the C]

which Gielgud focus

words rather than 0

1 8
5 Coleman, j

161
Aston, lo

 

180

characterizations extremely moving. He thought the most touching
episode was the abdication speech of Richard II. "Tears flowed down
Gielgud's cheeks and many in the audience were observed dabbing
handkerchiefs at moist eyes." Coleman strongly recommended that
aspiring actors make a careful study of Gielgud's performance. "It
was inspired acting, acting from within, completely under the control
of a master."158

Gielgud began the evening by requesting the audience to watch
as he greeted, "in the realm of the imaginative mind," the greatest

writer in the English language.159

Kerr noted that during the course
of the evening, Gielgud frequently blinked his eyes ”as though he

were trying to see better.” What he was seeing were the characters,
the meanings, the concepts of many of Shakespeare's greatest works;
and his consumate skill was such that he was able to make the audience

160

see them as well. Aston found the stage ”fully peopled with Danes

and thanes, with kings and young men hopelessly in love."161
Oppenheimer was so transported into the realm of imagination that he
saw "not only Richard II in his abdication scene, but Bolingbroke to
whom he must surrender his beloved crown and all the courtiers who
have robbed him of their allegiance."162
Many of the critics were favorably impressed with the way in

which Gielgud focused the attention of the audience on Shakespeare‘s

words rather than on his own performance. The reviewer for Newsweek
——-———

 

 

158 16

Coleman, 100. cit. 159Driver, 100. cit.

16 162

1Aston, loc. cit.

Oppenheimer, loo. cit.

 

 

0
Kerr, loc. cit.

 

thought the actor‘ s f eelin
so apparent that, at the e
emerge is Shakespeare.“
observed Gielgud apparent:
Shahespeare, and noted th
gradually became convince
ShadreSpeare than in hims
Hewes praised Giel
to show off technique, 8
disflaying his talents,
Virtuosity that it is a
total work.“165 Chapme
[Sic] E300d judgement e
evening in the theatre
the reviewer for @113
. It is Shakespea:
1n the recital, a:

any ma'ETIZ'Lficence
a Projection of a
“hat stands out
s his absorptioy
Of Something 10v
seems to PTOMlse
e essence 0f t

i

163N

nan. _:
165

Henry Hews
166

Chapman, 1
16? .

{Elfin Jam

 

 

181
thought the actor's feeling for, and devotion to, the spoken word was
so apparent that, at the end of the evening, "the ultimate hero to
emerge is Shakespeare."163 Wyatt, writing for Catholic World,
observed Gielgud apparently believed it was not necessary to embellish
Shakespeare, and noted that as the evening progressed, the audience
gradually became convinced Gielgud was "honestly more interested in
Shakespeare than in himself."164
Hewes praised Gielgud for being able to conquer the temptation
to show off technique, and that because he was not concerned with
displaying his talents, Ages of Man was ”less a cascade of star
virtuosity that it is a great actor's revelation about Shakespeare's
total work."165 Chapman observed that only an actor of "exceptional
[sigJ good judgement and keen intelligence could make this fine
evening in the theatre Shakespeare's and not Gielgud's.”166 Perhaps
the reviewer for Tigg best summed it up when he wrote:
It is Shakespeare the magician with language who bulks largest
in the recital, and Gielgud has his own touch of magic, not from
any magnificence in voice or roll of theatrical thunder, but from

a projection of a feeling, a rush of psychological light . . . .

c o c I c o o 0 ~ . n o o u . ~ 5 o o o n o o a o o . .

What stands out along with Gielgud's mastery of his material
is his absorption in his subject—~the sense toward Shakespeare,
of something loved and life long. The effect that such a recital
seems to promise most, flashing virtuosity, is what gatters least.
The essence of the evening is not glitter but glow.1 7

 

164

163Newsweek, loc. cit. Wyatt, 2p, cit., p. 506.

165Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, January 17, 1959, p. 7%.
166

Chapman, loc. cit.

167Time, January 12, 1959a P~ 66-

—_

 

 

 

_ha_te_n_a_l_

The critics, probab
rudimentary knowledge of
consideration of the mate
George Rylands anthology
in two hours time, Gielg
word, image, and charact
of some 19 plays.“69

There were three
afld‘llld Age." The fir
Shakespeare. The secor
decision or adult reve:

problems of the old.17

Gielgud tried tc
have plenty of variety
necessary for each so

Most of the pas
0f literature .
with erudition, e
the speeches come
Sllr'ltes, the soo
heritage. Altho'
as creation by t

C

W
The only crit:

other oral interpre

168
Atkinson ,
170
Chapman ,

182
Material
The critics, probably assuming their readers had at least a
rudimentary knowledge of the Bard, did not devote much time to the
consideration of the material beyond mentioning that Gielgud had used
George Rylands anthology of Shakespeare.)I68 Beaufort noted that,
in two hours time, Gielgud "spreads out of cloth of gold tapestry of
word, image, and character into which are woven 9 sonnets and fragments
of some 19 plays.“69
There were three sections to the program; ”Youth," "Manhood,"
and "Old Age." The first showed the lyrical side of life and of
Shakespeare. The second was concerned with "moments of action, royal
decision or adult revery." The last part contained reflections and
problems of the old./ll7O
Gielgud tried to arrange the material so that the program would
have plenty of variety. He gave only what introductory material was
necessary for each scene. Atkinson wrote:
Most of the passages are familiar to most theatregoers and lovers
of literature . . . . Mr. Gielgud has not tried to confound us
with erudition, although he could. In addition to the sonnets,
the speeches come from the kings and princes, the lovers and
sprites, the soothsayers and sorcerers who are part of our cultural

heritage. Although most of them are familiar, they are as fresh
as creation by the time Mr. Gielgud is through with them.l7l

Comparisons
The only critic to draw a comparison between Ages of Man and

other oral interpretation productions was Oppenheimer. He noted there

 

 

168 169

Atkinson, loc. cit. Beaufort, loc. cit.

170 17

Chapman, loc. cit. 1Atkinson, loo. cit.

 

 

,, .. ”~'

had been many 011‘5'man read
and his Dickens and ThomaE
“though he labeled Mr. W
them as merely readings w
"evocation of moments the
listener a panorama of 8C
The Ages of Man wa
as critically. my
$30,000 investment in 16
week was $36,700, which
office weeks on record
35,000 net profitj‘.73
lucrative, for the New
011111 for the final wee]
fwd Performances.
In April of 196}
one—week engagement.
been extremely popula

readers the only prob
see $175

\

172
Oppenheimer

173 _
m: JE
174

Sam Zolotov

175
John McCla

183

had been many one—man readings in recent years, with Emlyn Williams
and his Dickens and Thomas programs being noteworthy examples.
Although he labeled Mr. Williams' programs as "admirable," he regarded
them as merely readings which could not measure up to Mr. Gielgud's
"evocation of moments that capture and enthrall you,” and offer the
listener a panorama of all the action and all the Characters.172

The Ages of Man was a spectacular success financially as well
as critically. Variety reported the production had recouped its
$30,000 investment in less than three weeks. The gross for the third
week was $36,700, which was believed to be one of the biggest box
office weeks on record for a one—man show, and which meant an estimated
315,000 net profit.173 The fourth week must have been at least as
lucrative, for the New York Times reported there was standing room
only for the final week's performances/1'74 Ages of Man ran for
forty performances.

In April of 1965, Gielgud returned with Ages of Man for a
one—week engagement. He again garnered rave reviews and must have

been extremely popular at the box office again. McClain warned his

readers the only prOblem with the program was that of getting in to

 

 

see it.175
1720ppenheimer, loc. cit.
175Variet , January 21, 1959s Po 81-
17anm Zolotow, New York Times, January 27, 1959, p. 26.
175

John McClain, New York Journal American, April 15, 1965.

 

 

Hal Holbrook‘ 5 Mill};—

of oral interpretation “5

recreate a literary 8X13e1

possible exception 0f hi‘

story and a selection fr

to provide a visual and
lecturer.

The only justific
reviewers of subsequent
oral interpretation usr
program for purposes 0
be familiar with the p
Writer decided a hurt

Hal Holbrook be
at Denison University
011 Twain for a class
be contacted a lectu
Southwest. For twel

Twain. He listened

0f him) and talked
to perfect his Twai
When not on the roe

II
The Brighter Day.

Holbrook gar

Louis Ca

184

Mark Twain Tonight!

Hal Holbrook's Mark Twain Tonight! does not fit the definition
of oral interpretation used in this study. Holbrook did not seek to
recreate a literary experience in the mind of the listener, with the
possible exception of his presentation, as Mark Twain, of a ghost
story and a selection from Huckleberry Finn. Holbrook's purpose was
to provide a visual and auditory recreation of Mark Twain as platform
lecturer.

The only justification for including Mark Twain Tonight! is that
reviewers of subsequent one—man shows which do fit the definition of
oral interpretation used here quite often referred to the Holbrook
program for purposes of comparison. In order that the reader might
be familiar with the production when such references are made, the
writer decided a limited discussion of Mark Twain Tonight! was necessary.

Hal Holbrook began working on Mark Twain when he was a senior
at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. Be prepared a short skit
on Twain for a class assignment. His professor was so impressed that
he contacted a lecture agent to book Holbrook for a tour in the
Southwest. For twelve years, Holbrook studied all he could find on
Twain. He listened to records of Twain, watched an old Edison film
of him, and talked with many of his contemporary. He worked constantly
to perfect his Twain program and toured it throughout the country.
When not on the road with Twain, he appeared in the CBS—TV serial
"The Brighter Day."/"76

Holbrook gave two performances at The Lambs early in 1958.

6 .
17 Louis Calta, New York Times, April 8, 1959, p. 42.

 

 

. --4-a~—

Producer John Lotas saw or
the Twain program in an 0
appeared on the New York

Sabinscn recalled that, 2
Tel Holbrook presenting l
"a fishy stare and a sin
Holbrook?‘"177 Mark Twa

the lHst Street Theatre,

One critic descri
ahigh, old-fashioned 3
and a cut-glass pitche?
devoted three hours to
the gray mustache, and
the thirty-four year <
Holbrook wore a white
in which Twain was al
that he wore the whit
constructive influent

Holbrook had a
watch for a prop, pm

177John more:
wallime A "
1 9\, pm

John Beauf

or
rank AStc

 

185

Producer John Lotas saw one of the performances and decided to present
the Twain program in an off—Broadway theatre. Holbrook had never
appeared on the New York stage before, and press agent Harvey
Sabinson recalled that, after he sent out the general release about
Hal Holbrook presenting Mark Twain, the only response he got was

"a fishy stare and a single question from the press; ‘Who ig Hal

Holbrook?‘"177 Mark Twain Tonight! opened on April 6, 1959, at

the 41st Street Theatre.

Setting and Accessories

One critic described the stage as ”a faded daguerreotype, with
a high, old—fashioned lectern, a desk with a topply mound of books
”178

and a cut—glass pitcher of water, a McKinley—era chair. Holbrook

devoted three hours to applying the bushy white hair and eyebrows,
the gray mustache, and the facial lines and wrinkles which turned
the thirty—four year old actor into the seventyvyear~old Twainflr79
Holbrook wore a white linen suit which looked like the white suit

in which Twain was always photographed. Holbrook, as Twain, explained

that he wore the white suit "because a naked person exerts little

8O

. . . 1
constructive influence on soc1ety."

Holbrook had a heavy watch chain across his vest and used the

watch for a prop, pulling it out before the end of each act to see

.____________________
177John Fuller, Saturday Review, May 50, 1959, pp. 6-7.
178

Time, April 20, 1959, P- 71-

1 -. . .
79John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, April 11, 1959.

180
Frank Aston, New York World—Telegram and Sun, April 7, 1959.

 

 

 

 

 

 

if it was time to stop.
and matches. One of the
the matches, and the pufi

Twain as the rope did fo:

Classification
Most of the critic
describe the presentatic

182 McClain clas

show."
labeled it a "one-man r
presentation."/‘85 The
could technically be ce
and several books on t
were only props.186

lbuner of Presentatior

Holbrook came 01
like Twain, but with
year-old man would be
three seconds he was

electing to Spend an

181
E‘V IR. wyat

18
aflarold 01111
Robert 0016

183
John McCla:

John Chapm
185

Walter Key
186 .

Twin, ET

186
if it was time to stop. The most frequently used props were cigars
and matches. One of the critics suggested the cigar, the lighting of
the matches, and the puffs of smoke served the same purpose for Mark

Twain as the rope did for Will Rogers.181

Classification

 

Most of the critics used some form of the term "one—man" to
describe the presentation. Clurman and Coleman called it a ”one—man
183

show."182 McClain classified it a "one—man reading," Chapman

18h

labeled it a "one—man recitation,” and Kerr termed it a "one—man

presentation."185 The critic for Variety surmised the production
could technically be called a "reading" because there was a lectern

and several books on the stage; but he hastened to add these books

were only props.18

Manner of Presentation

 

Holbrook came on stage, not only dressed and made—up to look
like Twain, but with the movements, gestures, and twitches a seventy—
year-old man would be expected to have. Kerr admitted for the first
three seconds he was afraid Holbrook had made a ”tactical error in

electing to spend an entire evening with the vocal quaver, the

 

8
1 1E.v.R. Wyatt, Catholic World, June 1959, p- 241-

18
2Harold Clurman, Nation, August 15, 1959: P- 79-
Robert Coleman, New York Mirror, April 7, 1959.
18 . .
3John McClain, New York Journal American, April 7, 1959.

84 .
1 John Chapman, New York Daily News, April 10, 1959.

18
5Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, April 7, 1959.

8
1 6Nedi., Variety, April 15, 1959, p- 72-

 

 

 

 

possibly arthritic fingers

he promptly forgot about t

8
results.1 7

Holbrook‘ s performa

speaker and of "his perso

188
eternal uerities." Th

lecturer, were the times
an excerpt from Huck Fim
instances Holbrook portr:
own stories, similar to

ngrams. The majority

Twain.

0n the evening of
stage made their we;
on l+1st St. which 1,
It was not a very
TWO of the critic
Watts of the Post w
Off‘BTOadway will

The two Substitu'
cahtivated by Mark Twa
\

have known that Hal Ho
aifles'mo T ere wer

tied endorsements .

ensJ‘Atic.

18\
18 \ ~
gflfller’

T1

92.

190 .
Lewls FlHike

 

 

18?

possibly arthritic fingers, and the ducklike shuffle of Twain," but
he promptly forgot about the technique and proceeded to enjoy the
187

results.
Holbrook's performance was a recreation of Twain as a platform

speaker and of ”his personality and human, humane viewpoints on the
eternal verities."188 The only times Holbrook was not Twain, the

lecturer, were the times he was Twain, the story—teller, presenting
an excerpt from Huck Finn and telling a ghost story. In these two
instances Holbrook portrayed Twain portraying characters from his

own stories, similar to what Emlyn Williams had done in his Dickens

programs. The majority of the time however, Holbrook was "just”

Twain.
On the evening of April 6, 1959, the critics of the New York
stage made their way to a small theatre snuggled into a building
on 41st St. which looked for all the world like a subway entrance.

It was not a very distinguished or signal occasion.
Two of the critics, Brooks Atkinson of the Times, and Richard

Watts of the Post were happy to send substitutes to this obscure

off—Broadway opening.

Verdict
The two substitutes and the remaining "regulars” were completely

captivated by Mark Twain Tonight! As Funke reminisced, "Who could

have known that Hal Holbrook would set the aisle sitters in the

aiSleS."190 There were no negative reactions and only a few quali—
fied endorsements. The majority of the critics were practically

ecstatic.
_____________________
187 188001eman, loc. cit.

Kerr, loc. cit.

18
9Fuller,_2p. cit., p. 6.

190 . .
LerS Funke, New York Times, July 12, 1959, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

 

 

Clurman thought Holb
portrait“ of Twain and cal
put on our stage."19’l Co:
Spellbinding,“ and recomm
irTwain as well as a spe
Kerr described it as “ric
Chapman told his readers
see a splendid actor por

the opening for Atkinson

hark Twain Tonight! slit
evening . . . . Everytl
found time to attend th
substitute‘ s evaluatior

herridge describe

companion,“ and warned

his acquaintance.197

admin enjoy the surpri

sourian."198 Hewes tl

mm enjoyable than a
191\
Clurman, Q

l
931(61‘1‘, 10‘0- (

1
95Arthur Gelb
196
Brooks Atki
197

Fl‘ancis Her

198
Wyatt, 10¢,

19
9Heroin Hew

put on our stage.

Spellbinding," and recommended it as an excellent "refresher course
in Twain as well as a spellbinding evening of entertainment.

Kerr described it as "rich, robust, and mightily entertaining.

see a splendid actor portray a splendid writer.

found time to attend the show two weeks later and agreed with his

 

substitute's evaluation.

 

188

Clurman thought Holbrook had provided a "first rate miniature

portrait" of Twain and called the show "one of the pleasantest things

”191 Coleman headlined his review ”'Twain Tonight!‘

"192

"193

Chapman told his readers to take advantage of the opportunity to

19Y Gelb, who Covered

the opening for Atkinson, reported that ”an extra—ordinary show called

Mark Twain Tonight! slipped into the 41st Street Theatre last

evening . . . . Everything about the evening is perfect."195 Atkinson

He found it "thoroughly enjoyable."196

Herridge described Mark Twain as a "thoroughly delightful

companion,” and warned her readers not to miss this chance to make
his acquaintance.197 Wyatt rejoiced that "another generation can

again enjoy the surprises of the venerable but impish, witty Mis—

198 Hewes thought the Twain portrayed by Holbrook was much

sourian."
199

more enjoyable than any modern, super—charged comic.

 

ngClurman, loc. cit. 192Coleman, loc. cit.

193Kerr, loo. cit. ngChapmans $22: EEE'

195Arthur Gelb, New York Times, April 7, 1959, p. ho.

 

 

6 . .
9 Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, April 19, 1959. Sec. V1, p. 24.

1 .
_ 9‘7Francis Herridge, New York Post, April 7, 1959.

198

Wyatt, loc. cit.

1 .
99Harold Hewes, Saturday Review, April 25, 1959, p. 23.

 

 

 

 

Bolton ordered his reader

halholbrook brine Mark T

the production as "a pri:

Two critics had re

so remarkable that he dr
recommended the producti
program started to drag
overall, he found it a
see "something that del
the critics apparently
day after the reviews 1

II '
a continuous line of

for the show.“205

he‘tini

Most of the cri
hr. Holbrook's remarl
which seemed to be m
his ability to portr
istics of a seventy-
huur program, and tl

those characteristi

Wain! .
5 comic lines

200

Whitney B
201

Donald Na

20
ZNedi” lr

 

 

189

"Go now, go soon, go quickly to see

” He labeled

Bolton ordered his readers:

Hal Holbrook bring Mark Twain to utter and complete life.
200

the production as "a prize for the season."
Two critics had reservations. One thought actor Holbrook was
so remarkable that he drew attention away from author Twain, but he

recommended the production anyhow. Another reviewer felt the

program started to drag a little before each intermission, but

overall, he found it a diverting show which allowed 1959 audiences to
see "something that delighted earlier generations." The praise of

the critics apparently had a salutary effect on the box office. The
day after the reviews appeared in most of the papers, Calta reported
"a continuous line of twenty to thirty patrons seeking to buy tickets
205

for the show."

Acting

Most of the critics devoted the majority of their reviews to
Mr. Holbrook's remarkable acting skill.
which seemed to be most impressive to the gentlemen of the press were
his ability to portray and sustain the vocal and physical character—
istics of a seventy—year—old man consistently throughout the two
hour program, and the skill with which Holbrook was able to use

those characteristics of age to achieve the maximum effect from

Twain's comic lines.

 

2 . .
OOWhitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, April 8, 1959.

201 .
Donald Malcolm, The New Yorker, April 18, 1959, p. 81.

2
02meai., loc. cit. BOBCalta. EEO—C..- 9.1.15.-

 

 

The aspects of his presentation

 

Bolton wrote, "He 1
whines, chuckles, and b1”
and honest, every hitch .
his ill-fitting pants ri
critic for Ti_me_noted ti
Holbrook brought to bea:
the stiffened fingers,
wisps or” tobacco staine
rettes in the invisible

Holbrook managed
quality 0i an old man.
his voice was that of
found this extremely ‘
more effective and 11
(Rimming glass that
that gives to youth 2

Kerr was also
imexlmustable supply

humor of Twain‘s h}
if his Suit di d not
he was “shaking 30k
minted out Holbro<
inflection and the

heighten the humor

20h

Thom. :
207

Kerr, 10

190

Bolton wrote, "He is Twain, he looks, walks, talks, snarls,
whines, chuckles, and bumbles as Twain did, with every gesture intact
and honest, every hitch of his galluses authentic, every slurch of
his ill—fitting pants right and correct in the tradition."204 The
critic for Timg_noted the small, physical indications of age which
Holbrook brought to bear on his subject. "Involuntary tremors ripple
the stiffened fingers, the lower jaw nibbles spasmodically at the
wiSps of tobacco stained mustache, the shoulders twitch like mario-
nettes in the invisible hands of time."205

HOlbrook managed to achieve the "cracked and reedy" vocal
quality of an old man.206 When he came to the story of Huck Finn,
his voice was that of an old man's imitating a boy's voice. Kerr
found this extremely effective. "The new impersonation is all the
more effective and literal, for having been filtered through a
distorting glass that is slightly faded and slightly cracked but
”207
that gives to youth a fantastic, strangely real, form.

Kerr was also taken with the way in which Holbrook used ”an
inexhaustable supply of crotchety dodges" to further enhance the
humor of Twain's lines. He continually shrugged his shoulders as
if his suit did not fit just right, which gave Kerr the impression
he was "shaking jokes out of his sleeves."208 The EEEEEEX critic
Pointed out Holbrook's mastery of "the strategic pause, the pointed

inflection and the cross—stage shuffle” which served as devices to

209

heighten the humor of Twain's lines.

“—

. 206 - .
204Bolton, 100. cit. 2OETimea 100- Clt- Beaufort, l22' 2E3
207 208 209Nedi., loc. cit.

Kerr, loc. cit. Ibid.

 

 

Beaufort cited Holt
-. art as be shifted positit
inhis disorganized note
with his cigar and lit a
that although these bits
they seemed to be Mark 5
t then detracting, they at
terization of the "whit
did intellectual verve
Exquisite sense of timi
described by Malsolm as
It is Mr. Holbro<
against the comedy
Sim: he gropes i:
IlSheS out a cigar
SUbSlde. Thena ca
he adds the next 1
the audience has E
spasm, he lights I

cloud of amoke, th
613cerned.211

Part of the tre

to the fact, as Kerr

material to work with
transitions from one

recalled his main pm

210

Beaufort a 0

2n ‘
Mfilcolma 1C

191
Beaufort cited Holbrook's skillful application of his actor's
art as he shifted positions, paused, consulted the dog—earred pages
in his disorganized notebook, carefully checked his watch, fiddled
with his cigar and lit a multitude of matches. Beaufort remarked
that although these bits of business could be classified as "tricks,"
they seemed to be Mark Twain's own tricks, and consequently, rather
than detracting, they added a sort of "verisimilitude" to the charac—
terization of the ”white—suited, white—maned literary lion of splen—

"210

did intellectual verve and a superb platform manner. Holbrook's

exquisite sense of timing when delivering Twain's anecdotes was
described by Malsolm as follows:

It is Mr. Holbrook's practice, on these occasions, to act-
against the comedy. Having reached the ostensible end of his
story, he gropes in a pocket with aged, trembling fingers and
fishes out a cigar, as if merely waiting for the laughter to
subside. Then, carefully snipping off the end of the Cigar,
he adds the next line, almost by way of an afterthought. When
the audience has sufficiently recovered from its consequent
-Spasm, he lights up and expels the final line With a casual
Cloud of amoke, through which his roguish eyes may dimly be
discerned.211

Material

Part of the tremendous success of Mark Twain Toni ht! was due
to the fact, as Kerr pointed out, Holbrook had some prdty EOOd
material to work with.212 All the material was Twain's, even the

k
transitions from one aspect of the program to another. Holbroo

. - t
reCalled his main problem in assembling the material had been 0
____________________

2 .
qoBeaufort, 2p. Cit., p. 7-

21 '
2llllMalcolm, loc. cit. 2Kerr7 2223 SEE‘

 

 

combine Twain's various wo
not "without the seams 51‘
words. Holbrook remembere
looking for two lines to j
McClain noted most
Twain" literature, but tlr
unlmown. He thought thi:
refractory attitude towa

listed in the playbill,
Selections for the eveni
figment had "been unablt

wn do."215

Most of the selec

humorous, although he (
huekleberry Finn?l6 1
Twain‘s speeches and s
Surprised. She admitt
“may, an evening of

‘But quite the c

incident in "Huck
recital is appare

 

192
combine Twain's various works so that one excerpt blended into the
II'
next without the seams showing," and yet to use only Twain's own

words. Holbrook remembered spending as much as twenty—four hours

looking for two lines to provide a transitional bridge.215

McClain noted most people were familiar with the ”classical
T - n -
waln literature, but that the lecture material was relatively

unkn ' '
own. He thought this material revealed a ”salty and wonderfully
21h

refractory attitude toward life.” There were thirty—one items
listed in the playbill, and a forward announced that Mr. Twain's
selections for the evening would come from the list, but the man-
agement had "been unable to pin him down as to which of them he
will do.”215

Most of the selections Holbrook used on opening night were

h .
umorous, although he did present a melodramatic scene from

216 . .
A large portion of the material was taken from

Huckleberr Finn.

Twain's speeches and short stories.217 Herridge was pleasantly
surprised. She admitted she had expected something quite different,

namely, an evening of literary readings.

Aside from a colorful telling of an

But Quite the contrary.
and the Golden Arm ghost story, no

incident in "Huckleberry Finn"
recital is apparent.

- Instead it is one amusing remark a
ironic barbs are aimed at religion, morals, SOCial customs, reform
movements and the whole of ideas. Some are whimsical, some are
outrageous tall stories, some are gentle, others Sharp, some
eXplosively funny, but all are touched by that salty wisdom that

cuts through sham and upturns stiffness.

fter another . . . . Twain's

 

21 .
BFuller, loc. cit. auncClain, loc. cit. 215Nedi, £2£~ EEE‘

216 .
Aston, loc. cit. 217Nedi, loc. cit. 218Herridge, loc. Cit.

 

 

Chapman noted that tl
hecause "the author was a
away a line to make it fur
had a lusty and harpooning
and handle a joke until i

bursting into a man' s fac

Bolton noted that ]
man shows . . . that mos
McClain generalized that
John Gielgud's evening t
Twain program were difi
was somewhat less dogma

Suggested that "a one-r

New York had been deli;
hges of Man, and now t

of another delightful
compared Holbrook's p1“
Bob Hope and Jack Ben
covering a wider and

Three of the or
between Holbrook‘ s p

219Chapman, 3
222McClain, lg

224
Herridge,

 

’19}

Chapman noted that the Twain humor was excellent for retelling
because "the author was a master of timing-~and a master of throwing
away a line to make it funnier."219 Bolton wrote of Twain, "He
had a lusty and harpooning sense of humor and he knew how to dandle
and handle a joke until it exploded before his audience like ketchup
bursting into a man's face."220
Comparisons

Bolton noted that Mark Twain Tonight! was one of those "one-
man shows . . . that most difficult and exciting of all forms."221
McClain generalized that one-man readings were usually boring, but
John Gielgud's evening with Shakespeare, and Hal Holbrook's Mark
Twain program were difinitely exceptions to the rule.222 Coleman
was somewhat less dogmatic in his evaluation of one—man shows. He
suggested that ”a one—man show can be a bore or a delight,” and noted
New York had been delighted earlier in the season by Gielgud and
Ages of Man, and now they had the opportunity to avail themselves

of another delightful one-man show, Mark Twain Tonight!223

Herridge

compared HolbrookESpresentation to "something like a combination of

Bob Hope and Jack Benny, with their superb timing, only with comments

, _ , "221+

covering a Wider and deeper field.
Three of the critics pointed out similarities and differences

between Holbrook's program and Emlyn Williams' three presentations.

 

219Chapman, loc. cit. 220Bolton, 100. cit. 221Ibid.

222McClain, loc. cit. 223COlemana lgg-_2£E-

221+ . ,
Herridge, loc. Cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clurman observed Holbrook

had done in his Dickens an

225

wan." This comment 15

"act out" Thomas, the ant]
production, but he had "a
and whiskers in 1952 and
this out. “Nothing since

impersonation of Charles

226
hark Twain Tonight! .“

demomances as follows:

Mr. Emlyn Williams
delightful and memon
expert projection of
submerged in the in'
Twain Toni t‘. has 1
Clemens all evening
Huckleberr Finn an
lecturer who was on
fancies and philosc

Mark Twain Toni

N
Not only did the produi
the vast majority of C
Rice Award for Best Ac
Gircle Critics'

Award
1959 SeaSOn . 228

\

225
Clurman: 100

226
Beaufort 1 1C

3?
Wyatt , 10¢.
228
Ne

?? v

194
Clurman observed Holbrook did more than just read Twain, as Williams

had done in his Dickens and Thomas programs; Holbrook "acted out the

225

man." This comment is somewhat misleading. Williams did not

"act out" Thomas, the author he was concerned with in his most recent
production, but he had "acted out" Dickens, complete with costume
and whiskers in 1952 and again in 1953. Beaufort's comment bears
this out. "Nothing since Emlyn Williams' histrionically compelling

impersonation of Charles Dickens can compare with Hal Holbrook in

Mark Twain Tonightl."226 Wyatt contrasted the Twain and Dickens

performances as follows:

Mr. Emlyn Williams' readings as Charles Dickens were a recent
delightful and memorable event, largely dependent on Mr. Williams'
expert projection of the rich material when the author became
submerged in the interest of the story. Hal Holbrook in Mark
Twain Tonight! has another approach. He is Samuel Langhorne
Clemens all evening. With the exception of an incident from
Huckleberry Finn and A Ghost Stggy, it was Mr. Clemens as a
lecturer who was on the stage propounding his Mark Twainish
fancies and philosophy with such inimitable dry humor.227

 

 

Mark Twain Tonight! enjoyed critical and popular success.
Not only did the production receive the enthusiastic endorsement of
the vast majority of critics, actor Holbrook received the Vernon
Rice Award for Best Actor of the 1958—1959 season and the Outer
Circle CritiCS' Award for the Outstanding Contribution of the 1958-

228

1959 season.

‘—

22
5Clurman, loc. cit.
226 .
Beaufort, loc. cit.
227

Wyatt, loc. cit.

228
New York Times, May 17, 1959, Sec. II, P- 1-

 

 

 

 

 

 

The W0

No group productior
given until 1959, when E
the University of Califo‘
The material was selecte
Theatrical producer Arms
possibilities of M
send it on a nation-wid
however, due to marital
Cameron Mitchell was si
for rehearsals and Ben
with Actors' Equity.22

hiss Davis, and after

of Carl Sandburg opené
for a :

”limited run."2

S

etting and Accessori

The performers
screens and a black T
was a regal red plus
the foot of the chad

229

Stage News
230

John McCl
W, P' 2"an a

231
Howard Tar

195

The World of Carl Sandburg

 

No group productions of a collection of an author's works were

given until 1959, when The World of Carl Sandburg was presented at

 

the University of California at Los Angeles as a tribute to Mr. Sandburg.
The material was selected and arranged by radio dramatist Norman Corwin.
Theatrical producer Armand Deutsch became interested in the commercial
possibilities of The World of Carl Sandpggg and made arrangements to
send it on a nation—wide tour starring Bette Davis and Gary Merrill.
However, due to marital difficulties, Mr. Merrill dropped out and
Cameron Mitchell was signed to replace him. Mitchell never reported

for rehearsals and Deutsch eventually filled charges against him

with Actors' Equity.229 Finally Leif Erickson joined forces with

Miss Davis, and after a successful tour of the "outlands," The World

of Carl Sandburg opened at the Henry Miller Theatre on September 14, 1960
230

3

for a ”limited run."

Setting and Accessories

The performers sat on cushioned stools in front 0f three plain
screens and a black back curtain. Toward the back of the stage there

was a regal red plush chair on a dias for the absent author, and at

the foot of the chair were piles of the books he had written.231

_______________________
2
29Stage News, January 19, 1960-

2 .
30John McClain, New York Journal American, September 15, 1960,

M, 19. 2'15.
23

1Howard Taubman, New York TimeS, September 15, 1960, P- 44~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hiss Davis wore a black vs
the back during the first
the ensemble for the sec
folk singer Allen wore di
tuxedo jacket for a blacl

hada lectern in front 0:

Classification
Although Corwin i1
had "shied away from th
the critics described t
Taubman called it a "pi
a “program of readings
areading."236 Chapma
0f Sandburg's works}:
According to Dec
sons, in, sin and th
would Simply be calle
it was a difficult s

23212
oh it
v. 2'17. er 0°16

2
BSLetteI‘ fro1

Taubman, 1
235 ‘
RiChal‘d Ne
w» P- 246.
256
23 '

7
John Ch
M» s. ate. a}

 

196

Miss Davis wore a black velvet gown with an orange satin panel at

the back during the first part of the evening, and a red, white and
blue ensemble for the second portion of the program. Erickson and
Erickson changed his maroon

folk singer Allen wore dinner jackets.
Each performer

tuxedo jacket for a black jacket at intermission.
had a lectern in front of him.232

Classification
Although Corwin insisted both he and producer Armand Deutsch
'23} nearly all of

had "shied away from the concept of a readingfl

the critiCs described the production as some type of a reading.
Taubman called it a "public reading,"254 Watts characterized it as
a "program of readings,"235 and McClain thought it was "virtually
a reading.”236 Chapman termed the proceedings ”a little recitation"
of Sandburg's works.237
According to Deutsch, Sandburg called it a "variety show of

Deutsch himself hoped the production

song, fun, sin and thinkum."
He admitted

would simply be called a "theatrical presentation."

it was a difficult show to label and expounded on the various

 

232l~¥obert Coleman, New York Mirror, September 15, 1960, NYTCR,

p. 247.
23TLetter from Norman Corwin to the author, June 8, 1968.

2 4
3 Taubman, loo. cit.
235Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, September 15, 1960,

NYTCR, p. 246.

236McClain, loc. cit.

232John Chapman, New York Daily News, September 15, 1960,

__NYTCR, 39- 241+.

 

 

 

 

 

 

things it was not. “It's
hid it is not a play. It‘
and it does not have a se'
it does not have the char
ice-"258

Miss Davis was als<

felt the show was more t'

out the production had 5

hasher of Presentation

\
Probably most 0f
a"readihg" because Of
of the performers. CO]
memorized, rehearsed 8;
aplay."21+0 However,
the pages of the URINE
giving the impression
A limited numbe
which he puffed on f1
bOhiof white feather:
The Variety critic t'
"groupings, occasion
Lewis We
239%
ess rele

f“ .
lies in Theatre Co

2%

Corwin, lC

 

 

197

things it was not. "It's not a reading a la Charles Laughton . . . .
And it is not a play. It's not like Hal Holbrook's Mark Twain Tonight!
and it does not have a setting like The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

It does not have the characters or the story line of say, John Brown's

Body."238

Miss Davis was also displeased with the "reading" label. She
felt the show was more than "just one of those ‘reading.‘" She pointed

out the production had sets and movement.239

Manner of Presentation

 

Probably most of the critics insisted on calling the presentation
a "reading" because of the scripts which were on the lecterns in front
of the performers. Corwin recalled, "Nobody 'read'——the roles were

memorized, rehearsed and performed exactly as though we were staging

a play-"240 However, despite the fact the roles were memorized,

the pages of the manuscript were turned from time to time, thus

- - . 1+
81Vlng the impression the material was being read.2 1

A limited number of props were used: Mr. Erickson had a cigar

which he puffed on from time to time, and Miss Davis wore a "vulgar

boa of white feathers" for her recitation of ”Elizabeth Umpstead."242

The Variety critic thought Corwin's staging was excellent, with the

"groupings, occaSional movement, and the shifting, varied lighting"

M

238Lewis Funke, New York Times, October 18, 1959, Sec. II, p. 1.

. 259Press release dated September 11, 1960, found in vertical
files in Theatre Collection.
240Corwin, loo. cit. 2LmTaubman, loc. cit. 2LQIbid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

World 0‘3 Carl E

mine L/

Most of the critics
definite reservations abc
"intelligently forthrigh'
words were "all. there an
recommended it as a plea
Cooke found it a “worth\
if it could be called “
herr wrote of the press
dmd the people, yes."2L

Coleman admitted
was good, but he felt
"more at home in a he}
sFestive audiences sh<
hitter and was intende
his talent. Taken or

”am in1Pressive tribu‘

McClain cautio
M 301118 to be ever
\

2balleriet st

2%“,
Harold Clu

245Ri€hard P.

246

Walter Ke-
W» e. an '

24
7001mm, 3

198

making The World of Carl Sandburg an example of'artful theatre.”243

Verdict

Most of the critics endorsed the production, but several had
definite reservations about it. Clurman thought the reading was
"intelligently forthright rather than brilliant,” but noted Sandburg's
words were "all there and they have character." Consequently he
recommended it as a pleasant, though hardly outstanding, evening.2
Cooke found it a "worthwhile theatrical evening," though he doubted
if it could be called "theatre" in the strictest sense of the word.245
Kerr wrote of the presentation, "The poet requires no vote from me.
And the people, yes."246

Coleman admitted the performers were talented and the material
was good, but he felt The World of Carl Sandburg would have been
"more at home in a hep expresso cafe.”2L‘L7 Watts warned that pro—
spective audiences should realize the presentation lacked dramatic
power and was intended primarily as a tribute to a great man and
his talent. Taken on these terms, he was sure they would find it
"an impressive tribute, done with intelligence and respect."248

McClain cautioned his readers that Mr. Sandburg‘s world was

n°t SOing to be everybody's world, but thought the productbn had

 

24
3Variety, September 21, 1960-

24
4Harold Clurman, Nation, October 8, 1960, p. 236.

24.
5Richard P. Cooke, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 1960.

246
Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, September 15, 1960,
fiEEEE, p. ZHH.
21+? 248

Coleman, loc. cit. Watts, 100. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

been done with taste and E
knock Miss Davis.“2L}9 Ch:
those devoted to Sandburg
those who were simply see
McCarten admitted there '
offered well, but he did
the presentation. "The

lesson can provide a su'

Adm

Bette Davis head
Erickson, a star in hi
music and occasionally
Theatre Arts observed
because they tended t
performers were excep
blending of the time
the naive, earthy an
is was to be 6
0f critical attenti<

3N to her talent,

0‘: her presentation

2Ligl’lcClain, :

251
John McCa
25

2
31%

Coleman ,

199
been done with taste and skill, and as he phrased it, "you can't
knock Miss Davis."249 Chapman characterized it as an offering for

those devoted to Sandburg, Miss Davis and Mr. Erickson, but not for

those who were simply seeking beauty or theatrical emotion.250

McCarten admitted there were some enjoyable selections offered, and
offered well, but he did not think they offset the static quality of

the presentation. "The play is still the thing, and no elocuticn

lesson can provide a substitute.”251

Acting

Bette Davis headlined the cast. She was supported by Leif
Erickson, a star in his own right, and Clark Allen, who provided the
music and occasionally did some of the reading. The critic for

Theatre Arts observed actors were generally not effective reciters

because they tended to "suffocate poetry in personality,” but these

252

performers were exceptions to that rule. Coleman thought the

blending of the three talents "proved highly effective in projecting
the naive, earthy and paradoxical facets of the Sandburg potpourri."253
As was to be expected, Miss Davis attracted the greatest amount
of critical attention. The reviewers paid tribute to her popularity
and to her talent, but nearly all of them criticized certain aspects

of her presentation. McClain found her outstanding in the poem

M

L, .
2 9McClain, loc. cit. EEOChaPmana $22: 2&2.
2

5['John McCarten, The New Yorker, September 24a 1960: P- 97-

2 2
5 Theatre Arts, November, 1960: P. 1O-

253

Coleman, loc. cit.

—;i

 

f .

 

 

“Elizabeth Umpstead’" but
have the range 01" her it
reached too hard for an em
talent as he wrote:

The moment anyone C
nerve-perhaps a chi:
rowed rag doll, perhi
buried in a paid-for
instantly. Her ear
for slipping the son
is uncanny.255

Beaufort complain
mannerisms of voice and
"mlquestionable sincerf
the material."256 Wat
a trifle marmered."25?
in advanced elocuticn
that much of what Mis

hut tbought her press
f

~Umera1was the emot:
cited three of Miss

o. -

m a Qatllke feet, 5

of Start" into an i

\
25h
McClain, 1

256
J 01m Beau:

25
Watts, 10
258Framk
A i
W» n. ate. 5

259
Chapman ,

200

”Elizabeth Umpstead," but thought there were times when she ”over—

played the range of her inflections."254 Kerr felt she occasionally

reached too hard for an emotion, but paid tribute to her tremendous
talent as he wrote:

The moment anyone of Mr. Sandburg's homilies touches a localized
nerve——perhaps a childless woman who is dying is clutching a bor—
rowed rag doll, perhaps a proud Negress is watching herself get
buried in a paid—for coffin——our heroine hears the little nuance,
instantly. Her ear is in this sense perfect, and her instinct
for slipping the sound of a person into the generalities of a poem
is uncanny.

Beaufort complained that Miss Davis' "highly individualized
mannerisms of voice and diction” sometimes interfered with the
"unquestionable sincerity and intelligence with which she approached

256

Watts wrote that Miss Davis was "conceivably just

257

the material."

Aston thought she sounded "more like a teacher
"258

a trifle mannered."

in advanced elocuticn than a stirring actress. Chapman agreed

that much of what Miss Davis did sounded like "well studied elocution,"

but thought her presentation of a Negro prostitute watching her own

259

funeral was the emotional high point of the evening. Taubman

cited three of Miss Davis' selections as outstanding, "when, as if
on a catlike feet, she makes "Fog" seem new: when she turns ”Monkey

of Start" into an island of magic, and when, wearing a proudly vulgar

‘_——

254 255

McClain, loc. cit. Kerr, £9; .032-

2 . .
56John Beaufort, Christian Selence Monitor, September 17, 1960.

257

Watts, 100. cit.

2 H
58Frank Aston, New York World—Telegram and Sun, September 15, 1960,
W! p. 246.

259

Chapman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

boa of white feathers, ShE
negro woman who has been '
The critics did not
they had to Miss Davis, 1
their unqualified endors‘
effective of the trio.
Allen to music and Miss
like a juicy Damson int
actor for sure.“ Aston
tribute to a harlot cal
short selections from ‘
Chapman decided
than did Miss Davis, a
Lincoln-262 McClain
Selection from M
and c - . sense of a:
the evening tOgether
Presentation of "The
The We stars

hston characterized

the Ozarkgyle wail

260
Taubman ,

262
Chapman ,

26h
Taubman 3
MCCarten

26
SAston, 1

201

boa of white feathers, she summons to life "Elizabeth Umpstead," a
negro woman who has been used but never daunted.”26o

The critics did not devote as much space to Mr. Erickson as
they had to Miss Davis, but almost without exception, they gave him
their unqualified endorsement. Aston selected Erickson as the most
effective of the trio. "In terms of true theater (let's credit Mr.
Allen to music and Miss Davis to personality) the affair plopped
like a juicy Damson into the mamy grip of Mr. Erickson, an actor's
actor for sure." Aston was particularly impressed with Erickson's
tribute to a harlot called "Bilbea," his tirade against war, and his
short selections from The Prairie Years.261

Chapman decided Erickson had more warmth and theatrical ease
than did Miss Davis, and he praised Erickson's rendition of Sandburg's
Lincoln.262 McClain was also struck by the effectiveness of the
selection from The Prairie Years. He thought Erickson's ”big voice
and . . . sense of assurance . . . holds the faltering segments of
the evening together."263 Taubman and McCarten singled out Erickson's
presentation of "The Unknown War" as his finest moment.264

The two stars were backed up by folk singer Clark Allen, whom

Aston characterized as "a guitarist above reproach and a singer of

the Ozarkaiyle wails.”265 Besides providing interludes of Sandburg

 

 

260 6

Taubman, loc. cit. 2 1Aston, loc. cit.

26 263

2

Chapman, loc. cit.

264

Taubman, loc. cit.

McCarten, loc. cit.

265

Aston, loc. cit.

McClain, loc. cit.

—_—

 

 

 

songs, Allen provided musi
his colleagues‘ numbers an
Allen was “obviously not

about his rendition of th
the songs “By‘m By“ and ‘
thought Allen did an adm

267

the music .

M

The material for
from his poetry, althot
biography of Lincoln-
and youth, proceeded t
tions on death. Rathe
adaptor-arranger Corw
whimsical humor and it
Not all the or:

in discussing Sandbu
about common things
often with a clever
LL0 oversimplify thi
license.“ He thong

James Thurber," Wh
Swift." Coleman 5
of the homely Varf

ticated sophistic

6
Mcclain

202

songs, Allen provided music and sound effects to support several of
his colleagues‘ numbers and helped with the reading. McClain noted
Allen was "obviously not a veteran actor," but he had no complaints
about his rendition of the poetry, and had praise for his work with
the songs "By'm By" and ”Ain't Goin' to Study War No Mo'."266 Watts
thought Allen did an admirable job with his readings as well as with
267

the music.

Material

The material for The World of Carl Sandburg was taken mainly
from his poetry, although there were a few prose selections from his
biography of Lincoln. The evening began with selections about infancy
and youth, proceeded to thoughts about maturity, and then to reflec—
tions on death. Rather than end the program on such a somber note,
adaptor—arranger Corwin chose to conclude with examples of Sandburg's
whimsical humor and brief sections from The Prairie Years.268

Not all the critics were enthusiastic Sandburg devotees. Coleman,
in discussing Sandburg as a poet, pointed out his tendency to write
about common things from a "slightly cockeyed viewpoint," though
often with a clever turn of phrase. He also noted Sandburg tended
to-oversimplify things and occasionally distorted fact with "poetic
license.” He thought the poet was sometimes reminiscent of a "coy
James Thurber," while other times he resembled a "minor Whitman or
Swift." Coleman described his philosophy and humor as "generally
0f the homely variety," and called Sandburg ”a sort of unsophis—

ticated sophisticate . . . . who's seen a lot, felt a lot, and

M

266 267 268

McClain, loc. cit. Watts, 100. cit. Ibid.

;

 

 

 

 

useda lot of words to re
The critics agreed
not dramatic. According
to treat the material fo
8in and imaginative, l
half of the program did
most notably the poem "
270

The Prairie Tears.
\

The Sandburg tall
platitudinous and
generian author, t
is nicely calculat
But at its best th
like a prairie phi
like one of the L<

Corwin selected
between the selection
acceptable, but sever
maintained the conne
"were out to sell th

CIitic thought some
Cmmnereials."273 T:
“though brief, it
notes have the pear

0f ceremony."27Li

Coleman 5

2?
2MCCarten

27h
Taubman ,

 

203
269

used a lot of words to record his impressions."
The critics agreed that the material, for the most part, was
not dramatic. According to Watts, the three performers were content
to treat the material for what it was, lyrical, philosophical, whim~
sical and imaginative, but not essentialbtheatrical. The second
half of the program did contain material with more dramatic impact,

most notably the poem "Elizabeth Umpstead,” and the selections from
270

The Prairie Years. Taubman wrote of the material:

———_——_

The Sandburg talk . . . is mostly choice. If the saws are
platitudinous and the jokes much more ancient than the octo—
genarian author, they are phrased with an innocent gusto that
is nicely calculated. The poems may be more prosy than prose.
But at its best the world of Carl Sandburg is dry in its wit,
like a prairie philosopher, and passionate in its convictions,
like one of the Lord's prophets.27l

Corwin selected the material and wrote the connective bridges
between the selections. Most critics found his choice of material
acceptable, but several did not like his commentary. One critic
maintained the connecting passages sounded as if the performers

. . 2 2
"were out to sell the man rather than Sing him.” 7

The Time

critic thought some of Corwin's writing sounded "like Biblical
commercials."273 Taubman wrote of Corwin's connecting commentary,
"though brief, it is often redundant. At times these introductory
notes have the pear—shaped resonance of the talk of fulsome masters

274

of ceremony.”

 

269 27 2?

Coleman, loc. cit. OWatts, lOC- Cit- 1Taubman, loo. cit.

272McCarten, loc. cit. 273Time, September 26, 1960, p. 86.
274

Taubman, loc. cit.

—+—

 

 

 

W

Cooke classified fl
similar in nature to E
Taubman devoted a Sunday
he noted the successes c
Shyre had dramatized, o
Stickney, Williams, and
Carl Sandburg had been

those who were thinkin;

Theatre people d
hitch their preser
intelligence is at
the theatre.

"The World of Ca
It reflects a vigr
shoots forth burs
As revealed by Be
Henry Miller‘ s Th

it is not, from h
not without langr

Sandburg was i
the performance, the
audience gave him a
ran for twenty—nine
as a “limited engag

“Whitments or Whe'l

known. It would 5,

375
Cooke, 1c
2761b d
war a
September 25, ,9;

2??
McClain ,

 

 

204

Comparisons
Cooke classified The World of Carl Sandburg as a "reading”
75

 

similar in nature to Don Juan in Hell and John Brown's Body.2

 

Taubman devoted a Sunday article to a discussion of "Page or Stage.”
He noted the successes of the O'Casey autobiographical volumes which
Shyre had dramatized, of Don Juan in Hell, and of the programs by
Stickney, Williams, and Holbrook, but he did not think The World of
Carl Sandburg had been that successful, and he offered a warning for
those who were thinking of making future transfers from page to stage.

Theatre people delude themselves if they think that simply to
hitch their presentations to the work of an original, lively
intelligence is an assurance of a wholly satisfying evening in
the theatre.

"The World of Carl Sandburg" is often provocative and diverting.
It reflects a vigorous questing, humorous and honest mind. It
shoots forth bursts of dazzling sense and delicious nonsense.
As revealed by Bette Davis, Lief Erickson and Clark Allen at
Henry Miller's Theatre, it contains laughter and emotion. But
it is not, from beginning to end, pure theatre, and therefore,
not without languo rs . 27

Sandburg was in the audience on opening night. At the close of
the performance, the performers brought him to the stage and the
audience gave him a standing ovation.277 The World of Carl Sandburg
ran for twenty-nine performances. It had originally been announced
as a "limited engagement,” and whether the performers had other
Commitments or whether the production simply did not draw well is not

known. It would seem that there should have been enough devotees of
______________________
2
75Cooke, loc. cit.
276 ., .
Howard Taubman, "Page or Stage, New York Times,
September 25, 1960, Sec. II, p. 1.

277

McClain, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

Sandburg and of Miss Davi
Although the reviewers ha

production, most of them

ER

111 January of 195C
character actor Daniel 1
lee Masters‘ W313
performances were well
firm the critics. Ree<
evoked thirty-seven in

Program was divided in
"Stories and Families‘
The reviewers w
presented the “less-t
Fromm was one of ti
had seen on the stag
nation of an audienc

a lot of Gullipment.‘

Misters‘ brilliantl‘
dimension to the an

of his

278
RObert Ga

279
Ls“ %

280w _
1950. 111mm 1

281
Garlan d 1

205
Sandburg and of Miss Davis to have warranted a longer engagement.
Although the reviewers had not been very enthusiastic about the

production, most of them had recommended it as a worthwhile venture.

Spoon River Anthology

 

In January of 1950, and again in October of that same year,
character actor Daniel Reed presented a solo performance of Edgar

Lee Masters' Spoon River Anthology at New York's Town Hall. Both

 

performances were well attended and both received favorable notices
from the critics. Reed used no scenery, costumes or props as he
evoked thirty—seven inhabitants of the Spoon River graveyard. The
program was divided into three parts: ”Eccentrics and Individualists,”
"Stories and Families" and "The Pioneers.”278
The reviewers were impressed with Reed's versatility as he
presented the "less—than—perfect departed."279 Hawkins thought the
program was one of the best amalgamations of talent and material he
had seen on the stage, and he praised Reed for realizing "the imagi—
nation of an audience can be stimulated by suggestion as well as by

280

a lot of equipment." Garland felt the verbal presentation of

Masters' brilliantly etched character portraits added an exciting new
dimension to the anthology, and suggested Reed should make a recording

of his Spoon River Anthology program.281 However, apparently no
____________________

2'78

Robert Garland, New York Journal American, January 16, 1950.

 

2'79

28
’l 950 .

L.S., Brooklyg Daily Eagle, October 2, 1950.
O .
William Hawkins, New York World—Telegram and Sun, January 16,

281
Garland, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

records were made and Ree
.t was more than twelve Y
attracted the attention <
Charles Aidman, a ‘
think about dramatizing
at lndiana University.
started on the adaptati
and Robert Elston press
of West Coast professi<
was Lamont Johnson, a
anon-profit organizat
and operating in C00p¢
Johnson liked the pro
a full evening, he wc
Aim took the suggr
at the University of
the same ones who he
folk singers had be,

A voung New Y
and decided to brir
the Booth Theatre ‘
singer Hal Lynch,
days after the SN
Producer Cates re

had asked what ar

282
Murray

28

 

206

records were made and Reed did not repeat his performance again.
It was more than twelve years before another Spoon River Anthology
attracted the attention of the New York theatre critics.

Charles Aidman, a California writer and actor, first began to
think about dramatizing Spoon River Anthology in 1945 while a student
at Indiana University. However, it was not until 1962 Aidman actually
started on the adaptation. Aidman, Betty Garrett, Joyce Van Patten,
and Robert Elston presented a one hour version for an invited group
of West Coast professional theatre people. Among those in the audience
was Lamont Johnson, a director and board member of Theatre Group,
a non~profit organization made up of professional actors and directors,
and operating in cooperation with the University of California.
Johnson liked the program and suggested if Aidman could expand it to
a full evening, he would try to convince Theatre Group to produce it.
Aidman took the suggestion and Spoon River Anthology opened May 2, 1963,-
at the University of California at Los Angeles. The actors were
the same ones who had appeared in the one hour production, but two
folk singers had been added, Stephen Pearlman and Naomi Caryl Hishhorn.282 /

A young New York producer, Joseph Gates, saw the UCLA production
and decided to bring it to Broadway. Spoon River Anthology opened at
the Booth Theatre on September 29, 1963. The cast, except for folk
singer Hal Lynch, who replaced Stephen Pearlman, was the same. Four
days after the show opened, its name was shortened to Spoon River.
Producer Cates reported, "Too many educated and intelligent people

had asked what anthology meant."283

x“—

28
2Murray Schumach, New York Times, May 2, 1963, P- 40-

 

28
3New York Times, October 3, 1963: P- 28-

 

 

 

The set was very 55
benches to the right of ‘
As hiss Van Patten recal
look that was the mark c
actors had a sort of ta‘
various props, such as
were used by the actors

people each performer ‘
The costumes car
The two actresses wore
Van Patten brown and 1
one side and figured
ShWiders or over the
portraying. The men
The lighting d

Then the show was p]

cues,286 and it see
um as many. Miss
rate“ in both Los p
speaking peppermer

to
help create a s

284
Letter 1‘;
285

288 .
Rlcharor

207

Setting and Accessories

The set was very simple. A blue background, a lectern, three
benches to the right of the lectern and three benches to the left.
As Miss Van Patten recalled, ”The benches had a rough hewn and folksy
look that was the mark of our production.” Each bench used by the
actors had a sort of table, concealed from the audience, which contained
various props, such as glasses, canes, fans, pipes, and scarves which
were used by the actors to help characterize the many different
people each performer was responsible for.284

The costumes carried through the "rough hewn and folksy look."
The two actresses wore "earth colors"; Miss Garrett green, and Miss
Van Patten brown and gold. Both had large shawls which were plain on
one side and figured on the other. These they wore around their
shoulders or over their heads, depending on what character they were
portraying. The men wore corduroy suits of grey and brow11.285

The lighting was a very important part of the production.
When the show was produced in California, there were nearly 150 light
cues,286 and it seems reasonable to assume the New York production
used as many. Miss Van Patten noted the lighting effects were "first
rate" in both Los Angeles and New York.287 Besides spotlighting the

288

Speaking performers, the lighting was used to establish mood and

to help create a sense of continuity between the-episodes. Oppenheimer

“-

284

Letter from Miss Van Patten to the author, June 11, 1968.
28
5Ibid. 286Schmuach, loc. cit. 287Van Patten, lgg._git.

28 .
8Richard P. Cooke, Wall Street Journal, October 1, 1963.

 

 

 

 

 

has particularly fascina
suggested, at least to h
sky.289 Kerr thought 11'
awarm and comfortable '
tint aspect of the prod

section.

Three of the cri
reading,“291 one call
termed it simply "rea‘
dramatized recitation
Chapman characterized
while Watts conserva'

tion."297
\—
289George Oppe

290wa1ter Ker
W» P- 271.

2911mm” E
Mehin Mac
Tia, Oct<

292AI‘thur Sa

2931Mrold C1

athohn Meg:
ma p. 272.
295(100ke3 l
2
96John Ch;
’ P- 272.

2
’ P~ 270.

“M

“a

208
was particularly fascinated with the lighting of the backdrop which
suggested, at least to him, at times a river and at times a starlit

sky.289 Kerr thought lighting director Jules Fisher made "twilight
290

a warm and comfortable time of life." Music was also an impor—

tant aspect of the production and will be considered in a separate

section.

Classification

Three of the critics described Spoon River as a ”dramatic

reading,”291 one called it a "stage reading,"292 and another

termed it simply "readings.”293 McClain labeled it a ”series of

dramatized recitations,”294 and Cooke called it a ”series of vignettes."295

296

Chapman characterized it as an "off—beat theatrical venture,"

while Watts conservatively referred to it as a ”dramatic presen—

297

tation."

 

289George Oppenheimer, Newsday, September 30, 1963.

290Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, September 30, 1963,
NYTCR, p. 271. '
291 .
Hobe., Variety, October 2, 1963-
Melvin Maddocks, Christian Science Monitor, October 2, 1963.
Time, October 11, 195 sIP- 77-

292Arthur Sainer, Village Voice, October 10, 1965.

293Harold Clurman, Nation, October 26, 1963, p. 268.

 

29L'rJohn McClain, New York Journal American, Spptember 30, 1963,
NYTCR, p. 272.
295

Cooke, loc. cit.

296John Chapman, New York Daily News, September 30, 1963,
NYTCR, p. 272.

297Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, September 30, 1963,
NYTCR, p. 270.

 

 

 

Oppenheimer decide
but Coleman warned his ]
“just a reading.“299 A
was inappropriate, alth
the production by some
of a “reading“ however
she thought Spoon Rive

reading,"300

Manner of Presentatio:
More than seven
briefly explain the c
The selections were a
note, none more than
Virtuous and the not
four performers, wh<
There were no

the stage , Gen eral

to the alldienc e Whi

\
298

Oppenhein

299
R h
P' 271. 0 ert C‘

500
Van Patt

302
Chapman ,

30
Z)‘inljfflley

304
Van Pat

209
. . . ,, . "298
Oppenheimer de01ded it was more a reading than a play,

but Coleman warned his readers not to think the presentation was
"just a reading."299 Actress Van Patten felt the "reading" label
was inappropriate, although she admitted people were always calling
the production by some form of the term "reading.” Her conception
of a ”reading" however, was a production with limited movement, and

she thought Spoon River was "far too active and alive to be a

reading."500

Mgpnep of Presentation

More than seventy of Masters' characters stepped forward to
briefly explain the circumstances responsible for their demises.301
The selections were all quite short, many of them less than a mi—
nute, none more than a few minutes in length.302 The lives of the
virtuous and the not so virtuous were swiftly sketched in by the
four performers, who used only limited propsfio3

There were no manuscripts, and the actors moved freely about
the stage. Generally the performers worked alone, speaking directly
to the audience while the other three remained still.304 Occasion-

ally two or three would function as an ensemble. Kerr was especially

 

298

Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

 

299Robert Coleman, New York Mirror, September 30, 1963, NYTCR,
p. 271.

300 30

Van Patten, loc. cit.

302

Chapman, loc. cit.

1McClain, loc. cit.

505Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 1, 1963,
504

Van Patten, loo. pip.

 

 

taken with a vignette in
pressed to maintain his

sisted in nibbling at hf

The majority 0f t
not quite as impressive
large advertisement at
weeks after the show 0
reception, "It receive
as any hit I can remev

Gates could not remem
or for Holbrook' 5 NE;
The reviews for thesr
response to Spoon Ri
but there were other
Kerr thought i
impressed with the ,
in the Parade of ch
61Sheets of the pres

"Spasmdic and inei

had seen Daniel Re

5
Kerr, 10(

306
Joseph G:

Kerr, 10
~_

 

, avim-i -

210
taken with a vignette in which a starched, stuffy minister was hard
pressed to maintain his righteous pomposity because his wife per—

305

sisted in nibbling at his ear lobe.

Verdict

The majority of the reviews were quite complimentary, though
not quite as impressive as Producer Joseph Oates indicated in a
large advertisement attempting to improve box office activity three
weeks after the show opened. Cates wrote of Spoon River and its
reception, "It received as exciting and enthusiastic a set of reviews

"306

as any hit I can remember. This was an overstatement. Perhaps
Cates could not remember back to the reviews for Gielgud's Ages of Man
or for Holbrook's Mark Twain Tonight!, both of which appeared in 1959.
The reviews for these two shows were almost unanimous raves. The
response to Spoon River was favorable, and a few critics did rave,

but there were others who had reservations.

Kerr thought the production was excellent, but he was not
impressed with the material and he noted some "inevitable repetition"
in the parade of characters.507 The reviewer for Tipp liked some
aspects of the presentation, but characterized the overall effect
"spasmodic and ineloquent.”508 Hewes, writing for the Saturday Review,

had seen Daniel Reed's solo presentation of Spoon River Anthology in

 

505

Kerr, loc. cit.

306Joseph Cates, New York Times, October 16, 1963, p. 51.

308

Time: 312- 21.2-

507

Kerr, loc. cit.

 

 

i950, and thought it had
adaptation.309

Cooke did not thir
but he thought it had q

310

in it. Colemaui tern
audience.“3’lll The M
exception to the generz

would find it extremel

respond.“ 2

Some of the cri'
indicated by the titl
report read,"‘Spoon E
EXperiment," and he e

audience.313 Oppenh

AnthOhSX' Moving, a
“A Moving ‘Spoon Rix

as 3. "touching and 3

“Warm and Bad
Moe-lain!

S TeView.

seasons as being mi
but he was obliged

series of dramatiz

309
Henry Her

no
“We, 1

—

Milena, 1

3ch
Oppenhej

211
1950, and thought it had been more effective than the current
adaptation.309
Cooke did not think the program was particularly outstanding,
but he thought it had quite a bit of theatrical and literary interest
in it.510 Coleman termed it "absorbing theatre . . . for a special

audience."311

The Variety critic surmised that Spoon River was no
exception to the general rule regarding dramatic readings: a few
would find it extremely enjoyable, but the general public would not
reSpond.312

Some of the critics were very enthusiastic about it, as was

 

indicated by the titles of their reviews. The headline to Chapman's
report read,"'Spoon River Anthology' Vivid, Offbeat Theatrical

Experiment,” and he expressed hope the production would find a large
313

audience. Oppenheimer's review was entitled, "'Spoon River

Anthology' Moving, a Joy to Watch."314

Watts labeled his critique

"A Moving 'Spoon River Anthology,'" and described the presentation

as a "touching and admirable contribution to the new theatre season."315
"Warm and Radiant Poetic Experience," sounded the keynote for

McClain's review. McClain admitted he had been on record for several

seasons as being mildly antagonistic to "readings" in Broadway theatres,

but he was obliged to concede that while Spoon River was "merely a

series of dramatized recitations with incidental music, it is an

 

309Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, October 19, 1963, p. 30.

310 3

Cooke, loc. cit. qqcoleman, loc. cit.

312Hobe., loc. cit. 313Chapman, loc. cit.
314

Oppenheimer, loc. cit. 515Watts, 100. cit.

 

 

 

enormously warm and comp
Taubman called it a “glc
loving American folk p0l
wrote:

When something is
it quickly. There
of appreciation ant
hearing is greatly
Joe Cates' present:
of the Edgar Lee M

Without the slig
easily to me to un

Booth Theatre. It

the Middle Western

and moved our nat:
cOIIIpletely satisf

dc‘ting
Most of the CI‘f
remarkably well in Cl
is Chapman observed,
for a very few minui
vivid... . ltnn
realized character
treat admiration fc
boozers, hypocrite:
in eternal equalit

impersonate a Vari

316
McClain ,

 

31
7HOWard T

318
Bolton 1

 

 

212
316

enormously warm and compelling experience in the theatre."

Taubman called it a "glowing theatre experience . . . a brooding and

"317

loving American folk poem brought to life on a stage. Bolton

wrote:

When something is right in a theatre, utterly right, you feel
it quickly. There is a kind of instant awareness, a swift brewing
of appreciation and the conviction that what you are seeing and
hearing is greatly right, delightfully right. It is that way with
Joe Cates' presentation of "Spoon River Anthology," a stage version
of the Edgar Lee Masters work.

Without the slightest hesitation or equivocation, it falls
easily to me to urge you to see ”Spoon River Anthology" at the
Booth Theatre. It has that warm and thrusting Spirit that created
the Middle Western literature that long since has shaped our times
and moved our national aims. It has ghe Masters magic, plus
completely satisfying performances.31

Acting

Most of the critics thought the four performers had succeeded
remarkably well in capturing the essence of the seventy~some characters.
As Chapman observed, "Some of them appear for less than a minute, others
for a very few minutes: but each of them is amazingly, arrestingly
vivid . . . . It must be difficult indeed to establish a fully
realized character in only a minute or two or three.”319 Kerr expressed
great admiration for the four performers who portrayed the "trollops,

boozers, hypocrites, and worthy citizens—-all now lying side by side

H320

in eternal equality. McClain pointed out all four players had to

impersonate a variety of ages, accents and stations with only the

316

McClain, loc. cit.

317Howard Taubman, New York Times, September 30, 1963, p. 23,

320

Kerr, loc. cit.

 

318 519

Bolton, loc. cit.

Chapman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

help of a few props-321
assortment 0‘3 30195 "Wfl
fine sense of characterf
Clurman admitted

and appeared to be able
they were "too blooming
anguish that was in Mac
this was fortunate, as
Taubman thought he det
accent or a theatrical

inations "unerring."

was not a drama, it we
versatile actors cons
Nadel had to ac

"full blown,“ out he
scant minute or two a
was clso impressed w

it were the geatest
“0M the enthusiasm
aPM-"oached thei r va:
Miss Wan Pate,

an
unusually close

321
McClain, 1
321+ '
Taubman,
325N '
1%}, Oman Na
W, p. 2;

326
Maddocks

 

 

213

help of a few props.321 watts praised the cast for handling the large
assortment of roles "with striking variety, humor and pathos and a
fine sense of characterization."322

Clurman admitted the four presented the selections with spirit
and appeared to be able and intelligent actors, but he complained
they were "too blooming young to convey all the acrimony and crotchety
anguish that was in Masters." He conceded. that perhaps, in actuality,
this was fortunate, as "the real thing" might have been too much.323
Taubman thought he detected an occasional "fleeting hint of a suspicious
accent or a theatrical gesture," but found the majority of the character—
izations "unerring." He wrote that although Spgon River.Anthology
was not a drama, it was nonetheless dramatic, "because four fine and
versatile actors constantly distill character."324

Nadel had to acknowledge not all the characterizations were
"full blown," but he found most of them "remarkably complete, for the
scant minute or two and the few dozen words permitted each.” He
was also impressed with the way the four attacked their parts "as if

”325

it were the geatest adventure of their careers. Maddocks also

noted the enthusiasm and obvious pleasure with which the actors
. . 326
approached their various roles.

Miss Van Patten wrote that the members of the company established

an unusually close rapport among themselves. Everyone was concerned

y

2 .
3 1McClain, loc. cit. 322Watt8, 100- Clt. 523Clurman, loc. cit.
24
3 Taubman, loc. cit.
325
Norman Nadel, New York World—Telegram and Sun, September 30,

 

19659 NYTCR9 Pa 27".
326

Maddocks, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

with the success of the
other as much as they cc
sense of rivalry or com;
hfferent characters.

of her women, based on

beyond the poem to fill
might have shaped the <
Performers experimente

at different ages and

hufi

The poetical 9P3
by folk singers Naomi
songs were orfrgina1 a
folk numbers." Aidme
the poetry, and to P1
the audience into or
With one exception,
interludes found the
01" interspersing the

attempt should have

to -
music rather tha

801183.11329 It ‘
is :1

214
with the success of the play and people were anxious to help each
other as much as they could. She reported there was absolutely no
sense of rivalry or competition. Miss Van Patten played fourteen
different characters. She tried to develop a life history of each
of her women, based on what was disclosed in the poem, but going
beyond the poem to fill in background and earlier incidents which
might have shaped the characters. She recalled all four of the
performers experimented with their people a great deal, trying them

327

at different ages and with different accents.

The poetical epitaphs were set off by seventeen songs performed
by folk singers Naomi Caryl Hirshhorn and Hal Lynch. Four of the
songs were original and the rest were "traditional, but not familiar
folk numbers." Aidman intended the songs to serve as a frame for
the poetry, and to provide the correct emotional reference to lead
the audience into or out of the different "areas of poetry."328
With one exception, all of the critics who mentioned the musical
interludes found them extremely effective. Patalsky admitted the idea
of interspersing the poems with music was good, but he thought an
attempt should have been made to put some of Masters' unused verses
to music rather than using what he described as "irrelevant, tedious

songs."529 It is interesting to note at this point the folk songs

-————_—_—

32’7Miss Van Patten described Spoon River as "the most wonderful
thing that ever happened to me." She loved playing the variety of
Characters, she found the audience response rewarding, she remembered
the rehearsals and performances as great fun, and she married the folk
singer, Hal Lynch.

328New York Herald Tribune, July 23, 1963.

 

329

Gene Patalsky, Newark Evening News, September 30, 1963.

 

 

 

 

 

gained the financial ba

  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
   
    
 

owned jointly by Warner
the $25,000 needed to p
famous trio could reco
lThe singers were
singing they were seat

I!3

figures in a frieze.
deal to the even'mg.33
set the mood for the
the music as "never 0
thought the folk song
When the evenin
short salutes to
to cut across the
banjo, guitar,
whole town once
stmmmned beat, a

W

A few critics di
8006 poet. Kerr tho
of sentimental cyni
has a real town. Hr
actuality that make

"Under Milk Wood,"
M

330New Yo rk ‘

331

Taubman ,

oleman ,

 

 

215

gained the financial backing for the production. A music company,
owned jointly by warner Brothers and Peter, Paul and Mary put up
the $25,000 needed to produce the show on Broadway so that the
famous trio could record some of the Spoon River songs.330

The singers were dressed very simply, and when they were not
singing they were seated on their respective benches "like silent
figures in a frieze."331 Oppenheimer thought the two added a great
332

Coleman recalled the musical accompaniment

333

deal to the evening.

and McClain described

"334

set the mood for the different episodes,
the music as "never obtrusive but extremely effective. Kerr
thought the folk songs were essential to the success of the program.
When the evening threatens to break down into too many very
short salutes to the puzzle that life was, musicians are ready
to cut across the pattern with evocative folk tunes, using
banjo, guitar, and fiddle to suggest the Saturday nights a
whole town once may have shared and to offer them, with quickly
strummed beat, a comprehensive embrace.335
Material
A few critics did not think Edgar Lee Masters was an especially
good poet. Kerr thought there was too much obvious irony and a sort
of sentimental cynicism. He did not get the feeling Spoon River
was a real town. He complained, "Those curling little odors of

actuality that make an instant environment for the lost souls of

"Under Milk Wood," or that link Thornton Wilder's streets with

 

330New York Herald Tribune, July 231 1963-

331

Taubman, loc. cit. 332Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

333 335

Coleman, 100. cit. 334McClain, 100- Cit- Kerr, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

—

streets you remember (or

“536 H

here. ewes also co
imaginary creation of a
he Tin: critic admitte
and the cantankerous, t
hut complained Masters
any sense of tragic di

of ironic cynicism.538
Oppenheimer not
mentality," but thorn
amazed to find that t
hut "filled with gre
some of it more bitt

accompanied the reve

of local society wh

 

the past, but he for
bitter frustations :
of evoking a sense

McClain char!
reassuring." He n
seemed "curiously

about life, altho

not fulfilled.

 

3361mm.

*—

5390mm

31‘ 1Macias

216

streets you remember (or at least imagine you remember) are not
here."336 Hewes also complainedcabout the lack of the "cumulative
imaginary creation of a town in the mind's eye of the poet."357
The Time critic admitted Masters had a ”keen eye for the eccentric
and the cantankerous, the wistful dreamer and the self—pitying failure,"
but complained Masters seldom succeeded in endowing his characters with
any sense of tragic dignity, he could only provide them with a sort
of ironic cynicism.338

Oppenheimer noted occasional ”lapses into rather sticky senti-
mentality," but thoroughly enjoyed most of the material. He was
amazed to find that the graveyard saga was never "goulish" or grim,
but "filled with great humor, some of it in the vein of Mark Twain,
some of it more bittersweet."339 Watts admitted "the shock that
accompanied the revelation of the whited sepulchers among the pillars
of local society when the poems were first published” was a thing of
the past, but he found the "stories of doomed dreams, secret cruelties,
bitter frustations and private domestic hatreds” still were capable
of evoking a sense of compassion and understanding.540

McClain characterized Masters' philosophy as "gentle and
reassuring.” He noted that Masters’ people, despite all their problems
seemed ”curiously adjusted."341 Taubman thought Masters was optimistic
about life, although fully aware that the promised life was frequently

not fulfilled.
_______~____________
336ibid. 357m

339
34

ewes, loc. cit. 538Time, loc. cit.

Oppenheimer, loc. cit. 3LPOWatts, loc. cit.

1 ,
McClain, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

    
    
 
   
   
  
 
 

he appreciated th
of Spoon River chor
schemed and aspired
trusting, false and
They make amusing
against of Spoon m.
words, as he let th
misspent or fulfi
anthology is an un
of people as they
The Variety crit
story or “even a conti
thought Aidman had do
the material. Bolton
making certain that c
not jolt or jar, but
observed that whenev
Aidman had put it to
the epitaphs had int
been impossible to d
of them. He praisec'
into something it we
itself, depending 0
bit, and counting c

a mood worthy of M:

 

31* 2Taubman,

MBolton ,

345,,

err, l2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

217

He appreciated the comedy and tragedy around him. His denizens
of Spoon River chortled and guffawed, suffered and sorrowed,
schemed and aspired. They were cussed and generous, cynical and
trusting, false and true.

They make amusing and touching companyh-those sinners and sinned
against of Spoon River. Masters stripped them clean in a few
words, as he let them look back wistfully or ironically on lives
misspent or fulfilled . . . . But brooding over his spectral
anthology is an unswerving fidelity to the motives and relationships
of people as they are.3 2

The Variety critic felt Spoon River suffered from the lack of a
"343

 

story or "even a continuity thread. Several of the reviewers
thought Aidman had done an excellent job of selecting and arranging

the material. Bolton credited him with a superb job of "routining . . .
making certain that one vignette did not rasp on its successor, did

not jolt or jar, but rather, kept the flow in motion."34l1L Kerr

observed that whenever there was any relationship between excerpts
Aidman had put it to good use.345 Taubman pointed out while many of

the epitaphs had intense conflicts within themselves, it would have

been impossible to draw any sort of a unified theme from a series

of them. He praised.Aidman for not attempting to make the material

into something it was not. ”He has been content to let it speak for
itself, depending on the actors to give fullness and emotion to each

bit, and counting on the production as a whole to establish and sustain

346

a mood worthy of Masters and his America."

——_

 

342Taubman, loo. cit. 343Hobe., loc. cit.
h

34 Bolton, 100. cit.

5t5 346

Kerr, loc. cit. Taubman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

Cofirisons

Five critics note

to Thornton Wilder‘ s 011

   
  
  
   
 

Thomas‘ Under Milk Woo
atown came to life, a
characters. Here the
of any American villag

As noted previo

the one Daniel Reed
350

less satisfactory.
oral interpretation

antagonistic towards
was like "all such w
careful adherence to
of this form of pre

Dramatic readi
treat for a lint
theatre public.

Corwin's Sand
drama have exp]
suffers from se
substantially :
mind at the mo:

W

5LWKerr, }_o_<
McClain,
Bolton, :
Chapman,
Oppenhei
348K

err, 95

351McClain

 

 

218

Comparisons

 

Five critics noted the similarity of Spoon River.Anthology
to Thornton Wilder's Our Town.3a7 Kerr was also reminded of Dylan

Thomas' Under Milk Wood,3A8 as was Oppenheimer, who wrote, "There too

 

a town came to life, a Welsh town peopled with fascinatingly strange

characters. Here the people are not so odd, but rather inhabitants

"349

of any.American village of the period.
As noted previously, Hewes compared the 1963 Spoon River with

the one Daniel Reed had presented in 1950, and.found.the later one

350

less satisfactory. Two critics made generalized comments about

oral interpretation productions. McClain admitted he was mildly

351

antagonistic towards the form, and Sainer observed that_§poon River

was like "all such works . . . both enriched and limited” by its

352

careful adherence to the original material. The longest discussion

of this form of presentation came from the Variety critic who wrote:

Dramatic readings of poetry are apt to be a special dish, a
treat for a limited following and a shoulder shrug for the general
theatre public.

Corwin's Sandburg show, and to some extent the Dylan Thomas verse
drama have exploited this field, however, and "Spoon River" thus
suffers from seeming something of an oft—told tale. The one
substantially successful dramatized poetry reading that comes to
mind at the moment is "John Brown's Body," and perhaps significantly

347Kerr, loc. cit.
McClain, loo. cit.

Bolton, 100. cit.
Chapman, loo. cit.
Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

 

350

Hewes, loc. cit.

Kerr, loo. cit. 3Lrgoppenheimer, loo. cit.

351 352

McClain, loc. cit.

Sainer, loc. cit.

 

 

   

 

—

I: that had a fairly w
no less, and had T
Baxter) as leadsJS

  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

lEhe lack of box 0
opened. Despite the if
first three weeks. Th
‘ihe second week it mad
and expensive advertis
week, but sales were
break-even point was
Gradually basin
transfer Spoon River
which cost the produ
financial troubles i
who had seen the pl

$500 and offered in

 

Finally box 0:

closed on January ’4

c ' - financial as well a
present the show i

brought on because

British players a

 

3531mm” ;
35L’nmie o
355m to:
3560mm,

357New Y:

 

219

that had a fairly well defined story, with a Civil War,background,
no less, and had Tyrone Power and Judith Anderson (later Anne
Baxter) as leads.353

The lack of box office names hurt the production when it first
opened. Despite the favorable reviews, business was quite poor the
first three weeks. The first week the production lost about $2,000.
The second week it made a profit of twenty—six dollars. An intensive
and eXpensive advertising campaign was launched during the third

week, but sales were very slow to pick up. Actually, the show's

354

break—even point was quite low for Broadway, $13,000 a week.

Gradually business improved, but then it became necessary to

transfer Spoon River from the Booth to the Belasco Theatre, a move

which cost the production $5,500.355 The show was still having

financial troubles in late November, when a woman in Massachusetts

Who had seen the play earlier in the fall sent Aidman a check for

. . 356
$500 and Offered further financial help to keep the production geing.

Finally box Office demand increased, and by the time §2222_E£KS£

closed on January 4, 1964, after 111 performances, it had achieved

financial as well as critical success. A London producer deCided to

present the show in England, and after considerable legal maneuvering

brought on because Masters' wife and adapter Aidman did not feel
- - small town iiie,557
British players could faithfully portray American

 

353E

obe., loc, cit.

354Louis Calta, New York Times» OCtOber 18’ 1963’ p. 34'

355 1963, p- 42-

Sam Zolotow, New York Times: November 12’

356Calta New York Times, November 29, 1963, p- 50-

, ——_———-—'

357 1964, p. 24.

New York Times, January 15,

 

 

 

Spoon River opened in Lc
reported that the impac
the kind that a recital

receive in Peoria, Ill.

On November 53 '1
collection of epitaphfi
stories by Yiddish an
small off-Broadway Ga
01" Jewish folk tales
Sheifer also acted i1

Nancy Franklin.

Setting and Accessox

The productim
and a bed-among ot
board on which were
The clothing servel
Spoon River, using
of characters. Ac

and accompanied h
was the observati

made "Under a 131,;

358

B ‘A - Y01
35

9Normem

220
Spoon River opened in London on February 13, 1964. A London reviewer
reported that the impact of Spoon River on a London audience ”was of
the kind that a recital of William Barnes' Dorset dialect poems might

358

receive in Peoria, Ill."
The Theatre of Peretz

On November 5, 1963, slightly more than five weeks after Masters'
collection of epitaphs opened on Broadway, an anthology of short
stories by Yiddish author Isaac Loeb Peretz made its debut at the
small off—Broadway Gate Theatre. The Theatre of Beretg was comprised
of Jewish folk tales and fables adapted for the stage by Isaiah Sheffer-
Sheffer also acted in the presentation, along with Zvee Scooler and

Nancy Franklin.

Setting and Accessories

The production used three chairs, a bench——which became a desk

a lectern, a table, and a kind of peg—
359

board on which were hung a large array of hats and capes and coats.

and a bed—-among other things:

The clothing served as props, with the actors, as in the case of

Spoon River, using slighttariations in costume to portray a wide range

0f characters. Actress Nancy Franklin provided the musical interludes

and accompanied herself on an autoharp. The only mention oi lighting

was the observation of one of the critics that costume changes were

made "under a blue light."560

E...—

358 1964.

B.A. Young, New York Times, February 15’
359Norman Nadel, New York World—Tele ram and Sun, November 6’ 1963'

360James Davis, New York Dail News,

November 6, 1963-

 

 

Chssification
Bolton called the
and the critic for liar}
Watts mentioned "dramat
proceedings as a "prog:
that Sheiier had been ‘
trying to create. Cor.
of the Peretz stories

which wavers between t

Manner of Presentatic
Most of the st<
while the two other
Occasionally the max
and dialogue. Each
characters. The oh

by Slight changes 1

by rearranging the

\
361 .

Whitney B

6
3 ENadel, lc
Kenn.) Ye

363Richard ‘

361+
Davis , l

6
3 5Arthur E

6Lewis F
36

7Martin
368

Sainer

 

221
Classification

”361

Bolton called the evening's fare ”dramatizations. Nadel
and the critic for Variety wrote of ”dramatized stories,"362 and
Watts mentioned "dramatized selections."363 Davis described the

"361+

proceedings as a "program of readings, and Sainer complained
that Sheffer had been unable to make up his mind as to what he was
trying to create. Consequently it was "neither a staged reading
of the Peretz stories nor a dramatization of them, but something

"365

which wavers between and never becomes any recognizable thing.

Manner of Presentation

Most of the stories used a narrator to tell part of the story
while the two other performers provided the action and the dialogue.366
Occasionally the narrator would also become involved in the action
and dialogue. Each story had a different setting and different
characters. The change in character was indicated, as noted earlier,
by slight changes in costume.367 The different settings were suggested
368

by rearranging the furniture.

 

36IIWhitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, November 7, 1963.

362Nadel, loc. cit.
Kenn., Variety, November 11, 1963, p. 64.
363R

364

Davis, 100. cit.

ichard Watts, Jr., New York Post, November 6, 1965.

 

365Arthur Sainer, Village Voice, November 14, 1963.
366Lewis Funke, New York Times, November 6, 1965, p. 35.
367Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, November 6, 1963.
368

Sainer, loc. cit.

 

 

 

W

01“ the twelVe rei
only two gave it an un:
Peretz parables and hu
performance."369 Nade
attend the production,
and the people in the
had appeared on stage
Mitchell, subst
anthology was less t1
delightful intro duct
say in a rather uniq
author, but that his
they provided a "slt
reported the acting
but The Theatre 01"

the players, but g5

the Productionjw
Kerr felt th

it "Pleasanter to

than to have the :

““““--—-—.

56
9Gene Pal

370
Nadel, 1

371 John wi-

372Watts,
37 '

37
5Walter

 

222
Verdict
Of the twelve reviewers who critiqued The Theatre of Peretz,
only two gave it an unqualified endorsement. Palatsky reported the

Peretz parables and humor "came alive" in a "polished, affecting

performance."369 Nadel, one of the three "first line" critics to

attend the production, found the evening full of wisdom and warmth,

and the people in the stories as amiable and as colorful as any who

370

had appeared on stage that season.
Mitchell, substituting for McClain, warned his readers the
anthology was less than perfect, but thought it provided a droll and

delightful introduction to a "writer who has something worthwhile to

"371

say in a rather unique way. Watts declared Peretz was a charming

author, but that his stories simply were not dramatic, and consequently

"572

they provided a "slender evening. The critic for the Villager

reported the acting was excellent and most of the stories were appealing,

.575

but The Theatre of Peretg simply was "not theatre.‘ Davis liked

the players, but gave no evaluation of the over—all effectiveness of

574

the production.
Kerr felt the stories suffered from being dramatized. He found

it "pleasanter to listen to Nancy Franklin sing a few poems in YiddiSh

"375

than to have the fables, in English, stretch out so. Sainer liked

 

369Gene Palatsky, Newark Evening News, November 6, 1965.

570

Nadel, 10c. cit.

371mm Mitchell, Wa November 6, 1963.

372Watts, 100. 2i£°
u
37 57 Davis, 1000 cit.

3Villager, November 7, 1963~

375Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, November 6, 1965.

 

 

 

the performers and form
effect "might be compar
attempt to partake of c

376 The

subway train."
were more enjoyable to

Bolton, who norm
presentation, reluctar
warned his readers thr
but the most ardent s
Peretz belonged on tlr

performers.380

icing

Funke was the
Several other criti‘
their efforts to ma
non-theatricality c
Funke complained ti
his voice was mono
FIanldin‘s attract
0f the characters

Shefferl S aCting

less. He thought

"travelogue qualj

376

Sainer,

3
79% tti‘ ri

 

223
the performers and found charm in the tales, but thought the total
effect ”might be compared to the frustration experienced in the

attempt to partake of a good strong chicken noodle soup on a crowded

”376

subway train. The critic for Variety surmised the Peretz stories

377

were more enjoyable to read than to see.

Bolton, who normally responded favorably to oral interpretation

378

presentation, reluctantly vetoed The Theatre of Peretz. Gottfried

warned his readers the evening was of "dubious theatre value to anyone

,379

but the most ardent seeker of Jewish culture.‘ Funke was sure

Peretz belonged on the printed page and was dissatisfied with the

380

performers.

Acting

Funke was the only reviewer to find fault with the players.

 

Several other critics admitted the three had not been successful in
their efforts to make the stories come alive, but they blamed the
non—theatricality of the material for this rather than the actors.
Funke complained that Zvee Scooler rolled his eyes too much and that
his voice was monotonous. He was willing to acknowledge Nancy
Franklin's attractiveness, but he did not like her interpretations
of the characters She was supposed to represent. Funke disliked
Sheffer's acting talents and liked.his directorial abilities even
less. He thought the narrator-pantomime—dialogue teChnique had a

"travelogue quality" about it, and was completely unsuccessful.381

 

578

Kenn., loc. cit. Bolton, loc. cit.

576 377

Sainer, loc. cit.

O .
379Gottfried, loc. cit. 58 Funke, 100- Clt- 38[\Ibid.

 

 

 

Sainer found the l
so much to do that it W
He felt the donning of
and the shifting of che
essary. He recalled sr
Kaufmann Auditorium.
were created by actors
to the players shiftir
"It is inexcuseable tr
then stepping out of

over the bed,‘ and th

bed-"382 Kerr thougl

01109 you have 1
that he is a man
minty, diSpla
three Players at
a pious Pussycat
“at? from himnp
cheracter.

After 3313 he
in charcoal, qu:
Smiling Spinner
Bolton descri

t w ~
he quiet reVerent

Mteria1,385 The W

L

che performers, bu

Peretz characters
The other or

words,

of PraiSe f,

382 ‘
Sainer,

Davis, 7

 

224

Sainer found the performers "likeable," but complained they had
so much to do that it was impossible for them to develop a character.
He felt the donning of hats and cloaks for each different character
and the shifting of chairs around for each different scene was unnec—
essary. He recalled seeing Dylan Thomas' Under Milk Wood at the
Kaufmann Auditorium. In that production, many scenes and characters 3
were created by actors simply sitting on stools. Sainer also objected
to the players shifting back and forth between narrator and character.
"It is inexcuseable to have an actor performing a line of dialogue,
then stepping out of character to tell the audience, 'then he stepped

over the bed,‘ and then stepping back into character to move to the

bed."382 Kerr thought the performers faced insurmountable odds.

Once you have put an actor on stage, and he has begun to pretend
that he is a man, you expect certain things of him: weight,
mobility, displacement, command. But no sooner has one of our
three players at the Gate begun to characterize a rabbinical student,
a pious pussycat, or a devil in red horns than the role is snatched
away from him—~by narration, or by the need to become another
character.

After all, he was not really a character. He was a face sketched
in charcoal, quickly drawn and quickly discarded, as a ruefully
smiling spinner of conceits had need for him.5 5

384

Bolton described the actors as "overworked." Davis mentioned

the "quiet reverent warmth" with which the players approached their

585

material. The Variety critic also noted the reverent approach of

the performers, but felt that despite this, they "failed to make the
. 6
Peretz characters believeable or compelling."38

The other critics liked the performances. Palatsky had special

words of praise for Zvee Scooler, who usually portrayed the main

 

 

584

Sainer, loc. cit. 385Kerrs 100- Cit- BOltOfl, 10c. cit.

386

582

585Davis, loc. cit. Kenn., $223 233'

 

 

 

character in the stories
pixyish or profound, Wit
melodic vocal intonatio
Nancy Franklin as a "to
finally a ‘pious pussy<
Palatsky thought her Vt
Mitchell also liked th
evident when lovely Ne
Gottfried admire

at all. He was quite
Watts agreed with Got
with presenting sever
charmg as an actre:
Defiormers hut singl

acting £01k" to emu].

In addition t,
served to Open and
been set to music e
the any qufirrel w:
bl Shiner was, "Al
the place 1‘01. the
W critic th(

r
ead becauSe‘ Whi'

38
7Palat Sky

9
GO ttf 1‘5“

391
Nadel, ‘

 

225

character in the stories, often a rabbi or a scholar. "He can be
pixyish or profound, wistful or hilarious, changing moods by use of
melodic vocal intonation or a lifted eyebrow." He also approved of
Nancy Franklin as a ”tolerant housewife, a charming seductress and
finally a 'pious pussycat'” (She portrayed an abused horse as well.)
Palatsky thought her vocal renditions of Peretz's verses were admirable.58'7
Mitchell also liked the'pious pussycat” and wrote that "superiority is
evident when lovely Nancy Franklin sings the Yiddish songs.”388

Gottfried admired Franklin‘s pussycat but did not like hersinging
at all. He was quite impressed with Scooler's wide range of rabbis.389
Watts agreed with Gottfried's evaluation of Scooler, credited Sheffer
with presenting several roles "expertly" and found Nancy Franklin

390

charming as an actress and as a singer. Nadel likedall three

performers but singled out Scooler as an excellent example for "other

391

acting folk" to emulate.

Material
In addition to the eleven stories, two of Peretz‘s letters

served to open and close the evening, and several of his verses had
been set to music and were sung by Miss Franklin. No one seemed to
have any quarrel with the material itself. The problem, as expressed
by Sainer was, "All manner of things have their time and place," and
the place for the Peretz stories was not in the theatre.392 The
Variety critic thought the stories would be much more effective to

read because, while they all had affection and humor, they were all

 

387Paiatsky, loc. cit. 388Mitcheii, loc. cit.

389 390
59

Gottfried, loc. cit. Watts, 100. cit.

1Nadel, loc. cit. 392Sainer, loc. cit.

 

 

 

‘3 non-dramatic. Their e1

andwhile this would b

disconcerting in a sto

fl “ complained that the st
wrote:

The words and w:
of Isaac Loeb Per
the swift transit

Peretz needs 00
as you go on, you
to yourself: "We
it and the reasor
it, musingly, am
that particularl;
nature of Peretz

Elli in a theat

Peretzian Work,

for comfort fron

contemElation . 59

We agreed \
bits and pieces tha‘
page they weave the
then shadows.“396
moralistic and fol}

Ll
tile SUCCESS of a u.

%
DaVis 90mm]
and decided the we

their material Wa
Brecht‘végg S
alh

 

r .
ending productp

3
931%ml

'1

 

226
non-dramatic. Their endings were so gentle they were "anticlimactic"
and while this would be fine in a story one was reading, it was
disconcerting in a story one was watching on the stage.393 Kerr
complained that the stage was "unfair" to the stories.394 Bolton
wrote:

The words and wisdom, the aphoristic and gentle observations
of Isaac Loeb Peretz are for the armchair . . . rather than for
the swift transitions of the stage.

Peretz needs contemplation and thought. You read him, you absorb
as you go on, you come to an end and you stop to think. You say
to yourself: "Well, now, that is a fine point of view and I like
it and the reasons I like are [EEEJ . . J‘ And you think about
it, musingly, and weigh it and favor it and even re—read a passage
that particularly [£334] delighted or touched you. It is in the
nature of Peretz, of his writing and philosophy.

But in a theatre, with three—-two men and a woman——enacting the
Peretzian work, there is need to hasten, to change too swiftly
for comfort from one character to another. There is no time for
contemplation.395

Funke agreed with Bolton, noting the stories were mainly "fragile
bits and pieces that leave little mark or impression. On the printed
page they weave their spell. Exposed on the stage they seem no more
than shadows."396 Mitchell complained several of the scenes were too

moralistic and folksy. He compared the success of these scenes to

"397

the success of a "pork salesman in a kosher delicatessen.

Comparison

Davis compared The Theatre of Peretz to Brecht on Brecht,
and decided the warm and quiet approach the Peretz players used on
their material was superior to the "noisy, maudlin treatment accorded
Brecht."398 Sainer, as noted earlier, was reminded of the

reading production of Under Milk Wood, which he remembered as
._____________________

593 394

Kenn., loc. cit.

595

Kerr, loc. cit. Bolton, loc. cit.

396 398

Funke, loc. cit. 397Mitchell, ESE-.EEE- Davis, ESE-.232-

 

 

 

 

having been much more 6
number of characters a1
No mention was made of
Although the crl
delightful and the act
did not like The Thea
the stories were not
when placed on the st

The Theatre of Peretz

Taken as a gr<
of the works of a s
Six productions whi

authors. Emlyn Wi]

of Edgar Lee Maste
astic endorsements
The Theatre

more negative the
more than 100 per
Ml also p'.
presentations wh

Emlyn Williams e

Davis and Leif T

ductions speare

39
98aine:

T .

227
having been much more effective in its presentation of a large
number of characters and situations than was The Theatre of Peretz.399
No mention was made of Spoon River, which was running simultaneously.
Although the critics thought most of Peretz's tales were

delightful and the actors were skillful, the majority of the reviewers

did not like The Theatre of Peretz. The consensus seemed to be that

 

the stories were not dramatic and lost their intimacy and quiet humor
when placed on the stage. Despite the reservations of the reviewers,

The Theatre of Peretz enjoyed a run of 102 performances.

Summary

Taken as a group, the six productions which featured a collection
of the works of a single author were much more successful than the
six productions which presented an anthology of works from various
authors. Emlyn Williams' Dickens program, Mixed Bill, Hal Holbrook‘s
Mark Twain Tonight!, Sir John Gielgud's Ages of Man, and the adaptation
of Edgar Lee Masters' Spoon River Anthology all received very enthusi—
astic endorsements from the majority of the critics.

The Theatre of Peretz, which was the one production to attract
more negative than positive reviews, won popular favor and ran for
more than 100 performances. Mark Twain Tonight! and_§poon River
Anthology also played over 100 shows. Interestingly enough, the
presentations which had shorter runs featured well—known performers;
Emlyn Williams and Sir John Gielgud in solo presentations, and Bette
Davis and Leif Erickson in The World of Carl Sandpppg. These pro—

ductions apparently had "limited runs" by choice rather than because

 

 

599

Sainer, loc. cit.

t—,

 

 

 

 

of a lack of POPular St
Two of the solo :
Holbrook's presentatio‘
andin this study, wit
holbrook used make-up
works they were preser
was due to their abil
respective author. 'I
been the recreation (
than the recreation ‘
audience. The inclu
to some extent hecar
senting his own worl
’50 recreate a liter
however, presented
Consequently, it W
hence as an attemp
secondary sense.
frequently referm
fit the definitio:
been include d so
The Perform
slight Changes 0:
characters. The
11.1% but not i

the Peretz 311th

228
of a lack of popular support.

Two of the solo shows, Williams' presentation of Dickens and
Holbrook‘s presentation of Mark Twain are included in this chapter,
and in this study, with certain reservations. Both Williams and
Holbrook used make—up and costuming to impersonate the author whose
works they were presenting. Much of the attention they attracted
was due to their ability to present a realistic portrait of their
respective author. The purpose of the production seems to have
been the recreation of a man in the eyes of the audience, rather
than the recreation of a literary experience in the minds of the
audience. The inclusion of the Dickens program can be justified
to some extent because Williams presented Dickens as a reader pre-
senting his own works. He was thus impersonating Dickens attempting
to recreate a literary experience for his listeners. Holbrook
however, presented Mark Twain primarily as a platform lecturer.
Consequently, it would be very difficult to classify his perfor—
mance as an attempt to recreate a literary experience, even in a
secondary sense. Nevertheless, because these productions are
frequently referred to in reviews of later productions, which do
fit the definition of oral interpretation presentations, they have
been included so that the reader might be familiar with them.

The performers in Spoon River and The Theatre of Peretz used
slight changes of costume and a few props to present many diverse
characters. The critics thought this device worked well in §p22p
Bizgp, but not in The Theatre of Peretz. The main difficulty with

the Peretz anthology was the material. Although nearly all the

 

 

 

 

reviewers praised the E
out this charm and wit
did not come across on
also criticized for it
lacked dramatic contii
extremely dramatic. 1
humor as exhibited in
Williams‘ selections
of Gielgud‘s material
Music played an
Manuscript or books '
W, althoug
All six of the setti
tation varied a greg
used a narrator, pa
DiCkenS impersonati
Gielgud stood by a
and scenes directl~
The critics ,
Productions in thi
Kmtch thought E ml
illustrated "that
the only Prerequi

tation as "anther,

o
Joserh v

229
reviewers praised the stories for their charm and wit, they pointed
out this charm and wit was a very gentle, quiet sort of thing which
did not come across on the stage. The World of Carl Sandburg was
also criticized for its lack of dramatic material. Spoon River
lacked dramatic continuity, but the individual selections were
extremely dramatic. Mark Twain Tonight! relied primarily on Twain's
humor as exhibited in his short stories, essays, and witicisms.
Williams' selections from Dickens were all very theatrical, and most
of Gielgud's material came from the plays of Shakespeare.

Music played an important role in the three group presentations.
Manuscript or books were in evidence in all the productions except
Spoon River, although there was never any actual "reading" done.
All six of the settings were quite simple. The manner of presen—
tation varied a great deal. For example, The Theatre of Peretz
used a narrator, pantomime and dialogue; Williams impersonated
Dickens impersonating the people in his stories; and Sir John
Gielgud stood by a lectern and presented the Shakespearean sonnets
and scenes directly to the audience.

The critics were not in agreement as to whether or not the
productions in this chapter should be considered "theatre,"

Krutch thought Emlyn Williams' Mixed Bill, from Dickens' works
illustrated "that old saying about two planks and a passion" being
the only prerequisites for theatre."L+00 Watts described the presen—

tation as "authentic theatre, and drama of a high order and almost

 

 

QOOJoseph Wood Krutch, Nation, February 23» 1952, po 189-

 

 

 

 

 

401
universal appeal.“

McClain and Nathe
acknowledged WilliMS'
"Is this TlehTi'tll'F‘LK)2
with his adaptation ii
that “whether or not '
of the word, the fact
and elsewhere through
performance on the "<
astage."%4 Nathan
but informed his rea
reciting, with histi
author is not, I fez
Sir John Giel
rhapsodize, "Sir Jc
that we ShOUld lea:

less.. . .. Thi

who cares about th

W as "tl
Productions of se'

\
0

ho
ZJOhn Md
he}

\
hot

George

George

h
06Tom r.

 

universal appeal."401

McClain and Nathan expressed the opposite viewpoint. McClain

acknowledged Williams' talent, but objected to the price and asked,

"Is this THEATRE?"402 After Williams returned the following year

with his adaptation from Bleak House, McClain was forced to admit

that "whether or not this constituted theatre in the strict sense

of the word, the fact remained that he had a successful run here

and elsewhere throughout the country.”405 Freedley wrote of Williams'
performance on the "contemporary lecture platform-~we won't call it

a stage."404 Nathan admitted Williams gave a skillful performance,

but informed his readers that ”listening to a single performer

reciting, with histrionic embellishments, excerpts from a celebrated
405

author is not, I fear, my idea of theatre or drama."
Sir John Gielgud's presentation, Ages of Man, moved Driver to

Inapsodize, "Sir John has carried out Robert Edmond Jones' dictum

that we should learn, on the stage, to do 'more with less and

less . . . .' This reading is a theatrical event which no one

who cares about the theatre should miss." Clurman questioned

Ages of Man as "theatre".

productions of several Shakespearean plays and found his readings

Clurman had seen Gielgud in regular

 

40
7Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, February 5, 1952.

40 _ I
afohn McClain, New York Journal American, February 5, 1952.

4
03 , April 27, 7953.

 

404 -
George Freedley; New York Morning Telegraph, April 24, 1953-

40
Eheorge Jean Nathan, Theatre in the Fiftigg, p. 216.

406
Ibm F2 Driver, New Republic, February 2, 1959, p. 20.

 

 

 

far less satisfactoI'Y-
readings are readings:
certainly not theatre.
In his review oi
position on readings:
from the literary rep
Chapman found the pre
price was rather stew
Several critic
be considered as the
PTOducb‘on, but felt
erpresso cafe" than
a rewarding off erin
but not for those “
Taubman reported t}
was not theatreflwh'
thinda and no eloc
Cooke admitte d the
\
hwfiarold C:
hogRobert c
LmJOhll Cha

ho
RObert (

“is, r. 247.

hm, hm c
0 h
W: p. 2th.
in
HiOward

h
13John m

 

251
"Gielgud is an actor of high rank, but his

far less satisfactory.
they are not acting. By themselves they are

readings are readings:
407

certainly not theatre."

In his review of Mark Twain Tonightl, Coleman stated his

"We are among those who go for 'readings'

408

position on readings:
from the literary repertory when they are persuasively dramatized."

price was rather steep for "a one-man recitation.”409
Several critics did not feel The World of Carl Sandburg should

Chapman found the presentation delightful, but thought the $4.60

be considered as theatre. Coleman liked certain things about the

producfion, but felt that it "would have been more at home in a hep

expresso cafe" than in a theatre}HO Chapman characterized it as

a rewarding offering for devotees of Sandburg, Davis or Erickson,
but not for those "in quest of beauty or theatrical emotion."411

Taubman reported the production "was not drama and occasionally it

12 McCarten maintained, "The play is still the
413

was not theatre."

thing, and no elocuticn lesson can provide a substitute."

Cooke admitted the production could not be called ”theatre" in the

 

 

407

Harold Clurman, Nation, January 10, 1959, pp- 39-40.
08Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, April 7, 7959.

4095b

hn Chapman, New York Daily News, April 10, 1959.
4 .
7ORobert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, September 15, 1960,

NYTCR, p. 2W.
477 .
John Chapman, New York Daily News, September 15, 1960,

NYTC’R, p. 244.
47
aHoward Taubman, New York Times, September 15, 1960, p. 44.

473
John MbCarten, The New Yerker, September 24, 1960, p. 97.

 

 

 

 

 

strict sense of the te:
advised his readers th
entertainment than the
from time to time in 1
Cooke also like
as an event of consid
Oppenheimer wrote of
scenery and dramatic
theatrical."1+16 0016
was "just a reading
audience.“LH7 Taubm
noted there had been
°fE00d plays." Amc
wMeh Taubman deseri
confessed he had 10:
at Broadway rates,
a series of dramati
recommended the prc

and compelljmg cm

W
Richard p
M5

\
M16

George 0]

417
p. 276- Robert Cl

#18
Howard II
419

J
\y Ohn M
1% P- 272. a

232

 

strict sense of the term, although he liked the presentation and
advised his readers there were ”lots of worse forms of theatrical

entertainment than the 'readings' which have appeared on Broadway
474

from time to time in recent years."

Cooke also liked Spoon River Anthology, which he described

as an event of considerable theatrical as well as literary interest." 15
Oppenheimer wrote of the production, "Above all——despite its lack of

scenery and dramatic form, 'Spoon River Anthology' is altogether

416 Coleman warned his readers not to think that it

theatrical."
was "just a reading , _ _ . It's absorbing theatre for a special

audience.” 17 Taubman, in his summary of the 1962—1963 season,

noted there had been several ”non-plays, a sure sign of a shortage

Among these were Spoon River and In White America,
,, 78

of good plays."
which Taubman described as ”powerful theatre prices. McClain

confessed he had long been opposed to readings in Broadway theatres
at Broadway rates, but although he admitted Spoon River was ”merely

a series of dramatized recitations with incidental music," he

recommended the prOduction to his readers as "an enormously warm

4’19

and compelling experience in the theatre.”
12, 1960.

 

 

 

4L7[{Richard P. Cooke, wall Street Journal, September
4
75 , October 7, 7963.

4
76George Oppenheimer, Newsday, September 30, 1963.
1963, NYTCR,

 

77l?obert Coleman, New York Mirror, September 30,

 

478

976.
Howard Jaubman,.New York Times, June 28, 1964, Sec. II, p. 1.
John MbClain, New York Jourpal American, September 30, 1963,

479
_p. 272.

 

 

 

None of the criti
“theatre." Gottfried
"theatrical dimensions
The critic for the E

Some of the cri‘
productions as "theat
critics, although the
should be thought of
productions which the

Having progres:
the works of several
works, the next chap

the author‘s life as
Category in terms oi
Of an author‘ s work

Poplilar success the

 

233

 

None of the critics thought The Theatre of Peretz succeeded as

"theatre." Gottfried complained the adaptations of the stories lacked
420

"theatrical dimensions" and were of dubious theatrical value."
#21

The critic for the Villager declared the presentation was "not theatre."

Some of the critics seemed willing to accept oral interpretation
Other

productions as ”theatre" if they wereexceptionally well done.
critics, although they questioned whether or not the presentations
should be thought of as "theatre," were willing to endorse those
productions which they thought were outstanding.

Having progressed, in terms of material, from anthologies of
the works of several authors to collections of a single author's

works, the next chapter will consider those programs which present

the author's life as well as his works. This was the most popular

category in terms of the number of productions, although presentations
of an author's works, on the whole, enjoyed greater critical and

popular success than did presentations of an author’s life and works.

 

42 -
OMartin Gottfried, Women's Wear Dally, November 6, 1963-

*27 .
Villager, November 7, 7963-

 

 

 

Nine production:
were considered in th
and five presented by

Four well know
Dorothy Stickney, Mi
sible for the four s
arranged a variety c
host of the material

01" the performers,
Standing admiratior
their decision to 1
Special inte

0f the five group
Volume autobiograp
hermetic characte

it for the stage,

1Letter in
2chephen w,
1961, SEC, II, .9

Arthur GE
New Yo

w:

CHAPTER VI
AN AUTHOR'S LIFE AND WORKS

Nine productions dealing with the life and works of an author
were considered in this chapter. Four of these were solo productions
and five presented by groups.

Four well known theatrical personalities, Emlyn Williams,
Dorothy Stickney, Michael MacLiamoir and Margaret Webster were respon-
sible for the four solo presentations. Each performer selected and
arranged a variety of material by and about his particular author.
Most of the material was not originally intended for the stage. Two
of the performers, Miss Stickney’I and Mr. MacLiamoir2 cited a long
standing admiration for their particular author as the reason for
their decision to present his (or her), life and Works.

Special interest in an author also precipitated at least four
of the five group productions. Paul Shyre thought O'Casey's six
volume autobiography was a literary masterpiece with more drama and
dramatic characters than in most plays, and so he proceeded to adapt

it for the stage, volume by volume.3 Donald Hall had been facinated

 

 

1Letter from Miss Dorothy Stickney to the author June 79, 7968,

2Stephen Watts, "On Wilde's World,” New York Times, March 72,
1961, Sec. II, p. 7.

 

3Arthur Gelb, "Campaigner in the Cause of Sean O'Casey,"
iEflszfléglgypgg, September 25, 7960, Sec. II, p. 7.

234

 

 

 

by Robert Frost and his
worked with Brecht,5 an
motivated to compile 2
German playwright, alt
Four of the prov
theatres, and a fifth
Sunday matinee and ev
playhouse. The other
critical reaction to

only three productio

Three product

in 7951+. Each row
of Under Milk Wood
Thomas' prose. Th
compile a variety
which he called D1
program at the Ba

The critics were

Early in 7957, Sc

Programs, armour]

\

Lt
Martha M5

5
LOUIS Ca

235
. A .
by Robert Frost and his poetry for many years. George Tabori had
worked with Brecht,5 and it would seem reasonable to assume he was
motivated to compile Brecht on Brecht by a special interest in the
German playwright, although he did not state his reasons.
Four of the productions appeared for regular runs in Broadway

theatres, and a fifth, Pictures in the Hallway, was presented in

 

Sunday matinee and evening performances for two months in a Broadway
playhouse. The other four were done off—Broadway. Although the
critical reaction to all of the productions was largely favorable,

only three productions ran for more than a hundred performances.

A Boy Growing Up

Three productions in memory of Dylan Thomas were given in England
in 7954. Each production included a concert reading of at least part
of Under Milk Wood and a performance by Emlyn Williams of some of
Thomas' prose. These memorial productions stimulated Williams to
compile a variety of Thomas' works into a theatrical entertainment

which he called Dylan Thomas Growingllp.6 He first tried out his

 

program at the Bath Festival in 7955, and then at London's Globe Theatre.
The critics were impressed and the production enjoyed a healthy run.
Early in 7957, S01 Hurok, who had presented Williams in his Dickens'

programs, announced that he would bring Williams and his Thomas

 

4
Martha MacGregor, New York Post, October 77, 7965.

 

5Louis Calta, New York Times, November 75, 7967, p. 52.

 

6James Reive Lindsay Linn, "A Historical Study of Oral Interpre—
tation in London, 7957—7962 as a Form of Professional Theatre”
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California,
7964), pp- 795-796.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . t
presentation, now enti
"hmited run” early in

Longacre Theatre on 00'

Setting and Accesories

The stage was b2
screen at the center .
scrawled on it, and a
readings, Williams he
This time he did not
That would have "req
scription someone or

He wore a nav;
carried notebooks s

poems. These Were
Classification
\

The critics

gjkilflEflQgi

termed it a u

for

Solo
it as a "One-man
want to leave out
\
7L ‘
eWZLS M
8 .
Lid.
9Walter KE
’lO
Rowland

'11
Geolx‘,

236
presentation, now entitled A Boy Growing Up, to New York for a
”limited run” early in the 7957—7958 season.7 The show opened at the

Longacre Theatre on October 7, 7957.

Setting and Accesories

The stage was bare except for a black drape at the back, a brown
screen at the center of the stage with the signature of Dylan Thomas
scrawled on it, and a chair in front of the screen. In his previous
readings, Williams had used costume and makeup to impersonate Dickens.
This time he did not attempt to impersonate the subject of his program.
That Would have "required him to look like 'an unmade bed'-~ a de—
scription someone once applied to Mr. Thomas' appearance."8

He wore a navy blue suit, a white shirt, and a red tie. He
carried notebooks similar to those in which Thomas had written his

poems. These were used as props.

Classification

The critics were very inconsistent in their selection of labels
for A Boy Growing Up. Kerr called it a "solo exercise,"9 Fields
termed it a "solo entertainment,“lo and the Variety critic described

it as a "one-man show."11 The reviewer for Time apparently did not

want to leave out any possibilities. He noted that Williams was
__________*__________

 

7Lewis Funke, New York Times, March 3, 795?. Sec. II, p. 7.
8Ibid.
9Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, October 8, 7957.
70
Rowland Field, Newark Evening News, October 8, 7957.
ll .
Geor., Variety, October 9, 1957, p. 68-

 

 

 

 

"reciting or interprei
wrote of the “reading
"dramatic reading;s."ll
itself, but referred
Perhaps one of
A301 Growing Up a "
wrote, "My Unfavouri
erplained that he pe
a person actually "2
Consequently, in hi
diamatic aid." He
turned the pages, 7
somewhat dismayed '
Most of the people
but they said they
up the books and 1
Else Would you ca‘.
\
12Time, Oct
\
13Frank Ast
11*Harold C

1
5Brooks A
76
. 7’ P‘ 35. (q

. e Cli '1 ,
“Flier thippsni‘.

mentioned it in

 

237

"reciting or interpreting or impersonating Dylan Thomas.“'2 Aston

nil3

wrote of the "readings,

"dramatic readings."’|L+ Atkinson avoided labeling the production

75

and Clurman called the proceedings

itself, but referred to Williams as a "public readers."
Perhaps one of the reasons why more critics did not call

A B0 Growin U a "reading" was because of an article Williams

wrote, "My Unfavourite Word is 'Reading.'" In the article Williams

explained that he personally could not imagine paying money to hear

a person actually "read," regardless of how well he might read.

Consequently, in his Dickens program he used the books "purely as a

dramatic aid." He looked at them at certain times and occasionally

turned the pages, but he never read from them. He was therefore,

somewhat dismayed to have people congratulate him on his "Reading.”

Most of the people he talked to were aware he had the material in mind,

but they said they called it a reading because he occasionally picked

up the books and turned the pages. And, as one lady asked, "What

else would you call it?"16 Williams had to admit he did not know.

 

2 .
1 Time, October 21, 1957: P° 56'

 

13Frank Aston, New York World Telegram and Sun, October 8, 7957.

L,
1 Harold Clurman, Nation, October 26, 7957, p. 290.

1
5Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, October 8, 7957, p. 41.

 

16Emlyn Williams, "My Unfavourite Word is 'Reading,'" October 7
1957, p. 33. (The source was not identified. The article was found
in the clippings on A Boy Growing Up in the Theatre Collection. The
writer thinks perhaps it was in the Playbilla as some 0f the GritiCS
mentioned it in their reviews.)

 

 

 

 

II enjoyed your
Show“? I like it
sound fun, but max
act, a flower shOl
Much too highbrow
had been to my '0‘
is, you'll agree,
forbid. ‘Monolog

Williams was so
label in his Thomas 1
say they were the Stl
never looked at them
on his "Reading" and
he had the material
you call it? ”A on

drama of moods? A

wolf welter? Anyth
l‘lanher of Presenta"

At the begin
Stage except for a

name On ilk/‘9 TWC

w“limos left the
the spotlight foe.
1“ betWeen, Willi

and buffeond‘zl

7? .
In.

19

John Cha
20

Henry He

27
Mk5-1180}

238

'I enjoyed your performance'? Sounds like a play. 'Your
show'? I like it when people do say that; it makes the 'show'
sound fun, but many people would only apply it to a variety
act, a flower show, a horse show . . . . 'Your recital'?
Much too highbrow, too forbidding. Somebody did once say they
had been to my 'concert' but to describe a solo as a concert
is, you'll agree, a little misleading. 'Recitations'? Heaven
forbid. 'Monologue'? Over my dead body.17

Williams was sure he had solved the problem of the ”reading"

label in his Thomas presentation. He did bring in notebooks and

say they were the stories, but then he put them on the floor and

never looked at them again. However, once more he was complimented

on his ”Reading” and again, when he inquired, he found people realized

he had the material memorized. The problem remained——what else can

you call it? ”A one man marathon? A solitary symposium? A mono—

drama of moods? A Cymric kaleidoscope? A farcial fandago? A lone—
. 78
wolf welter? Anything—~anything, please, rather than a Reading!"

Manner of Presentation

At the beginning of the evening, the curtain rose on an empty

stage except for a chair, some notebooks,

name on it.19 Two and a half hours later, the curtain came down as

. . "
Williams left the stage quoting "Death Shall Have No Dominion and

the SPQtlight focused on Thomas' notebooks laying on the Chalr'
In between, Williams presented Dylan Thomas,

. t 'm
and buffoon.n2’l Although Williams made no overt attempt a 1

~—-—_—_——____.

17lbid. 18Ibid.

——

19John Chapman, New York Dail News, October 9, 7957'

20Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, OCtOber 19’ 1957’ p' 53'

21Atkinson, loo. cit.

"story—teller, poet

and the screen with Thomas'

personation,

 

 

 

several of the critics
one.22 Not only dd W5
the characters.23 Th1
ls Williams wrote, "I

wink, laugh, cry, pla

W
The critics we
attraction to be ent
it as "an evening 02f
and Field thought tl
Atkinson thought Th
genius as a reader
the critics had sli
as a whole, the em
noted the material
had some "slightly
outweighed the not
000a8ionally over:

2

aE.V.R. wE
T0171 F. D]
Mkinson
BDI‘iVeT,

25
Chapman ,

28
AtkinSor

0ft

John Ga,
d ohe Mid‘cent
, pp. 2 7-

239
several of the critics thought the two Welchmen soon merged into

one.22 Not onlywid.Williams become Thomas, he also became many of

the characters.23 There was plenty of movement in the production.

As Williams wrote, "I sit, jump up, lie down, pull faces, walk, run,

. 24
wink, laugh, cry, play the piano, and paddle in the sea."

Verdict
The critics were in agreement that A Bo Growin U was an

attraction to be enthusiastically recommended. Chapman described
26

it as "an evening of pure charm,"25 Clurman fonulit ”brilliant,”

. 27
and Field thought the entertainment was ”completely delightful."

. . - l
Atkinson thought Thomas' genius for story telling and Williams

. 28
genius as a reader were well met in A B0 Grow1n U . Some of

the critics had slight reservations, but even they thought, taken

as a whole, the evening was quite satisfactory. The 2229 reVlewer

noted the material had some weak moments and Williams occasionally

had some "slightly too showy" moments, but concluded the good parts

2 . -
outweighed the not so good parts. 9 Gassner thought Williams

. - tic
occasionally overacted, and he complained the evening lacked drama

30
unity, but he still thought it was superb-

 

2 - ber 7957: P- 228'
W ld Decem
2E.V.R. Wyatt, Catholic or 7 October 30, 1957, p. 1289.

Tom F. Driver, Christian Centur ’ Fields, 100. cit.

Atkinson, loc. cit. Aston, EES- Eli'

23Driver, loc. cit. 24WilliamS, leg-.213-

. 27 . . 't.
2SChapman, loc. cit. 26Clurman, loo. Cit. Field, 100 Cl
28

29 . . .
Atkinson, loc. cit. Time, 222° 2&3

' hts
3OJohn Gassner, Theatre at the Crossroads: tPl§.:e:::tP::a Winston:
of the Mid-Century American Stage New York: H01 a 1
79 O , pp- 2 7-2 -

 

 

fling
Most of the cri
talking about William
impressed with the v
the uncle "whose sue
hawsers . . . the Si
a razor. And the W
who looked like a w
Wyatt was are
distinctly differex

At one lunat‘
to the ribald,
performer is t
tremely emerge
in a rocking c
second is regi
on an inner-s}
through a Lew
finger, Ther
out of Sight

The three w

“my flight:

Such swift a1

“0’“ only tel:

sanities, We

WC crashing

triumphant}

Field rece

delicate raisin;

\-

l .
3 whltney
Nets) acts,
settings."

2
3 JuStin

 

has,

 

 

240

Acting

Most of the critics Spent the majority of their reviews
talking about Williams' remarkable talents.31 Several of them were
impressed with the variety of peOple Williams created. There was
the uncle "whose suspenders groaned around hisluge girth like
hawsers . . . the shiftyaeyed Bob the Fiddle, whose smile was like
a razor. And the woman who had two buck teeth, one of them gold,
who looked like a well—to-do rabbit.”32

Wyatt was amazed to discover Williams could portray five
distinctly different people at the same time.33 Kerr wrote:

At one lunatic point in Emlyn Williams' new three—part salute
to the ribald, rose-colored, runaway prose of Dylan Thomas, the
performer is to be seen simultaneously impersonating three ex-
tremely energetic people. The first of these is gaily rocking
in a rocking chair that is perched on a horsehair sofa, the
second is regularly ascending toward the ceiling from his base
on an inner—spring mattress, and the third is wandering wildly
through a Lewis Carroll world with a beer-bottle stuck on his
finger. There is a fourth person present, but she is momentarily
out of sight on the floor somewhere.

The three we're talking about are very much in sight. Their
boozy flights through space are perfectly charted, drawn with
such swift and sweeping strokes by a single player that we can
not only tell them apart when they are spouting individual in—
sanities, we can continue to identify them when they are all
but crashing into one another. Thus is the actor in Mr. Williams
triumphant.34

Field recalled that Williams' gestures ranged from "the

delicate raising of the hand to the constriction of the entire body.'.'35

 

5"Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 9, 7957_

Bolton paid tribute to Williams' versatility as he noted, "He writes,
directs, acts, counsels other dramatists and for all I know designs
settings.“

2 . . . .
3 Justin Gilbert, New Yogk Daily Mirror, October 8, 7957.

34 35

33watt, loc. cit.

Kerr, loc. cit. Field, 100. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hewes wrote that Will
his arms, hopping up
giving the impressiox
the sake of pantomim
flapping of Williams
Bolton was imp
single chair. It nc
ture, Williams also
and ignored it.38
wrote that one was
makes the hustle a1
iootless, and fool:
Particularly
illusions Williams
Using only the ChE
at the beach, a rr
According to Kerr
"Of a boy dreamin

a mousetmp, anr

Williams 1]

The most Popular

Hewes, I
38
Bolton,

0
Geor.3

 

 

 

241

Hewes wrote that Williams indulged in all sorts of movement, flapping
his arms, hopping up and down, strutting about the stage, but never
giving the impression that he was indulging in pantomime just for
the sake of pantomime.36 Gassner was not so sure. He found the
flapping of Williams' hands to simulate flight "embarrassing."37

Bolton was impressed with the mileage Williams got out of the
single chair. It not only served as an entire room full of furni—
ture, Williams also stalked it, sat on it, balanced it on two legs,
and ignored it.58 Chapman paid Williams a great compliment when he
wrote that one was hardly aware of his presence as an actor. "He
makes the hustle and rowdydow of the ordinary stage seem frantic,
footless, and foolish."39

Particularly impressive to some of the critics were the vivid
illusions Williams was able to conjure up out of the Thomas writings.
Using only the chair, Williams created "a hill top in Wales, a rock
at the beach, a rocking chair, a bath tub, and a lady's lap."LF0
According to Kerr, Williams brought to life concrete physical images
"of a boy dreaming he is a bird, a dainty aunt delicately setting

47

a mousetrap, and a grim family visitor 'smiling like a razor.'"

Material
Williams used thirteen excerpts from Thomas' childhood memories.

The most popular selections were the story of the outing in which the

 

 

Hewes, loo. cit. 37Gassner, 2p. cit., p. 288.
38

Bolton, loo. oit. 39Chapman, loo. cit.

r,
OGeor., loc. cit. Aqurr, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

men of Thomas‘ villaE
into a "state of com}
poet‘s first visit tr
neck of a beer bottl
house, sat on the be
with a girl who "loc
Atkinson thought thr
Aston thought
characters provided
Provess. "The char
rich insight into 1
fascinating in the
keep bursting fort
the material was :'
reader Could see ,
finds in the fem
The critic
had charm and put
stories become r,
tiveness of Will

Gilbert, who see

\

ta
Atkinso:

hit
AtklnSo

M

 

en of Thomas' village traveled from pub to pub drinking themselves
to a "state of complete joyousness," and the recitation of the
et's first visit to London when he got his finger caught in the
ck of a beer bottle, met all sorts of people in a bizarre rooming
use, sat on the bath tub rim and drank brandy out of a tooth glass
'th a girl who "looks prettier when she takes her glasses off."
kinson thought the segment was "like Pickwick written by James Joyce."L+2
Aston thought the material was exceptionally fine and that the
laracters provided Williams with ample opportunities to show his
rowess. ”The characters dream a lot and fuss some; they afford
Lch insight into moods of boyhood and adolescence; they are often
tscinating in their personal eccentricities; and above all they
aep bursting forth with something hilarious.”43 Atkinson agreed
is material was interesting, but he thought ”only a very imaginative
aader could see in it the healthy, humorous glory that Mr. Williams
44

.nds in the fantasy of the stories and the allusiveness of the prose."

The critic for Theatre Arts wrote that the material had always

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

d charm and pungency, but that "in Emlyn Williams' hands, the
cries become rare and vivid experiences in living."45 The effec—
veness of Williams—Thomas combination was further attested to by

lbert, who described the program as:

4 .
2Atkinson, loc. cit. ujAston, loc. Cit.
Atkinson, loo. cit.

4
5Theatre Arts, December, 7957, P- 27-

  

 

 

 

 

 

. , , a rich, 810
through the Vivj‘d
sensitive Yet oft
of July sparklel"E
performance of a
Thomas entered
which must unque
print, were ampl
Simple gestures
meanings with ID
Gassner agre€<
most enjoyable, but
dribble out as sket
was no unity to the
Thomas. Furthermo:
mm, and end.

skill of the perfo

he put together wi

Comparisons

Several of
readings, and poi
senate Thomas as
Thomas productio
With no pretense
and gesture.48
and subtle than

Mention w
1 Kn
%
\

6
Gilber

1+8
Willis

243

. . . a rich, glowing resurrection in which Thomas emerged,
through the vivid recreative powers of Emlyn Williams as a
sensitive yet often droll youngster who used words as Fourth
of July sparklers . . . . It was akin to watching the gripping
performance of a spirit medium.

Thomas entered his body almost from the first moment. Words
which must unquestionably lose a dimension when reduced to cold
print, were amplified, animated by a mere rise or fall in voice.
Simple gestures spotlighted by slight illumination clothed
meanings with ruddy flesh.

Gassner agreed the "all day carouse" and the London trip were

 

ost enjoyable, but felt that some of the smaller scenes "tended to
dribble out as sketches are wont to do." He also complained there
was no unity to the recitation other than the presence of young
Thomas. Furthermore, he thought the program lacked a beginning,
middle, and end. He credited the success of the evening to the
skill of the performer because "the literary material seemed to

be put together with virtually no dramaturgy at all."47

30mparisons

Several of the critics mentioned Williams' earlier Dickens

readings, and pointed out that he had not tried to physically imper_

   
  
  
   
   
  
   
  

onate Thomas as he had Dickens. Williams himself had noted the
homas production was much more informal than his previous ones,
'th no pretense of reading and with much greater use of movement
d gesture.1+8 Kerr thought the Thomas program was more sensitive
nd subtle than the Dickens readings had been.49

Mention was also made of the O'Casey readings, specifically

Knock at the Door, which was playing at the same time as A BOX

 

46 47

Gilbert, loc. cit.

#8

Gassner, pp. cit., p. 288.

Williams, 100. cit. 9Kerr, loc. cit.

     

 

 

 

similar. “As in the
artistry wedded to g
This is a hard combi
. ductions, but found
Wyatt felt that the
beauty, but thought
preferred 1 Knock e
Eflyigiflp aia.53
d In his summa
A Boy Growing Up a
He credited Willi;
Company evoked in
Deepite the
enE'clgement" prom
after seventeen
the run was so 5
Wounoed that .
the New York en
a longer engage

Williams! Stati

\
Theatx

\
5

awvatt.
BHJOhn ‘
Doubleday and

5
5M9

 

 

244
Erowing Up. The Theatre Arts critic thought the two were quite
similar. "As in the O‘Casey dramatization, this is an example of
artistry wedded to genuine dedication to worthy subject matter.

t_n50

This is a hard combination to bea Driver enjoyed both pro—

"51

ductions, but found the O'Casey one "more completely satisfying.

Wyatt felt that the O'Casey prose had more warmth and rhythmic

  
   
   
  
  

beauty, but thought Williams' skill made up for this.52 Gassner
preferred I Knock at the Door because it had more unity than A_§21
Growin U did.53
In his summary of the 1957—1958 season, Chapman labeled
Growin U as "one of the artistic delights of the season."
e credited Williams with evoking "more of Thomas than a large
company evoked in Under Milk Wood later in the season."54
Despite the endorsement of all the critics, the ”limited
engagement" proved to be quite limited. A Boy Growing Up closed
after seventeen performances. No explanation was found as to why
the run was so short. Before Williams opened, Producer Hurok
Lnnounced that the production would make a brief tour following
he New York engagement.55 Perhaps tour commitments prohibited
longer engagement. One would have thought that a performer of

Llliams' stature and talent presenting material from an author who,

 

50Theatre Arts, pp. cit., p. 82. 51DI‘iVGI’, pp. cit., p. 1288.

 

52Wyatt, loc. cit. 53Gassner, loc. cit.
4 .
5 John Chapman, Broadway's Best, 1958 (Garden City, New York:
bleday and Company, Inc., 1958), p. 169.

55T‘unke, loo. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

though not universall
following, would have

for more than two wee

Dorothy Stick:
in the long-running
Edna St. Vincent Mi
letters were publis
them and with the ‘
way a poignant sto

tried to think of
as drama. It was
the effect she ha
According i

Miss Stickney's <
numerous charact
VOices." Rossv
had talked with
With Charles Di

1305511316 '57

ACCOTdin

not seen any E

\
56
Lette:

57130:. R

245
>ugh not universally appreciated, had a sizeable and devoted
llowing, would have been able to attract sufficient crowds to play

r more than two weeks.

A Lovely Light

Dorothy Stickney, known to many theatre patrons as "Vinnie"
the long-running Life With Father, had loved the poetry of

St. Vincent Millay since she was a girl. When Miss MilLay's
tters were published in 1952, Miss Stickney was enthralled with
em and with the way ”they revealed in an entirely unselfconscious

n.”56 She

y a poignant story of the life of a very special perso
ied to think of how the poetry and the letters might be combined
drama. It was seven years before she succeeded in achieving
e effect she had hoped for. The result was A Lovely Light.
According to Dan Ross, a writer for the New York_flerald Tribune,
35 Stickney's original conception ”was an elaborate one, with
nerous characters, many props, scenery, music, and off—stage
.ces." Ross went on to report that, several years ago Miss Stickney
talked with Emlyn Williams, who, on the basis of his experience
1 Charles Dickens, recommended she keep things as simple as
sible.57
According to a letter received from Miss Stickney, she had

seen any productions which influenced her to stage A Lovely Light

——~————___

6
5 Letter from Dorothy Stickney to the author, June 19, 1968.
57Don Ross, New York Herald Tribune, February 7, 1960.

 

 

 

 

 

as she did. She did I
but gave no indicatio
advice.58

In January of ‘
announced Sol Hurok,
travels, would arrar
about Edna St. Vince
theatre critic for ‘
in Judy, and wrote
Broadway theatre at
New York in Februa‘

Theatre for a two-

The setting
a large red chair
Wording to Miss
than actually re,
Mi11ers life
was responsible
native and help:
\

Sgstickne

59Lewis 1
60

My

61
e Vertical f

62mtnt

2H6

as she did. She did mention that she was vauainted with Williams,
but gave no indication in her letter that she had ever sought his
advice.58

In January of 1959, a note in the New York Times theatre column
announced Sol Hurok, who had managed Emlyn Williams' United States
travels, would arrange Miss Stickney's itinerary for her program
about Edna St. Vincent Millay, entitled A Lovely Light.59 The
theatre critic for EETS reviewed the production at Purdue University
in July, and wrote that the show would appear in New York in an off—
Broadway theatre after a straw—hat tour.6O However, when it reached
New York in February 8, 1960, it opened on—Broadway at the Hudson l

Theatre for a two—week engagement.

Setting and Accessories

The setting was quite simple; black drapes, a desk and chair,
a large red chair, and a garden bench atop a small platform.
According to Miss Stickney, it was her intention to suggest, rather
than actually reproduce, the physical environment of the major periOd
of Millay's life and works.61 Lee Watson designed the setting and
was responsible for the lighting, which was characterized as imagi—

native and helpful.62 Kerr mentioned the effectiveness of ”gently

 

 

58Stickney, loc. cit.

59Lewis Funke, New York Times, January 11, 1959, Sec. II., p. 1.

 

6O .
Time, July 13, 1959: P- 44'
1Dorothy Stickney, in undated, unidentified clippings found in
the vertical file on A Lovely Light in the Theatre Collection-

6 .
2Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, February 10, 1960.

 

 

 

 

dimming and glowing S
Miss Stickney‘ s
with white collar ant
New England traditiOl
she made no attempt
another critic claim

6
the poet."6

Classification
Miss Stickney
describe her perfot
for lack of a bett
a writer for W
felt this describe
Her husband
it was a dramatiz
it only had one <

either a "5010 s]

\

63Walter K
W» m 576.

64
Brooks 1

6
51105,, l

66
Lewis 3

6
7Letter

6
9Hobe.,
FreLuce
RODQrt

Kenny,
Kerr,

247

(111111111118; and slowing spotliglrlts."65

Miss Stickney‘s costume was "a plain blue serge dress and jacket
with white collar and cuffs, designed by Helene Pons in the simplest

New England tradition."64 One critic quoted Miss Stickney as saying

65

she made no attempt to imitate the poet's appearance or dress, but

another critic claimed the dress was "inspired by a photograph of

the poet."66

glassification

Miss Stickney admitted that she never really knew how to
describe her performance and ended up calling it a ”dramatization"
for lack of a better term. She was pleased with what.Aileen Talmay,

a writer for Vogue, called it——"an interior biography.” Miss Stickney

. . . . 67
felt this described what she had hoped to achieve.

Her husband, Howard Lindsay, declared that it was not a reading;
it was a dramatization which had everything a play had except that

it only had one character.68 Most of the critics called the production

n69

either a ”solo show" or a ”one—woman show. Atkinson and Chapman

'h

65Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, February 9, 1960,

lY_T__CB_, p- 376.

6“Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, February 9: 1960, p. 27.
65B

oss, loc. cit.

66Lewis F mke, New York Times, February 7, 1960, Sec. II, p. 1.
67

. 68 .
Letter from Dorothy Stickney, 100- Cltv R055, 100- Clt.

69Hobe., Variety, February 10, 1960, p. 70.

Frances Herridge, New York Post, February 9, 1960, NYTGR, p. 376.
Robert Coleman, New York Mirror, February 9, 1960, NYTCR, p. 375.
Kenneth Tynan, The New Yorker, February 20, 1960, p. 15:.

Kerr, _I_L_9_c_. pit.

 

 

 

 

 

n " I!
spoke 01 lt as a dra

none of the critics 1

banner of Presentatil

 

Although it we

amanuscript, but "c

that l was actually

a kind of visual in

Her movement,

, called, "Miss Sticl

d vein she glides fr
disagreement among

as a devotee readl'

her own works. T?

Concerning acting

Verdict

\
0f the sev
approved of w
review “A Dim Vi
that less Sticks

Part responsibl
\

70
J hn
but. 0 01

A tkins,

71
Sticks

72
Thomas

 

73mm 1

N
w» re 37b

A

 

248

"70

oke of it as a "dramatization. It is interesting to note that

ne of the critics referred to it as a "reading."

nner of Presentation

Although it was not described as a "reading," Miss Stickney used
manuscript, but "only as a stage device to make an audience believe
at I was actually reading the letters—-in other words, to give it
kind of visual immediacy. Of course, I knew it by heart."71

Her movement, as staged by Lindsay, was limited. .As Dash re-
lled, "Miss Stickney attempts no histrionic flourishes. In a quiet
in she glides from sofa to bench . . . to desk."'72 There was some
sagreement among the critics as to whether Miss Stickney appeared
a devotee reading Miss Millay's works, or as Miss Millay reading
r own works. This will be discussed more fully in the section

ncerning acting.

rdict

 

Of the seven major New York newspaper critics, five of them

proved of.A Lovely Light and two did not. McClain entitled his

 

View "A Dim View is Taken of Stickney Readings," and complained
at Miss Stickney had failed "to capture the abandon which was in

rt responsible for the talents of the woman she recreates."75

bk

70

John Chapman, New York Daily News, February 9: 1960, NYTCR,
374 .

Atkinson, loc. cit.

71Stickney, loc. cit.

72Thomas Dash, Women’s Wear Daily, February 9, 1960.

73John McClain, New York Journal American, February 9, 1960,

923,, pa 371+.

 

 

 

 

derridge had no compl
the actress dramatize
with the choice of m:
side of Millay?”r
The other crit
found A Lovely Light
Niss Stickney gave ‘
portrait of a fasci
was utterly captive
that "an audience \
as it fell under t‘.
the evening was qu
current commercial
necessarily limit.
Among the 0
0f theatricality,
Morrison called :'
night audience?
he enjoyed the p

and Miss Stickns

\
7A

Herridg

6
Coleman

79Frank
1960, t
W) p.

80
Melvin

81
HObe . ,
8
its,

249
erridge had no complaint about Miss Stickney, in fact she thought
he actress dramatized the material effectively, but she was displeased
ith the choice of material which she felt illustrated only one
ide of Millay.71+
The other critics thought the evening was excellent. Atkinson

"75

ound A Lovely Light "tender and beautiful. Coleman wrote that
iss Stickney gave "a lovely performance . . . . in a delightful
ortrait of a fascinating woman."76 Kerr enjoyed the material and
as utterly captivated by Miss Stickney,77 as was Chapman who wrote
bat "an audience which.had come to cough quickly became mouse—still
s it fell under the spell wrought by the actress.”'78 Aston admitted
he evening was quite different than what Broadway and those in the
lrrent commercial theatre were use to, and that its appeal was
ecessarily limited; however, he personally found it "enchanting".79
Among the other critics, Maddocks found ”a beguiling absence
f theatricality, a touchingly honest sense of frail lyricism."8

arrison called it a ”beguilling show” which enthralled the first—

. . . . - b t
Lght audience.81 Hewes was not satisfied with the selections: u

3 enjoyed the program anyhow.82 Tynan heartily disliked the selections

1d Miss Stickney's presentation of them.

 

r74Herridge, loc. cit. 75Atkin50na 222: 223'

76 8

. 7 ' .
Coleman, 100. cit. 77Kerra $22°.2£E' Chapman, l2£"2££

79Frank Aston, New York World Tele ram and Sun, February 9,

960, NYTCR, p. 575.
- 60.
8OMelvin Maddocks, Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 19
________________________
8llHobe., loc. cit.

. 2 .
82Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, February 27’ 1960’ p 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acting
Tynan complains
with her face contor‘
woman's club lecture
87
recently widowed.” ’
acting was McClain,
I will defend
tattered typewr
advised in cast
range of voice,
does she captur
the talent of t
McClain and E
criticisms. Aston
as Millay" and wro
Through her
fireside, One
with sunbeams
a Slope leadi:
was listening
Maddocks p1
flamboyant rhetog
dive her letters,
Nerr decided the
o
n the stage, ea
Others‘1187

Ast‘m was

wShe has Edna E

 

250
sting

Tynan complained that Miss Stickney wandered around the stage

ith her face contorted and sounding ”like the tinnier sort of

Dman's club lecturer, and behaving in general like a patient hostess
scently widowed."85 The only other critic to take issue with the
sting was McClain, who hastened to qualify his censure as he wrote:

I will defend Miss Stickney's stature as an actress to my last
tattered typewriter ribbon, but I do not believe she was well
advised in casting herself as Miss Millay. Neither by depth or
range of voice, nor in her almost prim approach to the subject
does she capture the abandon which was in part responsible for
the talent of the woman she recreates.

McClain and Tynan were definitely in the minority with their

citicisms. Aston headlined his review "Dorothy Stickney Excells
3 Millay" and wrote of the images she evoked.

Through her the audience saw a mountain top, an island, a
fireside, One pictured a table holding newly filled Mason jars
with sunbeams streaming through the ruddy contents. There was
a slope leading down to a stormy surf, and in the chill Spray a man
was listening as she called him back from the chilly dangers.

Maddocks praised her for brilliantly underplaying the "slightly

Lamboyant rhetoric" of Miss Millay's verse, and With managing to

.Ve her letters an "unassuming, almost girlish authenticity."86

arr decided that there were"approximately ten Dorothy Stickneys

1 the stage, each of them nicer and more accomplished than the
:hers."87

t Aston was convinced the actress impersonated Millay. He wrote,

he was Edna St. Vincent Millay."88 Funke thought her dress

    
 
 

85Tynan, 23. cit., p. 102. 84McClain, loc. cit.
87

8 .
5Aston, loc. cit. 86Maddocks, loc. Cit. Kerr, loc. cit.

88
Aston, loc. cit.

 

 

 

suggested that she we
her performance to t}
Miss Stickney
apparently the Chara
the authenticity of
there was no attempt
for being able to 8'
She is aglow with w
conscious artist."9
to a medium who "51
hiss Stickney, "Sh,
the lovely light 0
artful that she 86
The performs

then asked how Shw
Il‘om Wm
"As an actress I
woman show than 1
W

The Poetry
M “as epitomi,

Production Was

251
,ggested that she was "impersonating her heroine."89 McClain compared
r performance to the "impersonation" of Mark Twain by Hal Holbrook.90
Miss Stickney wrote, "I did not try to impersonate Millay, but
parently the character came over clearly to the audience through

"91

e authenticity of her own words. Atkinson's impression was that

ere was no attempt at impersonation and he praised Miss Stickney

r being able to stand "sufficiently aside to see what she is enjoying.

e is aglow with wonder, but she preserves the independence of the

nscious artist."92 Chapman thought Miss Stickney could be compared

a medium who ”summoned" Miss Millay into the theatre. He wrote of

ss Stickney, "She never thrusts herself upon the audience or hides

e lovely light of the woman of whom she speaks: She is so very

tful that she seems artless."95
The performance was obviously a labor of love for Miss Stickney.

en asked how she would compare the personal satisfaction gained

am A Lovely Light with that of a "normal" role, she responded,

s an actress I received greater satisfaction from doing this one—

show than from playing any role in any play, even including

e with Father."9l+

erial
The poetry and letters were arranged in three acts and each
was epitomized by a quotation from Millay. The title of the

duction was taken from one of her early poems:

 

92Atkinson, loc. cit. gachapman, $22: 223'
94

Stickney, loc. cit.

 

 

8 . . .
9Funke, $22: 23:: 90McClain, Egg, EEE‘ 91Stickney, loc. cit.

 

 

1.

 

My

Bu'

The first act,
than the heart is wi
hct two, ("I known I
back into me.“), 001
Boissevain. The th
let the face of God
husband's death, he
death in 1950. Mi:
consecutive story j
tation more closel

Chapman thou
the material was 5
letters and some <
and infinitely to
its My Spots,
are Common to us
was, for the mos‘
solo Weuings ar
was rather flash

Pieces, Concerne

distrust of blaw

her life, "Nea

essentially 13H

95lbi

\‘

252
My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--
It gives a lovely light!
The first act, (”The world stands out on either side,/ No wider
in the heart is wide."), dealt with Miss Millay's early years.
; two, ("I known not how such things can be!/ I breathed my soul
:k into me.”), concerned her marriage and life with Eugen Jan
.ssevain. The third act, ("The soul can split the sky in two/ And
; the face of God shine through."), was about the final years; her
:band's death, her lonely life after his death and finally, her own
,th in 1950. Miss Stickney felt the three act structure and the
.secutive story presented by the poems and letters made the presen—
ion more closely akin to a play than to a reading.95
Chapman thought Miss Stickney's selection and arrangement of

material was superb. "By artfully mingling some of Miss Millay's
ters and some of her most personal verse, she has made a gentle
.infinitely touching story of the poet's life, with its loves,
sunny Spots, its aches of heart and body and its tragedies which
common to us all."96 As Kerr pointed out, the material selected
, for the most part, "not the resonantly showy stuff of which

evenings are normally composed." He conceded some of the verse
rather flashy, but noted that the letters were slight, restrained
es, concerned with "vanishing summers and the curious French
trust of blackberries" as well as with the important events in
life. ”Nearly everything that is done, said, or intimated is

entially lyrical, not passionately dramatic; and it is up to

“—

95Ibid. 96Chapman, loc. cit.

—..

 

 

 

hiss Stickney ‘30 fin‘
that will keep us ri'
The material w
ecstatic ode to natt
would not be allowe<
silly escapade and
codfish“98); a bitt
chm for their snut
from her publisher
except that I am b
publication for th
RS.l am awfully
and verses showim
With their Berksh
host of the criti
(though Kerr did
enthusiasms,"10O
that brilliant 0
Miss Stickney f5
Herridge wrote,
But there
who burned
Political t
er lntelle
.From the
Since She 2

SOmewhat 0,
as heart a

\

Kerr,
100

Kerr

253

as Stickney to find all the sudden turnabouts and compounded emotions
it will keep us riveted to a fragile thread."97

The material was quite diverse, including such things as an
static ode to nature; witty notes back home, (one of them that she
11d not be allowed to graduate publicly from Vassar because of a
Lly escapade and that her diploma would be shipped to her ”like a
ifish"98); a bitter and sarcastic letter of protest to a woman's
b for their snub of Elinor Wylie; a cajoling request for money
m her publisher, ("Spring is here——and I would be very happy,
ept that I am broke. Would you mind paying me now instead of on
lication for those stunning verses of mine which you have? . . . .
5. I am awfully broke. Would you mind paying me alot?"99); letters
1 verses showing her obvious love for her husband and her delight
:h their Berkshire farm; and poignant lines written after his death.
at of the critics had no quarrel with the material that was selected,
Lough Kerr did comment on Miss Millay's "slight tendency to carmelize

100

rhusiasms," and McClain did not think the letters were "all

.t brilliant or funny"101), but several of the critics thought
s Stickney failed to show enough of the "other side” of Millay.
ridge wrote,

But there is only a suggestion of the Greenwich Village Bohemian
who burned her candle at both ends, no indication of her social and
political thoughts, her early pacifism, her later interventionism,
her intellectual opinions.

From the point of view of her writing, this may be just as well,
since she is at her best in her personal poetry. But we do get a
somewhat one—sided portrait of her as a woman with a mind, as well
as heart and eye.102

‘—

97

Kerr, loc. cit.
100

98

Ibid. 99Time, loc. cit.

. no . .
Kerr, loc.’ cit. 1mmccnain, _Z_L_9_g. fi- ZHerrldse, _l_0_C_~ £13-

 

 

 

 

.m,;.‘__‘_,—-

Tynan claimed t
senting Miss Millay E
of pathetic parlor vi
plight."103 Bolton
avoided "the depth a
existence,” but he :‘
The critic for Time

that, while actress
respect, the materi

Only glimpse

who during the

era . . . .

t 1 There was so

4 stage of the ‘2

it Fitzgerald was

once genuine z

bohemian and ,
ends.

In A Lovely
ladvlike that
is less that
story are lac
a kind of g1,

Miss Stick
host difficult t
“all of her own

belieVed would ,

\
103
Tynan
cos ,
Tin,
not
stick

 

254

Tynan claimed that, by her selection, Miss Stickney was pre-
ting Miss Millay as "a pretty non—combatant, a delicate fashioner

pathetic parlor verse” rather than a "ravaged observer of human

10}

ight.” Bolton admitted the selection of material carefully

>ided "the depth and dimensions of some areas of Miss Millay's

istence,” but he found it captivating and illuminating anyhow.104

a critic for Time also enjoyed the production, but he regretted
Lt, while actress Stickney had treated the material with love and
spect, the material had limited and restricted the poet.

Only glimpsed through chinks is that mingled poet and woman
who during the 1920s crystallized an attitude and epitomized an
era....

There was something of a distaff Byron about her, and on the
stage of the'EOs she was one kind of romantic leader as Scott
Fitzgerald was another. Gallant, windblown, untidy, she was at
once genuine and a little gimcrack, gifted and overly—facile,
bohemian and childishly boastful about her candle burned at both
ends.

In A Lovely Light the candle burns at one end only, and so
ladylike that it could grace a dinner table. The important thing
is less that many piquant and pertinent facts in Edna Millay's
story are lacking as that, because they are, there is lacking
a kind of glowing fiction——and a whole period legend.1o

  
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
   

Miss Stickney confessed the elimination of material was the
t difficult thing to do in the whole production. She left out
y of her own "very favorite poems" to attain the simplicity she
ieved would best show the ”essence of what was Edna St. Vincent

lay" and at the same time, fit into the framework of the story.106

103Tynan, 22: cit., p. 104. 104Bolton, 100. cit.

105Time, February 22, 1960, P- 100'

106stickney, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

5.
x

Coyrisons
h Lovely Light

and Hal Holbrook. t
in the "simulated l<

[‘07 McCl;

ductions."
but he thought Miss
us a season ago of
Tynan complained tl
with the Dickens a
A Lovely Lig
Performances. It
a well—known and '
0f America's popu
°§ material was 11
Personality. Aft
toured the count:
to New York in J
Presented at the

Inn“ of thirty—t

10
7Hebe .

108
MCCla

@9me

[110
Whit}

255
arisons
A Lovely Light was compared to the solo shows of Emlyn Williams
Hal Holbrook. However, as Morrison pointed out, it was not done
the "simulated lecture style of the Williams and Holbrook pro—

107

tions." McClain admitted that it might not be a fair comparison,

he thought Miss Stickney fell short "of the impersonation given
1 season ago of Mark Twain by a young man named Hal Holbrook.”108
Ln complained that due to the restricted material, comparison
l the Dickens and Thomas programs was impossible.109
A Lovely Light ended its "limited engagement" after seventeen
‘ormances. It was endorsed by most of the critics and featured
all—known and talented star presenting the life and works of one
.merica's popular poets. The main criticism was that the choice
laterial was not truly representative of Miss Millay's life and
sonality. After the close of the two week run, Miss Stickney
ed the country intermittently with her production and returned
[ew York in January of 196h,110 at which time A Lovely Light was

sented at the off—Broadway theatre, the Mayfair for a "limited

of thirty—two performances.

 

 

1O7Hobe., loc. cit.
108McClain, loc. cit.
109

Tynan, loc. cit.

110Whitney Bolton, New York Mornin Tele ra h, January 22, 1964.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1

Michael MacLian
since he received fly
birthday. MacLiammo:
for many years and h
his friend and partr
he talked with Emlyl
and preparing his D‘
about authors who n

course of the discr
Williams thought M2
him. It was not 11

time to work out a
W at

’l’l
1960. 1 S01 HUT

on Broadway’ bros

05E to the Lye,

W

The Stage
consisted of a (

the Setting as

Mr, MacLiamInoi]

were used to s
\
TH

Step}

WJEEEEE;;—"'
256

The Importance of Beigg Oscar

Michael MacLiammoir had been interested in Oscar Wilde ever

ce he received The Happy Prince as a present on his twelfth
thday. MacLiammoir had considered doing a one-man show on Wilde
many years and had occasionally discussed the possibilities with
friend and partner in the Gate Theatre, Hilton Edwards. In 1955,
talked with Emlyn Williams, (who was in Dublin playing Dickens
preparing his Dylan Thomas program), about one—man shows and
at authors who might lend themselves to the format. In the
rse of the discussion, Wilde was mentioned as a possibility and
liams thought MacLiammoir would be the perfect actor to portray

. It was not until early 1960 however, that the Irish star found
e to work out a program on Wilde. He first presented The Importance
Being Oscar at the Dublin International Festival in the summer of

-O.111

Sol Hurok, who produced the Williams and Stickney programs
t
Broadway, brought Michael MacLiammoir and The Importance of Being

ar to the Lyceum Theatre on March 14, I961.

 
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  

ting and Accessories
The stage was framed with a black drape, and the setting

sisted of a couch, a table, a flower stand with a vase, and a

aight—backed armchair. Designer—director Hilton Edwards visualized

112

 

setting as "an empty, elegant space instead of a room."
MacLiammoir appeared in a dinner jacket and black tie. Flowers

e used to symbolize the changing moods of the evening. Calla

 

, 112 .
11qstephen Watts, 100. Cit. 223$-

 

 

 

 

 

 

lilies were in the ve
carnation in his lap
preciosity of the sp
is the curtain falls
the carnation is dr<
from grace.11hr Aut'
mission
The lighting
duotion to indicat,
striking lighting
program. Wilde's
as the curtain ro:
“00d “in a serio
all light, but as
Only one o

the Production 5

\

MBHoward
uh
9‘ 330. Kerr ,
dtuned romp,

16 11shrank
M W» n
116

Whitr
ll
NTT 7John
‘\CRw P- 327
’ll
8Robe
Tank

257
.les were in the vase in the first act and MacLiammoir fixed a green

cnatlon in his lapel which "sums up the wonderful, jeweled, witty

eClosity of the splendidly successful part of Wilde's life."113

the curtain falls at the end of the first part of the evening
7

a carnation is dropped to the floor—-indicative of Wilde's fall

114
)m grace. Autumn leaves replaced the lilies after the inter—

ssion
The lighting effects changedoccassionally throughout the pro—
:tion to indicate different times and places,’l15 but the most

ciking lighting was at the beginning of the second part of the

’gram. Wilde's trial supposedly took place during intermission and,

the curtain rose on the final half of the program, MacLiammoir

>od "in a serious half kind of light that is neither all dark nor

6

- light, but as stern as a pointing finger."’lll

 

s for the major newspapers labeled

"117 Two called it a ”one—man show,"’lv8

Only one of the seven critic

3 production a "reading.

 

113

Howard Taubman, New York Times, March 15, 1961, P- 45-

March 15, 1961, E2293,

114 _
Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune,
f a gay green carnation

330. Kerr thought the "too solemn business 0
)pped forlornly to the floor” was rather excessive-

11
5Frank Aston, New York World—Telegram and Sun, March 15,

31, NYTCR, p. 328.

116
Whitney Bolton, New York Mornin Tele ra h, March 16, 1961.

11 ‘
, 7min McClain: W: March 15’ 196“
£3,rn 327.

1 8 -

1 Robert Coleman” _£flLEEEEnMi££9£’ March 15: 19611 E2293, p- 328'

Taubman, loc. cit.

 

 

while the others desc

120 H 10
tribute,“ a so

1 22
H
enormous value .

25

1 .
of readings," anc

it as a "one-man sh<

Manner of Presentat
Despite the c
term "reading," Mac
and pretended to r
two sentences of I
by Milde to Lord P
as Wilde, but occ:
characters connec
to create "an an:
vanity and under:
sense of TeSigna
0116 critic Wrote

\
1 19193 rr ,
120311 char

ml101m 1

’12
2Aston

124Henrs

1
ZSLett,

126Tamb

’l
28001E

258

Lle the others described it as a "one—man evening,"119 ”a one—man

, 120
Lbute," a "solo performance,"121 and "an enormous solo of
2
)rmous value."lI 2 The Variety critic termed it ”a one man performance

readings,"125 and Hewes agreed with the majority, characterizing

124

as a ”one—man show."

1ner of Presentation
Despite the overwhelming desire of the critics to avoid the
cm "reading," MacLiammoir referred to books from time to time,
i pretended to read "brief passages as, for example, the opening
3 sentences of De Profundis, [siggj the letter written from prison
Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas."125 He made no pretence of appearing

Wilde, but occasionally he did impersonate Wilde as well as other

26
tracters connected with Wilde's life./I Generally he was content

create ”an aura of his [Wilde's] flamboyant personality, brilliance’

lity and underlying sentimentality and at the end, his hard learned

lse of resignation and compassion-"127 There was plenty of movement.

"It is in no sense a conventional reading, but rather

mance."/l28

3 critic wrote,

?ull—blooded, witty and moving stage perfor

 

119Kerr, loc. cit.

12oRichard Watts, Jr., ngnggfingéia March 15’ 1961'

121John Chapman, New York Dail News, March 15,

122Aston, loc. cit. 123Variety, March 22? 1961’ p. 70'

124Henry Hewes, Saturda Review, April 1, 1961, p. 32.

Letter from Michael MacLiammoir to the author, July 4, 1968-

125

126 127Varietfia loo. Cit.

Taubman, loc. cit.

128Coleman, 100. cit.

1961, NYTCR, p- 329-

 

 

 

Verdict

The critical
several of the revi
appeal. Taubman f0
theatre."129 Watts
uished interest.“
material and in pr
"find the actor an

McClain was
the evening rewar
he would have app
it would appeal 1:
Wilde enthusiasts
Hewes drew some
his readers that
and if they like

remarkable onefl
perhaps even "ca
mating.151+ The

As a rath

It is a ’E

intellectuz

for the put

comedies a;

Broadway-
tragic art

_______._...—
129'l'auba
13«Kerr
1340016

 

259
rdict
Th ' '
e critical endorsement was overwhelmingly favorable, although
veral of the reviewers acknowledge the show Would have a limited
peal. Taubman found it a "vivid and memorable evening in the

129
Watts called it "a theatre event of striking and disting-

130

eatre."

ah ‘

3 ed interest." Kerr thought there were "a few excesses" in

t . . .

erial and in presentation, but assured his readers they would

Lnd the actor and the evening thoroughly rewarding."131
McClain was quite sure that not all of his readers would find

3 evening rewarding. He judged the reading by ”the same yardstick"

would have applied to a conventional dramatic production and decided

0 were

H132

would appeal to only a select audience, but that those wh

Lde enthusiasts would find the production ”richly rewarding.

 

Ves o c u n
drew some rather interesting assoc1ations as he suggested to

5 readers that if they liked aquariums, they might also like museums,

1 if they liked museums, The Importance of Being Oscar was a
narkabie 135 . . .
one. Coleman admitted the production was speCial,

7haps even ”caviar" for the general public, but he found it fasci—

154 .
The Variety critic wrote:

:ing.
ering, it should do well . . . .

hat should appeal to audiences with

but there's little in it

of big brash musicals and
generally associated with

g tribute to a brilliant

As a rather special off
.It is a tour de force t
intellectual or literary interests,
for the public that favors the sort
comedies and the lurid shock dramas
Broadway. On its own basis, it's a touChin
tragic artist and it offers a rewarding evening.

 

12
9 130Richard Watts, 100. cit.

Taubman, loc. cit.

1 1 .
3 Kerr, loc. cit. 132McClain, loc. cit. 153Hewes, loc. Cit.

1 4
3 135Variety, loc. cit.

Coleman, 100. cit.

 

 

Acting
Nearly all the

performance. Besid
poetry, he also pre
and on Wilde' 8 life
mood and spirit of
unhappy man, with
moving dramatic fo
McClain call
he was, "in his 0
MacLiammoir was "
a remarkably vers
dramatic impact:l
Several of
of MacLiammoir‘ s
flamboyant materi
in the grand mam
"an engaging and
Hammer or the a]
Kerr wrote:
Mr. MacLi

been born 1'-
it at us if

_____________..
136121 cha
138A stot

“@0016!

 

260

E235

Nearly all the critics paid tribute to MacLiammoir's skillful
rformance. Besides delivering sections from Wilde's prose and
atry, he also presented his own editorial comments on the material
1 on Wilde's life. Watts praised MacLiammoir for "re—creating the
)d and spirit of a fascinating, perverse and eventually lost and
lappy man, with understanding, critical insight and remarkably
ring dramatic forcefulness."156

McClain called his performance "masterful," and observed that
137

was, "in his own right, a superlative actor." Aston wrote

:Liammoir was "an instinctive and soundly trained actor," with

remarkably versatile voice, who knew how to move with grace and

138

 

Lmatic impact.

. . 1 9
Several of the critics thought the "flair and flourish" 5

MacLiammoir's acting was superbly tailored to Wilde's rather

Lmboyant material. Coleman characterized his style as ”acting
the grand manner."1]+0 The Newsday reviewer described him as

L engaging and skillful actor who is not afraid to use the grand
41

1
l
Lner Or the artificial drawing room style when they are called forJ

“r wrote:

Mr. MacLiammoir likes to take a stance, as though Atlas had t.
been born half—Irish. He is quick with an index finger, thrus ing
it at us in such urgent passion that we are apt to forget ourse ves

 

” 1 7 . .
13°Richard Watts, 100. Cit. 3 McClain, loc. Cit.

138 139Richard Watts, 100. cit.

Aston, loc. cit.

140 qquewsday, March 28, 1961.

Coleman, 100. cit.

 

 

and murmur a qui
rarely tucked in
to be found curl
a gesture suitab
More than once
what he is doin
up as though to
against a shudd
engravings you
his powers.

And yet, and
being spun out
fire of his i‘ e

Faterial
The majority
material. The ii
Ireland for Londo
marvelous target
that society; to
lecturer in Lead
with his learning
ability to consw
decision to sue
courtroom detail
half was much to
Reading Gaol,"
death“;
The Time
dazzling talhe

side“ of Wild‘

 

walker:
11+”

Tim
“‘—

 

 

261

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
    

and murmur a quiet 'not guilty.’ His always arched hands are
rarely tuCked.in.his tuxedo pockets. They are far more likely
to be found curled at his forehead, alarmed palms outward, in
a gesture suitable to the stunned Leontes in.A Winter's Tale.
More than once you may catch him, if you are able to divorce
what he is doing from what he is saying, with one arm flung
up as though to ward off a specter and the other crocked back
against a shuddering shoulder, for all the world.like those
engravings you have seen of Edwin Forrest at the height of
his powers.

.And yet, and yet. The manner is linked.to something that is
being Spun out of the intensity of his intelligence and the
fire of his feeling for Oscar Wilde.142

 

erial
The majority of the criticism was directed at the choice of
terial. The first half of the program began with Wilde leaving
eland.for London, where polite Victorian society provided a
rvelous target for his wit; showed him as the lionized dandy of
it society; touched on his successes as a playwright and as a
:turer in Leadville, Colorado, where he failed to impress the minors
3h his learning but gained their admiration for his remarkable
Llity to consume hard liquor; and closed with his unfortunate
:ision to sue the Marquis of Queens for libel. The trial and the
lrtroom details were relegated to the intermission. The second
-f was much more somber, featuring "De Profundis," the "Ballad of
Lding Gaol," Wilde's unhappy exile in France, and finally, his
ith. “+3
The Timg critic regretted there had not been more of "the most
:Zling talker of modern times" and less of the "scarred and suffering

19" of Wilda/11+}+ Watts, of the New York Post, admitted the first

h

14 .
2Kerr, loc. cit. 1Q3Taubman, loc. Cit.

141+ .
Time, March 24, 1961, p. 52.

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllll--:::__________

 

 

 

 

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

half was the most en'
"Ballad of Reading G
been so long.1% Mo
benefited from some
Mr. MacLiammo'
talented playwright
talents. He provid
the various excerp
“notable."lm8 Wat
himself, as well a
on Wilde's life
dramatic and com
excess of hero wo
The only co
manner of present
style of acting v
discussed in the
It all add

the best of
can really é

as Wilde .
It just 8;

scenery t0

Particular]
poetry . l

 

14512101151
1Wane

150061.9?

 

262
145

was the most enjoyable. Kerr thought "De Profundis" and the

ad of Reading Gaol" would have been more effective had they not

so long.146 MCClain also thought the selections would have

147

ited from some editing.
Mr. MaCLiammoir, besides being a renown actor, was also a
ted playwright, and the program profitted.from his literary
ts. .He provided a biographical and literary commentary to bridge
arious excerpts. McClain found many of his editorial asides
blew/ILF8 Watts said.of his narrative, "Being a brilliant writer
lf, as well as a perceptive critic, Mr. MacLiammoir's observations
-lde's life and character and works are eloquent, appreciative,
LtiC and compassionate, and they are too witty to fall into any
as of hero worship."149
The only commentary on the suitability of the material for this
er of presentation concerned the compatability of Mr. MacLiammoir's
a of acting with the literary style of Mr. Wilde, which has been
Lssed in the preceding section on acting. As Coleman wrote:
It all adds up to an amusing and deeply touching omnibus of
:he best of Oscar . . . . It is wonderful to have an actor who

zan really act bringing to life so volatile and gifted a writer
LS Wilde . . . .

It just goes to show that you don't need a lot of expensive
scenery to display an actor of sensitivity and quality at his best.

’articularly when that actor is dramatizing exciting prose and
>oetry.15o

-___

SRichard Watts, 100. cit. 1A6Kerr, loc. cit.

147 148

McClain, loc. cit.

150
Coleman, 100. cit.

149

Ibid. Richard Watts, 100. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a tribu
critics mentioned th
anage. Taubman spo
of a mauve decade."
Wilde‘s "flamboyant

153

whole mood."

Cowrisons

It is intere

 

one evening,
plateau. lts
fine actors,
for example,
Taubman p0
from "other one-
world of a xenon
the subject‘s a]

Emlyn Williams

did not try to
The refer

Williams and h
in the Dicker”
in 1957 witmi‘
to achieve a
_.._'._——-———""'

151Tau

153130?

156011

 

263
It was a tribute to both material and performer that several
cs mentioned.the creation of a mood or spirit of a man and of

e. Taubman spoke of the production's evocation of "the spirit

151

mauve decade." ‘The variety critic praised the creation of

152

's ”flamboyant personality" and.Bolton noted the "man's

153

mood."

risons

It is interesting to look at the comparisons drawn between

 

 

m ortance of Being Oscar and.other productions. Bolton remarked:
The difficult and exquisite art of one man evoking the Whole
another man's life and professional work in the breadth of

e evening, along [sic.J on a stage has reached a demanding
ateau. Its recent practitioners have been men who are.not only
ine actors, but men of literary'cultivationn Emlyn Williams,
or example, brought Dickens perfectly into focus . . . .154
Taubman pointed out that Mr. MacLiammoir's production differed
"other one-man shows devoted to recalling the person and creative
of a renowned.writer," in that no attempt was made to assume
ubject's appearance.155 Similarly, Chapman noted that, unlike
Williams as Dickens and Hal Holbrook as Mark Twain, MacLiammoir
ot try to achieve a physical resemblance to his subject.156
The reference to Twain is not surprising, but the reference to
ams and his Dickens programs seems rather odd. Williams appeared
e Dickens' readings in 1952 and again in 1953. He then appeared

57 With his program on Dylan Thomas in which he did_ngt_attempt

hieve a physical resemblance to his subject. This was a more

I—__

1 .

5I'Taubman, loc. cit. 152Variety, loc. Cit.

ll

53Bolton, loo. cit. 154Ibid. 155Taubman, 100- Cit.
156

Chapman, loc. cit.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllll---::;________

 

 

 

 

recent production a1
program, but none 0
mate of Dorothy Sti
on Broadway a litt]

Although E
nearly all the cri
material of a well
The critics had be
aPpeal, and their

after four weeks

 

Margaret W1
Matinee series a
house attended,
it desemd a 1c

for a "limited (

S

W

The Settj

parsonage .159

 

 

 

264
:ent production and would seem to have been more like the Wilde
pgram, but none of the critics mentioned it. .Also, no mention was
le of Dorothy Stickney and her Millay readings which had appeared
Broadway a little more than a year before the MacLiammoir production.
Although The Importance of BeingOscar had the approval of
.rly all the critics and had an outstanding actor presenting the
.erial of a well—known and witty author, it was a financial failure.
r critics had been afraid the production would have a limited.
»eal, and their fears apparently were justified. The show closed

157

er four weeks with an estimated $20,000 loss.
The Brontes

Margaret Webster first presented The Brontes for the ANTA
inee series at the Theatre de Lys on October 29, 1963. A capacity
.se attended, and the critics who reviewed the production suggested
deserved a longer run. On December 20, 1963, The Brontes opened

158

a "limited engagement" at the off—Broadway Phoenix Theatre.

ting and.Accessories

The setting approximated the parlor of a dreary Victorian

59 160

sonage.’l Miss Webster wore a full length black gown.

 

157Variety, April 12, 1964.

8
15 Norman Nadel, New York WorldeTelegram and Sun, December 21, 1965.

159Louis Chapin, Christian Science Monitor, December 24, 1963-

160
Edith Oliver, The New Yorker, January 4, 1964, p. 61.

 

 

 

 

'1
l

 

Classification
The program I]
called the producti
critics used this 1
who called it a "o
62

l‘
“monodrama” ; er

“dramatic reading

Manner of Present

 

Miss Webste
material by hear
tiate methods of
as a ‘Family All
photographs, di:
Webster's "disc

and dialogue .16

Only- two
and both of. ti

Show and reoo

fansfléé Nac‘

265
sification
The program.note which appeared in all of the newspaper reviews
ed the production a "dramatic portrait," and.the majority of
ics used this description. Exceptions were Herridge and Bender,
called it a "one—woman show"'161 Thompson, who termed it a

odrama";162 and the Variety critic, who referred to it as a

163

matic reading."

er of Presentation

Miss Webster called The Brontes a "performance." She knew the

 

rial by heart and used manuscript "only as a 'prop' to differen—
te methods of projection and because the whole thing is 'set up'
a 'Family Album,’ from which I am showing the audience letters,
tographs, diaries, excerpts etc."164 Chapin mentioned Miss

ster's "discreet stage movement" and her use of characterization

dialogue.165

dict

~

Only two of the "major" critics wrote reviews of the production
both of them approved of it. Herridge found it an "excellent"

w and recommended it especially, though not exclusively, to Bronte

166

3- Nadel characterized the material as "more conversational

Pb.—

161
Francis Herridge, New Ybrk Post, December 22, 1963.

William Bender, New York Herald Tribune, December 21, 1963.
162 .

Jack Thompson, New York Journal American, December 21, 1963.
16

3Variety, January 11, 1964-

164 ,
Letter from MlSS Margaret Webster to the author, July 1, 1968..

16
5Chapin, loc. cit. 166Herridge, loc. cit.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIil--::;________

 

 

 

 

 

 

than theatrical,“ b1
Funke admitte

but described the 1
literary minded.“é
mrerewarding eve
recommended M
None of the

few were not enth
‘bnmematio, affe
heconcluded tha‘
bl this sensible
Webster charming
UN talented bu'
remembrances."1
duracterizatic
siests would e:

Of a dedicated

\
167 _
Nade.

168

Lewi

169Thon

1
70mi-

1
7"Art

TIRES!

173%

 

266

. . . 6
theatrical," but thought Miss Webster did it beautifully.1 7

Funke admitted The Brontes might not be for the general public,

described the program as "rich and moving and bound to please the

168

rary minded.” Thompson told his readers, "You won't find a

rewarding evening around town.“69 Bolton "heartily and sincerely"

170

mmended The Brontes.

None of the critics rejected the production completely, but a
were not enthusiastic about it. Sainer thought the evening was
amatic, affecting at some moments and tedious at others," and

oncluded that the theatre had been ”neither helped nor hindered

171

his sensible and unmotivated collation." Bender found Miss

ster charming, but thought her attempts to recreate thestory of

talented but ill—fated family sounded more ”like a fond aunt's

”172

embrances. Oppenheimer noted a lack of much in the way of

racterization or dramatic impact, butvas sure the Bronte enthu—

sts would enjoy themselves, as would all "who cherish the work

173

a dedicated and intelligent actress."

—~———____.__

167

Nadel, loo. cit.
168_. .
Lew1s Funke, New York Times, December 21, 1963, p. 17.
16

9Thompson, 100. cit.

170Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, December 23, 1963.

171Arthur Sainer, Village Voice, December 26, 1963.
1
72Bender, loc. cit.

173George Oppenheimer, Newsday, December 23, 1965-

 

 

 

 

 

The critics
they did not all
The critic for t1“.
art of the story-
0ppenheimer, wri
remarkable voice
her proficiency
Oliver ‘foond it

176

heroine." E

pretended She ,
from Jane Eyre
Other re
attempts to o
mention,
atmosphere 01
has WGbSter
Performce
as if they r
to Wile de
adIrLitted Mi
itself to 1

that it al

\
or,

176

us

 

The critics all had praise for Miss Webster's talents, though
ey did not all agree on how successful her performance had been.
e critic for the Villager wrote of her, "Miss Webster conveys the
t of the story—teller who weaves a spell that is never broken."174
penheimer, writing for Newsday, noted her commanding presence,
markable voice, and outstanding skill, but complained that, despite
r proficiency, "there is little characterization to be had."’]'75
iver‘found it hard to accept her as either a Bronte sister or a

176

roine." Sainer thought she was trying to do too much when she

etended she was Mrs. Gaskell "pretending she is Charlotte reading

rcm Jane lilyreflfl?’7

Other reviewers felt that Miss Webster had succeeded in her
ttempts to bring the Brontes to life. "It requires not only
magination, but taste and gentility to recreate, on stage, the
tmosphere of three bright and bookish girls of a century ago.

178 Herridge wrote that her

iss Webster does it beautifully."
erformance was so convincing one could see the trio developing

s if they were characters in a play.179 Bolton thought she managed

probe deeply into the "essence" of the three girls.180 Chapin

  
  
  
  
 

dmitted Miss Webster's somewhat genteel delivery did not lend

tself to ”mercurial impersonations or sudden insights," but thought

 
   
    

at it also served to avoid "any vestige 0f sentimental indulgence.”181
17h . 175 - -
Villager, December 5, 1963. Oppenheimer, $22: £EE~
1 6 -
7 Oliver, loc. cit. 1Wanner, $29; _C_1_t- 178Nadel, &- silo

179

Herridge, loc. cit. 180Bolton, L05;- C_i£- 1810hapin,_l£g. gig-

 

 

 

"y. 'anfl'l‘h‘i

hmke wrote:

An actress of
besides with a ‘
succeeds in renl
falters. She 6‘
Charlotte, Emil
their humor» re
in mismerized E

The material
and books by the i
then, particularlj
The evening cover
Bronte family at
father Rev. Patr:
The materi
experiences of 1
faHilly members,
nyms, Charlotte
311d a charming
(Nichols, her 3
to Australia a
son, but recox
Much of
asPiratione. ,
were taken 1‘]

   
 
  
     
  
    

wrote:
An actress of striking and captivating stage presence, blessed

esides with a voice of many colors and resonance, Miss Webster

ucceeds in rendering a stage biography of the Brontes that rarely

alters. She evokes in tender and tragic moods the stories of

harlotte, Emily and Anne and manages wherever possible, to convey

heir humor, restrained though it may have been. The audience sat

n mismerized silence, a superb compliment to a worthy achievement.182

'al
The material was a pastiche taken from poems, diaries, letters,

ooks by the three sisters, as well as writings of those who knew
particularly Mrs. Gaskill, who wrote The Life of Charlotte Bronte.

vening covered forty years, beginning with the arrival of the

:e family at Haworth in 1820, and ending with the death of the

ar Rev. Patrick Bronte, the last surviving member of the family.
The material touched on the childhood and miserable school

riences of the three, their experiences as governesses, the other

_y members, the girls' early literary ventures under male pseudo—

, Charlotte's ill—fated involvement with one of her professors,

t charming account of her later courtship by Arthur Bell Nichols.

lols, her father's assistant, had been on the verge of emigrating

stralia and, as Charlotte wrote, "Mr. Bronte not only gained a

")183

  
   
  
   
   
  

but recovered a curate.
Much of the material was personal, dealing with the ambitions,
ations, fears, and everyday experiences of the three. Excerpts

taken from Janes Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Agnes Grey, and other

eir writings. Oppenheimer and Funke found these selections the

18gnome, l_oc. 93.3.
183

Chapin, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

"m — ins-$- 1

. 184
most satisfying.
intended for the pr
more deeply into an
own story more inte
lprogressively cu'
people."185

Bender compl
the day-to- day nai
have been more ef:
one character or
followed each oth
feel any dramati<

were potentially

W
Oppenheime
Charles Dickens

Webster in The
a lesser degrer
onll Comparisoc

It woud
an artist's 1]-

might questio

 

269

satisfying.18# Miss Webster wrote that she had not originally
ded for the presentation to be so biographical, "but as I read
deeply into and around the Brontes themselves, I found their
tory more interesting and fascinating even than their books; so
gressively cut down on the excerpts and concentrated on the
e_,,185

Bender complained the material was too all—encompassing and

y—to—day narrative lacked focus. He thought the evening Would
been more effective had Miss Webster centered her attention on
haracter or one particular event. He pointed out the events
wed each other so rapidly there was no time for the audience to
any dramatic involvement, though there were many episodes which

186

potentially dramatic.

irisons

Oppenheimer began his review, "What Emlyn Williams did for
.es Dickens and Dylan Thomas, and Dorothy Stickney for Edna
rincent Millay in their one—man dramatic portraits, Margaret
:er in The Brontes has done for Charlotte, Emily, Anne and, to

8'?

rser degree, their bibulous brother Branwell."’I This was the

comparison made by a reviewer.

It would seem that Miss Webster had carried the portrayal of
‘tist's life and works a bit further to present a family's life
orks. Although no complaints were heard concerning this, one

question how representative the material selected was of the
________________
184 , .
Oppenheimer, loc. cit., and Funke, loc. cit.
185 186

Webster, loo. cit. Bender, loo. cit.

187

Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIlZ::::______________________l

 

 

 

 

"u ‘ rat-VJ“

 

three authors, sinc<
Despite favorable n
the time limit she

closed after twenty

There were f
works. Three of 1
and the fifth con,
0f Paul Shyrea wh
W for a cla
in the playwrigm
three V01umes of

011 March 1

of the W
autobiography, ,
bl Paifl Shyre &
torium‘190 The
publicized and
Brooks Atkinsor

bewailed the f‘

Strongly Susge

New Y Arth'

%
190

Loni

191
BI‘cx

 

270

authors, since obviously a great deal had to be excluded.
te favorable notices and good business, Miss Webster adhered to
ime limit she had announced at the beginning of the run, and

d after twenty performances.188
Pictures in the Hallway

There were five group productions of an author‘s life and
. Three of these were about O'Casey, the fourth was on Brecht,
he fifth concerned Frost. The O'Casey programs were the work
ul Shyre, who, as a senior in high school had read Juno and the
ck for a class assignment. Shyre became extremely interested
1e playwright and in his works and eventually dramatized the first
2 volumes of Sean O'Casey's autobiography.189
On March 1, 1956, an item appeared in the daily theatre column
is New York Times announcing that the first volume of O'Casey's
>iography, I Knock at the Door, had been adapted for the stage
Lul Shyre and would premiere on March 18 at the Kaufmann Audi—
Lm.190 The Sunday afternoon and evening performances were well
.cized and well attended. Among the critics in attendance was
:s Atkinson, who enthusiastically endorsed the presentation and
led the fact there were no more performances scheduled. He

81y Suggested steps be taken to correct thisrl91

________________
188

New York Times, December 27, 1963, p- 15-
18
9Arthur Gelb, "Campaigner in the Cause of Sean O'Casey,"
ork Times, September 25, 1960, Sec. II, p. 1.

-——-—_—

190

 

Louis Calta, New York Times, March 1, 1955, p- 37-

1
91Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, March 19, 1956, p. 27.

;

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘1
1

011 May 27, 195

Pictures in the Hal.

_______-—————

Kaufrann auditorium
and Atkinson wrote,
disappear before tl
Shyre origin;

for Sunday afterno
Broadway. He esti
115,00ng3 No prc
was given in the l
only one to see fr
critic PTOphesied

autObiOETaPhi cal

salutary ‘ ”198'

Stats Cot:
wrote the follow

I Knock at
first Won a
Sumner theai
trouble mean

t no spe.
I’ldicUlOusl
afternOOHS
popularity

anybOdy. I
are many 1c
watts hen

greatest d:

are these :

\

1 2
9 Brook
193, _

w

1953m-

 

271

)n May 27, 1956, the second volume of the O'Casey autobiography,
es in the Hallway, was presented for two performances at the
an auditorium. Once again critical response was enthusiastic
kinson wrote, "Pity that these wonderful readings have to
ear before they have fairly started."192
Shyre originally had hoped to present Pictures in the Hallway

day afternoon and evening performances either on or off

y. He estimated the production could be capitalized at

.193 No producer was forthcoming however, and the production
en in the Kaufmann auditorium instead. Atkinson was not the

e to see future possibilities for the readings. The Variety

prophesied, "Sometime soon somebody is going to mount these

 

graphical segments commercially . . . the results should be
ry."194

Staats Cotsworth, who served as narrator in both productions
:he following letter to the editor of Variety.

Knock at the Door and Pictures in the Hallway are in the
sual position of having already won the critics without having
st won a producer . . . . If a play being tried out in a
mer theatre were to receive such kudos, it would have little
able reaching Broadway in short order, yet I am told by Shyre
: no specific Broadway offer has been forthcoming. The
Lculously small sum needed to put these performances on Sunday
zrnoons and evenings, considering their already established
,larity and rave notices make it look like a good gamble for
Ody. It is a pity the actors can't do it themselves. There
many lovers of drama and literature who share Atkinson's and
3' belief that, since the death of Shaw and O'Neill, the
:est dramatic writer in the English language is O'Casey. Where
:hese folks hiding.195

 

 

 

3rooks Atkinson, New York Times, May 23, 1956, p. 23.

194

ariety, April 18, 1956, p. 8}- Xagigix, May 50, 1956,:p~5&

taats Cotsworth, Variety, July 4, 1956, p- 56-

 

 

 

 

Pictures in ‘
beginning of the ’I
performances at ti

96

October 7.1 lie

was sufficient to

Setting and Acces
The settin;
six lecterns. M
presentation. C
as a very impor'
“unobtrusively
cated by turnir
lighting effec-
1ightinۤ Varie
Music a]
from the Wing;
50% When t

sang the song

The CI

this hybrid,

\

196Sa

19?,"
MfiI‘Ch, 195.:
9%

199J

200(

I

 

272

Pictures in the Hallway finally found financial backing at the

 

Lnning of the 1956—1957 season. Sunday afternoon and evening
Eormances at the Playhouse were scheduled September 16 through
ober 7.196 Reviews were generally favorable and the attendance

197

sufficient to warrant holding the production over an extra month.

tin and Accessories

  

The setting was very simple; a blue cyclorama, six stools, and
lecterns. Music and lighting played an important part in the
entation. Chapman singled out master electrician Bernie Norton

very important member of the company, whose work contributed

198

btrusively toward dramatic effect." Scene changes were indi-
d by turning the lights on the cyclorama off and on. Special
hting effects were used to highlight individual characters. The
hting varied in intensity according to the mood of each scene.’199
Music alSO contributed to the mood. Flute music was heard
1 the wings, and the readers occasionally broke into snatches of
:. When the Irish folk music was not available, O'Casey himself

the songs into a tape recorder and sent them to Shyre.200

sification
The critics had some difficulty deciding exactly how to describe

hybrid, though most of them used the term "reading” in their

 

196Sam Zolotow, New York Times, July 22, 1956.

197Paul Shyre, "O’Casey's Pictures Come to Life," Theatre Arts,

1957, p- 32.
198

 

John Chapman, New York Daily News, September 17, 1956.

yggfohn Gassner, Theatre at the Crossroads, op. cit., p. 285.

 

C)OIShyre, loo. cit.

IIIIII[IIIZl________________________________i

 

 

reviews, or some f(
reading,"2m Kerr

and the Variet or
referred to it at
that, in the trad
he disliked the t

Can't we ri
production of
beginning it
Characters.
it brings 8.1?
are trying t
a POint of v

Narrator E
reading-"205 M(
occasionally as

as a dramatic 13

The perf‘
did not always
baSically memc

turned to r em:
\

20
1Chap

202mm

20
3var;
\
204
Bro

2051'ngE

206
J01

20
7Ga

 

 

272 a

s, or some form of "reading." Chapman called it a "narrative

201 Kerr described it as a "partially staged reading,"202

205

.g,"

Le Variety critic used the term “concert reading." Atkinson

red to it at one point as a "staged reading” and later noted
in the trade, it was known as a "concert reading," although
aliked the term.

Can't we rid ourselves of that commercial cant? For the

oduction of Pictures in the Hallway is theatre. After a routine
ginning it does the things that good theatre does. It creates

aracters. It defines situations. By stimulating the imagination
brings alive the humor and pathos of a group of people who

e trying to fit themselves into the scheme of life. It expresses

point of view.204

Narrator Staats Cotsworth described the production as a "staged

3,205

g McClain settled on ”a group of people reading from, and
6
Lonally acting out bits of biography."2O Gassner described it
207

iramatic presentation of selections.

* of Presentation

The performers had manuscripts on lecterns in front of them but
t always refer to them. According to Shyre, the parts were

Lly memorized, but the pages of the scripts were constantly

to remind the audience of the reading format. One actor

 

othapman, £22. git.

32Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribgne, September, 17, 1956.
)BVariety, April 18, 1956.

'4Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, September 25, 1956, Sec. II,I; 1

5Letter from Staats Cotsworth to the author, June 9, 1968.

 

Ubhn MCClain, New York Journal American, September 17, 1956.

 

Gassner,_gp. cit., p. 284.

 

 

served as the narre
actors interpreted
As Cotsworth
controlled and min
of action or react
stools or standin;
the difference of
movement used by
Hewes, in revievr.‘
wrote that the (1
He Specifically
up one 198 as st
descriPiion of -
with Cotsworth:
Atkinson noted
were "Confined
ACCOl‘din
appear casual
Atkinson thong
was raise d at
"as Silent bl

a flute Plays

\
208 Shy
210Hen
211Brc

2
1200.

 

275
‘ed as the narrator; another read the part of Johnny. The other
>rs interpreted a variety of characters.208
As Cotsworth recalled, "Movement and gesture were strictly
trolled and minimized to produce a somewhat stylized suggestion
action or reaction, with the actors either remaining on their
ols or standing down before them."209 It is interesting to note
difference of opinion between two critics as to the amount of
ement used by the performers as they depicted the various characters.
es, in reviewing the initial performance at the Kaufmann Auditorium,
e that the director had encouraged his readers to use pantomime.
pecifically cited Aline MacMahom as ”wagging her arms and kicking
ne leg as she impersonates a vulgar, noisy woman.210 Atkinson's
ription of the same performance Would seem to be more in line
h Cotsworth’s recollections of the manner of presentation.
inson noted the actors vividly characterized people although they
3 "confined to reading scripts from lecterns."211
According to Cotsworth, the reading was carefully rehearsed to
rar casual but to give the fullest value to O'Casey's words.212
nson thought the production was very formal. When the curtain
raised at the beginning of the evening, the actors appeared

Silent black silhouettes against a glowing background," while

Lte played off—stage. Thus, according to Atkinson, the playgoer

 

20SShyre, loc. cit. 209Cotsworth, loc. cit.

2 .
1QHenry Hewes, Saturday ReView, June 16, 1956, p. 52.

2 .
11Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, May 28, 1956, p- 25-

 

212 .
Cotsworth, loc. oit.

 

 

was transported in
“remote and irrele
quickly made aware
a good book, i.e.
which would addre
Once the l]
of the actor
narrator, se
tically fron
The responsi
voices, the
characters a
Verdict

The criti

Brooks Atkinso:
with the annou
Sunday reading
described it ,

’50 Cherish,|!2
Chapmm

Broadway was

things‘vval5
indicek’cive c

a reading 0,

\
2
15131
p. v.
2
1th
2
15C

 

 

 

27h
transported into an imagined world where the performers were
note and irrelevant before a word is spoken." The audience was
:kly madezmare that this was not to be a chummy session with
30d book, i.e. Don Juan in Hell. This was to be a production
3h would address the audience with classical formality.

Once the introduction is over, Mr. Vaughan lights the faces
of the actors, and at the proper moment, Staats Cotsworth, the
narrator, sets the scene of the first episode by reading drama—
tically from the manuscript . . . . Everything has been planned.
The responsiveness of the lighting, the deliberate tones of the
voices, the Sparing movement, the brief exchanges between the
characters are meticulously stylized.215

dig:

The critical reaction to Pictures in the Hallway was favorable.
oks Atkinson devoted a Sunday article to the reading which concluded
h the announcement that the production "was not just a pleasant
day reading but a fresh and original work of art.” Lewis Funke

cribed it as "a theatre interlude of pure delight" and "something
cherish."2’l4

Chapman was pleased with the presentation and suggested that

adway was badly in need of some ”special performances of special

2 . . .
figs." 15 In a Similar vein, John Gassner commented that it was

icative of the general impoverishment of serious theatre ”that

eading occasionally overshadowed current plays in amplitude and

2
15Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, September 23, 1956, Sec. II,
1.

2
11+Lewis Funke, New York Times, September 17, 1956, p. 23.

215Chapman, loc. cit.

 

 

‘l- .. -:.-.'..—..

depth," with the mo:
was quick to cautio
substitutes for the
was "a reading witi
engrossing theatre
Critics Kerr
though both of the
thought the power
conspicuously abs
"a remarkable kna
McClain bluntly 5
out it did not 0‘.

find it "an amia

hm
The Six p
George Brenlin,
Staats Cotsworv
me, O, we ,
inallv detail,
observed all t
Mid 13318an

pemmflEJICes

\
216
Gass

2’1
7Ker:

219Atk

2'75

" with the most notable example being Don Juan in Hell. He
ick to caution that readings were by no means to be considered
tutes for theatre, but thought that Pictures in the Hallway

reading with a difference" which could definitely be termed
sing theatre.2’l6
Critics Kerr and McClain took issue with that description,
, both of them approved of the production in general. Kerr
.t the power of a play—~especially in terms of dialogue—~was
.cuously absent, although he admitted the presentation had
arkable knack of catching you up in quick, vivid strokes."‘2/ll7
n bluntly stated that "it is not exactly theatre," but pointed
; did not claim to be. He thought any devout O'Casey fan would

.t "an amiable and rewarding evening."2’18

The six performers in Pictures in the Hallway were: Rae Allen,

. Brenlin, Aline MacMahon, Paul Shyre, Robert Geiringer, and
Cotsworth. The critics were quite pleased with the perfor—

‘ of the actors, though they did not discuss them individually

219

' detail. Atkinson thought the acting was "superb". Funke

‘ed all the actors seemed to be thoroughly enjoying O'Casey's
language and they were all to be highly commended for their

mances . 220

 

2
16Gassnery _Jg. cit., pp. 284—285.

217Kerr, loo. cit. 2ligMcClain, loc. cit.

219Atkinson, loc. cit. 220Funke, ESE-.222-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapman thougl
was wonderful. He '
crockery“ as "outst
narrative abilities
performance of Joh‘

Kerr was ale
her role as a sale
to her role as Jo?
impress Kerr. He
followed by howls

me contrived out
Sary Signals are

inVOlvement is 1

Nearly a]

as a Writer. 1
the diSCOVery
awareneSS of i
told in O'Cas‘

He Concluded

they fOI‘med e

and his time

\

2
21 Che

222%-

2
23Mc

276

Chapman thought the company was admirable, and that Miss MacMahon
wonderful. He labeled her "hard old biddy who deals in damaged
kery" as "outstanding." He also singled out Mr. Cotsworth's
ative abilities and George Brenlin's ”disarming and heartwarming”
'ormance of Johnny Cassidy in his early teens.22ll

Kerr was also very impressed with Miss MacMahon, but thought
role as a saleslady of damaged crockery was definitely secondary
Ler role as Johnny's mother. George Brenlin, as Johnny, did not
ress Kerr. He complained Brenlin's "spurts of Shakespeare—worship,
-owed by howls of outrage in the face of human injustice seemed to
:ontrived out of hearsay rather than genuine heat. All the neces-
I signals are sent up; but the substance of passion, the personal

>lvement is missing.”222

Nearly all of the critics paid tribute to O'Casey's excellence
L writer. McClain wrote of the various episodes; the first job,
discovery of literature and of girls, and the dawning of an
reness of the political passions and prejudices of Ireland as

l in O'Casey's "often stark though lyrical turn of phrase."

 

:oncluded that, although only fragments were presented, somehow

' formed a whole which gave "a poignant impression of the man

225

his times." Chapman observed that, whether the fragments

 

22’lChapman, loc. cit.

2
22Kerr, loc. cit.

223McClain, loc. cit.

a, .. cras—

were boulant or bitl
O‘Casey in making a
Gassner descr
supreme testaments
author as "one of
speaking world has
It is one oi
compassionate
the injustice
theatre . . .
creative stag

Atkinson cl

Singing narrativ

 

he praised Shyre
a wealth of matv
humor and O‘Cas
as far from rate
form Of a Styli:
Kerr cre
Cutting 0f See
COXWinced of -

tation.

One of
man‘s aui
reading .'
dram in
5‘ full—b
fully la
5115mm
out boni

\
22h
Ch

22
6A1

 

2'77
)ouyant or bitter, they were beautiful, "for no man can match
2y in making a song out of words."224
Gassner described O'Casey's autobiographies as ”one of the
me testaments of the human spirit in English prose,” and their
r as ”one of the three or four major playwrights the English
Lng world has had since the 17th century." He wrote:
It is one of the marvels of Pictures in the Hallway that its
)mpassionately comic account of a Dublin boy's encounters with
1e injustice of man and the love of woman makes such genuine

leatre . . . . it became the occasion for one of the most
reative stage productions we have had in recent seasons.225

 

Atkinson characterized the autobiography as "a tumultuous

1g narrative'and O'Casey as "our most gifted writer of English."
lised Shyre for having done an admirable job of selecting from
Lth of material and for achieving a nice balance of OfCasey

and O'Casey belligerence. "Pictures in the Hallway is about

 

r fromraturalization as a piece of literature can get; and the

3f aéiylized reading becomes it well."226

Kerr credited Shyre with making "a crisp, fluid, and intelligent
1g of Sean O'Casey's second scrapbook of memories," but was not
need of the suitability of the material for the form of presen—

One of the real handicaps in this business of slicing up a

's autobiography and presenting it as a partially—staged
ading is the fact that, since the work wasn't conceived as
ama in the first place, we are doomed to wait in vain for
full-bodied scene. The reminiscent snippets may be beauti-
lly laced together; but how are they to break open into the
stained sound and fury, and the rich satisfaction of the all—
t bout of dialogue?227

 
    
  
   
 
      

224 225

Chapman, loo. cit. Gassner, op. cit., p. 285.
226 227

Atkinson, loc. cit. Kerr, loc. cit.

 

 

 

The only othel
material and the ma
he approved of the
with the scenes of
happening or being
Apparently he was

offended, as no 0*

ComErisons

i V Naturally,
autobiographies .

W and
Kaufman Audits]

dramatization,

the repetition

illness and th<

bigOtTY~ Howe

Citing inciden

He felt the s1

1

e“ insured
enoe would st

was more ShO
more art her

"a \llork 0f 4

\
228

He

2303'

231

~

278
The only other reservation regarding the suitability of the
rial and the manner of presentation came from Hewes. In general,
pproved of the material and its presentation, but he took issue
the scenes of sexual play which he felt were "better just
ening or being read about privately than described aloud."228

‘rently he was the only critic to have his sensibilities thus

:nded, as no other mention was made of the scenes.

>arisons
Naturally, much of the comparison was between the two O'Casey
>biographies. Hewes and Atkinson compared the two after I Knock

:he Door and Pictures in the Hallway had both appeared at the

 

fmann Auditorium. Hewes thought those who had seen the first
natization, (I Knock at the Door), might be somewhat bored at
repetition of certain dramatic situations such as near—fatal

less and the constant struggle against poverty and religious

)try. However, he thought the second production had more ex—

Lng incidents and an overall happier mood.229 Atkinson disagreed.
felt the subject matter in Pictures in the Hallway was ”slightly

5 inspired" than the first volume, though he was sure the audi—

a would still find much to enjoy.230 Atkinson also compared

:ures in the Hallway to Don Juan in Hell and concluded: "There

 

more Showmanship in the Don Juan in Hell reading. There is

& art here." Atkinson noted that Pictures in the Hallway was
"231

 

York of art that has its own esthetics. Unfortunately he

 

28
Hewes, loc. cit. 229Ibid.
230 . .
Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, May 28, 1956, p. 23.

231
, New York Times, September 23, 1956, Sec. II, p. 1.

—‘—

 

 

 

 

did not elaborate.

Pictures in '
in light of the fa
of Sundays,“ one u

financially. How

was not produced

011 Septemb
performance at t
at the Belasco ‘1
been exhibited
eveningsa 1_@

The settf
cyClOI‘ama, six
again used to
Critics classi

Gelb 1 Who app;

labeled it a

remained the

\
2
32Art

233 .
L Sir
the Same set

was true Co
I") Signing

 

279

Lot elaborate.

Pictures in the Hallway received critical endorsement, and,
.ght of the fact the presentation was extended an extra "month
Indays," one might assume that it was a reasonable success
lcially. However, its companion piece, I Knock at the Door

lot produced commercially for over a year.

I Knock at the Door

 

On September 29, 1957, eighteen months after its initial
rmance at the Kaufmann Auditorium, I Knock at the Door opened
e Belasco Theatre. Unlike Pictures in the Hallway, which had
exhibited the previous season only on Sunday afternoons and

.ngs, I Knock at the Door was scheduled for a six—week run.

 

The setting was the same as for the previous production; a blue
>rama, six chairs, and six stools. Music and lighting were
1 used to enhance the mood and clarify the focus. Nearly all the
.es classified the production as some variety of a reading.

‘ who apparently wanted to be sure he included all possibilities,

"232

-ed it a ”staged concert reading. The manner of presentation

.ned the same.233

N

2
32Arthur Gelb, New York Times, September 30, 1957, p. 27.

 

2
33Since Pictures in the Hallway and I Knock at the Door used

same setting and the same manner of presentation, the writer
ied not to consider these aspects in detail again. The same
:rue concerning the classification by the critiCS~ There were
Lgnificant differences.

 

 

Verdict
The majority
had complained abo

climaxes in Pictur

 

lKnock at the Do<

 

theatre.“235 Ast
audience with “a
"stmming," and w
Herridge t

all its economy
the production 2
creating a cont
the reading ver
"thoroughly en‘
as a "fluid, F
The EHEE

that, While t}
\

2
NT 3Litulalt
&, 9. 2h:

2
WE 35Rob
£1 a 2h
236
T5
195?, N‘I‘rcu
\

2
37Ge

2
38Fl

2396,

2A
0r

at
1}"

l—_——

280

£22

The majority of the reviewers liked the production. Kerr, who
complained about the lack of dramatic dialogue and dramatic
Iaxes in Pictures in the Hallway, was quite enthusiastic about
ock at the Door.234 Coleman found it an evening of "rewarding
.tre."235 Aston thought the excellent performance provided the

"236 Gelb termed the production
237

ence with "a rewarding experience.

Inning," and wrote that it definitely deserved to be on Broadway.

 

Herridge told her readers, "Here is rich, stirring theatre for

238

its economy of set, costume, and movement." Gassner praised

production as "engrossing theatre,"239 and credited it with

Lting a continuously dramatic effect. The critic for Time found
reading version of the first volume of O'Casey's autobiography

>roughly engaging,"240 while the Variety reviewer described it

L "fluid, persuasive performance."241

The Theatre Arts critic concluded his review by generalizing

:, while the reading was not as interesting as a play, it was very

.__________________
34Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, September 30, 1957,
ES, p. 247.

 

2
35Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, October 5, 1957,
E, P. 247-

2 6
3 Frank Aston, New York World Telegram and Sun, September 30,

9 NYTCR, p. 248
237

Gelb, loc. cit.

2
38Francis Herridge, New York Post, September 50, 1957, NYTCR, p. 248.

 

 

39Gassner,_p_. cit., p. 287-
n
2 OTime, October 14, 1957. p- 88-

41
Hobe., Variety, October 2, 1957, p- 72-

's...." '

 

 

 

easy to like.2H2 h’
"Pictures in the Ha:
critic to come out
review read: "Cha
01" praise for the
claimed he did no
skilled reading),
theatre. He reap

had a right to e

he complained, w

m
The criti
Even MGClain cc
was OUtStandin;
and CrEdited t
Chm" 0f VOice
as Superb, an
was impreSSQ d
in and WC oi

a Very brief
\
24
an
243
Jo]
NYTCR

\5p.2

2qu

246m.

281

     
     
  
 

to like.242 McClain, who had expressed doubts as to whether

ures in the Hallwa could be classified as theatre, was the only
ic to come out against I Knock at the Door. The headline of his
ew read: "Charming Tale——But It's Not Theatre!" He had words
raise for the material and for the performers, but, while he
med he did not object to the form, (which he described as a

led reading), he did not think it belonged in a legitimate

tre. He reasoned that people attending legitimate theatres

a right to expect dramatic productions, and this presentation,

243

omplained, was "a far cry from any such.”

£33

The critics were unanimous in their praise of the performers.
L McClain conceded the pace and precision of their presentation
outstandingfim+ Gassner called the six a "vivid group of actors"
credited them with providing a "variety human dimension and full
.r of voices to the narration.”245 Herridge classified all six
;uperb, and found Aline MacMahon particularly moving.246 Gelb
impressed with the manner in which the actors were able to slip
.nd out of the various roles, creating vivid characterizations in

247

ery brief period of time.

 

24
2Theatre Arts, December, 1957, P. 25.
24 .
3John McClain, New York Journal American, September 30, 1957,
23, p. 248.

2441bid. 245

 

 

Gassner, pp. cit., p. 286.
247

6Herridge, loc. cit. Gelb, loc. cit.

 

 

 

Chapman thong
”anchor man“ Cotsw
Atkinson was parti
all six had done a
one.

But let the
six. 0n Alir
stated [ £0. .1
having so cox
it nicely to
bits. OnRa
Shyre and R0
of nowhere 5

Several or
created by the
"One wonders at
on stools can

Another review

everlithing but

a bll‘th, a fu

much more vi

C(itltreyed_1\252

The ca

indice\tive c

tation whicl

\
2+8J

0
gXEEE» p. 2

249k

2
51E

25%

282

Chapman thought the company of six was splendid and singled out
248

:hor man" Cotsworth for his performance as the narrator.
.nson was particularly impressed with Miss MacMahon, but felt that

six had done an excellent job.249 Aston had kind words for every—

But let the praise fall where it belongs: On the versatile
six. On Aline.kbcMahon for the power she creates in her under—
stated [sicij mother and on George Brenlin, an adult, for be—
having so completely like a kid. On Staats Cotsworth for holding
it nicely together as narrator, as well as contributing several
bits. On Rae Allen for the girls she brings forth, and on Paul
Shyre and Roy Poole for the variety of characters they pull out
of nowhere and present as being absolutely real.

 

Several of the critics wrote of the striking illusionary effects
Lted by the performers. One of the more enthusiastic criticsmused:

a wonders at the thousands spent on set and costume when six actors

stools can conjure so graphically a poverty—stricken boyhood."251

ther reviewer wrote that "A mere six people, on a stage bare of

l . . .
ythlng but stools, manage to preject one episode after another——

   
  
   
  
  
   
 

'rth, a funeral, a visit to the hospital, a classroom caning, with

more vivid detail than a realistic stage version could have

eyed."252
The caning segment was the example most frequently cited as

'cative of the illusion creating capacities of the form of presen—

'on which was used. Kerr spoke of a ruler that was neither seen

      
 
   
 

248
John Chapman, New York Daily News, September 30, 1957,
R, p. 248.

249 250

Atkinson, loc. cit. Aston, loc. cit.

2
51E.V.R..Wyatt, Catholic World, December, 1957, p. 227.

 

2
5‘ZHerridge, loc. cit.

  

 

nor heard, but bror
a downward arc tha'
as startling to us
blind gosling O‘Ce
Aston aniGelb alsn
was so caught up
the enraged young
bald head, and ag
madman to lea
McClain, a
were shattered l
and bl a narrat-
M°St 0f the oth
hug Character,
one grit-10 ha d
interpretation
make the audie
that some of c

this .

As had
were most a1
\

253%

2
SSMC

2
56W}

283

or heard, but brought to mind by "a sizzling descriptive sentence in
downward are that has a slashing rhythm of its own. The effect is
3 startling to us as it must have been to the half—starved, half-
Lind gosling O'Casey. The childhood moment comes cracklingly alive.”253
ston andGelb also cited the caning scene and reported the audience
is so caught up in the action that they burst into applause when
Le enraged youngster clouted the bullying schoolmaster over his
le head, and again when his mother finally told the obnoxious
Lergyman to leave her son alone.254

McClain, again in the dissenter's spot, claimed the illusions
are shattered by the performers having to portray too many parts,
1d by a narration which he described as ”necessarily abrupt."255
3st of the other reviewers felt the performers gave life to the

any characters and to the times. After viewing John Brown's Body,

is critic had suggested that one criterion for judging an oral

   
  
  
  
  
 

terpretation production might be the ability of the production to
256

e the audience create their own mental images. It would seem

t some of the critics felt I Knock at the Door had accomplished

 

As had been the case with Pictures in the Hallway, the reviewers

re most appreciative of O'Casey's writing. This time however,

   

253

Kerr, loc. cit.

255

254

Aston, lgg. cit., and Gelb, loc. cit.
McClain, loc. cit.

2 6
5 Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, February 17, 1953.

 

considerably more 1
fit the material.
staging fragments.
better way to brii
theatre.“258 htk
endorsement.

According d
matched, a c:
8116 perhaps
reading of y
adjustment h
nothing left

Kerr also
suited to the m

‘ - - the 11‘
0f Childhm
at random 1
off into m-
Pieces of
when no on
half'aSSim
in a young
kaleidosc<
did 501md

The Cri
his lost," bu
0f song- or t}
reviewer mi
Play, but ac
McClain admf

just as wel

\

2570}

284
>iderably more mention was made as to how well the method of staging

the material. One critic called it a "felicitous method of

257

;ing fragments.” Another reviewer wrote there "could be no

Ler way to bring the full force of O'Casey's poetic prose to the
258

.tre." Atkinson was perhaps the most enthusiastic in his

‘rsement.

According to the rules, when form and content are perfectly
matched, a classic is born. From this esthetical point of view,
and perhaps from a less mechanical point of view, the concert
reading of I Knock at the Door is classical. There is no mal—
adjustment between material and performance, nothing omitted,
nothing left over.2

Kerr also thought the manner of presentation was admirably
;ed to the material. In trying to explain why, Kerr wrote:

. . . the method at hand has a curious rightness for the evocation
of childhood itself. Shafts of overheard speech come tumbling

at random from undefined, almost unseen sources; thoughts trail
off into music, grow sleepy and then wake with a start; bits and
pieces of life get tangled, cross each other, assert themselves
when no one seems to be listening. The fragmentary, disjointed,
half-assimilated bursts of sound and color that lodge at random

in a youngster's head are tossed directly at us in a rich, tumbling,
kaleidoscopéc free—for—all. This, you remember, is the way it

did sound. 0

   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
   

The critic for Timg thought perhaps some of the "inward glow A
lost,” but felt the story gained "in outward color from snatches
ong or the interplay of street voices."261 The Theatre Arts
ewer maintained the presentation lacked the interest of a stage
, but acknowledged it "caught the youthful flavor of the material.”262 /

ain admitted the charm of the material, but insisted one could

as well do his own reading, "sitting in a comfortable chair, in

  
   
 

257 258

Chapman, loc. cit.

259A 260

tkinson, loc. cit. Kerr, 3-22- 112 261%, E' E:

Herridge, lQE'.£iE'

262
Theatre Arts, loc. cit.

    

 

front of the fire.‘
vote and the somew

Time and Theatre A

 

and the method th‘
Despite the
the popular respc
$27,000 to open,
to break even.26
closed with a lc
Gassner hz
Belasco theatre
out that, when
the audience, a
was essential,
somber theatre
Although he we

his observati

Shyre

W

of the 01 Ca:

format and

\

2
63hr

265V:

~

2
67A

285
t of the fire."263 With the exception of McClain's negative
and the somewhat qualified endorsement of the reviewers for
and Theatre Arts, the critics were delighted with the material
:he method the performers used to present it.

DeSpite the favorable reaction from the majority of the critics,
popular response proved to be disappointing. The production cost
)00 to open, and needed to take in approximately $11,500.a week
reak even.264 At the end of the sixsweek run, I Knock at the Door
ed with a loss of $15,000 for its forty-eight performances.265

Gassner had complained about the production being housed in the
sec theatre, which seated over a thousand people. He pointed
that, when a production is entirely dependent on words to reach
audience, a sense of rapport between the readers and the listeners
essential, and noted that the proscenium arch and the large,

266

er theatre presented a barrier which was difficult to overcome.

ugh he was the only critic to comment on the choice of theatre,

   
  
 
  
   
  
  
 

observations seem valid.
Drums Under the Windows

Shyre apparently was undaunted by the commercial failure of
ock at the Door. He announced plans to adopt the third volume

he O‘Casey autobiography, Drums Under the Windows, using the same

t and hopefully, the same cast.267 However, he changed his mind

 
   
   

 

263Mc01ain, $22. 222. 26LPVariety, October 2, 1957.
26 6

5Variety, November 13, 1957- 26 Gassner, _£~,£i£-s P- 287-
267

Arthur Gelb, New York Times, April 13, 1959, p. 34.

 

about a year later
production differe
He described the i
dramatization," s

from the Dos Pass

Drums Under
Lane Theatre in (
was George Brenl‘
was quite differ

from the two pre

The set c

a nondescript 1
Ell10ther Tailin
rails or what-
"mm anyplace
stage is b can
eVOCatiVe I‘ai
I‘epresented e
for Such ple.
and the Gar d

was a dESk E

\
268
N e-

286

3 a year later and decided the material required a manner of
lotion different from what he had used for the first two volumes.
ascribed the form he now planned to use as a "kaleidoscopic
Ltization," somewhat akin to the style of_g;§:£., his adaptation
the Dos Passos novel which was then enjoying a successful run.268

Drums Under the Windows opened October 15, 1960, at the Cherry
Theatre in Greenwich Village. The only returning cast member
ieorge Brenlin, who again played the young O'Casey. The production

puite different in terms of setting and manner of presentation

the two previous productions.

Lng and Accessories
The set consisted of the bare brick walls of the theatre itself;

idescript railing along the back of the stage; a streetlight;

ner railing down stage right which served "as a bedstead, a bar

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
    

, or what—have—you”; and a pile of stones which represented
anyplace."269 Kerr wrote of the setting, "And the nearly empty
is beautifully lighted, laced now and again with an odd and

270 Most of the time the setting

tive railing or lamp—post."
sented a Dublin street early in the century, but it also served
uch places as a field of corn, the inside of an insane asylum,
he Garden of Eden. Outside the proscenium arch on stage left

271

desk and a chair for the narrator.
6 . . .

New York Times, May 1, 1960, Sec. II, p. 1, U.S.A. is discussed
in Chapter VI.
Tom F. Driver, Christian Century, November 9, 1960, p. 1320.
O .

Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, October 14, 1960.

271

Driver, loc. cit.

 

{—3.13%
'm -.—_flu‘-""

 

 

Costumes wer
indicate changes f
furnished the mar:
looking back on h:
cap, a black turt
As had been the c
continuity to the
Classification
The critic
of the term “res
at a loss as to
Classified. Sh
as compared to
the first two 1
"would formallj
that in realit
(which is new
was the only (
The cri

\
A 2
7ZHOW€

275m
271iLet

375

Jei

276%:
277Ne

\-

 

28?
Costumes were worn, and slight changes of costume were used to
iicate changes from one character to another. Martyn Green, who
rnished the narration and impersonated O'Casey as an older man
aking back on his youthful days in Dublin, wore a colored skull
p, a black turtle—neck sweater, tweeds, and silver rimmed Spectacles.272
had been the case in the two earlier presentations, music added

itinuity to the proceedings.275

issification

The critics who, for the most part, had used some derivative
the term "reading” for the first two O'Casey volumes, seemed to be
a loss as to how the dramatization 0f the third volume should be

issified. Shyre called Drums Under the Windows a ”staged reading,"

 

compared to simply a "reading," which was the term he applied to

274

a first two productions. Tallmer agreed that the production

Juld formally have to be called a 'staged reading',” but thought

it in reality, it was "half way between the pure 'reading' as such

275

lich is never actually a reading) and the actual play.” Driver

. . 2 6
5 the only other critic to speak of it as a ”reading." 7
The critic for Newsday labeled the presentation ”a series of

zmatic incidents,"277 while Davis, writing for the Daily News, termed

 

I 272Howard Taubman, New York Times, October 14, 1960, p. 26.

275Kali., Variety, October 26, 1960, p- 56-

27l+Letter from Paul Shyre to the author June 13, 1968.

275Jerry Tallmer, Village Voice, October 20, 1960.

276

Driver, 100. cit.

277Newsday, October 19, 1960.

 

l it a "dxematizatim
I. “a meandering excu
Narrator Martyn GI
“‘reading' with '=
Some critic

said it was "not
agreed that it wz

in a thousand ye

could any one cs

for The New Yorl

 

and proceeded t

Manner of Prese

He chara

i. 01" "dramatic 1

Pl the narratc

| there‘s a mov
\

DaSh wrote of

the setting,

\
278

J an

279%]

28
0Le

28
1R0

282Rc
283w

284

 

285

 

288
278

"dramatization." The Variety reviewer described it as

279

eandering excursion through the rhetoric of the book."

itor Martyn Green suggested the production should be called a

iding' with 'staged illustrationsvnzgo

Some critics found it easier to say what it was not. Coleman

it was "not a play in the literal sense of the word."28’1 Taubman

ed that it was "not a proper play.”282 Bolton admitted, "Never

thousand years Of trying, using the loosest of measurements,

d any one call Drums Under the Windows a play."283 The critic

The New Yorker decided it was "not a play but a curious hybrid,"

. 2
proceeded to discuss the various aspects of the production.

er of Presentation
He characterized the manner of presentation as a combination
‘dramatic recitations" by the actors, with "dramatic readings"

he narrator. "The narrator reads, then gives way to the actors,

285

‘e's a movie—type dissolve, the narrator returns, and so forth."

L wrote of the narrator, who provided the background material and

286

setting, and of the six other actors, who enacted "pivotal scenes."

 

278James Davis, New York Daily News, October 17, 1960.

279

Kali, loc. cit.
280 68
Letter from Martyn Green to the author July 2, 19 .

28llRobert Coleman, New York Mirror, October 14, 1960.

282Howard Taubman, loc. cit.

283Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 15, 1960.

284The New Yorker, October 22, 1960: P- 90-

285Ibid. 286Thomas Dash, Women's Wear Daily, October 17, 1960.

 

 

 

 

i

 

The play he
desk, switched or
Mr. Green recall<
afraid if he mem
illusion that he

Shyre, wh<
the adaptation,
narrative panor
were not on stt
previous adapt;

the seven acto

Veriiit
Most of
did not think
for mail v
tation and d.
as the first
did not thin
but thought
tation “a s
betterfi92

Outstanding

\
2
87F

288 G

2
91]

289

The play began when narrator Martyn Green walked over to the
ask, switched on the lamp, laid out a book, and started to read.28‘7
T. Green recalled that he "actually‘gggd" his lines, because he was
Traid if he memorized them, he would not have been able to create the
.lusion that he was reading.288

Shyre, who directed Drums Under the Windows as well as providing
1e adaptation, described the manner of presentation as a "sort of

289

erative panorama rather than as a formal reading." The actors
are not on stools or behind lecterns as they had been in the two

‘evious adaptations. Instead, there was considerable movement as

Le seven actors portrayed sixty roles in thirty—two scenes.

Most of the critics enjoyed the production, although several
.d not think it quite measured up to the previous ones. The critic
>r Newsday was quite displeased with the change in manner of presen—
.tion and decided that Drums Under the Windows was not as successful
290

: the first two had been. Dash, writing for Women's Wear Daily,

.d not think Drums was "as incandescent as its two predecessors,"

.t thought it was still very enjoyable.291

Aston called the presen—
.tion "a spellbinder," but admitted he had liked the other two
*tter.292 Coleman did not think the third Shyre adaptation was as

.tstanding as Pictures in the Hallway, but still described it as

 

287Frank Aston, New York World—Telegram and Sun, October 14, 1960.
288 289 29

Green, loc. cit. Gelb, loc. cit.

292Aston, loc. cit.

ONewsday, loc. cit.
29

1Dash, loc. cit.

 

 

"one of the most 1
2
this semester." 9

that Drums Under

 

adaptations, but
attention.29h

0n the oth
volume "no less
McClain called 1

in this series.

2
l.

of those small
the southbound
Taubman
eloquent in an
treasurengg
one received
t“Tile 3011p,“
enenencge
Could‘heVer ‘
did not See

it anything
\

 

 

 

290
ine of the most rewarding evenings we've spent in the showshops
is semester."295 The critic for Christian Science Monitor felt

at Drums Under the Windows was the least successful of the O'Casey

 

sptations, but advised his readers it was still worthy of their
Ltention.294
On the other hand, Tallmer reported that he found the third
ilume "no less lovely than the two which have preceded it."295
:Clain called Drums Under the Windows "the most compelling installment
L this series.” He "strenuously” recommended the production as ”one
' those small and selective off—Broadway offerings that justifies
Le southbound safari."296
Taubman told his readers they would not ”hear anything more
.oquent in any theatre in town.”297 Driver called it a "priceless
‘easure."298 The critic for The New Yorker thought the impression
is received from the production could be compared to ”swimming in
Lrtle soup," which he seemed to think would be a very enjoyable
werience.299 Bolton, who had suggested that the presentation
»uld'hever in a thousand years of trying" be considered a play,

.d not see how any one, "in another thousand years could . . . call

: anything but delightful."3OO However, a few of the critics did.

 

293

Coleman, loc. cit.

294

Christian Science Monitor, October 22, 1960.

295

Tallmer, loc. cit.
296 . - 4
John McClain, New York Journal American, October 1 , 1960.

297Taubman, loc. cit. 298Driver, 100. cit.

 

299The New Yorker, op. Cit-9 PP- 91‘92~
300

Bolton, loo. cit.

IIIIIIIZZZ___________________________________7

 

 

 

Kerr found 1
windows are often
the fantasy episo
little bored by 1
taken it for gra
admitted the eve
O'Casey and Ire?

would enjoy the
production was
and limited“ be

Irish verho sit

WE

AS prev:

the cast who
cast includec'
Dorothy Pate
Lbhe Older 01
acCident the
Since then.
lengths. r1
came fro,“ ,

sional}, m
\
3011,

303%
not
305

291

Kerr found that "the drums under these particular Dublin
.dows are often muffled and sometimes obscure."301 Davis enjoyed
. fantasy episodes, but confessed he was somewhat confused and a
.tle bored by the more factual vignettes. He complained Shyre had
zen it for granted everyone had read the autobiography.502 Watts
litted the evening's entertainment might puzzle a "stranger to
iasey and Ireland," but he was sure any one who appreciated O'Casey
le enjoy the production.303 The critic for Variety thought the
.duction was well done, but predicted its appeal would be "academic
l limited" because "the average American ear is not accustomed to

"304

.sh verbosity.

Egg

As previously noted, George Brenlin was the only performer in
a cast who had been in the early productions. Other members of the ,
st included Martyn Green, William Windom, Dana Eclar, James Kenney,
fothy Patten and Pauline Flanagan. Martyn Green, who appeared as
a older O‘Casey and functioned as narrator, had lost a leg in an
:ident the year before and was making his first stage appearance
Lce then. Most of the critics talked about his performance at some
Lgths. The only unfavorable comment about Green's performance
1e from the reviewer for The New Yorker who noted that Green occa—

‘nally muffed his lines.305

 

301Kerr, loc. cit. 302Davis, 100. cit.

305Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, October 14, 1960.

 

304

Kali., loc. cit.

305

The New Yorker, loc. cit.

 

 

'm

.‘_

 

 

Pauline FlaI
and a would—be see
his performance a
prison.“307 Tauh
by all performer:

“were a bit sore:

The third
nettes of the p
These included
hard physical n
his brother—in.
the degrading

society; his E
town; and sev:
Garden of Ede
Brown discuss
dinOSaurs wr<
in length in
DriVer

deeply movix
truth in wh-

he has EVe
\
306E

309T

292
Pauline Flanagan received praise for her roles as a local souse
d a would—be seductress.306 William Windom was singled out for
5 performance as "a grinning madman being led to his asylum
ison."30'7 Taubman thought the variety of roles were handled smoothly

all performers, but he commented that the Irish accents employed

"308

ere a bit scrambled.

terial
The third volume of the O'Casey autobiography presented vig-

ttes of the poet's experiences when he was a young man in Dublin.

ese included his discovery of the pleasure and satisfaction of

rd physical work; the impoverished death and funeral of his sister;

. . . . , . '
S brother—in—law's incarceration in the paupers lunatic asylum,

e degrading charity offered his nephew by the Protestant orphans

Ciety; his seduction by a neighbor Woman whose husband was out of

wn; and several other incidents. There was also an episode in the

rden of Eden in which Adam and Eve, G. K. Chesterton, and Father

OWE discussed past events and speculated on the future, while

The thirty-two scenes ranged

309

o more than ten minutes.

nosaurs wrestled in the background-

length from a few seconds t

Driver described the material as "a chronicle of growth . . .

' le
ePlY moving because it has the ring of truth, the sort of simp

fraid ‘
uth in which multitudes can share. 'We are too human to be a ’

0 human to let fear stop us.‘ Or, as

has Eve say, 'and we are to

 

8 .
506Ibid. 307Driver, loc. cit. 30 Taubman, $23: Eli'

BogThfi New Yorker, 9p. git,, p. 90.

 

 

he shouts to a d0<
than woe.'"310 T;
poetic than the v
episode was drama
in the O‘Casey W!
to evoke the nee
personality of C

an ingenious de‘

Watts not

doesn‘t always

 

So much of the
insoluble proh
Shyre, ;'
Particular f0
autObj-Ogl‘aphy
Sentimentaq ,

\ 7 1"» also had 1
about the in
he Could deg
reading whit
there Was t

in the Same

\

310D

3’12“

311+,

 

 

7—7*

293
shouts to a doctrinaire socialist, 'There's more in the world
n woe.'”310 Taubman touted the O'Casey prose as being more

tic than the verse of many poets. He admitted that not every

 

sode was dramatic, but maintained there was "a kind of exhilaration"

the O'Casey words, and that Shyre had wisely relied on the words

evoke the needed images. Taubman thought Shyre's use of the

sonality of O'Casey as the unifying aspect of the vignettes was

ingenious device.311

Watts noted that Shyre‘s "arrangement of his mass of material

sn't always work out dramatically, but the important thing is that

"312

much of the O'Casey spirit is there. The reviewer for the

istian Science Monitor felt the book had "apparently presented

.513

 

oluble problems for Mr. ShyreJ

Shyre, in discussing the material and its suitability for the
ticular form of presentation, noted the first two volumes of the
obiography were concerned with O'Casey's family and were rather
timental, while the third volume had ”more Dublin and less O'Casey."
also had a great deal of fantasy and a great deal of philosophizing
ut the influence of Yeats, Shaw, and Darwin. Shyre did not think
could deal with these aspects successfully in "a conventional

.314

ding which, in itself, imposes limitations. He also felt

re was too much action in Drums Under the Windows to present it

the same manner he had used for the preceding two productions.515
r——————_—_________
3 O 3

1 Driver, loc. cit. quaubman, loc. cit.

312Watts, loc. cit. 5’IBChristian Science Monitor, loo. cit.

314

Gelb, loo. cit. 315Shyre, loc. cit.

 

 

 

The reviewer for
newer of presen

Perhaps th
like Sean 0'
and raise tl
material ha;
narrator an
O‘Casey‘s p
At any rate
his versior

I ' ‘ The only
was suitable f

for the Newark

 

senting the t
O'casel prose

presentation

Com arisons
The on'

with the twc
These Compag
Setting, ma
Shyre's ter
While M
0f the Cyci

to depict
\
316,1

318.

319

 

 

291+
reviewer for The New Yorker, musing about the material and the

ner of presentation wrote:

Perhaps the only way to stage a largely unmanageable rhapsody
like Sean O'Casey's third autobiographical novel Drums Under the
Windows is simply to place a sluice gate between book and stage
and raise the sluice gate at judicious intervals until enough
‘material has been released to fill a couple of hours, hire a
narrator and some actors who can handle the burning monotone of
O'Casey's prose without becoming overheated, and let ‘em go.

At any rate, that's pretty much what Paul Shyre has done with
his version of the book.316

 

The only critic who did not think the manner of presentation

517

suitable for the material was the Newsday reviewer. The critic
the Newark Evening News found the switch "to live action in pre-
ting the text" a most welcome change, and well suited to the

318

asey prose. Taubman wrote that the material and the manner of

sentation were skillfully combined to capture "the O'Casey glow"?19

parisons

The only comparisons made about Drums Under the Windows were

 

i the two previous dramatizations of the O'Casey life story.
3e comparisons have been interspersed with the discussions of
ting, manner of presentation, verdict and material. To use
re's terminology, the first two productions were "readings,"

"520

Is Drums Under the Windows was a "staged reading. Instead

the cyclorama, stools, and lecterns; a multipurpose set was used
l

epict a variety of settings. The performers wore costume and,

 
    
 
 
    

316 317

The New Yorker, loc. cit. Newsday, loc. cit.
318Rowland Field, Newark Evening News, October 14, 1960.
31 9 320

Taubman, loc. cit. Shyre, loc. cit.

 

 

»‘_—.‘——-

 

except for the ne
connective comme:
vignettes and as
O'Casey combinai
performances.
of the three to
perhaps a more
Shyre cor
adaptation of (

Fare Thee Well

\

Volumesfim H

ments had rea<

0n Nove
was Presented
George Tabor:
directed the
George Vosko
GaTiles, Eli
than the Se,
Nled for an
the few maj

\\

32qu

 

295

t for the narrator, did not use scripts. The narrator provided
ctive commentary while the six other performers acted out the
ttes and assumed the roles of a variety of characters.

Drums Under the Windows was the most successful of the Shyre—
ey combinations in terms of audience response. It ran for 109
armances. It should be pointed out that this was the only one
me three to be housed in an off—Broadway theatre, which was
aps a more suitable environment for the O‘Casey adaptations.

Shyre commented in September of 1960, that he was planning the
tation of O'Casey's fourth autobiographical volume, Inishfallen,
Thee Well, and hoped eventually, to adapt the fifth and sixth
nes.521 However, as of the 1966—1967 season, no further install—

5 had reached the stage.

Brecht on Brecht

On November 15, 1961, Brecht on Brecht, His Life and His Art,

 

   
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
      

resented at the Theatre de Lys for the ANTA Matinee Series.

e Tabori selected and edited the material, and Gene Frankel
ted the production. The performers included Viveca Lindfors,
e Voskovec, Michael Wagner, Lotte Lenya, Dolly Haas, George

8, Eli Wallach, and Anne Jackson. The audience was larger
the seating capacity of the theatre, so the program was sched—
for an additional performance on November 20. Nadel, one of
ew major critics to cover the ANTA matinee, reported that it

ost unfortunate that the actors' other commitments prevented

‘2‘
5 1Gelb, loc. cit.

 

 

a longer run, be<

About a mo:
the ANTA present
produced by Cher
de Lys for a lie
this version. '.

George Voskovec

only performer

Setting and Am

The sett:

 

Photograph of

rear of the st
Brecht, with I
Smile, peasan'
irony and pas
0f any Specie
TeCording of

and of his 3,

Activities C

 

 

 

296
i - . . 322
>nger run, because the production was exceptionally fine.

About a month later, Zolotow reported that a revised version of

ANTA presentation, to be called simply Brecht on Brecht, would be

 

iuced by Cheryl Crawford beginning January 5, 1962, at the Theatre
Jys for a limited engagement. Only six actors were featured in

5 version. They were: Lotte, Lenya, Anne Jackson, Viveca Lindfors,
rge Voskovec, Michael Wagner, and Dane Clark.323 Clark was the

r performer who had not appeared in the original production.

;ing and Accessories
The setting, designed by Wolfgang Roth, featured an enlarged

:ograph of Brecht, staring at the audience, situated near the
? of the stage, some high stools, and a bench. The picture of

:ht, with "eyes wily and skeptical, lips sealed in a self—modking

 

.e, peasant fingers clenched around a cigar-—a complex blend of

324

Ly and passion," dominated the stage. No mention was made
Lny special lighting effects, and no costumes were used. A tape-
trding of Brecht singing ”Mack the Knife" from his Threepenny Opera

of his answering questions put to him by the House Un—American

325

    
  
  
    

vities Committee was a special feature of the production.

2
3 2Norman Nadel, New York World Telegram and Sun, November 15, 1961,

2
3 5Sam Zolotow, New York Times, December 15, 1961.

24.
3 Time, January 12, 1962, p. 50.

325Thomas Driver, Christian Century, March 7, 1962, p. 296.

 

Classification
only a few
Taubman describe

O‘Conner labeled

Two critics call

Manner of Prese

The reluc

rather surprisi

‘ pretended to r
Most of the ti
selections.32E

so closely re

together in E

11%

Most o
e)Terienee a
two Very ad;
his readers
Stage trap;

emlal‘atir
\

326H

32? .

L

328]

529
33'

 

 

 

ssification

Only a few of the critics attempted to classify Brecht on Brecht.
.. 26 .
bman described the proceedings as a "liVing anthology,"3 while

59527

onner labeled it ”a series of readings and acted—out little sketche

.. . . 28
critics called the production a "staged reading."3
iner of Presentation

The reluctance of other critics to classify Brecht on Brecht is
ther surprising in view of the fact all the performers read, or
etended to read, from notebooks in the first part of the production.

st of the time they sat on the stools and took turns presenting the

 

Lections.329 During the second half of the program they were not
closely restricted to their stools. They occasionally worked

550

gether in groups 0f two or three to dramatize some of the scenes.

rdict
Most of the critics endorsed Brecht on Brecht as a fine theatrical

erience and a painless introduction to Brecht, although there were

 
 
   
  
 

very adamant dissentors from the majority opinion. Taubman told
readers that, despite the fact the production used a minimum of
ge trappings and was not a "proper play," it was a "marvelously

ilarating and pungent evening in the theatre.”331 Driver called

 
  
 
 
   
 
  

526Howard Taubman, New York Times, January 4, 1962, p. 26.

527Jim O'Conner, New York Journal American, January 4, 1962,

328 _ 6
Kenn, Variety, January 17, 19 2, P‘ 72-

Robert Brustein, New Republic, January 22, 1962, p. 23.

329Driver, 100. cit. 33OO'Conner, loc. Cit.

331Taubman, New York Times, January 1%, 1962, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

 

 

 

Brecht on Brecht

_____——-—————'

critic termed it
The Lflifl
order, enlighte'
biting, and wit
playwright, poe
a complete sucr
to Brecht‘ s wo
intellectual e
a fascinating
far more diff
reappear."356
Three c
Herridge foui
solid or eat
W0 critics
Bruste
ladies, and
Performance

\
331D

BEAU

335}
336‘
33'?

SSE

 

298

2 .
i on Brecht "an.evening of theatrical excellence."33 The Time

"333

 

 

: termed.it "an arresting example of off—beat off-Broadway.

‘Bhe Villager reviewer described it as "theatre of the highest

 

, enlightening, illuminating, deeply moving and unexpectedly

g, and witty, revealing the genius and sc0pe of Brecht as a

right, poet and satirist."334 Oliver thought the production was
plate success, and.found.it an interesting and useful introduction

355

echt's works. Morgenstern cautioned his readers it was an
Ilectual evening that demanded close attention, but he found it
aimating "act performed by six magicians who pull off a trick
Lore difficult than making a man disappear. They make him
ear."536
Three of the reviewers did not endorse the presentation.
dge found.it "delicious for a while . . . . but not very
. or satisfying for an entire evening of theatre."33? The other
ritics were much more vehement in expressing their Opposition.
Brustein accused Tabori of "castrating" Brecht for'the.ANTA
s, and found.the acting, with the exception of Lotte Lenya's

338

rmance, revolting. Simon was also outraged at the "cas-

an" which had been performed on Brecht's material in what

 

33aDriver, loc. cit. 333Time, loc. cit.

4 .
33 Villager, January 11, 1962.

 

335Edith Oliver, The New Yorker, January 13, 1962, p. 64.

6 .

33 Joseph Morgenstern, New York Herald Tribune, January 4, 1962.
337LFrancis Herridge, New York Post, January 4, 1962-
338

Brustein, loo. cit.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllll---E:;_______

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simon considered

Brecht palatable

hctin
Three crit
thought the acti
disappointing, :
found the actin
The actor
at each otl
And when t‘.
philosophe
through th
of hysteri
a sentimer
unborn ch‘
cold, met:
some of t
presence
Brecht fa
Simon l
face of both
practicesm
0f Prefabrir
ENirtliration
0f Spent-en.

Gene

Donn deer

\
359

34c
34;

299

considered.an.unf0rtunate and ill-advised attempt to make

339

; palatable to the general American public.

3
Three critics were also dissatisfied with the actors. Driver

it the acting, except for the performance of Lotte Lenya, was

340

pointing, although the cast was an outstanding one. IBrustein

the acting worse than disappointing:

{Theractors in.this staged reading wink, smile, and twinkle
t each other so much that I wanted to throw my coat at them.
nd when they are not nodding sanctimoniously over the old
hilosopher's sage apothegms, they are undermining Brecht
hrough their interpretations of his works: one throwing fits
f hysterics in The Jewish Wife, another turning Galileo into

sentimental dullard, still another dripping molasses over an
nborn child.in a scene from The Good Woman. Only Lotte Lenya——
old, metallic, seemingly detached from the proceedings——conveys
ome of the steel and ice that were in Brecht. But even her
resence fails to authenticate this factitious attempt to make
recht fashionable.34l

 

Simon was horrified to find the performers "flying in the

of both Brecht's ideas on theatre and.any valid non—Brechtian
ices." He indicted them with indulging in "such a concert
efabricated smirks and stances, such gazes of mutual self—
ation and other cutenesses masquerading as impromptu responses,

make the late unlamented quiz shows seem by comparison orgies

n342

antaneity.
Generally, however, the response to the acting was quite positive.

described the performers as "pros all," and noted that all of

F.___._.

339John Simon, Theatre Arts, March, 1962, pp. 60—61.

341

Driver, 100. cit. Brustein, loc. cit.

342

Simon, loc. cit., p. 60.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllll---_________

 

 

 

 

 

. “:7“

dwmhad"their i
from Mother Coure
to leave her non-
asexceptionally
Miss Lindfors‘ 6
Life of the hhis’
‘Tavorite" perf
Oliver pi
the”star."345
asset, and adv
the Price of e
enough to be a
fin other per

346

ment .

The se
objections r
the German 1
and Observa

by George E
\
4
3 3R

344E

BOO
ibad "their innings." He singled out Lotte Lenya singing a song

iMother Courage and.Viveca Lindfors as a Jewish wife who decides

 

save her nonaJewish husband at the beginning of Hitler's reign,
xceptionally fine.3u3 Hipp also wrote at some lengths of
: Lindfors' excellent performance in the scene from The Private

Lpof the Master Race, although he selected.Miss Lenya as his
344

 

rorite" performer.
Oliver praised.all the actors, but singled out Lotte Lenya as

"star."345 Hewes considered Miss Lenya the production's greatest

at, and advised.his readers that her performance alone was worth

price of admission. He noted that she had.known Brecht well

1gh to be able to perform his works without awe, while some of

other performers accorded his works a somewhat worshipful treat—

[3.346

The selection of material precipitated the most violent
actions to the production. Brecht on Brecht was a collection of
German playwright's poems, songs, plays, letters, essays, memories,

observations. The bits and pieces were selected and assembled

347

teorge Tabori, who had worked with Brecht in 1947. The material

M

1+
3 iRube Dorin, New York Morning Telegraph, January 5, 1962.

L4- .
3 EEdward Hipp, Newark Evening News, January 28, 1962.
345Oliver, loc. cit.
346

Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, March 24, 1962, p. 34.

347

Calta, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__._J

was divided into
pace "from bite
exchanges such 5
What‘s that? T
no hero. No, u
segments were c
scene from Bre<
Taubman :
the heart and
it showed Bre(
himself, and,
He admitted in
on Brecht‘ s t
“anthology" 2
Brecht's fin
these fragme
sardonic p01
BOltoz
Profusion 0
Putting tOE

\

B8B

349q

350,

351

 

301
vided into "Life" and "Theatre" and had.frequent changes of
from bite to belly laugh." Some selections were Short little
.ges such as: "'There is only one way to fight authority.
; that? To out live it.‘ 'Unhappy is the land that breeds
13. INo, unhappy is the land that needs a hero.'"348 Other
its were considerablyibnger, such as the previously mentioned
from Brecht's Private Life of the Master Race.
Taubman acknowledged the anthology was "only a glimpse into

eart and workshop of the poet and playwright," but he thought

 

ywediBredht's humor, quickness of mind, ability to laugh at
if,.and, "above all.his cool and flaming command of the theatre."
nitted he found.the second half of the evening, with its emphasis
echt's theatre the most exciting, but characterized the entire
alogy" as very rewarding. He mused that, "Until we can have

t's finest plays in New York, Brecht on Brecht will do. For

fragments from his life and works merge into a warm and

 

1ic portrait that assumes haunting immediacy on the stage."349

Bolton thought Tabori had chosen skillfully from the vast
350

3ion of Brecht's writings. Driver credited Tabori with
Lg together "a sufficient sample of Brecht's writing to

:trate that Brecht saw life steadily."351

 

 

8 .
34 Hipp, loc. cit.
349 . 4 6
Taubman, New York Times, January , 19 2, p. 26.
350Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, November 16, 1961.
351

Driver, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

Other crit
plained that Tat
evening did not
There were no "
must occasional
included. Eve:
He thought Bre

Brustein

”to cast a we]
anti-Nazi hum;
the diSposses
"almost indie
that the Brer
will Rogers,
Jack Parr, 0
Might be. E
in which Tat
Simon

taking piec
together, a
Particular
rteiil‘esenta

Should hax

common man

demoCracy

\
35;

 

 

 

302

Other critics took issue with Tabori's selections. One com—
ed that Tabori had.ehosen too carefully and, as a result, the
ng did not provide a full and honest representation of the man.
were no "dull observations" which the critics felt sure Brecht
occasionally have made, and no incorrect prophecies had been
ded. IEverything was witty, and all the forecasts were correct.
ought Brecht came across as too good to have been true.352
IBrustein protested Tabori had edited and arranged the material
ast a warm glow," and as a result, Brecht came out as ”a liberal,
Nazi humanitarian, discomforted only by the plight of the poor,
ispossessed, and the persecuted.” He complained that Brecht was
st indistinguishable from Thornton Wilder."353 Simon Charged
the Brecht offered at the Theatre de Lys ”could.easily pass for
Rogers, Norman Vincent Peale, Hal Holbrook doing Mark Twain,

Parr, or who ever the currently recognized middlebrow humorioust"
be. He went on to lable the production "a miracle of dentistry"

ich Tabori had extracted every one of Brecht's sixty—four teeth.354
Simon questioned Whether or not there was any justification for
g pieces of a man's life, prose, verse and song, pasting them
her, and "tossing the whole mess out into the auditorium,"
cularly when there was no honest attempt made to present the most

sentative aspects of the author. Simon argued that Brecht

 

have been shown "Spewing his brilliant, deadly satire on the
man, the rich man, the organization man, the artist, America,
acy, liberalism, religion, and what ever else is enshrined in

gton and Cooperstown, at the YMCA and the New York Times," as

 

 

354

Simon, loc. cit.

352

O'Conner, loc. cit. 553Brustein, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

j, ‘ well as taking hi
i 7 He admitted this
i , ' maintained that:

. . . the pr
audiences, I
George Tabo:
public. It;
i A author is or
been in som
thousand ti
for Brecht
raisers gel
matter if "

 

Comparisons
Simon cc
01" the works (
Williams pres
a much more i
the dissimila
product'mn, ‘
alltonomOus p
The re
were "rem-n:
readings of
tioning of
used in D01
\
out the a c

acting Spa
\
355,

l

357.

 

 

    
  
  
  
   
    
  
 
   

303
5 taking bitter digs at the Hollywood hustlers and the Nazis.
itted this might have offended some of the audience, but he
ined that:

. . the purpose of theatre is not to accommodate ignorant
diences, nor to drum up trade fornANTA, Cheryl Crawford and
orge Tabori, nor yet to make Brecht well—liked by theiAmerican
blic. Its purpose is to offer us the best truth a serious

thor is capable of. And.however misguided.Brecht may have

en in some ways, however snarlingly'unfairy he was stillva
ousand times the thinker and artist than those responsible

r Brecht on Brecht are. There may be some injustice in cattle
isers gelding their livestock, but it is a much more serious
“tter if the livestock get together to castrate their masters.355

 

Simon compared Brecht on Brecht to Emlyn Williams' productions

 

a'works of Dickens and Dylan Thomas, pointing out that the

ams presentations were much more unified and that they presented
1 more representative picture of the authors.. He also noted
issimilarities of the Tabori arrangement to the Don Juan in Hell
3tion, which featured a "single, seldom performed, nearly

mous part of a play in concert fashion."356
The reviewer for the Villager wrote that the stools on stage
‘reminiscent of the setting made popular by the Don Juan in.Hell
gs of several years ago."357 Another critic found the posi_

g of the performers on high stools similar to the technique

n Don Juan in Hell and John Brown's Body, although he pointed

e actors in the Brecht production had been provided with some

358

space.

 

356

355Simon, 932 §;;,, pp. 60—61. Simona QR: elf. Po 60-

357 358

.Ylllager, loc. cit.

Hipp, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

it is unfo:
did not review ’5
able, it would 3
liked W
of the lesser—k
raised by these
have some valir'
provide an honr
However,
their liking,
representativ:
its “limited
that "busines
was 35,600 a
week, which
A Lond
The agent fc
eXpressed a:
College and
The ‘
it began.

New York p
\
3592
360

l

361

304
2ft is unfortunate that McClain, Coleman, Kerr, and.Atkinson
ot review the presentation. On the basis of the reviews avail-
it would appear most of the critics, including Taubman and.Nadel,
iBredht on Brecht. Hewes was not entirely satisfied, and two
e lessereknown critics violently disliked it. The objection
d'by these two regarding the choice of material would seem to
some validity, if one accepts the idea that the theatre Should
de an honest picture of life—-or of the life of a man.

However, the public found the material and the production to

 

'Ihflcing, regardless of whether it was representative or mis—
sentative of Brecht. Less than two weeks after it opened for

‘limited run," an article appeared in the New York Times reporting

 

"business was booming." The production's "break even figure”
i5,600 a week and the 299—seat theatre could gross $10,000 a
which meant a sizeable profit if the house was full.3‘59
A London version, with Lotta Lenya, opened in September of 1962.
.gent for the Brecht estate reported that twenty countries had

ssed an interest in staging Brecht on Brecht, and that fifty

 

560

ge and university groups had requested permission to produce it.
The ”limited run" finally came to an end more than a year after

gan. 424 performances of Brecht on Brecht were given before the

 

ork production closed.361

 

359

60 .
3 Milton Esterow, New York Times,.August 4, 1962, p. 11.

Zolotow, New York Times, January 15, 1962, p. 22.

 

 

36

1
Zolotow, New York Times, June 27, 1963, p. 25.

   

 

 

 

 

Poet Robei
Midngan as a vi
attheUniversi
vasconnected w
andDon Hall, a
hewas sixteen
by the man and
read all of th

fin nnihimsel
and poetry, hr
hiss Cisney d
Staats Cotswo
hurhrbor, Mi
Theatre Prog:
appearance.3

the Off-Broa

John Randolx
had Present
Once,
0‘3 a produc
\
362T
363M:

364
%
365r

 

305

An Evening's Frost

 

Poet Robert Frost served on the faculty of the University of

562 Also

.igan as a visiting lecturer shortly before his death.
the University of Michigan at that time were Marcella Cisney, who
connected with the University's Professional Theatre Program,

Don Hall, a writer and teacher. Hall had first met Frost when

ras sixteen and the poet was seventy—one, and.he had been fascinated
;he man and his poetry from then on. After Frost's death, Hall

i all of the poet's works and all the material he could find about

man himself. From Frost's letters, conversations, biographies,

poetry, he assenbled.An.Evening's Frost.363 On February 10, 1965,

 

3 Cisney directed Jaqueline Brooks, Donald Davis, Will Geer, and

its Cotsworthaefi in An Eveningls Frost which was presented in

 

.Arbor, Michigan, as a part of the University of Michigan's

itre Program. Mention was made at that time of a possible New York

365

aarance. .An Evening's Frost opened on October 11, 1965, at

 

offéBroadway Theatre de Lys. Except for the substitution of
i Randolph for Staats Cotsworth, the cast was the same one that
presented the production at University of Michigan.

Once again the writer finds in necessary to justify the inclusion

l production which does not readily fit the definition of oral

 

6
3 gfiew York Times, October 12, 1965, p. 56.

6
3 3Martha MacGregor, New York Post, October 17, 1965.

 

Cotsworth also appeared in I Knock at the Door and Pictures
the Hallway.

36
Sflgw York Herald Tribune, February 9, 1965.

—‘—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

interpretation 1
as a prop by th'
wore costumes a
scribed it as a
to state that i
audience "was a
concentration"
work of the po
spoke of the "
made by this E
"to use their
The cri
several of th
writer admits
towards a ure
emPhasis pla:
imagination,
fact that th
writer felt
reServation:

it Should b

\
366

Le

367m

June ’18, 1(-

 

506

:rpretation used in this study. Manuscript was used, but only
L prop by the narrator. There was a setting and the actors

a costumes and impersonated characters. Director Cisney de-
ibed it as a "fully staged production." However, she went on
state that it differed from a regular production in that the
ience "was asked (in effect) to use creative imagination and
centration" as the material presented outlined the life and

366

k of the poet from his youth to his old age. Miss Brookes

ke of the "creation of Frost's world,” and noted the demands

e by this sort of presentation on the audience, requiring them

use their imagination to fill in the form."567
The critics were not sure how to classify the production and

ral of them fell back on some form of the term "reading." This

ter admits An Evening’s Frost is a long way over on the continuum

ards a "regular theatrical performance,” but in view of the

rasis placed on the necessity for the audience to use their

rination, the critics' uncertainty as to what it was, and the

: that the manuscript was used, though only symbolically, the

er felt it would be wiser to include the production, with

rvations, than to leave it out. Certainly in terms of material,

iould be considered in this chapter.

369Letter from Miss Marcella Cisney to the author, June 10, 1968.

367.Letter from Miss Jacqueline Brookes to the author,
18, 1968.

 

 

l
‘1 Setting and Acce:
" The settin,
visually suggest
I Wyeth, using spe
: [ scrim and a con:
the set, which i
a "lathe-turned
mentioned table

New England."

a pastoral wis

 

was written by

There w;
how in Evenin
a recital the
Frost REadin;
the PI‘Oducti

Greer-“fin?

 

 

307
g and Accessories
The setting, according to Miss Cisney, "was designed to
.ly suggest an atmosphere related to the painting of Andrew
, using spare, New England architectural elements, a eye and
and a constant flow of mood lighting."368 Nadel thought
at, which he described as consisting only of platforms and

369

the—turned post," represented a farm kitchen. Kupferberg
uned tables and chairs and "a simple background that suggests
gland." He also noted a solo flute accompaniment "that creates
oral wistful mood."37o Miss Cisney reported that the music

itten by the composer who had done the score for Marat Sade.371

‘fication

 

There was no consensus of opinion among the reviewers as to

i Evening's Frost should be classified. Oliver found it "more
ital than a play”?72 Kupferberg entitled his review "Robert
Reading," but used the term "recital" in his discussion of
‘oduction.373 Bolton decided to call it "a recitation of

.ts."374 Sherman wrote of a "dramatized compilation,"575

 

368

Cisney, loc. cit.

569Norman Nadel, New York World—Telegram and Sun, October 12, 1965.

57OHerbert Kupferberg, New York Herald Tribune, October 12, 1965.
371

Cisney, 2.22. fit:

7ZEdith Oliver, The New Yorker, October 23,-1965, p. 98.
73Kupferberg,.lgg._gi£.

74whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 13, 1965.

5Susan Sherman, Villa e Voice, October 21, 1965.

 

 

 

 

‘
v

 

 

-__l

while Tallmer 1a
for the New Yorl
for gu_e charact
while the Tunis
acts."579 Goti
It‘s timi
theatre ju
been added
recitation
bric-a—bre
Evening‘ s
de Lys, it

But for

long as i
cal equip

Manner of Pre

The is

other three

1 t0 life or 1
bit or histv
Fm“; Dona
roles in ti

Wife and t]

nhrrator.

\
376.

3771
m
37C.
3&
38

308
"3'76

Tallmer labeled it a "portrait of the poet. The reviewer

377

1e New York Times termed it a “dramatization.“ The critic

 

i2 characterized the proceedings as “dramatic readings,vp378
the Vim reviewer discussed the “stage reading in two
”579 Gottfried wrote:

IIt's time that producers stopped palming off readings as
heatre just because some lighting and.a prop or two have
een added. Surely there are enough people interested hi
’ecitations of autobiographies, poetry and assorted literary
ric-a-brac without any need for false pretentions. ”An
vening's Frost,“ which opened last night at the Theatre
Le Lys, is not a theatrical presentation.

IBut for that matter, it isn't a reading either. INot so
.ong as it is dotted.with artificial and unnecessary theatri-

ial equipment.380
i
g;of Presentation
The narrator'provided the "chronological links," while the
' three actors functioned in "little groups that bring a poem
fe or recreate an episode in Frost's career, or provide a
f historical perSpective."381 Will Geer played the older
; Donald Davis was Frost as a young man and played the male
in the narrative poems; Jacqueline Brookes portrayed Frost‘s

and the women in his poetry; and John Randolph was the

or. Geer recalled that the performers "talked to the

 

L—

376Jerry Tallmer, New York Post, October 12, 1965.
577New York Times, October 12, 1965.

‘78E.L., Egg, October 23, 1965-

79Kenn., Variety, October 27. 1965: P. 71-

3OMartin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, October 12, 1965.

'1Kupferberg, loc._gi£.

III—T

 

 

 

 

 

audience as did ‘
Some of Fr
Niss Brookes rep
and “Death of ti

simply . . . .
much, suggest n
play, but “ever
a fact." Direi
in their gestu
a spontaneous
tried to creai
constantly sh:
and selectiVe
Oppenhe

cussing the I
and did not ‘

0f hiss Cisn
She he
themselx

The pic

the cli‘
Contain

n0 embe

a wall1

drOp a,

do not

The 1

a benci
Some '1

\
38%
583,

 

309

. . . "382
nce as did the Greeks Via a narrator helping the actors.
Some of Frost's poems were read in toto, othersonly in part.
Brookes reported the narrative poems such as ”Home Burial"
Death of the Hired Man" were acted ”like plays . . . but very
y . . . . it was selective, [sicJ small things had to mean
suggest much." There was less movement than in an ordinary
but "every move was essential, and a suggestion rather than
t." Director Cisney allowed the performers to be Spontaneous
eir gestures, but thezpontaneity had to be "within the frame——
ntaneous gesture had to be an economical one.” Miss Brookes
to create a character for each of the poems. As she was
antly shifting parts, the characterizations "had to be bold
elective."385
Oppenheimer spent a considerable portion of his review dis—
ng the manner of presentation. He thought it was too literal
id not leave enough to the audience's imagination. He wrote
ss Cisney's direction:

She has not been content to let Frost's poems sing for
nemselves, but has imposed a literalness upon their imagery.
1e picture of the orchard wall that separates two fields,

1e climbing of a birch tree, the vision of a rainbow are
antained so perfectly in the poetic lines that they need

3 embellishment. Yet, again and again, the actors indicate
wall, pantomine IsicJ the climb, and look toward the back—
rop as a rainbow is projected on it. Frost's magic words

3 not require a magic lantern.

The evening is at its peak when Mr. Geer sits quietly on

bench and recites a poem, or when Mr. Randolph tells of
Jme incident, gay or sad, in the life of the poet . . . .

 

382Letter from Will Geer to the author, June 22, 1968.
383

Brookes, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

The dire
constani
scended
of a po
[eriict
As 1112'
did not ca:
favorably
a theatre
it but (:01
tion, "thi
Tal
"good shc
the prod1
ently p1
terized
the tap

as "wel:

310

Fhe direction also seemed too intrusively busy. Coats are
:onstantly being put off and on, steps are mounted and de—
:cended, the stage is crossed and recrossed in the middle
if a poem that would much better be spoken in immobility.384
93

As might be surmised from the above quotation, Oppenheimer
.ot care for An Evening's Frost. Gottfried also was not
ably impressed. He found it "a perfectly dull evening in
atre (not 3333 theatre)?585 Kupferberg liked some parts of
t complained that, despite an excellent cast and fine direc—
"the evening remains a struggle.”386
Tallmer described it as a skillful portrait of a man and a
, show, if over--reverent."387 Sherman decided that, although
roduction was "not terribly exciting," it provided a consist-
pleasant, and occasionally moving evening.588 Dust charac—

ed it as a "'talkie' offering," but suggested to his readers

alk was worth listening to.389 Cooke recommended the program
ell worth a Frost fan's time.”390

Other critics were more enthusiastic. Nadel found An Evening's

"591

."an evening to cherish. Bolton headlined his review

ning's Frost' Is Superb," and urged his readers to go see it.592

 

384
385
387

George Oppenheimer, Newsday, October 12, 1965.
Gottfried, loc. cit. 386Kupferberg, loo. cit.
. 388 .
Tallmer, loo. Cit. Sherman, loc. Cit.
389Don Dust, Newark Evening News, October 12, 1965.

390Richard P. Cooke, Wall Street Journal, October 13, 1965.
391

 

Nadel, loo. cit. 392Bolton, 100. cit.

 

 

i The oriti
I ‘“An Eve
portraya

own etc]

and tri

M

siastic
siasti'
attemp

critic

4...,r...i_—._-

wortln

Actin
____

four

atte

 

 

311

:ritic for the New York Times began his review by reporting,
Evening's Frost' isn't the least bit chilly. It is a warm
mayal of Robert Frost, an evening when the poettpins out his
Story, the sweet and the following bittery, [EEEJ the tragedy
:riumph, in words creating laughter, but even more often tears."593

MacGregor noted An Evening's Frost opened to ”good to enthu-
;ic reviews," and reported that she cast her vote in the enthu~

594

:ic category. Hewes found the presentation "an admirable
apt to offer the essence of the poet's verse."395 The Variety
.0 labeled the program "a rewarding experience, and the first

iwhile production of the off-Broadway season."396

3;
The majority of the reviewers were favorably impressed by the
performers. Mr. Geer, as the elder Frost, attracted the most
Ltion. Two critics had objections to his performance. Nadel
.ained Geer occasionally "chews his gums--a common practive
:tors playing old men——so that his highly individual Frost
Ies, in those intervals, no different from all stage grand—
irs.” For most of the evening however, Nadel thought the
' and the character were "close enough to become one, which is
1 should be."39l7 Gottfried grumbled that Geer's recitations
Sometimes unintelligible, while at other times they were

.lent.398

 

. 4
393New York Times, loo. Cit. 39

595

MacGregor, loc. cit.

Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, October 50, 1965, p. 74.

396Kenn., loc. cit. 397Nadel, 106- Cit. 398Gottfried, loc. Cit.

 

 

 

i
1

 

 

Olll
doubted i:
more dept
as Frost,
and Miss
evening
with the
"both t]

Geer do
omes

readin

bkmm
line ' :
warm
Brook
was
didn
liVe

menu

 

312
Oliver thought Geer's performance was quite impressive. She
ted if even "the original himself could have played Frost with
depth or style or relish.” She liked Geer's reaction when,
rost, he listened to his poems being presented by Mr. Davis
Tiss Brookes. She thought the most effective parts of the
ing were those in which "Mr. Geer is most directly in touch

the audience. Dust was pleased to note Geer conveyed

i the warmth and cynicism of Frost."400 Oppenheimer wrote
dominated the evening not only because of his impersonation
rost, but also because of the "directness and fidelity of his
ing and actingdfloll

Kupferberg was impressed not only with Geer's physical resem—
oe to Frost, but also with his "way of enhancing a poetic
's meaning with a gesture, a shrug, or a smile. He gives a
and believable performance."402 Fellow performer Jacqueline
{es wrote of Mr. Geer, ”I cannot tell you what a delight it
just to sit and listen to Will Geer in all his material. He
't recite poetry, you see, he made Birches [sig.] Mending Wall,
. This was what the production tried to do, and-he succeeded
rably."L+03

Miss Brookes was recognized by several of the critics for

zontributions in the distaff roles. Nadel liked the quality

 

399 400

Oliver, loo. cit. Dust, loc. cit.

4 1+0 ,
OIIOppenheimer, loc. cit. 2Kupferberg, loo. oit.

403

Brookes, loc. cit.

 

 

 

3’13
quietness she brought to her role as the poet's wife, and was
pressed with her rendition of the long poem, "The Witch of Coos.”LPOLF
lton wrote of her, "Miss Brookes has a vibrant voice, made for

405

esy." Gottfried reported that "Jacqueline Brookes, a marvelous

406

tress, is marvelous." Cooke felt that she had done especially

ll in "Home Burial" and ”Death of the Hired Man."407
The other two performers received less notice. Davis was

ted for his "fine voice,”Ll-08 but Oppenheimer, while agreeing

5 voice was eloquent, declared "his very sonorousness, a quality

1 too rare in our theatre, detracted from the simplicity of those

ems that sang of pastoral and homespun themes.” He thought

409 Sherman disliked

idolph ”narrated forthrightly and well."
idolph. She described him as "a cross between Bennet Cerf and
t Linkletter," and complained he was "too kind, too gentle, and

ly too smoothly persuasive.”LHO

Hewes praised Hall's selection of "poems and excerpts from
ings Frost said, and had said to and about him." He noted the
rioal moments in the program were less exciting than the humorous
i dramatic ones, but acknowledged they added to one's appreciation

. 4 1 . .
the wide variety of Frost's poetry. 1 The critic for Variety

_-——.____._

404Nadel, loc. cit. 405Bolton, loo. cit.

406Gottfried, loc. cit. 4O7Cooke, loo. cit. 408lbid.
. 41o .

4090ppenheimer, loo. Cit. Sherman, loo. Cit.

411

Hewes, loo. cit.

 

felt the 1
poems and

The revie

Th1

main

canc

call

of i

spol

evol

help

see

' A

: Shermai
JChan w

l is en;
We an

rathe

lesse

ofter

what

kept

bale

mat

som

 

 

 

314

alt the success and the power of the evening lay "in Frost's own

>ems and remarks. They're full of beauty, wit and wisdom."LVl2

ie reviewer for Life wrote:

The theatrical quality that comes to light in Frost lies
mainly in the poems themselves. He finds dramatic signifi—
cance in the most common place things: a fork in the road
calls up the fateful posibilities of human choice; a tuft.
of flowers left standing in a mowed field bespeaks the un—
spoken brotherhood of man; the old chimney of a ruined house
evokes the evanescence of all life. These images are so en-
hanced and heightened by Frost's verbal stage craft that they
seem to be picked out by a spot light.413

 

A few of the critics had reservations about the material.
Lerman decided the poetry was more dramatic when read silently
tan when it was on stage. "The conversational quality of Frost
; emphasised to the detriment of real poetic feeling in his work.
a are presented with the image rather than the poem, the masthead
.ther than the poet."Ml+ Kupferberg took issue with some of the
esser—known selections which were included, and pointed out "too
'ten the narrator has to fall back on the thought that no matter
at happened, whether literary setbacks or family deaths, Frost

pt right on writing poetry."415

Oliver was satisfied with the
lance of familiar and unfamiliar poems, and found the connecting

terial "appropriate and lively.” However she wondered if perhaps

 

me of the connecting material was "too appropriaB-—might indicate,

other words, that the poems a man writes are more overtly or

 

1+
12Kenn., loc. cit.

4
13Tom Prideaux, Life, March 4, 1966, p. 15.

414 415

Sherman, loo. cit. Kupferberg, loc. cit.

 

more clear:
are." As:
of Frost‘ s

"Home Buri

Comparisoz

The
and anoth
reminded
scarcely

I
ShakeSpee
% V restrict
i that she
Similar

other a

the pe
adElpte
first
(M

only (‘

 

 

 

315
re clearly linked to the events of his life than they actually
a." As an example, she pointed out the news of the death of one
Frost's children was followed immediately by the recitation of

416

)me Burial."

nparisons

 

The only critic to make a comparison between An Evening's Frost
1 another oral interpretation production was Oppenheimer, who "was
minded of the rich drama of John Gielgud's Ages of Man when, with
ircely a move, he evoked the majesty, the tragedy and the comedy of
ikespeare's plays and sonnets." He wished that Geer would have

1117

stricted his movements as Gielgud had done. Miss Cisney recalled

 

at she was influenced "to some general degree," by Spoon River and

ier Milk Wood.)+18 Geer thought the form of the production was i
iilar to his FOLKSAY productions of Whitman, Twain, London and

419

Ler authors. An Evening's Frost ran for 132 performances.

Summary

The four solo productions in this chapter were performed by
person who selected and adapted the material. Paul Shyre, who
pted three volumes of the O'Casey autobiography, acted in the
st two presentations, and directed the third. George Tabori,

echt on Brecht), and Don Hall, (An Evening's Frost), were the

 

y adapters not directly connected with the actual performance.

 

417

4 .
16Oliver,_p. cit., pp. 97—98. Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

L118

Cisney, loo. cit. 419Geer, loc. cit.

 

 

 

A variety
mixture of an a
and plays; as I
just one type
poetry or Thom
gether with b:'
himself, in t'.
garnered from
times editori
or about his
O'Casey auto
the author‘s
his lyrical
Selec
01n Jthe adaE
010 the artf
as did ALL:
and works
Will
b0thood yr
autObiogr
fore1 sh3
did 0the:
asmects
NC

of his 1

 

316

A variety of material was used. Some productions featured a
ure of an author's work: his songs, quips, essays, letters,
plays; as in the case of Brecht. Others used excerpts from

one type of the author's literary efforts, such as Millay's
ry or Thomas' short stories. These excerpts were fitted to—

er with bibliographical data which was supplied by the author
elf, in the form of letters or recollections, or which was
ered from biographers or contemporaries of the author. Some—
s editorial comments were made by the adaptor about the person
bout his works. The dramatization of the three volumes of the
sey autobiography were different in that the material used was
author's own story of his early life as well as an example of
lyrical writing.

Selection of the material presented difficulties for some
the adaptors. Three of the solo performers dealt with most
the artistically productive life of their particular author,
did An Evening‘s Frost. Tabori's adaptation of Brecht's life
works also included Brecht's views of life.

Williams limited his consideration of Dylan Thomas to Thomas'
iood years. Shyre was fortunate in that each volume of the
>biography concerned a segment of O'Casey's early life. There—
5, Shyre and Williams did not have the same type of problem as
others in selecting material which was representative of all
acts of an author's life.

None of the solo performers attempted to assume the appearance

Lis subject, although the reviewers sometimes thought an actor

 

 

 

 

"became" the at
and the group 1
elaborate sett
costume. The
out vignettes
out his narra'
the Windows w
where the act
and lecterns
the change we
bility than
In Brecht on
to the needs
limited mov<
the stools 2
Three
interior se
Of a chair
The featurr
Photograph
Scri
but they V
tatiOn we;
Drums Um

\
had a Scr

 

317

ecame" the author he was presenting. The acting in both the solo
d the group productions was praised by most of the critics.

An Evening's Frost and Drums Under the Windows used fairly
aborate settings——for oral interpretation productions, and used
stume. The actors in the third segment of O'Casey's life acted
t vignettes, while the performers in An Evening's Frost acted
t his narrative poems and segments of his life. Drums Under
e Windows was decidedly different from its tw0 predecessors,
ere the actors wore street clothes and were restricted to stools
.d lecterns in front of a oyclorama. According to adaptor Shyre,
.e change was necessary because the material required more flexi—
lity than the production method used in the previous two allowed.

Brecht on Brecht, the manner of presentation varied according

 

the needs of the material; with the actors using scripts and
mited movement for part of the evening, and then abandoning
e stools and scripts to act cut scenes from Brecht's plays.
Three solo productions used pieces of furniture to suggest
terior settings. The setting for the Thomas program consisted
a chair and a spotlighted screen with Thomas' signature on it.

e featured item in the Brecht on Brecht presentation was a large

 

otograph of the author glaring out at the audience.

Scripts or books were in evidence in all the productions,
b they were used primarily to remind the audience the presen—
tion was intended as a sharing of a literary experience. In
1ms Under the Windows and An Evening's Frost, only the narrator

i a script. Williams carried in a pile of notebooks at the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beginning of i
pretend to rez
The cri

of the review
life and work
very well dor
bring us to E
hutcmnmtt
was "not the;
in an audito
cannot prete
enraptured 11
Part c

ways of
whether
amature
Whether

is enouy

Two ti

tions w'

0f pros

of mean
unforge
Gassr

it "genuine

had reserve

out Of boo]

\
taoJ

t
21J

11221

518
inning of his program, but he did not read from them, or even
tend to read from them.

The critical response to A Boy Growing Up was fairly typical
the reviewers' feelings regarding the productions of an artist's
e and work as "theatre." Gassner thought the production was
y well done and very enjoyable, but he warned that "readings
ng us to a borderline between dramatic and non-dramatic art
t cannot be crossed without risk.”420 McClain maintained it

"not theatre" and felt Williams should present his program
an auditorium rather than in a theatre, but he confessed, "I
not pretend that I had a bad time."421 Driver was thoroughly
aptured with both A Boy Growing Up and I Knock at the Door.

Part of the delight of the theatre is that it has endless
ways of achieving its magic. We do not ask of it, therefore,
whether it is long or short, grand or petite, professional or
amature, old or new, conventional or unconventional. We ask
whether it has unique living moments. If they are there, it
is enough, what ever the means.

Two theatres in New York now happen to be presenting attrac-
tions which achieve their theatrical moments through readings
of prose works . . . . Both of them, by the most economical
of means, dispensing with the trappings of scenery, provide
unforgetable moments of the vivid imagination. 22

Gassner was impressed with Pictures in the Hallway, and called
'genuine theatre.” However, he hastened to add that he still

reservations about readings. "Dialogues and episodes carved

of books should not be considered substitutes for plays written

 

420

4

John Gassner, Theatre at the Crossroads, p. 288.

 

2[‘John McClain, New York Journal American, October 8, 1957.

 

#ZaTom F. Driver, Christian Century, October 30, 1957, p. 1288.

 

 

 

 

 

1&2}
as plays."

but he reportec'
maintained 239.
For the
After a re
does. It
stimulatir

pathos of
into the

'. '. '. {q
original
multitude

E i The pr
! write, "Here
. ‘ costumes, a1
than it has
this instan
acting of l
McCl:

His review
But lt' s p
the form ,

theatre .

 

 

319

plays."423 McClain did not think it was "exactly theatre,"

‘he reported it did not pretend to be theatre.421+ Atkinson

ntained Pictures in the Hallway was "theatre."

For the production of Pictures in the Hallway is theatre.
‘After a routine beginning it does the things that good theatre
does. It creates characters. It defines situations. By \
istimulating the imagination it brings alive the humor and
‘pathos of a group of people who are trying to fit themselves
into the scheme of life.

. . . not just a pleasant Sunday reading but a fresh and
original work of art. The passion had crowded the plank with
'multitudes, as in the classical tradition.425

The production of I Knock at the Door caused Herridge to
te, "Here is rich stirring theatre for all its economy of Set,
tumes, and movement. O'Casey's greatness is more in evidence
n it has been in some of his plays."426 Coleman felt that "in
s instance, that word 'reading' is misleading, for here is
ing of high order."427

McClain however, returned to his usual position on readings.
review of I Knock at the Door was entitled ”A Charming Tale——
It's Not 'Theatre.'" He explained that he had no quarrel with

form used; his objection was that it did not belong in the

atre. "I think clients visiting a legitimate theatre have a

 

423Gassner, __-p. 333., pp. 285—286.

424John McClain, New York Journal American, September 17, 1956,

 

4
25Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, September 17, 1956.

4
26Frances Herridge, New York Post, September 30, 1957,

a, P- 248.

 

 

4 .
27120bert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, October 3, 1957,
[11, p. 211-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

right to expe
any such."L+2E
McClai:
program, Diu
production t
acted out vi
evening in 1
gripping thi
spent in th
Criti
Brecht on E
it, but der
entire eve:
it as "the
deeply mov
and geope
Ln}

had acted

not» consi

320
ght to expect a.dramatic production, and this is a far cry from
L37 SUCh. "428

McClain was more favorably disposed.towards the third O'Casey

cogram, Drums Under the Windows, which was more of a theatrical

 

roduction than the first two, with costumes, some scenery, and

cted out vignettes. He described it as "a bright and rewarding

429

vening in the theatre." Coleman called it "stimulating and

ripping theatre . . . . one of the most rewarding evenings we've

430

pent in the ShOWShOpS this semester."
Critical opinion was sharply divided as to whether or not
Lgecht on Brecht constituted theatre. Herridge liked.some parts of

.t,'but decided that "it is not very solid or satisfying for an

”431

entire evening of theatre. The critic for the Villager labeled

.t as "theatre of the highest order: enlightening, illuminating,

ieeply moving and unexpectedly biting and witty, revealing the genius

.nd scope of Brecht as playwright, poet, and satirist."452

.An Evening‘s Frost, which used costumes and a setting and
ad acted out vignettes, incurred Gottfried's displeasure. He did

ot consider it "theatre," but he complained that the setting and

"433

astumes prevented it from being considered a "reading.

428John MCClain, New York Journal American, September 30, 1957,

(TOR, p. 249.

429 , October 14, 1960.

 

4
3ORobert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, October 14, 1960.

 

43’lFrances Herridge, New York Post, January 4, 1962.

 

4
32Villager, January 11, 1962.

 

43BMartin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, October 12, 1965.

 

 

 

who usually a}
that An Evenii
is theatre fo
things, of wh
This makes ti
bid merely t<
Once a

not oral int

remained fai

in Broadway

 

well done a:
as "theatre
All c

0f the crii

by an expr‘
appeal of

I; fact six c
I were final
justified
Produced
bECauSe p

than bee:

Which en

ran for

\
1+

 

 

 

321

usually appreciated oral interpretation productions, thought

t An Evening's Frost was ”theatre." "Some one once asked 'What
theatre for?’ It is not easy to answer that. It is for many
ngs, of which this, undoubtedly, is one of the most beautiful.

,s makes theatre something more than a caprice or a superficial

L merely to entertain. This goes into the human profundities."L+34

Once again, there was no uniformity of opinion as to whether or
; oral interpretation productions constituted "theatre." McClain
nained fairly consistent in his opposition to these presentations
Broadway theatres, although he admitted some of them were very
Ll done and were enjoyable. Other critics accepted some productions
"theatre,” but not others.

All of the productions obtained the endorsement of the majority
the critics. Frequently however, this endorsement was qualified
an expression of doubt on the part of the reviewer regarding the
peal of the production for the "general public." In View of the
at six of the productions had "limited runs," and at least two
re financial failures, it Would seem the critics' concern was
stified. Five of the six productions which had short runs were
)duced on Broadway. The sixth presentation, Miss Webster's Th3
3222s, was given off—Broadway and apparently had a "limited run”
:ause Miss Webster did not wish to extend her engagement rather
.n because of a lack of audience support. The three productions

Ch enjoyed considerable popularity were also off—Broadway productions.

ms Under the Windows ran for 109 performances, An Evening's Frost

 

for 132, and Brecht on Brecht ran for 424.

 

 

434Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 13, 1965.

—¥—,

 

 

This (:1
which did no
presentation

V Dear Liar we
!

Mrs. Campb ei

 

Clay was wr
Similar to
Production:
brief summ

haVe been
the diffe:

it Onl
! Clearly f
The Test
between .
attempte
"questic

The Wri-

belief

part, c

This b.

 

 

A

 

CHAPTER VII

MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTIONS

'Dhis chapter is a heterogeneous amalgamation of productions
whidh did not fit into the three preceding chapters. Two of the

presentations, MOby Dick and U.S.A. were adaptations of novels;

 

Dear Liar was a.dramatization of the correspondence between Shaw and

 

Mrs. Campbell; Under Milk Wood was written for radio; and Telemachus

 

 

Clay was written specifically for presentation in a manner quite
Similar to that used by several of the more formal oral interpretation

productions. In the discussions of Under Milk Wood and of Moby Dick,

 

 

brief summaries of productions outside the limitations of the study
have been included so that the reader might compare and contrast
the different versions.

Only Dear Liar and the initial presentation of Under Milk Wood

 

clearly fit the definition of oral interpretation used in this study.

The rest are mutants which belong somewhere in that nebulous area

 

between oral interpretation and "regular" theatre. The writer has
attempted, at the beginning of the discussion of each of these
”questionable" productions, to justify its presence in the study.
Dhe writer’s general rationale for including these hybrids is the
)elief that they are a part, though perhaps only a very peripheral
>art, of the total picture of professional oral interpretation.
‘his belief is strengthened by the fact the critics frequently

322

IIIIIIIIIIIIII'll-Illlllllllll-I-nr——

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

classify thes
refer to then
within the de
one presenta
the only pro
Broadway prc

more than 1(

Herms
Phoenix The
the Phoeni‘
Howard Rod
Presented
Of this si
review, a:

made freq
a brief c"

Th<
Pole for
“mantis
the scri
did the

lightin
\
’i

523

Lassify these productions as some variety of a "reading,” and often
efer to them in reviews of later presentations which are clearly
ithin the definition of oral interpretation.

Moby Dick was the only solo production inthis chapter, and only
ne presentation, Dear Liar, appeared on Broadway. This was also
,he only production to have well—known performers. Two of the off—
Sroadway productions, Telgmachus Clay and U.S.A. enjoyed runs of

more than 100 performances.

Moby Dick

Herman Melville's Moby Dick first appeared on stage at the
?hoenix Theatre on April 26, 1955, as part of the "sideshow series"
the Phoenix sponsored throughout the season. Jerome Kilty directed
ioward Rodman's adaptation of the novel. Although it was only
presented once, and is therefore technically outside the limitations
3f this study, several critics considered it important enough to
review, and critiques of the later solo production of Moby Dick
made frequent reference to the Phoenix presentation. Consequently,
1 brief discussion of it has been included.

The simple setting represented a ship. It consisted of a tall
)ole for a mast, a platform for the deck, a few barrels, and some
mnautical music stands. Kerr suggested that the music stands and
he scripts they held suggested the H.M.S. Pinafore as much as they
id the PequOd.’I The production also utilized a sky—blue backdrop,

- - . . . 2
lghting effects, and original muSic.

W

1Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, April 27, 1955.

2Grif., Variety, May 4, 1955: P- 54-

¥,

 

 

 

Wan

 

Adaptor
Kerr followed
it as one of ‘
called it "an
as a "combine
The reviewer
been unable
like hon—Jug
their scrip“
Kerr
Passages an
the Perforn
Sized orche
and some 5'
The
it an exoi
described

adflLitted j
\

3AI

Ke

 

524
.Adaptor Rodman called it a "staged reading,” andGelb and
Kerr followed his suggestion in their reviews.3 Nathan classified
it as one of "those dramatic reading exhibits,"L+ and Coleman simply
called it ”an adaptation."5
Moby Dick was presented in what the Variety critic described
as a "combination of narration, reading, acting and pantomime."6
The reviewer for the Morning Telegraph complained that Rodman had
been unable to decide whether to structure the material as a reading,
like Don Juan in Hell, or as a drama, a la The Caine Mutiny Court
Martial. As a result, ”the actors ran from their lecterns holding
their scripts into vigorous dramatic actions.”7
Kerr reported the players alternated between "open dramatic
passages and rather relaxed sessions with the script." He noted
‘the performers were supported by a number of sea chanteys, a good—
sized orchestra, ”an evocative assortment of off—stage halloos,
and some surprisingly elaborate thunder—andrlightening effects.”8
The only reviewer who liked Moby Dick was Coleman, who found
it an exciting and rewarding evening.9 The critic for Variety
described it as interesting, though not very successful.10 Gelb

admitted it was a "highly professional production," with moments ,

 

 

:Arthur Gelb, New York Times, April 27, 1955, p. 26.

Kerr,lgg.p§£.

4George Jean Nathan, New York Journal American, June 18, 1955.

5Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror, April 26, 1955. ;
6Grif., !£!3.'gi3. 7New York Morning Telegraph, May 5, 1955. /

. O . .
8Kerr, loc. cit. 9Coleman, loc. Cit. 1 Grif., loc. Cit.

 

 

 

 

oibeauty, but
and suggested
smoessfully g
with the combf
The cas
And. The na
favorably by
only the pra:
amstituted
and accused
were ”more <
thunders. 1

smoldering
SiVQ Chin—w
acting, ‘T
fury, than
at a page.
actor‘s e}

I d

When'

actor

with

audie

great
and 1

 

325

  
 
   
   
  
   
  
 

f beauty, but he thought the stage adaptation was somewhat fruitless,
d suggested the motion picture medium was the only one which could
uccessfully grasp the scope of the novel.11 Kerr was dissatisfied
ith the combination of narration and action.12 Nathan left early.13
The cast of eighteen was headed by Morris Carnovsky as Captain
hab. The narrator, Ishmael, played by Paul Sparer, was mentioned
avorably by most of the critics, but Carnovsky's performance won
nly the praise of Coleman.14 Gelb complained Rodman's adaptation
ubstituted a lackluster Captain Ahab for the demented avenger,
d accused Carnovsky of playing the part as though the Captain
ere "more cantankerous than possessed. He growls rather than
hunders. His subdued performance conveys sullenness rather than

15

‘moldering fury." Kerr thought Carnovsky looked like ”an impres—

sive chin-whiskered Ahab," but disliked his mixture of reading and
acting. "Mr. Carnovsky's arm is no sooner raised, in magestic
fury, than he must drop it to glance over his shoulder and look

it a page. The theatrical gesture rides toward the heavens; the

6

LCtor's eye is glued to the music stand.“l Nathan grumbled:

I think I have as elastic an imagination as the next man, but
when I am requested to imagine as the vengeful Captain Ahab an
actor with a slight Yiddish accent bursting his blood vessels
with excitement in [sicg triumphantly pointing out into the
audience at Brooks Atkinson and identifying him as the vicious
great white whale, I believe I am to be forgiven for vamoosing
and hieing me in a hurry right over to Luchow's.17

~_______
11Gelb, ioc, cit. 12Kerr, loc. cit. 13Nathan, £10.- cit.
14

Coleman, 100. cit. 15Gelb, £02. £33.16Kerr,£. p_i_t_.

17

Nathan, loc. cit.

 

 

 

None of ’E
Melville‘s novr
it was very (1r,
citement. He
sermon on J one
the booth/‘8 I

narration and

Instead
the scene
two endlr
each rob‘

It's a
kind of
plunge i
Here the
by seemi
narrativ

later k

this pa

The (

the Stage ,
and The Ca
0f Present
Gregory f(
I d

day '1‘
Paul
acne}
that

late;
Thea

\
18

2(

2

 

326

None of the reviewers had.anything disparaging to say about
elville's novel in its original form. The Variety critic observed
t was very dramatic as a novel, but the stage version lacked ex-

itement. He also objected to adapter Rodman's deletion of the

ermon on Jonah, which he regarded as one of the key passages of

he book.18 Kerr objected to the way in which Rodman mixed the

arration and the action

Instead of using the narration to set a scene and then letting
the scene play itself out, Mr. Rodman has preferred to blend the
two endlessly; they tangle, twist, and bump into each other,
each robbing the other of cumulative effect.

It's always possible to read a work aloud and arrive at one
kind of impact; it's also possible to throw out the reading,
plunge into sustained dialogue, and arrive at another kind.
Here the semi-dramatization teases us away from the narration
by seeming to promise us something more; and the fact that the
narration is going to come sneaking back about two seconds
later keeps the promise from ever being realized. In the end,
this particular mixture of forms is merely frustrating.19

The critic for the Morning Telegraph, as noted earlier, thought

the stage version was an unfortunate cross between Don Juan in Hell
and The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.20 Coleman described the manner

)f presentation as similar to the style developed by Laughton and

tregory for Don Juan in Hell and John Brown’s Body.21

I don't know how you feel about it, but I am ready to call it a
day for those dramatic reading exhibits. Some of them, notably
Paul Gregory's reader show of Shaw's "Don Juan in Hell,” have been
acceptable, but there have been so many bad imitations since then
that the whole idea has worn out its theatrical welcome. The
latest one, a reading of Melville's Moby Dick down at the Phoenix
Theatre, was the last straw.

Nathan wrote:

___~_______________
18Grif., loc. cit. 19Kerr, 122. cit.
20

New York Morning Telegraph, loc. cit.

21Coleman, loc. cit. 22Nathan, leg. cit.

 

 

 

Moby Dick

Playhouse and,
2 ..
victim. 5 Phl-

novel on April

Setting and A<
Hanson,

appeared on a
The only proy
own music, 5
self on a zi

effective."Z

Classificat
The 1
the pro due

a "one—man

formaljme .l

m
Her.

his facie

 

327

Moby Dick surfaced again six years later at the Madison Avenue
layhouse and, to paraphrase Frances Herridge, claimed another
ictim.23 Philip Hanson opened in his own one—man arrangement of the

ovel on April 10, 1961.

etting and Accesories
Hanson, wearing a black turtle—necked sweater and black slacks,
ppeared on an almost empty stage in front of a black backdrop.
e only props were a chair and a small bench. Hanson provided his
wn music, singing a variety of sea chanteys and accompanying him—
elf on a zither.2z+ The lighting was described as "dramatic and

25

ffective.”

classification

 

The reviewers were fairly uniform in their classification of

26

the production. The various labels included a "one—man show,”

2 . 28
a "one—man arrangement," 7 a "one—man vers1on," and a "solo per—

formance."29

4anner of Presentation

Hanson portrayed eighteen characters by changing his voice,

1is facial expression, his walk and his gestures for each character.

 

____________________
23Frances Herridge, New York Post, April 11, 1961.
2LiRobert Coleman, New York Mirror, April 11, 1961.
25Kali., Variety, May 3, 1961, p- 82~

26Louis Calta, New York Times, April 11, 1961, p. 41.

Herbert Kupferberg, New York Herald Tribune, April 11, 1961.

Whitney Balliett, The New Yorker, April 22, 1961, p. 118.
27

Coleman, loc. cit. 28Herridge, loc. pip. 29Kali., gpg._gi§.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII'll-Illllll---______i

 

 

He did not use
not like the P3

to take two si

W
O‘Conno:
Coleman headl
rest of the c
with good in'
literature , "
only in redt
sohoolboys.‘
tation, "Ca
fairly well
with making
Mish'
311d Mr. Ha
thing is t
and "hero-

TeViewer

   

528

 
  
   
     
 
  
  

e did not use a book or manuscript at any time.30 Schmidt, who did
ot like the production, wrote that Hanson jumped "from side to side

"31

0 take two sides in a dialogue involving ocean ship and whale.

erdict
O'Connor entitled his review, "Whale of 1—Man Show";2 and
oleman headlined his report "Hanson Puts over 'Mbby Dick'"33 The
est of the critics vetoed the production. Herridge credited Hanson
ith good intentions in his attempt "to recreate a great work of
iterature,” but reported that he failed miserably and succeeded
nly in reducing "the soaring allegory . . . to a bedtime story for

choolboys.”54

Kupferberg began his review with the Biblical quo-
ation, ”Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook?" He thought that
fairly well summed up what Hanson had tried to do and credited him
with making a magnificent, though not entirely successful, attempt.35

Mishkin concluded his review, "So far as Melville's 'Moby Dick‘
1nd Mr. Hanson are concerned, there is only this to be said: this
:hing is bigger than both of us."36 Calta praised Hanson's courage
1nd "herculean try," but he did not like the production.37 The

reviewer for The New Yorker left after the first half of the program}8

 

30

Jim O'Connor, New York Journal American, April 11, 1961.

31Sandra Schmidt, Village Voice, April 20, 1961.

3

2O'Conner, loc. cit. BBColeman, loc. cit.

4
3 Herridge, loc. cit. 35Kupferberg, loc. cit.

36Leo Mishkin, New York Morning Telegraph, April 12, 1961.
37Calta, loc. git.
38

Balliett, loc. cit.

_;

 

I
W
interest only ‘

L. 39
aCtlIlg.

Acting

The rev:
but generally
Although O'Cc

he had to adr

monotonous a‘

1‘ characters i
trayals and

I

ambitious."

t . ': way in whic
7' V Sim-1811 crot

' ' Of his act:
Mr. 1
his ch
amazin
eyes E
for eE
face.
Flash
Mis
indicatic

majesty"

 

 

329

Will Street Journal critic Cooke feared the evening would be of

 

.nterest only to those interested in Moby Dick, or whales, or protean
Lcting.39
The reviewers paid tribute to Hanson's aspirations and courage,
uut generally they were not impressed with his histrionic talents.
,lthough O'Connor was one of the two critics who liked the production,
Le had to admit two hours of watching just one man became "a little
monotonous at times."LiO The Variety critic found some of Hanson's
:haracters interesting, but complained they were only surface por—
trayals and the overall effect Hanson created was "diffuse and over~

ambitious."LH

Saffron liked some of Hanson's work, but disliked the
way in which three of his characters “often melt together in the same

simian crouch and the by—cracky New England dialect."42 Schmidt wrote

 
  
     
    
  
  
   
   
  
 

of his acting:

Mr. Hanson counts on the language to give individuality to
his characters, using accent, diction, and pitch to create an
amazing number and variety of voices. To give the audience's
eyes something to do, he has chosen a distinguishing gesture
for each voice. Captain Ahab has a stiff leg and glowering
face. Starbuck stands very straight with his fists clenched.
Flash Squats and wipes his hands down the back of his pants.43

Mishkin was satisfied that Hanson provided suitable "surface
indications" of the various characters, but missed the "sweep and

majesty" of the novel.4h Calta found Hanson lacking in his ability

 

39Richard P. Cooke, Wall Street Journal, April 15, 1961.
1+0

 

O'Connor, loc. cit. HqKali., loc. cit.

L,
2Robert Saffron, New York WorldeTelegram and Sun, April 11, 1961_
43

SChmidt, loc. cit. khMishkin, loc. cit.

   

 

 

 

to "re-create t
regretfully adm
Michael MacLiaI
ship."Li6 Herr
Ahab tak
varying th
screams in
eifete dec
saw in him
little m0]
listeners,
The con
material for
"Confining '1
0f impossiblt
"Sir Laureno
Empire plus
MelVille's n
Scope of the
cult, if no-
that, with
enjoyed "be
Hanson migk
he Chosen (

scope the 1

 

330

o "re—create the proper sense of magic and illusion."L+5 Coleman

egretfully admitted Hanson was "no John Gielgud, Emlyn Williams,

ichael MacLiammoir or Hal Holbrook when it comes to solo showman-

hip."Li6 Herridge wrote of Hanson's characterizations:

Ahab takes on the sepulchral tones of the ghost in 'Hamlet,’
varying the monotony only when he shouts 'There she blows' and
screams imprecations at the invisible foe. Ishmael becomes an
effete deckhand with no hint of the detached artist that Melville
saw in him. Queequeg, the ship's mates and carpenter become

little more than oddball sketches with which to amuse young
listeners.47

aterial

The consensus of opinion regarding the suitability of the
aterial for stage presentation was summed up by Saffron, who wrote,
‘Confining 'Moby Dick' to the stage seems to be the same defiance

>f impossible odds as Ahab's quest of the whale." He doubted if

Sir Laurence Olivier plus all the thespian knights of the British
mpire plus all our own Tony Award peerage could pul . [Sim]

. 4
elszlle's masterpiece on the stage." 8 Calta suggested the limited

cope of the theatre and the magnitude of the novel made it diffi—
ult, if not impossible, to fit the saga on the stage. He felt
hat, with the possible exception of films, Moby Dick was best

njoyed "between covers."]+9 The critic for Variety suggested

 
  
  

anson might have had better success with the Melville epic had

e chosen one segment of the novel rather than attempting to tele—

cope the whole saga.50 The New Yorker reviewer was distressed to

HSCalta, loc. cit. breColeman, 3.22. git.
48

4 .
7Herrldge , 1.22. cit.

Saffron, loc. cit. HgCalta, lcc. c_i§. 50Kali., _l_g_c_. cit.

 

 

find Hanson bad

compared this i

Comprisons
Hal Holb

probably becat‘

produced Milk

mances of Gie

n referred to t
”Morris Carm

words."54
Schmid

was running
both Thomas
plays "for
bring M
and techni.
to recreat

all by him

 

 

331
‘ind Hanson had omitted the sermon in the seamen's chapel. He

ompared this to "serving an artichoke without its heart."51

omparisons

Hal Holbrook's one—man show was mentioned three times,52
robably because John Lotos, who produced Hanson's show, also
reduced Mark Twain Tonight! Coleman also cited the solo perfor—
ances of Gielgud, Williams, and MacLiammoir.53 Three reviewers
‘eferred to the Phoenix production when, as Saffron recalled,
Morris Carnovsky and a large cast were becalmed in a sea of
rords."5l+

Schmidt referred to the production of Under Milk Wood, which
was running at that time at the Circle in the Square, and noted

both Thomas' poem and Melville's novel had been transformed into

 

‘ lays "for the ears."55 Mishkin compared Hanson's attempt to
ring Moby Dick to life with what would happen "if a highly talented,
d technically expert concert singer hired Town Hall, for instance,
to recreate, let us say, all four of the Wagnerian Ring Cycle operas ‘

ll by himself."56 Moby Dick went under after seven performances.

 

51Balliett, loc. cit.

5%{ali. , loc. cit.
Coleman, loc. cit.
Herridge, loc. cit.

55

Coleman , lo 0 . cit .

n

5 Saffron, loc. cit.
Coleman, 100. cit.
Herridge, loc. cit.

55

Schmidt, loc. git. 56Mishkin, log. Eli.

 

The first
category to be
Thomas had worl
than ten years
ln19113, the B
a short radio
seaside town.
program was v
The dreams of

activities I‘(
the radio ta?
The ra
expand it.
residents 0:
four hour t
about two-t
0“ May it,
and the Re
and was re

Timfi can
\

57D
(New York

 

 

332
Under Milk Wood

The first of the group productions in the miscellaneous
category to be presented was Welsh poet Dylan Thomas' Under Milk Wood.
Thomas had worked intermittently on this "play for voices" for more
than ten years and completed it about a month before his death.

In 1945, the British Broadcasting Company commissioned Thomas to do
a short radio talk. He decided to describe a small mythical Welsh

seaside town. He called it Quite Early One Morning, and although the

 

program was very brief, it was the forerunner of Under Milk Wood.

 

The dreams of the sleeping townfolk were revealed and their morning
activities reported. Some of the same characters who appeared in
the radio talk appeared in Under Milk Wood.

The radio program was so successful that Thomas decided to
expand it. He tried to develop some sort of a plot to involve the
residents of Llareggub, but eventually he decided to use a twenty-
four hour time sequence as his framework. Under Milk Wood was only
about two—thirds complete when it was read at the Kaufmann Auditorium
on May 14, 1953. Thomas himself read the parts of the First Voice
and the Reverend Eli Jenkins.57 The reading was very well received

58

and was repeated two weeks later. The reviewer for the New York

TTimes called the May 14 production the "world premiere” of Under
_____________________

57Dylan Thomas, Under Milk Wood, with a preface by Daniel Jones
(New York: New Direction Books, 1954), Pp- Vii—x.

8 . . .
5 Apparently none of the critics attended the first performance,
and unfortunately, the writer has only been able to find three
reviews for the May 28, 1953, presentation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Milk Mood.59

indicates the

6<
Togg Museum.

Settin and A
Six per
At the back <

indicated th

Classificati

The re
production,
critic deso
reading Vog
it as a "1‘6

called Unde

Mame 2-
“it

Abou

\

59H

60

r
tsseme a
of wiggon

555
Milk Wood.59 However, Monroe's thesis, "The Group Reading of Drama"
indicates the "voice play" was first presented in 1952 at Harvard's

Fogg Museum.60

Setting and Accessories
Six performers sat on stools with music stands in front of them.
At the back of the stage was a cyclorama on which lighting changes

indicated the passage of time. The players wore ordinary dress.61

Classification

The reviewer for the New York Times did not classify the
production, but called the material a "verse play."62 The Variety
critic described the presentation as the "latest in the dramatic
reading vogue."63 Saturday Review critic Henry Hewes characterized

it as a "reading piece."6l1L Nancy Wickwire, one of the performerS,

called Under Milk Wood a "concert reading."65

Manner of Presentation
About sixty—five inhabitants of Llareggub were introduced,

with each of the performers, with the exception of Thomas, reading

 

 

59H. B., New York Times, May 29, 1955: P- 17-

60Elizabeth Annette Monroe, "The Group Reading of Drama: Its
Essence and Aesthetic Principles" (unpublished dissertation, University
of Wisconsin, 1965), p- 33.

61Ibid. 62113., 100. cit.

63Vene., Variety, June 3, 1955: P- 58-
6[Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, June 6, 1953, p. 25.

65Letter from Miss Nancy Wickwire to the author, June 3, 1968.

Miss Wickwire also participated in The Golden Age.

 

 

 

 

 

many parts. T
manuscripts on

recalled every

W
The rev
understandab]
other audiem
towns.68 Th
brow audienc
Vigorous ven
production :

theatre exp

MAE
Appe:
COllins, S
described
Out Nancy
to a wide
intI‘Oduct
of the m
the othe

reading

\
6%

6

334
. 66
many parts. The players never left their stools. They had
manuscripts on the stands in front of them, but actress Wickwire

6?

recalled everyone had his lines completely memorized.

Verdict
The reviewer for Variety thought Under Milk Wood was "easily
understandable," with sufficient humor and drama to appeal to
other audiences, particularly those in college and university
towns.68 The New York Times critic reported, "The generally high—
brow audience reSponded enthusiastically both to the Welsh poet's
"69

vigorous versification and vigorous wit. Hewes described the

production as "probably the richest and certainly the earthiest

theatre experience this season."'70

Acting

Appearing with Thomas were Dion Allen, Roy Poole, Allen
Collins, Sada Thompson, and Nancy Wickwire. The Variety critic
described the performers as a "uniformly good group." He singled
out Nancy Wickwire for the emotional depth and subtlty she brought
to a wide range of characters, and Thomas for his reading of the

7’!

introductory and narrative sections. Hewes called Thomas "one
of the most effective poetry readers in the business," and praised

the other members of the company for their clear and intelligent

reading of a script which required them to make rapid shifts into

 

 

Monroe, 100. cit. 67Wickwire, loc. cit. 68Vene., loc. cit.
69 7 7

OHewes, loc. cit. 1Vene., loc. cit.

H. B., loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a wide range of
occasional con:
but felt this
presented in E
Ting wrote tl
and taste.“

competent“ an

M
the strange
AS noted pre
People to, '
wrote of th
language."rt
actually ":
Stmcture,
a Circulal
and endin,

dramatist
found the
M13 Thom;
The revi

\

7;
7

555
a wide range of dialects and age brackets. Hewes did admit to
occasional confusion as to the identity of some of the characters,
but felt this was inevitable with so many different people being

72

presented in such a short time. The reviewer for the New York
Times wrote that the cast "attacked the poetry with intelligence
and taste." He described all the performers as "better than

competent" and found Actresses Wickwire and Thompson "outstanding",73

Material

Under Milk Wood presented twenty-four hours in the lives of
the strange and wonderful people of a Welsh village named Llareggub.
As noted previously, Thomas tried to develop a plot to attach his
people to, but he found it toorestricting and so abandoned it. He
wrote of the lack of a plot, "I guess I just got boozed up on the
language.”74 The New York Times critic pointed out the play was
actually "not a play," at least in the sense of the usual dramatic
structure. Instead of developing from beginning to end, it used
a circular sort of progression, with the story beginning one night
and ending the next. He thought Thomas was more effective as a
dramatist "in the transitions from one verbal scene to another," and
found the verse easy to understand, "in spite of the fact that
Mr. Thomas can be a highly difficult 'modern' in his straight poetry."75

The reviewer for Variety was especially impressed with the portraits

Thomas painted of the people of Llareggub.76 Hewes also wrote of

 

, #
72Hewes, loc. cit. 73H-B-, $22~.E£E~ 7 Hewes, l22-.Ei£-

75 76

H.B., loc. cit. Vene., loc. cit.

—

 

 

 

 

the colorful d6
Hewes was the <
pointed out th

WWW

Comparisons

The M
bawdy panorar
commentator
and then the
admitted E

‘01)1‘ Town,‘
for the his
England cox
Ways the o
richness c
likened T]
Character
the drama
Th
memorial
Kaufmm

rial F11;
\

f

r

556
the colorful descriptions of the characters and their activities.
Hewes was the only critic to refer to the origin of the play as he
pointed out that it was "more radio documentary than it is stage

"77

drama.

Comparisons

The New York Times critic described Under Milk Wood as "a vast
bawdy panoramic pastoral, a Welsh 'Our Town,' in which an omnipresent
commentator sets the scenes or the situations or the relationships
and then the actors take over the dialogue that unfolds."’78 Hewes
admitted Under Milk Wood might be called "the Welsh version of
'Our Town,'" but he pointed out that Wilder's play was a "lament
for the missed richness of life in a strict and outwardly sane New
England community," while Thomas' work was a "celebration of the
ways the outwardly peculiar persons of Llareggub each find the

"79

richness of life in his or her own fashion. The Variety reviewer
likened Thomas to Dickens in his ability to draw vivid, concise
character sketches. He also called the production the "latest in
the dramatic reading Vogue."80
Thomas died in November of 1955. On February 8, 1954, a
memorial performance of Under Milk Wood was presented at the

Kaufmann Auditorium. The proceeds went to the Dylan Thomas Memo—

rial Fund. Everyone, including the ushers, donated their services

 

77Hewes, loc. cit. 78H. B., loc. cit.

79

Hewes, loc. cit. 8OVene., loc. cit.

 

 

 

for the eveniné
hadread. The
thetwo readin
Brooks Atkins
Hefound this
‘in its own 1
second, for '
because of t
was similar
and Lhn_B<
specificall

Not t
death i
might l
the Eng
Origin:

As t‘
passio
tions
Wood"
a Sim]

Pro]
conqu

"D011

'8th

f0er

POWe]

toge-

duct
the

"find

\
8,

8

557
for the evening. Broadway actor Walter Abel read the parts Thomas
had read. The other cast members were the same ones who had done
the two readings with Thomas the preceding year.81

Under Milk Wood was published by New Directions in 1951+, and

 

Brooks Atkinson wrote an article on the significance of the play.
‘He found this "verse drama" important for three reasons: first,
"in its own right as vigorous writing and hearty characterization,"
‘second, for the contrast it provided with Our Town, and third,
because of the originality of the form. Although Under Milk Wood
was similar to the Laughton—Gregory productions of Don Juan in Hell
and John Brown's Body, it was different in that it was written
Specifically to be read. Atkinson discussed this at some length.

Not the least reason for regretting Mr. Thomas' untimely
death is the fact that out of this interesting experiment he
might have created a theatre form that would have restored
the English speaking drama to the simple candor it had
originally.

As the old phrase puts it, the theatre is a plank and a
passion. Its sole function is to communicate ideas and emo—
tions through actors to an audience. To read "Under Milk
Wood" is to realize how extravagant, cumbersome and complex
a simple art has become in the theatre.

Probably "Under Milk Wood” is too light and diffuse to
conquer an audience in a large theatre as triumphantly as
"Don Juan in Hell" and "John Brown's Body" did. The sub—
stance is not sufficiently dramatized. But it is a long step
forward toward the creation of a form that could have great
power in the theatre and could put an author and an audience
together without the interposition of a formal theatre pro—
duction. If the professional theatre is ever smothered under
the dead weight of its own top heavy structure, the form of
”Under Milk Wood" could provide a fresh beginning.82

 

 

8l1I.ewis Funke, New York Times, February 7, 1954, Sec. II, p. 1.

82Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, May 16, 1954, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under Milk W006

_______._.——-—-

The "plai
production in
host of the 52
play was far I
this presenta
a brief disct
very differs]

The pe
pheric" and
flexible am
discloses a
to provide
across 0le
He complai

the author

question:
\
831:

W3 Pl

 

558

Under Milk Wood on Broadway

The "play for voices" came to Broadway as a fully staged
production in 1957, after a triumphant run in London's West End.
Most of the same cast appeared in the New York version, but the
play was far less successful than it had been in England. Although
this presentation is obviously not an oral interpretation production,
a brief discussion is included so that the reader may compare two
very different forms of presentation of the same material.

The performers wore costumes which were described as "atmos~
pheric" and appropriate for seaside villagers. The setting was
flexible and served for numerous changes of locale. '% light
discloses an old sea captain on a balcony, little curtains part
to provide peeps into privacy, a split level leads under trees,

"83 Chapman did not like it.

across clover and among lovers.
He complained it failed to capture any of the "essential beauty of
the author's many images."81+ Atkinson began his review with the

85

question: "Why the scenery?"

 

83Frank Aston, New York World-Tele ram and Sun, October 16, 1957,
NYTCR, p. 22h.

8L+J0h11 Chapman, New York Daily News, October 16, 1957, NYTCIL
p. 223. '
85

Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, October 16, 1957, p. 42.

 

 

 

" - -57”,

 

Six of ti
noted it had b1
to what was th
rical arrangen

The shov
for the thirtj
as they prese

One actor, Dc
stage on Thor
over to the e
and two crit
dranatizatic
much verbalz‘
Atkinson to
they shatte
breathing,

and beauty,

\

86110
ml p.

Jc
W3 P.

E 224.

\3 pl

 

559
Six of the critics called Under Milk Wood a play.86 Kerr
noted it had been a "radio play” in its original form and referred

to what was then being presented on Broadway as the "current theat—

87

rical arrangement.”

The show had a very large cast but it was still necessary
for the thirty—two performers to double up on many of the parts
as they presented the "idlers, soaks, gossips, and philanders."88
One actor, Donald Houston, served as the narrator who ”sets the
stage on Thomas‘s brilliant verbiage and then turns the proceedings

over to the actors."89 The players acted out much of the poem,

and two critics took issue with what they considered to be over-

dramatization. The critic for Variety complained that "amidst so
. . . 9O
much verbalization the staging is almost extraneous Visualization."

Atkinson found the stage pictures "distracting” and complained

they shattered the solidity of the poem. "The great image of a

. . . e
breathing, living, aimless community has been reduced in 812

and beauty."91

 

October 16, 1957:

86Robert Coleman, New York Daily Mirror,

NYTCR p. 223. .
, John McClain, New York Journal American,
NYTCR . 225.
, pRichard WattS, Jr., New York Post, October 16,

October 16, 1957,

1957, NYTCR,

 

p. 224.
Chapman, log. git.
Aston, 1223 git.
Atkinson, log. EEE'
87Walter Kerr, N53L§933;§§g§;§;23;22227
EB, 19. 223.

88

October 16, 1957a

89McClain, loc. cit.

68.

Coleman, loc. cit.
Landi., Variety, October 25, 1957, P-

91Atkinson, loo. cit.

90

ll

The most
it was a rathei
that they must
‘visual poetry
of the public
be thought th<
Watts refused

their respons
to the theat:

dramatic int

 

to be satisf
tiful much
"Maybe you
Play as "a
most audio]

 

 

340
The most favorable reaction to the play came from Aston, and
it was a rather qualified endorsement. He warned prospective audiences
that they must ”expect to use an inner eye to get the most from the
'Visual poetry'" of Under Milk Wood. He was afraid only a "fringe"
of the public would be willing to put forth this extra effort, but
he thought those who were willing would like the play a great deal.92

Watts refused to urge his readers to go or not to go because he felt

their response to the play would depend entirely on what they went

to the theatre for. He personally found it ”too piecemeal in its

dramatic interest and too lacking in cumulative theatrical power

 

to be satiSfying on the stage." He admitted there were some beau—

tiful moments in the production, and he ended his review with,
"Maybe you should see 'Under Milk Wood."'93 Chapman described the
" but doubted ‘

Play as "a lovely and mildly theatrical stage poem,

4 .
most audiences would be very interested in it.9 McClain suggested

the Play was a treat——but for a very limited clientele.

e a delight in the alliteration and
the Whimsy and the strange tricks that can be played with our
0 can weave their own web of imagery
the present.

language. It is for those wh .
around the peOple in a small town in Wales, time:_ . . .
For these few it is a poetic and wonderfully gratifying expos1tion
of almost everything.9

It is for the few who hav

Coleman found the play "too macabre" and thought it presented

the Welsh in an uncomplementary light. He recommended the evening
n96 . .
fornpessimistS, Stoics, or devotees of Dylan Thomas. Kerr dlSllked

______________________
. 9L1L '
9ZAston, loc. cit. 93Watts, EES- £££° Chapman, 222- 2&3'

96Coleman, 100. cit.

_.——-

95McClain, loc. cit.

 

 

 

the manner in w
as a sort of "c
had been extrel
formers were 5
And yet,
work of a1
broken in‘
capturing
distance,
frenetic
Nearly
and partioul
of Coleman,
impressed w:
English lan
Once
M and g
tiveness,
Coleman 4;}
Vided his
were more
for the :
fically
for the

heavily
\-

9

341
the manner in which the play was presented. He thought it was done
as a sort of "clodhopping farce."9l7 Atkinson felt director Cleverdon
had been extremely skillful in his staging and he admitted the per—
formers were superb, but he did not think the results were successful.

And yet, alaS, the staged version of ”Under Milk Wood" is a
work of art torn out of context. It is the portrait of a town
broken into little pieces. It is busy and diffuse. Instead of
capturing the languid meditative mood of a town seen from a long
distance, it breaks in small fragments, and the town seems to be
frenetic and shrill.98

Nearly all the critics had praise for the acting in general

and particularly for narrator Donald Houston. With the exception

0f COleman, the reviewers liked the material and were especially

impressed with Thomas' flare for bringing out the beauty of the

English language.

tween Under Milk

Once again, several comparisons were made be

EQEQ and Our Town. Watts felt Our Town had more dramatic effec—

. . 99
tlveness, but Under Milk Wood was richer in verbal beauty.
Coleman thought Wilder was the better stage poet because he pro—

vided his play with a story line, but he had to admit Thomas' lines
were more beautifu1.1oo Atkinson found Our Town much better suited
for the stage and reminded his readers Wilder had written it speci—
fically for the stage, while Thomas had written Under Milk Wood
oth productions relied

for the radioilo’l McClain and Chapman noted b

heavily on a narrator.

 

98Atkinson, loc. cit. 99Watts, 100. cit.

97Kerr, loc. cit.
qooColeman, loc. cit. qothkinson, loo. cit.

102McClain, loc. cit.
Coleman, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

As one u
fully staged l

was also not :

Under Milk WC

 

The Th<
when it was
only ten pec
five platfo:
latticed 50
According t

of Wales",
capitalize
effects wh
sudden ble
the proce
Which loo
ceaseless
the prod
plays“)
Mc

dllction
\
l

342
As one might surmise from the reviews, Under Milk Wood, as a
'ully staged Broadway presentation, was not a critical success. It

was also not a popular success. It closed after thirty—nine performances.
lnder Milk Wood at the Circle in the Square

The Thomas poem next attracted critical attention in March of 1961,
when it was produced by the Circle in the Square. This version had
only ten people and very simple settings. The scenery consisted of
five platforms toward the back of the stage, a few stools, and some
latticed screens at the rear. The performers wore gray and black.103
According to critic Taubman, the music suggested "the melodic largesse
of Wales."’lOLP Balliett thought the lighting director failed to
capitalize on the opportunity to develop some spectacular lighting
effects which could have been achieved through the use of pin spots,
sudden blackouts and subtle shifting of light levels. He complained
the proceedings were carried on primarily under "brilliant illumination
which looks right through the little dreams and ghosts that rustle
105

ceaselessly through Thomas's poems." The few critics who reviewed

the production did not classify it beyond observing it was "not a

Most of the ten performers played several roles. "The pro—

duction provided swift vignettes in speech, action and song,"

 

103mm F. Driver, Christian Centur_'y, April 26, 1961, p. 535.

104 -
Howard Taubman, New York Times, March 30, 1961, p. 25.

105Whitney Balliett, The New Yorker, April 8, 1961, p. 154.

106Driver, 100. cit.

—

 

 

 

 

 

reported Taubnu
pretended they
pretended the}
in various ot‘.
of the presen
suited the me
in which the
palpable con
such motion.
Drive

would enjoy
more satisi
and the fi
Kaufmarm a
was not t}
because t‘
eye. the
Dick and
actor, h
"admirat

much.

\
«1

345
107

ported Taubman. The cast laid down in fields and in boats,
etended they were asleep, pretended they were drowned sailors,
etended they were clocks, sang drunkenly in a pub, and engaged

. various other activities. Balliett found the visual aspects

7 the presentation distracting. He did not think the presentation
lited the material and pointed to what he called a "vicious circle,"
1 which the "almost continuous motion of stage blurs the nearly
alpable content, while, for stage purposes, the content demands

108

uch motion."

Driver suggested those who were not familiar with the poem

 

ould enjoy the play, but he felt those who knew it would find it
lore satisfying to read it or to listen to the recording Thomas
ind the five other members of the initial production at the ,
Iaufmann auditorium had made. Driver hastened to add that this
Jas not the fault of the actors or of Director Ball, but simply
)ecause the poetry ”belongs essentially to the ear and the mind's
Eye. When we hear 'I am a draper mad with love' or 'I loved Tom,
)ick and Harry,' nothing is added by the physical presence of the

Lctor, however skillful.”109 The Newsday critic called it an

 

'admirable but rather stark new revival."110 Taubman liked it very
luch.

107Taubman, loc. cit.

18

o
Balliett, 2R. cit., p. 132.

1‘
09Driver, loc. cit.

 

1
0George Oppenheimer, Newsday, April 5, 1961.

! Despite
pleasure 1'
Milk Wood‘
directed l
in the we
in ways t

actors.
Althoug
the Circ]
'green—le

The cr:
sixty-three
intricate st
capable, thc

credited th

 

several act
Balli

in their a4

the audien
stemmed ix
material a
"just abm
found the
The

made by (

readers -

"literal
\
11

1.

 

 

344

Despite touches of artiness, this production adds to one's
pleasure in Thomas' sunlit work. To one who has read "Under
Milk Wood” and heard it as a play for voices, the performers
directed by Mr. Ball convey fresh nuances of humor and feeling
in the Welsh poet's text. Fleeting scenes are made palpable
in ways that elude the printed page or words spoken by unseen
actors.

Although it cannot turn "Under Milk Wood" into a proper drama,
the Circle in the Square has been faithful to Dylan Thomas'
'green—leaved sermon on the innocence of men."|’|’|

The critic for Variety thought the cast, which had to present
ty—three characters and handle "involved pieces of business,
ricate stage movements and tricky vocal accompaniment," was very

112

able, though perhaps not of "standout caliber." Taubman

dited the entire cast with doing an excellent job and cited

 

'eral actors in roles which he felt had been especially effectivefll13

Balliett did not think the performers had succeeded completely
their attempts to get the entire content of the poem across to
a audience. He did not think it was their fault, but rather
:mmed from the fact it was extremely difficult to read such
2erial aloud to start with, and to recite it and act it was

114

tst about impossible." Oppenheimer admitted he occasionally

. 1

1nd the duplication of roles confus1ng.1 5
The comments about the material were quite similar to those

1e by critics of the previous productions. Taubman warned his

Lders they would be disappointed if they liked their theatre

.teral" because Under Milk Wood lacked proper dramatic structure,

‘———-——————____.—

111Taubman , loc. cit.

 

112Jaal., Variety, April 12, 1961, p. 54.
113Taubman, loc, cit. 114Balliett, loc. cit.
115

Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

 

—

but that if i
imaginations
The or
referred to
Oppenheimer
contrary to
Taubman had
voices. He
"fresh nuan
The C
brought it
for fifty-1‘
the only c
formers wo
Which she
“HOME; c
the "read:
review by

Seeing it
\
116

11E

121

 

 

 

345

out that if they delighted in language and were willing to let their
imaginations run free, they would find it "a rare experience."116

The critic for Variety noted the likeness to Our Town and
referred to the Broadway production four years earlierfl’l7
Dppenheimer also mentioned the 1957 presentation and observed that,
:ontrary to most critics, he had enjoyed the full production.118
[‘aubman had read Under Milk Wood and had heard it as a play for
roices. He thought the Circle in the Square production conveyed
'fresh nuances of humor and feeling in the Welsh poet's text/”9

The Circle in the Square took Under Milk Wood on road and
Drought it back in 1962 after a successful tour, and presented it
:‘or fifty-four additional performances. Edith Oliver, apparently
:he only critic to review the 1962 version, wrote that the per—
:‘ormers wore gray outfits, looked like gymnasts, and used movements
which she described as "calisthenic." Although she found "some
Lnnoying chanting" in the production, she thought on the whole,

;he "reading was quite good." She then reminded her readers Under

[i_lk Wood was intended to be a radio script. She concluded her

 

'eview by writing, "I don't think that much is to be gained by

 

. O .
;eeing it, but I think that something lS."12 She did not elaborate.
116Taubman, loc. cit. 117Jaa-l“) £22- £2
118 119

Oppenheimer, loc. cit. Taubman, loc. cit.

12OEdithbliver, The New Yorker, December 15. 19621‘P- 132-

 

 

 

 

In Dec
single perfc
responsible
sible for t
O'Casey aut
was done a:
Pictures ii
a lectern,
the musics

tunes of 1
Lee Phill:
Allen als
Aidman we
U.£
appearant
"notable
Performa
Paris d1
apparen-

might g
\

4

346

In December of 1956, the ANTA Matinee Series presented a
1gle performance of John Dos Passos' novel U.S.A. The man
sponsible for the adaptation was Paul Shyre, who was also respon—
316 for the dramatization of the first three volumes of the
Jasey autobiography. For the Matinee Series program, U.S.A.
5 done as a "reading" in the manner of I Knock at the Door and

stures in the Hallway. There were five players, five chairs,

 

Lectern, and a back drop. A piano and a set of drums provided
9 musical accompaniment with "representative and syncopated

nes of the times."121

The five performers were Charles Aidman,
a Phillips, Norman Rose, Sada Thompson and Rae Allen. (Miss
len also appeared in the first two O'Casey presentations and

dman was responsible for the adaptation of Spoon Rive .>

   
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
   

U.S.A. received considerable critical acclaim in its single
earance. The reviewer for the New York Times called it a
table achievement" and expressed regret it was only given for one

122

formance. The State Department considered sending it to a

is drama festival along with Long Day's Jourgey into Night, but

 

arently ran short of funds.123 There was speculation the show

ht go on tour with Broadway as its final destinationflgl+
121 .
L.C., New York Times, December 19, 1956, p. 41.

122Ibid.

123Arthur Gelb, New York Times, March 28, 1957, p. 36.
124

 

Sam Zolotow, New York Times, January 4, 1957, p. 18.

 

 

 

 

 

No ful

New York Ti:

were underwz
year. The j
initial pre
reported U_
Shyre, who
cast of si:
or two sta:
office sue
formers fo
emphasis.
depend on
m 0,,
Theatre.
The
fit the d
difficult
as a "re<
audience
but this
used, 00
about th

the ppm
\
12

1 1

 

347
No further mention was made of EA; until in May of 1959, when
\Iew York Times theatre columnist Louis Calta announced that plans
were underway to bring the Dos Passes novel to Broadway later that
year. The production was to be considerably more complex than the

125

Lnitial presentation in 1956 had been. In August of 1959, Gelb

reported U.S.A. would be presented in an off—Broadway house. Adapter

 

5hyre, who also directed the show, told Gelb the production needed a
:ast of six versatile actors of "equal prominence" rather than one
>r two stars. Shyre reasoned that stars were essential for box

)ffice success on Broadway, but if he were to secure big name per-

 

formers for two of the roles, it would give the play the wrong
:mphasis. He maintained that the success of the presentation would
Lepend on a balanced company of players functioning as a team.126 ‘
WA opened on October 28, 1959, at the off—Broadway Martinque I
Theatre.

The writer is aware the 1959 version of M does not clearly
'it the definition of oral interpretation used in this study. It is
.ifficult to determine whether or not Shyre intended the production
.8 a "recreation of a literary experience" in the minds of his
udience. Some of the reviewers mentioned the ”recreation of an era,”
ut this is not exactly the same thing. No books or manuscripts were

sed, costumes of the period were worn, and the players moved freely

 

bout the stage. However, several of the critics still classified

he proceedings as some form of a "reading." An additional reason

M
12
5Louis Calta, New York Times, May 6, 1959, P. 47.

126 ‘
Arthur Gelb, New York Times, August 25, 1959, Sec. II, p. 1.

 

 

 

 

for its con
one of the

tations wit
it should k
than his 0‘
whether Mr
cial matte

satisfacti

Setting a1
The:
backdrop '
a small r
fourth wa
around by
lecterns,
Th1

The wome

"almost

extreme1

aPPrOpri

348
>r its consideration is the fact that adapter-director Shyre was
Le of the early practitioners of the oral interpretation presen—
Ltions with his adaptations of the O'Casey autobiography. Perhaps
; should be noted here that Shyre considered.fl;§:§; more successful

127

Lan his O'Casey programs. Unfortunately the writer does not know
Lether Mr. Shyre meant it was more successful with regard to finan—

.al matters, or more successful as far as artistic or aesthetic

.tisfaction was concerned.

iting and Accessories

 

There were six high stools on a small ramp upstage. A modernistic
ckdrop was at the rear of the stage. The only props were chairs and
small round table. Three chairs were used in the first act, and a
urth was added in the second act. The table and chairs were shifted
ound by the actors for the various vignettes.128 There were two
cterns, one on the right of the stage and the other on the left.129

The men wore suits and vests, striped shirts, and stiff collars.
e women wore dresses of the 1900—1918 era in the first act and
lmost flapper type garments" in the second act. The lighting was
tremely important, as was the background music which consisted of

propriate songs from the various periods."130

m

qazLetter from Paul Shyre to the author, June 15, 1968.

128Paul Shyre and John Dos Passos, U.S.A. (New York: Samuel
enCh”! Inc-1 1960): P' 5-
129Letter from William Redfield to the author, July 5, 1968.

130Shyre and Dos Passos, _p. cit., pp. 5—6.

 

 

 

 

 

"_M:.. ....,_.u

 

 

Classificati
Atkins
noted the PI
of an "elab:
described t

a recital,
labeled the
that the me
reading V61
should be I
staged the
somewhat (1
two produc
a "semi—th
”theatrica
dramatic 1
Actc

appropria
\
131.

132

133

349
ilassification

31

Atkinson called the production a "staged reading."1 McClain

Loted the Playbill called U.S.A. a play, but he thought it was more

"152

if an ”elaborate reading. Aston observed that the authors

tescribed their effort as a play, but he felt it was also "a reading,

"135

. recital, a concertized version of a vivid narrative. Dash

134

,abeled the format used as a "dramatized readingfl‘ Watts wrote

hat the method of staging was "an extention of the sort of dramatized

135 (It

'eading versions" Shyre had used for the O'Casey volumes.
hould be noted at the time U.S.A. was presented Shyre had not yet
taged the third volume Drums Under the Window, in which he used a
omewhat different method of staging than he had used in the first
wo productions.) The critic for Village Voice decided.E;§;A; was
136

"semi—theatrical reading," while Variety reviewer wrote of the

theatrical kaleidoscope," presented in the "familiar fashion of a
ramatic reading.”137

Actors Windon and Redfern did not think the term "reading” was

ppropriate. Windom described the production as a "newsreel,"138

 

131Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, October 29, 1959, p. 58.

132John McClain, New York Journal American, October 29, 1959.

 

133Frank Aston, New York World—Telegram and Sun, October 29, 1959.

134Thomas Dash, Women’s Wear Daily, October 29, 1959.

135Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, October 29, 1959.

156J. T., Village Voice, November 4, 1959-

137
138

Nedi., Variety, November 11, 1959, P. 72.

Letter from William Windom to the author, July 12, 1968.

 

 

 

1
i
1
1
1

 

while Redfiel
“dramatic re‘
was Malcolm,
l on calling i
"revue.“M
reported it

referred to

Manner of E

Each

main charai
players no
the stage.
kept by t}
narration
. lecternS.
Duncan an

The prese

 

 

350
.le Redfield called it a "revue."139 Shyre himself used the term
1 . . l,1£|'0[.‘} . . . .
.amatic reView. Sic. The only critic to agree With this label
3 Malcolm, who complained that those connected with U.S.A. insisted

calling it a play, while it should really be referred to as a

n
2vue."’I 1 Kerr called it a "concert style adaptation,"142 Beaufort

)orted it was a "documentary-dramatic word picture,"143 and Cooke

144

Terred to it as the "stage version of the author's vigorous samplings."

Lner of Presentation

Each of the six performers, except for the actor who played the

 

.n character, Ward Moorehouse, portrayed many different roles. Those

Lyers not involved in a scene would sit on the stools at the back of

3 Stage. A few costume elements such as feather boas and hats were

>t by the stools to help indicate the different characters. The l

‘ration portions, although memorized, were given primarily from the

14 such as those concerning Isadora

:terns. 5 The major narrations,

Loan and Rudolph Valentino, were done at the center of the stage.

'zed.
f presentation cf the newsreel sequences was very formall I

the period would play and as the
1d be standing before their stools,
For this there would be

. . . an appropriate tune of
music dropped the actors wou .
and proclaim the larger headlines.

 

14o -
ngRedfield, loc. cit.' Shyre, $22: 2E3'

141 88.

Donald Malcolm, The New Yorker, November 7, 1959, p.
142Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, October 29, 1959.
qanohn Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, October 31, 1959.

144Richard P- Cooke, W, October 30’ 1959'

145Redfield, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

little 0:
or featu‘
full cha
Each new
There

the cast ale
fox trot, t1
the techniq'
dialogue, t

'living new

The :

this was a
a skilled
1”or the ac
rather the
entertaim
earlier e
usufll dra
charming
Das

and prai:

351

little or no special characterization. For the longer headlines

or feature bits, the actor would step forward and deliver with a
full characterization, according to the tone of the material.

Each newsreel would end in a rising finale of music and blackout/‘46

There was a great deal of physical movement. The members of

e cast also performed various dances of the times, notably the

147

x trot, the Charleston and the Black Bottom. Beaufort reported

e techniques used in presenting U.S.A. ranged from traditional

alogue, to spoken headlines and "word—newsreels——reminiscent of

148

iving newspaper' staging to straight narrative recitation."

rdict
The reviews were primarily favorable. Bolton told his readers

is was an evening they should not miss, with interesting material,

skilled cast, and a method of presentation which made it possible

I‘ the audience "to see places and things through the imagination

ther than the eye.”/I49 Aston described U.S.A. as "a gem of an

tertainment," which conjured up moods and moments of a fascinating

- - ct a
rlier era. He cautioned prospective audiences not to expe

lal drama with the traditional plot development. ”This is a 1 O
arming novelty founded on the substance of a searching intellect." 5
Dash called the production a "cogent and effective stage work”
i praised Shyre for staging the production with "devoted zeal and
146Shyre and Dos Passos, pp. 2313., p. 5.
147lbid. 148Beaufort, _I|_._o_c;. pit.
189Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, October 31, 1959.
150

Aston, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

considerable
and satisfyir
disallow the
‘a new play,
Martinique."
McClai
choice of tl
in three-qw
in a larger
much less e
he found it
it as "an ;
The critic
uproarious
off-Broadw
so impreS;
entertain
but did n
this on ,
Wit do 1

aCknowle

 

352

isiderable acumen."151

152

Field called the presentation "inventive

d satisfying." Malcolm thought if the viewer would "prudently

sallow the innocent pretension of the program that this revue is

new play,‘ he is almost certain to have a fine time at the

153

rtinique."
McClain complimented the director and the producer on their

Dice of the 200 seat Martinique theatre where U;§;A; could be done

three—quarter arena style. McClain felt that had it been done

a larger theatre or on a proscenium stage, it would have been

3h less effective. Done as it was, and in the small Maninique,

4 .
found it a ”generally fascinating evening."’15 Beaufort described

155

. . . . H
as "an absorbing excurSion and a first rate evening in the theatre.

3 critic for Cue rhapsodized, "'U.S.A.' is the most exciting,

roarious, stirring, savagely satiric show of the season, on or

f—Broadway."156 Not all the gentlemen of the press were quite
what spotty

impressed. Cooke found it "an interesting if some
tertainment."157 Atkinson liked the way U.S.A. was presented,

b did not think it was "very interesting as a whole.” He blamed

"consists of bits and pieces
th "158

it do not make a strong impression or state a eme.

was brilliantly arranged,

is on the material which, he wrote,
Kerr

:nowledged the "concert style adaptation"

 

152Malcolm, loo. git-

ews, October 29, 1959.

151Dash, loc. cit.

153Rowland Field, Newark Evenin N

154 155Beaufort, loo. 3;:-

McClain, loc. EEE'

157 . 't.
15§9221 November 7, 1959. Cooke, 100 C1

158Atkinson, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

353
ut complained that something went amiss. ”The big black letters
ave taken over. The ink from them runs into everybody's veins,
rawing out what might have been good blood. There they are——six

ascinating players playing sixty potentially fascinating characters—-

nd each of them is reduced to a statistic."159

The Village Voice

eviewer noted the vividly etched characters and the superb performers,
. 6

ut reported the Dos Passos trilogy "Simply does not come off.'."l 0
he Variety critic thought the cast gave a memorable performance but

161
egretfully ruled that U.S.A. was not a memorable play.

:tin

Nearly all the reviewers were generous with their praise of
arformers Peggy McCay, Joan Tetzel, Sada Thompson, William Redfield,
Llliam Windom, and Laurence Hugo. Beaufort reported that "six

(cellent actors turn an almost bare stage into a teeming cross

162

action of Americana during the first three decades." Atkinson

16 . L .
Lso cited the "six excellent actors,” 3 while Aeoon described them

164 H k.ll d
5 ”a brilliantly humorous sextet." Bolton called them 5 i e ,
65 and Dash credited the cast with providing "a
166

with a sense of "dramatic flow."

.ert players,”1
)tentially inert exercise"
:Clain thought all six were "equally expert."

' red
As the hero 0f the success story, Laurence Hugo l: :pdaipu
and persuasive performer, and he has the experience

Joan Tetzel, who plays his wife.

. . . .5
There is a skilled contribution by William Windom, who i

 

161Nedi., loc. cit.

164

Aston, loc. cit.

159Kerr, loc. cit. 16OJ.T., loc. cit.

162 163Atkinson, loc. cit.

166

Beaufort, loc. cit.

165

Bolton, loc. cit. Dasha Egg-.EEE'

 

 

 

 

 

554

both narrator and any number of other characters; a bright

and humorous assist from William Redfield; and the most capable

services of Sada Thompson and Peggy McCay in diverse assignments.’I67

As noted earlier, Shyre felt it was essential the cast be well
balanced and work together as an ensemble:168 Actor William Windom
recalled the "interdependence of fellow performers was at a maxium.[éggl
Teamplay was the key." He also recalled there was a considerable
sense of esprit de corps among the male members of the cast, as
illustrated by the fact they consumed a fifth a week getting dressed
169

and during the intermission.

 

Material
The play covered the thirtyeyear period from the turn of the

century to 1930- Cooke wrote that it provided "a fair refresher

. ' ‘
course on the early 20th Century, as progected through John Dos Passos

eye and pen.

"170 The central figure of the novel was J. P. Moorehouse.
\

His rise from obscurity to fame as an advertising tycoon prOVided

the thread to which the reports of events and personalities were

attached——although sometimes the connection was rather tenuous.

ging to weave the many social

71

DaSh praised adapter Shyre for mana

and political events into a ”cogent and effective stage work."1
BOlton described the material as "captivating, electric, and all
encomPaSSing-”172 Hewes characterized it as an "exploration of the
Amerioan spirit," tied together by the "tower of living contradictions

 

16. .-
167 168Gelb, loc. cit. 9Windom, loc. Cit

McClain, loc. cit.

1 't.
17 171Dash, loc. cit. 72Bolton, 100. 01

OCooke, loc. cit.

 

 

355

and hypocrisies it constructs before your eyes."’175 The critic
for £22 labeled it "U.S.A., 1900—1930, in all its richness, its
triumphs and its hangovers."174

Several of the critics were dissatisfied with the cumulative
effect of the story. Atkinson admitted Dos Passos' trilogy vividly
presented ”the sounds and tempo as well as the chief events of the
first thirty years of the century," but complained taken as a whole,
it was not very interesting. He thought perhaps this was because
the "kaleidoscope" as he called the novel, "turns too fast and reveals

too many fleeting images."’]75 Beaufort liked some aspects of U.S.A.

 

and thought Shyre had done an excellent job of getting the multitude

' ' 11
0f diverse "elements into the mainstream of an ordered narrative,

but he felt a serious flaw in the adaptation was that ”the editorial

aSideS of what might be called its supertext prevented the story and

relationship of the central characters from emerging into full focal

176

sharpness."

Cooke admitted the material had "a considerable literary
quality," but protested that "it somehow seemed as though Walter 1
177 t
H

. . ‘t.
Winchell's staccato trumpeting had been incorporated in l

y l was
The Critic for Variet thought that one of the reasons the p ay ‘

that the main character, Moorehouse,

The reviewer for Village Voice complained

"We are still

not entirely satisfactory was

178
was such an empty person.

the trilogy just did not lend itself to the stage.

 

y - 4 1959 p- 41-
173Henry Hewes, Saturda Review, November 1 , ,

II —- __ ___. ' 1 . ’ __._' _-._.'
Cue 7 100 ~ Cl [3 A bklllSOIl 100 C1 b I
“ 1 Vedj 100. 011.1.
[I [I Cooke, lOC. Cit. '3

Beaufort, loc. cit.

él

 

 

356

searching for any real 'meat' as we leave the theatre.
Actor Redfield described the adaptation as "a series of

anecdotes, variant styles, scenes and sketches which (one hopes)

will add up to a unified effect." He felt U.S.A. suffered somewhat
from not having a story line, except in the historical sense, thus
"it lacked cumulative drama." He wrote, "The sum, oddly enough,

was weaker than its parts. Those who enjoyed the details sufficiently
enjoyed the production because of what it contained. Those who did
not, found it more a vehicle for six skilled players than a completely

18o

satisfying text." Redfield's fellow actor Windom noted that U.S.A.

required the audience to "pay attention and think. It did not
titilate."181
Some of the critics who had reservations about the material
found the biographies of famous personalities of the period more to
their liking. Cooke reported there were several "capsule biographies
. . . and they were quite effective."182 Beaufort told his readers,
"It is the brilliant recitals of vivid thumbnail biographies, the
Vignettes of actual peOple--the Wright Brothers, Eugene Debs, Rudolph
Valentino, Isadora Duncan . . . and equally vivid fictitious charac—

ters which fill out the tapestry of this unconventional play."183

179J.T., loc. cit. 180Redfield, loc. cit.

181Windom, loo. cit. 182Cooke, loo. £333.

183Beaufort, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

357

Atkinson wrote:

In the second half . . . Sada Thompson tells the story of
Isadora Duncan.

Probably the story does not last more than five minutes. It
is only one item.in Mr. Dos Passos' kaleidoscope of the first
thirty years in the twentieth century in.America. It is not the
most significant item of many.

But it is the most interesting not only because Miss Thompson
delivers it criSply, but also because it is a tale with a begin-
ning, middle and.and. It combines buncombe, beauty and success
in one short interlude; it has a melodramatic conclusion. The
audience listens as if it had never heard the storybeforef’gl1L

Comparisons
The Variety critic observed the staging was done in "the

"185

familiar fashion of a dramatic reading. Three of the critics
referred to Shyre's adaptation of the first two volumes of the O'Casey

autobiography.186 Redfield thought Shyre's experience with I Knock

at the Door and Pictures in the Hallway'influenced his adaptation

187

 

and staging of U.S.A., but he did not elaborate. Certainly U.S.A.
was further along on the continuum that stretches between the "pure"
oral interpretation presentation and the "regular" theatrical pro—
duction than Shyre's first two adaptations. In terms of popular

appeal, U.S.A. was the most successful of Shyre's programs. It ran

for 256 performances.

Dear Liar

 

In 1952, a book entitled Bernard Shaw and Mrs. Pat Campbell:
_Their Correspondence was published containing the letters Shaw and

Mrs. Campbell exchanged during their forty year "friendship."

—___

184Atkinson, loc. cit.

186

185Nedi., loc. cit.

Dash, J.T., and Cue, all 100. cit. 187Redfield, _l_c_>_c_:_. pip.

 

 

 

 

558

Actor—director Jerome Kilty, a long time Shaw devotee, found the postal
paper war delightful and when, in 1957, he was requested to provide
an entertainment for a group of theatre patrons in Chicago, he
sequestered himself in a hotel room for ten days and condensed the
forty years of correspondence into a two hour program. Kilty and
his actress wife, Cavada Humphrey, presented what was later called
Dear Liar at the Studebaker Theatre in Chicago on April 26, 1957.

When Kilty began to consider the commercial possibilities
of the adaptation, he wrote to Mrs. Campbell's daughter requesting
permission to use the letters. At first she was reluctant to give
her consent, but finally agreed. After finishing the script Kilty
sent it to playwright Lillian Hellman for suggestions as to who he
should try to get to play the parts. Miss Hellman thought Katharine
Cornell would be perfect for Mrs. Pat, and sent the script on to her.
Miss Cornell was enchanted with the material and was instrumental
in securing Brian Aherne, who had been her leading man in "The
Barrettes of Wimpole Street," to play Shaw. Miss Cornell's husband,
Guthrie McClintic agreed to serve as producer. Kilty directed the

production, and on March 9, 1959, Dear Liar began a cross-country

188

 

tour under the auspices of S01 Hurok. The tour closed in the

middle of April after a successful "dry run" 0f forty-three perfor—

189

mances. A second tour started in the fall, and after appearing

in sixty—six cities, Dear Liar came to Broadway on March 17, 1960, at

 

the Billy Rose Theatre.

'_#

188Arthur Gelb, New York Times, January 5, 1959, p. 24.

189Time, April 27, 19591 p- 53-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

359

IS_etting and Accessories

 

The setting was intended to suggest Mrs. Campbell's drawing

190

room and Mr. Shaw's study. A pink—upholstered Victorian sofa

and desk were the furnishings for the living room, while Shaw's study

91 Music of the

had a sort of combination lectern-desk and a stool.’l
period was heard in the background at various times during the evening.
Except for Tynan, the critics who mentioned the music found it a
charming addition to the proceedings. Tynan "shuddered at much of

192

the background music." The only mention of lighting effects came

from Hewes, who noted "the sad but inevitable deterioration through
the years” was suggested by the decor, the lighting, and the music.193
The performers did not try to assume the physical appearance
of the people they were presenting, although Miss Cornell dressed
her hair in a fashion similar to the way in which Mrs. Pat had worn
hers. She was costumed in a black gown of the period. Mr. Aherne

194

wore a velvet smoking jacket. (He also wore trousers.)

Classification
The critics apparently had a difficult time deciding what
195

Dear Liar was. Kilty called the program "a comedy of letters,"

but the nearest the reviewers came to following his suggestion was

 

19OBrooko Atkinson, New York Times, March 18, 1960. p- 19-

 

 

 

191Henry Hewes, Saturday Review, April 2, 1960, p. 55.
192 6

Kenneth Tynan, The New Yorker, March 2 , 1960, p. 81.
193Hewes, loc. cit.

194Letter from Miss Katharine Cornell to the author, June 11, 1968.

195Frank Aston, New York World-Telegram and Sun, March 18, 1960,
NYTCR, p0 375'

—;

 

 

 

 

 

 

560

Atkinson's description of the proceedings as "an intelligent adaptation

196

of the letters" and Watts‘ mention of ”Jerome Kilty's dramatic

arrangement of the 40 years of embattled correspondence." Watts
further informed his readers Dear Liar was not a play in the conven—
tional sense, and no one pretended that it was.197 Similarly,
Chapman noted Kilty did not pretend to have made the letters into

a play, but rather he had "turned this exchange of correspondence

198

into lively conversation." The critic for Time wrote of Kilty's

199

adaptation, "What results is no play, nor is it meant to be."

Coleman referred to "the Kilty orchestration,"200 while Tynan

called it a "dramatic condensation."201 Kerr termed the proceedings

an "arrangement for two performers."202

McClain called Dear Liar
”Mr. Kilty's free adaptation for the stage," and observed the evening
might well have become a "precious and static reading" had it not

been for the talents of the performers and Kilty's editorial and

directorial skills.203 The Variety critic maintained to call the

 

196

Atkinson, loc. cit.
197Richard Watts, Jr., New York Post, March 18, 1960, NYTCR,
p“ 320.
198
p- 319.

John Chapman, New York Daily News, March 18, 1960, NYTCR,

199Time, March 28, 1960, p. 53.

200Robert Coleman, New York Mirror, March 18, 1960.

20llTynan, 2p. cit., p. 80.

202Walter Kerr, New York Herald Tribune, March 18, 1960,
NYTCR, p. 519.

203John McClain, New York Journal American, March 18, 1960,
NYTCR, p. 318.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

361
n . . . . n204 . . ,
performance a reading would be inv1dious, however in Variety 5
weekly listing of current productions which appeared in the same
issue as the review, Dear Liar was classified as a "dramatic reading."
Miss Cornell thought that "dramatized reading" was the best way to

describe the production.205

Manner of Presentation

 

Miss Cornell and Mr. Aherne both had manuscripts in front of
them during the performance, but they had their lines memorized and
only occasionally appeared to be reading. Most of the time Aherne
stood at his lectern and Miss Cornell sat at her desk. At times
they both moved about the stage.206 McClain was pleased to find
that, "by the interpolation of graceful remarks directed to the
audience by both principals, by occasional scenes played to cm
another-—some of them excerpts from Shaw's plays-—the dread formula

20'?

of a conventional reading is obviated." Neither performer made

208

any attempt to impersonate their respective correspondents.

Verdict

The critical response to Dear Liar was divided and quite often
the individual reviewers had mixed reactions to the presentation.
Coleman admitted Shaw and Campbell had been two of the most vivid

theatre personalities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth

 

204

Land., Variety, March 23, 1960, p. 59.
2O5czorne11, loc. cit. 206nm. 207McClain, E- gt.
208

Chapman , loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

362

 

centuries, but he thought Kilty's adaptation of their letters
"failed to kindle into an exciting evening in the theatre."209
Chapman characterized the proceedings as an "offbeat, interesting
and.admittedly undramatic theatrical venture.”21o Kerr granted
"all that grace can do has been done for 'Dear Liar,'" but did
not think this was quite enough. He felt the evening threatened
to become a "social rather than a theatrical occasion . . . with

a few shredded vegetables as canapes."

Kerr pointed out Shaw usually
got the better of Campbell in their literary dual, but his letter
writing, though enjoyable, was not on the same level as the writing
he did for his plays. He concluded, "The atmosphere is pleasant,
but the sense of combat is distant, tucked away under the arm of
the postman."211
Tynan had some rather snide comments to make about some
aspects of the production, but he admitted these were ”trivial
quibbles” and assured his readers he had "no doubt that 'Dear Liar’
will both delight and instruct you."212 Atkinson praised the acting
of Cornell and Aherne, credited Kilty with an "intelligent adaptation"
of the letters, but found the production”zo substitute for the crackle
of a comedy by the man who wrote the most spirited letters in this
wayward exchange.” However, he hastened to point out due to the
213

scarcity of worthwhile plays, Dear Liar was quite welcome.

Clurman also noted the dearth of dramatic fare. "Nowadays there

 

209Coleman, 100. cit. 2IIOChapman, loc. git. 211Kerr, 322. pit.
212Tynan, 93. cit., p. 81. 213Atkinson, fl. _c_i_t_.

 

 

 

363

 

is so little theatre on Broadway that everything presented in a
playhouse by stage actors is offered as something that calls of
dramatic criticism." He described the evening as "pleasantly

civilized."214 The critic for Time condeded Dear Liar was ”pleasant

and provocative," but despite this, in his opinion it ”falls flat."215
Hewes suggested his readers regard the presentation as a ”pleasant
browse through an old curiosity shop,” but warned them not to
"expect any startling acquisitions."z16
Three of the "first line" critics liked Dear Liar. McClain
headlined his review "2 Stars Shine in Fine Night." He was pleased
with the settings, the selection and arrangement of material, the
manner of presentation~—which managed to avoid ”the dread formula
of a conventional reading," and with the actors. "This is a
resplendent evening for these two; it is also a happy one for the

217

customers." Aston was extremely enthusiastic about the produc-

tion and told his readers the evening "guarantees an experiment
that borders on rapture."218 Watts was somewhat more reserved in
his approval, but recommended the production as a ”stimulating and
steadily interesting theatrical evening . . . distinctly worth
attention."219 The Variety critic described Dear Liar as a

”stunning entertainment.”220

 

214Harold Clurman, Nation, April 16, 1960, p. 343.

 

215Time, loc. cit. 216Hewes, loc. cit.

217 218

McClain, loc. cit. Aston, loc. cit.
219Watts, loc. cit. 220Land., loo. cit.

364

Acting

Miss Cornell and Mr. Aherne also received mixed notices from
the critics. Nearly all the reviewers paid tribute to the talents
of the two stage veterans, but not all of them thought the performers
had been successful in capturing the essence of their characters.
The critic for Time complained Miss Cornell was "too gentle" to

convey the tempestuous Mrs. Pat, and that Aherne was ”too jaunty"

as Shaw.221 Chapman also found Miss Cornell ”too gentle a lady to

be the sharp—tongued, volatile Mrs. Pat I've read about."222

Coleman mentioned Miss Cornell "was evidently handicapped by inci—

223

pient laryngitis during the more emotional passages." Kerr

liked some aspects of Miss Cornell’s performance, but had reser—
vations about others.

The airiness with which she toys with the notion of appearing
in "Pygmalion" is enchanting. The suggestion that she is a
"veteran" of the theatre brings a soft subway rumble into her
mildly outraged throat. When her not entirely candid play-
wright makes a pretty pretense of knowing nothing about fi—
nances, she need only dilate the pupils of her glistening eyes
verywiightly~—and arch her uncrowned but unmistakably regal
head just a degree or two in his direction——to delight us with
her poised disbelief.

But was it really so much grace that caused Mrs. Pat Campbell
to be described, at last, as a ”sinking frigate firing on her
rescuers?" Or was it a battleship belligerence that never quite
stirs on the local stage?22

Watts praised Miss Cornell for her charming rendition of
Mrs. Pat as a successful actress and for her portrayal of the

impoverished but gallant and proud lady when she was no longer

________________________
21T1me, loc. cit. 2220hapman,llgg.52£.

4 .
223Coleman, 1000 cit. 22 Kerr, lag. 223'

 

 

 

365
225

a sought—after star of the London stage. Aston enthused about

Miss Cornell, ”When she rehearses for 'Pygmalion," yowling at his
'iggins, you listen open mouthed and wonder why the devil Miss

Cornell never took over 'My Fair Lady.' No protests please; this

dame could do anything, and better."226

Watts pointed out the role of Mrs. Campbell was not quite as

"lively" as the part of Shaw because Shaw was naturally a better

. . . 22
writer and consequently Aherne had the most entertaining lines. 7
Atkinson lauded both Cornell and Aherne as "two of our most cherished

actors" and cited their talents and taste, but he complained that

"'Dear Liar‘ preserves on stage a stubborn imbalance of talents.

Shaw's letters to Mrs. Pat are consistently gayer, wiser and more

incandescent."228

Coleman also agreed Kilty had provided Shaw with "more oppor—

that as a result, Aherne had been
229

is role than Miss Cornell was in hers.

tunity to shine," and he felt

more successful in h

Atkinson wrote, "As Shaw, the irrepressible egotist, Mr. Aherne

plays With great vivacity. He is restless, energetic and mis—

2
chievous; he explodes with words.” 50 Tynan compared the actor

t0 a ”roguish Scoutmaster . . . whimsically puckering up the

‘ ll
corners of his lips after every outburst of ungallant egOism.

Tynan's only real complaint about Aherne's performance was his

2 1
”unmistakably Welsh." 3 Kerr

accent, which Tynan described as

__.___—_——-——-——‘—'

227 - _
225 226Aston, loc. cit. Watts, _139 .032

Watts, 100. git.

22 .
228Atkinson, loc. cit. 9Coleman, loc. Cit.

2 1 .
230Atkinson, loc. Cit. 5 Tynan, loc. Cit.

 

 

366
was not convinced that Aherne's Shaw ”ever took a bite out of
anybody," but he thoroughly enjoyed the actor's performance anyway.

Working at an easy jogtrot, so that he seems to be living
on his heels like an airedale who has learned to walk and is
so happy about it that he can't be coaxed down again, Mr. Aherne
tosses off a jest like "I could not love thee, dear, half so
much, loved I not money more" with wrinkle of his mustache
that has just about the right amount of self-satisfaction in
it (90%, not an ounce more or less).232

There was some disagreement as to whether the performers
impersonated the letter writers, although producer McClintic
pOSitively stated they did not. "On the face of it, it would be
absurd as the action covers forty years in less than two hours

2
0f playing time and they are never off—stage." 33 However, Watts

the actors seemed to

234

maintained soon after the curtain rose,

"merge into the half affectionate, half infuriated pair."

McClain substantiated this as he wrote:

There is no effort by Miss Cornell or Mr. Aherne to imper—
sonate either character. But both of them triumph in their
ability to communicate the personalities of the spirited
Mrs. Pat and the renegade Mr. Shaw. _

Mr. Aherne never wears a beard or a Norfolk jacket, :ut es—
he suggests both: and Miss Cornell is a timeless and emp
tuous Irish—Italian.235 '

Oppenheimer also noted Aherne did not use a beard or try to
. . . t b—
imitate Shaw physically, "yet by his stance, his brogue, his 8 u

' ' least
born confidence in himself and in the soundness of his

 

232Kerr, loc. cit.

' t' n
253Guthrie McClintic, clipping in the Theatre Collec io ,

Perhaps from the Playbill.

234

Watts 100. cit. 235McClain, loc. cit.
, -—-I ~— " -—‘—

 

 

 

367

236 Aston admitted to having been

conviction, he suggests Shaw."
duly informed the tw0 actors were not impersonating Campbell and
Shaw, but he was not convinced. ”In the beginning they bloom
with vigor. At the end she has faded and he totters . . . . If
. . . . . . . "237
this isn't impersonation it is marvelous suggestion.
The performers had two scenes when, as the critic for Time
phrased it, they were able to "get their teeth into something
238

theatrical rather than into each other." The Variety reviewer

found the scene in which Shaw rehearsed Campbell for Pygmalion

 

"sheer delight."259 Atkinson also thought the rehearsal scenes

for Pygmalion and for The Apple Cart were superb, but further
240

d "no adaptation can substitute for a play." Tynan,

illustrate
e "cringed at Miss

241

in his usual role as dissenter, confessed h
V"

Cornell's decision to act out two scenes from 'Pygmalion.

Material

Nearly all the critics found the letters enjoyable though
not theatrically exciting. The letters began in 1899 when Mrs. Pat

was at the height Of her career and Shaw was just beginning to

' I
aChieve recognition as a playwright, and end With the actress.
impoverished death in 1940. There has always been considerable

Speculation that Shaw and Mrs. Campbell carried on a flaming
affair, but the letters would Seem to indicate the affair was
______________________

256 Newsday, March 23, 1960.

George Oppenheimer,
> 259Land., loc. cit-

238Time, 100. cit.

24

237Aston, loc. cit.

24 “Tynan, loc. cit.

OAtkinson, loc. cit.

 

 

 

368
verbal rather than physical. Kerr pointed out that between the
two literary lovers there stood a mailbox, Mrs. Shaw, and Shaw's
own "natural timidity.” Mrs. Pat herself wrote, ”We were two
lustless lions at play."242 McClain decided they had never
actually been lovers——"rather they were two people who greatly
enjoyed exploiting each other, and having done so, retained a
faltering fondness.”243 Chapman observed "G.B.S. never wrote
to Mrs. Pat and Mrs. Pat never wrote to him. They only wrote back

to each other." Chapman further concluded the speculation that

the letters were love—letters was quite correct. "Shaw was in

44

 

 

love with Shaw and Mrs. Pat was mad about Mrs. Pat."2
Watts noted the picture of Shaw that emerged from the letters
was not a very flattering one.245 Clurman found the correspondence
interesting and informative about the theatre in England during
that time, but he did not think the exchange was very romantic.246
Kilty's selection of the letters and his explanatory inter—
polations received recognition from several critics. The only
reviewer who was dissatisfied was Tynan. He quarrelled with the
introductory information with which Kilty had prefaced the re—
hearsal scene of Pygmalion. He objected to the outlining of the
plot—~he thought it was completely unnecessary-—and he detected
24

an error in Kiltyls placement of the scene. 7 McClain thought

Kilty had done an excellent editorial job,248 as did the critic

 

243

242Kerr, loc. Cit. McClain, loc. cit.

244 245

Chapman, loc. cit. Watts, 100. cit.

246 248

. 4 .
Clurman, loc. Cit., 2 7Tynan, loc. Cit. McClain, loc. cit.

—,

 

 

569
. 249 . ,, . .
for Time. Atkinson wrote, Given the task of making a stage
adaptation of the letters these celebrated persons wrote to each
other, it is difficult to see how Mr. Kilty could have done better.
He has made dialogue sequences out of sentences and paragraphs

excerpted from the letters."250

Comparisons

There were no references to previous productions except for

mention of Miss Cornell and Mr. Aherne's successful appearance some

251

years before in The Barretts of Wimpole Street. There was no

 

mention of Mr. Kilty's adaptation of Moby Dick in 1955. McClain
noted Dear Liar avoided the "dread formula of dramatic readings,"252
but did not Cite any examples.

Dear Liar did not do well on Broadway, although it ran for
fifty-four performances. It lost about $17,500 during its six week
engagement, and this was inspite of the fact Director Kilty waved

fifty per cent of his salary and Miss Cornell waved all of her

253

salary for the last three weeks.

Although Dear Liar was not a Broadway success, the adaptation

254

became very popular in Europe. Kilty and his wife toured the

 

249 250

Time, loc. Cit. Atkinson, loc. cit.

25llAston, loC. Cit.
Atkinson, loc. Cit.

252McClain, loc. cit.
255Audit of financial books of Dear Liar by accountants
Pinto, Winokur, and Pagano, found in a scrapbook of Clippings
on Dear Liar in the Theatre Collection.

254New York Times, March 19, 1962.

 

 

 

370
show abroad and throughout the United States. On March 16, 1962,
they appeared in the off—Broadway Theatre Marquee and gave forty

more performances of Shaw—Campbell letters.

Telemachus Clay

In 1957, Lewis John Carlino wrote a short play, The Brick and
the Rose. He intended it to be read rather than performed. Ten
actors dressed in black portrayed forty—six Characters. They
remained on their stools throughout the reading and used no move—
ment. Each performer had a script on a reading stand in front of
him. The main character of the story was a teen—age boy in the
slums of New York. Author Carlino wrote of his play and the manner
in which he wanted it produced: "Such a story which encompasses
50 many dimensions of time and characters could be written no other
way; could not be delimited by the confines of staging and scenery."255

The Brick and the Rose was a forerunner to Telemachus Clay,

a full length play which Carlino planned to present by a method
he called the ”theatre of collage.” He rejected the traditional
manner of staging in which the actors play to each other while the
audience observes. He wanted the actors to "play the scene t0’
each other through the mind of the audience." As Little phrased
it, Carlino "is asking audiences to become a kind of electrical

conductor through which the emotions of one actor will pass to

 

255Letter from Lewis John Carlino, as quoted in Monroe,
ELE- Cit'a pp- 39—40.

 

 

 

371
256

another. Telemachus Clay opened off—Broadway at the Writers'

Stage on November 15, 1963.

Setting and Accessories

 

Ten actors sat on stools in a line across a bare stage.
An eleventh performer, the narrator,sat in the center and slightly

downstage from the other actors. All the players wore black and

all directly faced the audience.257 The lighting gave the illusion

of movement as it focused first on one performer and then on

258

another, and moved back and forth across the stage.

Classification

 

Some of the critics decided to use Carlino's term, "a collage
of voices."259 The critic for Variety informed his readers, "That's
as good as any for the unusual dramatic reading."26o Thompson
referred to it as a "show" because he did not know what "collage

of voices" meant.261 Oppenheimer called it "a collage of voices"

at one point in his review, but later pointed out that it resembled

 

256Stuart Little, New York Herald Tribune, November 11, 1963.

______________.__
257Grene PalatSky, Newark Evening News, November 16, 1965.
258Frances Herridge, New York Post, November 1'7, 196}.

259Lewis Funke, New York Times, November 16, 1963, p. 17.
Herridge, loc. cit.

2
6OKenn., Variety, November 2'7, 1965’, p. 63.

261Jack Thompson, New York Journal American, November 16, 1963.

_______.—.—_—_————————-—

 

 

372
262

a "dramatic reading.” Palatsky thought it was "a dramatic con—

263

cert reading and something of a minstrel show."

Manner of Presentation

The actors did not use scripts, but except for that difference,
the manner of presentation was basically the same as Carlino had
used for his earlier play The Brick and the Rose. The players re—
mained on their stools and spoke directly to the audience most of
the time. One of the actors played the role of Telemachus Clay
while another served primarily as the narrator.264 The other nine
performers handled about ninety parts.265 The narrator identified
Characters and kept the audience informed as to the time and place

of the scene.2

 

Verdict ,
Telemachus Clay was definitely a "split decision," with

vehement supporters and just as vehement opponents. Bolton ,

"unreservedly" recommended it to his readers as "an evening of

unusual quality."267 Bender wrote that the cast was ”uniformly i

marvelous and creative" and the production offered "a good, fresh,

 

262George‘Oppenheimer, Newsday, November 18, 1963-

263Palatsky, loc. cit.
264

Edith Oliver, The New Yorker, November 23, 1963, p- 147.
26 .
5Herridge, loc. cit. 266Oppenheimer, loc. Clt.
267

Whitney Bolton, New York Morning Telegraph, November 18, 1965-

 

 

373
. "268 . ,, .
thought provoking couple of hours. Herridge found a haunting

power" in the work.269 Gottfried acknowledged there were some

270

flaws, but he thought it was "brilliant theatre." Brustein was

 

practically ecstatic. He called it ”the only evening of American

Theatre so far this year which begins to approach distinction.”27’I

 

Expressing the opposing viewpoint, Thompson began his review,v
”One of the most pretentious and depressingly bad shows to hit off-

272 Nadel was in

Broadway in a long time is 'Telemachus Clay.'"
complete agreement. He called it a tedious, cacaphonic, [sic.]

recital of unrelieved filth" and he thought it would probably

 

qualify for the dubious distinction of the low point of the off—

Broadway season.2l75 The critic for Variety thought the format

 

was interesting, but disliked the language, some of which he felt

was florid while other parts of it he felt were in poor taste.

He decided Telemachus Clay was "much ado about very little.”274

Oppenheimer regarded the play as "an interesting although not
75

. 2
successful experiment."

 

268William Bender, New York Herald Tribune, November 18, 1963.

269

Herridge, 100. on;
270

 

Martin Gottfried, Women's Wear Daily, November 18, 1965.

2

71Robert Brustein, New Republic, December 21, 1963, p. 28.

2

7%mmmmn,hc.dt.

2

73Norman Nadel, New York World—Telegram and Sun, November 16, 1963.
274

Kenn., loC. cit.

275

Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'll-IIIIII---_______l

 

374
Acting
Nearly all the critics praised the performers. Even Nadel,
who vociferously disliked the production, admitted the cast was
competent, which he felt made "the whole thing even more embar—

,,276 277

rassing. Oliver decided the performers were "just right."

Bender called the group ”uniformly marvelous and creative," and

278

 

declined to single anyone out. Several of the critics had

special praise for Carolan Daniels, who presented an extremely

79

effective childbirth scene without moving from her stool.2

Narrator Clayton Corbin, who also portrayed a beatnik prophet,

attracted favorable notice from four critics,280 but two reviewers

complained they were unable to hear many of his lines.281 John

 

Tracy, making his New York acting debut as Telemachus Clay, did

not impress most of the critics. Oppenheimer thought he had talent

but lacked the experience to do much with his "nebulous" role.282

 

278

Bender, loc. cit.

276 277

Nadel, loc. cit. Oliver, loc. Cit.

279Gottfried, i23'.23£'
Thompson, log._git.
Kenn., log. 23:.
Oppenheimer, l23'.2i§'
Herridge, lgg._gi£.
Bolton, 3223 £23.
280Gottfried, $22, git.
Kenn., l23._gi£.
Funke, loc. Cit.

Palatsky, loc. cit.

 

28

1Thompson, 100. Cit.
Oppenheimer, loc. cit.

28
2Oppenheimer, loc. Cit.

 

 

 

575

Palatsky found his interpretation of Telemachus "honest," but too
weak to be effective.283 Thompson wrote of Tracy, ”A new James
Dean, as he has been touted, he is not. He seems like a nice lad
and it's too bad he had to get involved with this mess for his
debut.”284

Herridge was impressed with the effect achieved when all the
players spoke at once, but with one voice predominating. "They
create vividly the neurotic frenzy of a cocktail party, the hollow—
ness of the crowd.”285 Bolton reported the performers managed to
provide "an experience in motion," despite the fact they did not
leave their stools.286 Herridge also noted the illusion of move—
ment, but she thought it was the lighting effects which created

the effect rather than anything the players did.287

Material

The main area of criticism was the story itself. Telemachus
Clay was born out of wedlock and had to endure taunts about his
parentage as he was growing up. At twenty he leaves his home town
for Hollywood. He wants to sell a script he has written to the
movies, and to find God, his father, and himself. In Hollywood
he is thoroughly abused and completely disillusioned. He leaves

to continue his wanderings while, back home, his girl gives birth

 

28’7JPalatsky, loc. Cit. 28LPThompson, loc. Cit.
285Herridge, loc. Cit. 286Bolton, loc. Cit.

287

Herridge, loc. Cit.

 

 

 

376
to his illegitimate son. The critic for Variety Characterized the

script as "banal and pretentious" and thought Telemachus' home town

288

"might have been created by Thornton Wilder in a bad mood.“

The reviewer for Players Magazine compared Telemachus Clay to
Tobacco Road, and declared the story encompassed "every current

, perversion of popular interest."289 Oliver wrote, "The best that
can be said for the script . . . is that it is harmless in a tire—

some and vulgar kind of way . . . . The lines are mostly windy—

poetic or squalid—explicit.”290 Nadel likened Carlino to a

”rebellious small boy shouting dirty words." He thought the story

was "banal" and found nothing admirable in Carlino's writing.

”His whole style is ostentatibus, his Characterization is puerile.

Every character seems borrowed——and some from pretty shoddy literary

sources.”291

Oppenheimer disliked the main character Telemachus, but

thought the author showed considerable skill in quick vignettes,

such as a short scene on a train involving a child who would not

be quiet until a beleagured fruit salesman silenced him by stuffing

a banana in his mouth.292 Gottfried praised Carlino's sense of
d

theatre, his facility with dialogue, humor and fantasy, but calle

‘ I
his message "fOOliSh.”295 Palatsky also lauded the playwright s

f theatrical timing, but found

skill with dialogue and his sense 0

.______——’

288

Kenn., loc. git.
zine, February, 1964: P- 138'

289Ben Morse, Players Maga

290Oliver, loc.(it. 29llNadel, loc. cit.

2 ' . 't.
292Oppenheimer, loc. Cit. 95Gottfried, loC Cl

 

L; A

 

 

 

 

 

 

377
. . . 294 .

the story unconVinClng and unmCVlng. Thompson described the
play as "largely a diatribe against the film world which might
have had some validity 30 years ago, but which doesn't make sense
these days."295

Three of the critics had kinder words for the script. Hewes
informed his readers, that while the play was similar to many about
idealistic young writers who become disillusioned, ”here and there
"296

it erupts into something wild and wonderful. Herridge found

a. "haunting power" in the story and described it as a "stunning

.297

 

evocation of the lost artist in an alien world.‘ Brustein wrote:
I didn't like "Telemachus Clay" for about 15 minutes, during

which time the author stole outrageously from "Under Milk Wood."
When he began to plunder the Nighttown sequence from "Ulysses"
as well, the form of the evening began to annoy me intensely:
why deliberately model your play on works that were not designed
for the stage. After a while however, I stopped brooding and
began to enjoy myself, for the author Lewis John Carlino, has
a considerable talent which even his thefts do not conceal . . .
he is an extremely uneven writer, but he is, on occasion, a

biting and moving one.298
Even though most of the critics disliked the material, several
of them did think the material and the manner of presentation were
well suited. The play had thoughts, dreams, memories, flashbacks
and other things which would have been difficult to stage in a
normal production.299 Bender thought the scene in which the baby

300

was born could only have been done in this way. The critic for

 

294Palatsky, loc. Cit. 295Thompson, 100. cit. 296Hewes, loc. Cit

297Herridgea loc. cit. 298Brustein, loc. Cit.

299Gottfried, loo. Cit. BOOBender, loc Cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

378

Village Voice wrote, ”We are shown moments-~a boy and girl making

 

love, a young woman in Childbirth—-which would be intolerably sweet
or painful without such detachment. We are also given the possibility
of tiny vignettes which would be overweighed with significance if

Jun?“

further acted ou

Comparisons

Several of the comparisons were of a literary nature. Five

 

 

critics noted the similarity of Telemachus Clay to Under Milk Wood,302
and two mentioned its likeness to James Joyce's Ulysses.303 Hewes

 

304

thought the material was reminiscent of Smon River.

Nadel observed the performers sat on stools in a row similar
to the way the players had in U.S.A. and Smon River, but warned
his readers the similarity ended with the stools.305 Funke pointed
out that, despite Carlino's belief he had developed a new technique
with his "collage of voices," the method of staging was "not exactly
revolutionary . . . the sight of players sitting on high stools has
become familiar to us through the flood of readings we have had."306

Although the manner of presentation was not completely new,

this apparently was the first play written specifically to be

¥

301M.S., Village Voice, November 21, 1965.

'BOaMorse, _I_L_o_g_. pip.
M.S., _l_._<_3_<_:_. pi}.
Brustein, 3:93. 22:17.:
Bender, _l;c_>_<_:_. _C_:;L_t_.
Hewes, 1.93. 233'

303Herridge, loc. Cit.
Brustein,_l_g_c_. p_:_i._t_.

306

. O .
304Hewes, 100. 0113- 5 5Nadel, 2:92- 234;- Funke, loc. cit.

g

 

 

 

- -—- -. s...»-

 

present
audienc
the "cc
lglgggg

perfor

ducti
of le
tatic
Shyre
§_§q
pres
read

phr

 

379

presented by actors who sat on stools and directly addressed the
audience. Many of the critics did not like the play, but most felt
the "collage" idea had merit. DeSpite the violent rejection of

Telemachus Clay by some of the reviewers, it enjoyed a run of 125

 

performances.

Summary

It is difficult to make any generalizations about the pro—
ductions in this chapter because they are so diverse. In terms
of length of run, the most successful one was _I_I_._§_._A_._ This presen-
tation of John Dos Passos novel was adapted and directed by Paul
Shyre, who had been responsible for the two O'Casey dramatizations,

I Knock at the Door and Pictures in the Hallway. Shyre's method of

 

presentation was substantially different from the rather formalized
reading technique he had used in‘the two O'Casey programs. The
players still had stools, but they used them only when they were
not involved in a scene. There was a great deal of movement, cos-
tumes of the period were worn, and no scripts were used. Several
of the critics however, still Classified m as a reading.
Most of them approved of the production.

The only solo show in this Chapter was also an adaptation
of a novel. Philip Hanson presented his version of Moby Dick for
seven performances. The consensus of critical opinion seemed to be
that, while Hanson was to be admired for his courage, he was not
talented enough to accomplish what he set out to do, and there was

considerable doubt in the minds of several critics as to whether

 

 

 

 

 

Melvii

circw

Jeron
betwe
prom
but'

It w

confl

but

on

 

38o
Melville's classic could be successful on the stage under any
circumstances.

Dear Liar was also a failure, at least in financial terms.
Jerome Kilty was responsible for the adaptation of the correSpondence
between George Bernard Shaw and Mrs. Pat Campbell. This was the only
production considered in this Chapter with "big name" performers,
but Katharine Cornell and Brian Aherne failed to attract audiences.
It was the most elaborated presentation in terms of setting, with
a sofa and desk indicating Mrs. Pat's living room and a lectern—desk
combination representing Shaw's study. The players used manuscripts
but only as props.

Similarly, the performers in Under Milk Wood had manuscripts

I

 

on reading stands in front of them, but they knew their lines.
They wore ordinary clothes and sat on their stools throughout the
performance. Author Dylan Thomas appeared as one of the readers
and the few critics in attendence were most complimentary to the
poem and to the readers. However,qas it was only given for two
performances, it is impossible to judge its popular success. The

full scale production of Under Milk Wood which appeared on Broadway

 

in 1957 was a failure, both in terms of popular appeal and critical
reaction. A later production, done off—Broadway with a smaller

cast and less theatrical paraphernalia enjoyed some critical ap-
proval, although there were still objections to the over—visualization
of things which would, some reviewers felt, have been better left

to Thomas' poetry and one's own imagination. The play had grown

out of a program Thomas had presented on radio and he called it

"a play for voices."

 

 

. __,,

Lewis 1
presen
belie1
invol
tatic
to S
some

form

 

 

 

381
Perhaps the most significant production in this Chapter was

Lewis John Carlino's Telemachus Clay. This play was written to be

 

presented in what Carlino called the "theatre of collage." He
believed he had developed a new type of theatre which directly
involved the audience. The difference lay in the manner of presen-
tation, which called for the actors to remain on their stools and
to speak directly to the audience rather than to each other. As
some of the critics pointed out, this was not too different in
format from various "reading" productions. However, it was dif-

ferent in that this was the first time an author had written a play

 

to be presented in this manner.

Several of the critics were more concerned with whether or
not the material used in these miscellaneous productions could be
considered as "drama” or as "a play" than they were with the question
of whether the presentation should be regarded as "theatre." Paul
Shyre called his adaptation of U.S.A. a play, but some of the re-
viewers disagreed. Aston cautioned potential audiences not to
expect the "usual drama or suspense," to try to locate a plot.

He thought the production would be better described as a "reading"
or a "concertized version of a vivid narrative."307 Malcolm wrote
that "it is weak and doubtful as a play—~which is what it insists

"308

on calling itself——but excellent as a revue. McClain ruled,

"It really isn't a play at all, in the conventional sense; it is

 

307Frank Aston, New York World-Telegram and Sun, October 29, 1959.
308

Donald Malcolm, The New Yorker, November 7, 1959, p. 88.

 

 

 

 

mo

 

"--V—‘—--' 7 - 4——77777‘V7 -

382
more an elaborate reading, and as such it is very good."309
McClain also liked Dear Liar, which was similar toLEg§:$;:h1
that it made use of at least partial scenery and costume. iHe

reported.that Dear Liar successfully avoided."the dread formula of

"310

 

a reading. Watts heartily recommended.the production, but he

noted it was "not a play in any conventional sense, nor does it

pretend to be."311

Atkinson enjoyed the literary duel, but warned
that it was "no substitute for the crackle of a comedy by the man

who wrote the most spirited letters in this wayward exchange"?12

Lewis John Carlino's "collage," Telemachus Clay, met with mixed

 

 

reactions. The critic for the Villager agreed.that experimentation
was necessary, but questioned, "Is it theatre? It is more for the
workshop, not for a paying audience.”313 Brustein, writing for
New Republic confessed, "To attend a staged reading is to feel like

that theatre goer in a recent New Yorker cartoon who, upon watching

 

the curtain rise on four empty stools says 'I don't like it already.'"

However, he found Telemachus Clay ”the only evening of American

 

314

theatre so far this year which begins to approach distinction."

IHerridge labeled.the production "one of the most interesting new

e."315

theatre forms to appear in a long tim

 

309John McClain, New York Journal American, October 29, 1959.

510 , March 18, 1960.

 

31llRiChard Watts, Jr., New York Post, March 18, 1960.

 

312Brooks Atkinson, New York Times, March 18, 1960, p. 19.

313M.g., 10o. cit., November 21, 1963-
315

314

Robert Brustein, loc. Cit.

Frances Herridge, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

were
and
a "i"

thm

 

385
As was the case in the previous chapters, some of the critics
were reluctant to accept oral interpretation productions as "theatre,"
and considered the material used in them as less satisfactory than
a "play“ or "drama." Others thought the presentations constituted

thoroughly enjoyable and acceptable theatre.

 

 

 

 

. . r

 

 

 

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

The question raised in this study was: Is oral interpretation
a separate and unique type of entertainment, or is itfia specialized
form of theatre? The findings regarding setting and accessories,
manner of presentation, acting, material used, and critical commentary
regarding the question of whether or not oral interpretation presen—
tations constituted "theatre," suggests the following conclusions:

1. Obvious differences exist between the majority of oral
interpretation presentations and conventional theatre productions
in the manner of presentation-—specifically, in the use of scripts,
narrators, and movement. Scripts were in evidence in nearly three—
fourths of the oral interpretation presentations. However, as we
have seen, the performers in most of the productions had their lines
memorized and used the scripts as props. In some productions,
Don Juan in Hell and Picturegiin the Hallway for example, the actors
pretended to be reading from the scripts and turned the pages con—
stantly. In others, such as In White America and When I Was a Child,
the actors began the vignettes by pretending to read from the scripts,
but soon stopped reading and began acting. Three productions used
scripts for the purpose normally associated with them. The performers

in Oedipus Rex and The Mayor of Zalamea read their lines, as did

narrator Martyn Green in Drums Under the Windows. Narrators were

384

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

385
used in ten productions.

{Hhe performers in more than half of the oral interpretation
pnxnrlctions were restricted in their movement. Players in five
jpresentations used.almost no movement, and performers in twelve
productions used.only limited movement. Several of the presentations
Which.diCLIuyt restrict the movement of the players featured acted-
out vignettes.

2. .Another significant difference between oral interpretation

presentations and conventional productions is that'wnensterial used

  

in three—fourths of the oral interpretation presentations was not

HIIIIiI—m

originally intended for the stage. Nearly half of the presentations
'used more than one genre of literature. Seven used several different
Ikinds of material, including letters, diaries, court records, his-
tories, conversations, witticisms, and songs, as well as excerpts
from poetry, plays, novels, and short stories. The major form of
Skiterature used in seven of the presentations was a play or selections

from plays. Six productions featured primarily poetry. Ukuee volumes

 

of Sean O'Casey‘s autobiography constituted the material for three
productions. Novels were adapted in three presentations, and col—
lections of short stories were used for three productions. Emlyn
‘Williams' first Dickens' program, Mixed Bill, utilized cuttings from

four of the English author's novels and two of his short stories.

Dear Liar was an adaptation taken from forty years of correspondence

between George Bernard Shaw and Mrs. Pat Campbell.
It is impossible to draw any conclusions, on the basis of the
material presented in this study, as to what type of material is best

suited for oral interpretation. The reviewers were favorably inclined

 

 

 

 

386
toward the material used in more than half of the productions. The
(Initicisms leveled.at the material which failed to receive critical
endorsement cited the lack of a definite central theme and the use
cxfxnaterial which laCked dramatic excitement or lyrical beauty.

3. The majority of oral interpretation productions made use
of the theatrical accessories of scenery and lighting. Frequently
however, only selected or limited elements were used.’]

Eight of the presentations used no scenery. Limited scenery

was utilized in twelve productions. Three of these featured a symbol

 

of the author in the setting. In The World of Carl Sandburg, an

 

empty throne-like Chair with Sandburg's books scattered around it was

Spotlighted. .A Boy Growing Up featured a screen with Dylan Thomas'

 

signature scrawled across it. A large photograph of Brecht dominated

the stage in Brecht on Brecht. Nine productions used more elaborate

 

scenery, representing such settings as a living room in a nineteenth—
century parsonage.

The reviews of twelve productions did not mention lighting,
while brief mention was made of the lighting in nine. The critical
commentary indicates that special lighting effects and/or atmospheric
lighting were an important feature of ten productions.

.As might be expected, the least frequently used.theatrical

 

accouterment was costume. In twenty presentations, the performers

wore evening dress or street Clothes. The performers in three

 

1The terms "selected" and "limited" are used to indicate that
scenery and lighting were used, but not to the extent one would expect
them to be used in a conventional theatre production.

 

 

 

11 \.
r .‘
i, f _
. k
i
,
-\

.: ; . .> _: min I:.lr'*i~od':.si. Jud“ oiliwoi

 

l.i;od 3.: Jr )JLCVOI 2i.ioiiiio
Fl: l.:a an a ;.; no x lo iohi one Coiio unemenioouo

lbITSJSm IO

 

.1

'.'. .» w .. mid 3‘9 arc." nit ‘__:'I.-U:3 and lo

- . ruin 3.1:}:

387
productions used some elements of costume, and the players in the
remaining eight wore costumes similar to what would be expected in
a conventional theatrical presentation. In five of the productions,
the actors used simple costume Changes to indicate different
Characters.

4. The performers in nearly all the oral interpretation pro—

 

ductions had appeared in previous conventional theatre productions,
consequently, much of the stage technique used by the interpreters
was very similar to that used in regular theatre presentations.
More than half of the oral interpretation productions featured
well—known actors.

5. The majority of critics were willing to accept at least
some oral interpretation productions as "theatre.” Their reviews
indicated that many of them shared Variety critic Hobe Morrison's
view: "All I know, or rather believe, is that if a performance is
good, it doesn't make any difference to me what form it takes."2

On the basis of the above conclusions, the writer is of the
opinion that this form of oral interpretation is not a separate
and distinct type of entertainment, but a specialized form of
theatre utilizing selected stage techniques and accessories. It
is obvious that many of these productions differ from conventional
theatre productions in their emphasis on the aural rather than the

visual aspects of the production, and in the type of material used.

 

2Letter to the author from Hobe Morrison, January 2, 1968.

   

 

. l l
L.
h e
_ .
.
«A.
..1
r
. _
2
_
,

 

 

 

388

However, performers in both types of presentations serve as the

medium through which an author's ideas are presented. Both the

actor and the interpreter try to communicate these ideas orally to

an audience. The interpreter is frequently aided by lighting and

elements of scenery, and occasionally, by elements of costume.

It appears that oral interpretation borrows certain techniques
and accessories from the theatre to stimulate the imaginationcxf
those in the audience, but tries to avoid using these techniques
and accessories to the extent that the emphasis is shifted from
what the audience sees in their minds, to what they see on the stage.
IPurists in the realms of oral interpretation and.of theatre may

object, but the writer feels the similarities between oral inter-

pretation and theatre outweigh the differences. As critic Tom

Driver pointed out in his review of Pictures in the Hallway and

A Boy Growing Up:

Part of the delight of the theatre is that it has endless
ways of achieving its magic. We do not ask of it, therefore,
whether it is long or short, grand or petite, professional or
amature, old or new, conventional or unconventional. We aSk
whether it has unique, living moments. If they are there, it

is enough, whatever the means.3

It is the writer's opinion that, while some types of materail

might be presented.very effectively by a performer who has a script

on a podium, and who uses little or no movement, no costume, scenery

 

or lighting effects, as evidenced by Sir John Gielgud'swAges of Man,

other types of material would be greatly enhanced by the use of some

theatrical techniques and accessories. It should be noted, in

3Tom F. Driver, Christian Century, October 50, 1957, p. 1288.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I|\|‘\|

. e
, _ >

 

 

389

reference to Ages of Man, that Sir John is an actor'of considerache

 

'Uilent and experience, and the critical commentary concerning the
jproduction clearly indicates that he made extensive use of the
teChniques which have helped to make him a famous actor. Those who
try to prescribe what oral interpretation must or'must not use,

severely limit the possibilities of this medium.

Suggestions for Further Study

 

‘Professional oral interpretation offers a fertile field for

 

scholars in theatre and in oral interpretation. Very little researCh

has been done in this area, and there are many interesting aspects
a researcher might consider. This study has been concerned with I
only the productions done in commercial New York theatres. Several
of these productions were sent on extended tours either before or
after their New York appearances. The "road" version of these pro—
ductions and the popular and critical response they received might

suggest the status of oral interpretation throughout the United States.

 

An in depth examination of one presentation for its entire theatrical
existence would also be of value. Presentations which seem to be

especially well suited to such a study include: Don Juan in Hell,

 

John Brown's Body, The Hollow Crown, The World of Carl Sandburg,

_Qear Liar, Spoon River, In White America, Mark Twain Tonight!, and

 

Emlyn Williams' programs as Dickens.
People who have worked extensively in professional oral
interpretation, such as Emlyn Williams, Hal Holbrook, Paul Gregory

and Paul Shyre offer interesting possibilities for research, provided

 

 

 

 

 

390
of course, that they would be willing to cooperate. A study of the
advantages and disadvantages of this form of presentation as ascer-
tained by those involved in the productions, and by those critics
'who review them, would be useful to those interested in either pro—
fessional or college oral interpretation presentations.

Some of the methods of presentation used in oral interpretation
productions are similar in certain respects to devices Brecht used in
several of his plays to "alienate" the audiences. A comparison in
terms of purpose and technique would be of special interest to those

concerned with the "fourth wall." A comparative study might also be

 

made between professional oral interpretation productions done in
ZNew York and those done in London. A dissertation treating professional
oral interpretation in London from 1951 to 1962 was done by James
Linn.L+

Those who are interested in both theatre and oral interpretation
should find this an excellent field in which to work. Those interested
primarily in theatre, or primarily in oral interpretation could con—

centrate on the various elements of their particular area which are

a part of professional oral interpretation.

 

James Reive Lindsay Linn, "A Historical Study of Oral Inter—
pretation in London, 1951—1962 As a Form of Professional Theatre,"
(Unpublished.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California,

1964.)

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll-ll----...________ l

 

 

.
. .
a . ,
e H r . . . . .
. , . .
, . a, .
l ,
. c
n . , ._ 1.
. . _ .
. .
i
c _, l. .
_ . .

. , .

, . u.
_ .i , ., ,

. .l i .
e
r .
l ..
,. e .
.
;

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

i

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Armstrong, Chloe, and Brandes, Paul D. The Oral Interpretation of
Literature. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1965.

Bacon, Wallace A. The Art of Interpretation. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966.

Beloof, Robert. The Performing Voice in Literature. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company, 1966.

Bentley, Eric. The Dramatic Event: An American Chronical. New York:
Horizon Press, 1964.

Bertram, Jean De Sales. The Oral Experience of Literature.
San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1967.

and Okey, LaMont L. The Communicative

Brooks, Keith; Bahn, Eugene;
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,

Arts of Oral Interpretation. Boston:

196 .

Brough, James. A Victorian in Orbit. Garden City, New York:

Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961.

Chapman, John. Broadway's Best, 1958. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1958.

Coger, Irene, and White, Melvin. Readers Theatre Handbook. Chicage:

Scott, Foresman and Company, 19 7.

Crocker, Lionel, and Eich, Louis. Oral Reading. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 2d ed., 1955.

Duberman, Martin B. In White America. New York: Samuel French, Inc.,

1964.

Gassner, JOhn. Theatre at the Crossroads: Plays and Playyrights of
the Mid—Century American Stage. New York: Horizon Press, 1954.
f the Men Materials and

. Theatre of Our Times: A Survey 0 2 .
the Modern Theatre. New York: Crown Publishers,

W
Inc., 195 .

391

 

 

 

 

392

Geiger, Don. The Sound, Sense, and Performance of Literature.
Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1963.

 

Lee, Charlotte J. Oral Interpretation. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin
Company, 1952. '

Lynch, Gladys E., and Grain, Harold C. Projects in Oral Interpretation.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959.

Nathan, George Jean. The Theatre Book of the Year. 1945-1946.
New York: Alfred.A. Knopf, 1946.

. Theatre in the Fifties. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955.

Parrish, Wayland Maxfield. Reading.Aloud. New York: The Ronald
Press Company, 1966.

Shakespeare King Richard II. ed. by John Dover Wilson. Cambridge

University Press, 1959-

 

Shyre, Paul, and Dos Passos, John. U.S.A. New York: Samuel

French Inc., 1960.

Simley, Anne. Oral Interpretation Handbook. Minneapolis: Burgess

Publishihg Company, 1960.

Singer, Kurt. The Charles Laughton Stoyy. London: Robert Hale,

Ltd., 1954.

Smith, Joseph F., and Linn, James R. Skill in Reading.Aloud.

New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

Preface by Daniel Jones. New York:

Thomas, Dylan. Under Milk Wogd.
New Directions Books, 1954.

and Nelson, Severian E. The Art of Interpretive

Woolbert, Charles H., ___
Crofts and Company, 1945.

Speech. New York:
_Magazine Articlgg

Bahn, Eugene.' "Interpretative Reading in Ancient Greece." Quarterly
f Speegh, XVIII (June, 1932), pp. 432—441.

Journal 0

Balliett, Whitney. "Off Broadway, Turtle Soup". ‘The New Yorkgp.

October 22, 1960, pp. 90—92.
April 8, 1961, pp. 152—154.

. “fl

. . April 22, 1961, p. 118.

 

 

 

 

393

Bentley, Eric. "On the Sublime." New Republic. March 2, 1953, p. 23.

 

"On Being Read To." New Republic. May 11, 1953, p. 22.

 

Brooks, Keith. "Readers Theatre: Some Questions and.Answers."
Dramatics, XXXIV (December, 1962), pp. 14+.

 

, and Bielenberg, John E. "Readers Theatre as Defined by
New York Critics." Southern Speech Journal, XXIX (Summer

1966): PP- 289-302.

' Henderhan, Robert C.; and Billings, Alan. "A Philosophy

3

on Readers Theatre." Speech Teacher, XIII (September, 1963),
pp. 229—231.

Brown, John Mason. Saturday Review. February 23, 1952, pp. 26-27.

"Seeing Things Marching On." Saturday Review. March 14,
1953, PP- ELF-35-

Brustein, Robert. New Republic. January 22, 1962, p. 23.

.. November 16, 1963, p. 29.

 

December 21, 1963, p. 28.

 

Clurman, Harold. Nation. February 28, 1953, p. 193.

October 26, 1957, p. 290.

 

. January 10, 1959, pp. 39—40.
August 15, 1959, p. 79.

April 16, 1960, p. 343.
October 8, 1960, p. 236.
February 16, 1963, pp. 145—146.

October 26, 1963, p. 268.

 

December 24, 1951, p. 22.

"Interpreters Theatre: Theatre of the Mizi." Quarterly
XLIX (April, 1963), pp. 157—1 .

Quarterly Journal of Speegp,

. New Republig.

Coger, Irene.
Journal of Speegh,

Dickenson, Hugh. "Readers or Rhapsodez?"
XLV (October, 1959). pp. 258—2 3.
October 30, 1957, pp. 1288—1289.

Driver, Tom F. _Christian Centu_y.

November 9, 1960, pp. 1320—1321.

\

 

 

 

 

 

394

Driver, Tom F. Christian Century. April 26, 1961, p. 535.

 

. . March 7, 1962, p. 296.

. "Theatre, Gielgud's Broadway Triumph.” New Republic.
February 2, 1959, p. 20.

 

Donner, Stanley T. ”Mark Twain as a Reader." Quarterly Journal of
Speech XXXIII (October, 1947), pp. 308-311.

Fuller, John. Saturday Review. May 30, 1959, PP- 6-7.

Hewes, Henry. "Broadway Postscript, Tale of Thirtyesix Characters.”
Saturday Review. May 9, 1953, pp. 27—28.

"Broadway Postscript, The BaCkward Town of Llareggub."
Saturday Review. June 6, 19531 pp. 24-25.

"Broadway Postscript, Dublin Doings." Saturday Review.
June 16, 1956, p. 32.

. Saturday Review. October 19, 1957, p. 53.

December 27, 1958, p. 20.

 

January 17, 1959, Po 74-

April 25, 1959, P- 23-

November 14, 1959, P. 41.

February 27, 1960, p. 27.

April 2, 1960, p. 33.

April 1, 19611 p. 52’

mum

March 24, 1962, p- 54-

October 19, 1963, p. 30.

H1

October 30, 1965, p. 74.
" Theatre Arpgfi August, 1951,

 

 

Houseman, John. "Drama Quartette.

pp. 14—15+-

The New Yorkgp. December 29, 1945:

Gibbs, Wolcott. "Sawing the Air."
p. 34.
December 8, 1951:

"The Nether Regions." Thp New Yorkgp.

,3. 64.

 

 

 

 

395
Gibbs, Wolcott. ”A Hash". The New Yorker. February 21, 1953, pp. 58—61.

"Mr. Willaims and Mr. Dickens.” The New Yorker. May 2,
1953: P- 52-

Krutch, Joseph Wood. Nation. December 22, 1951, p. 554.
. . February 23, 1952, pp. 189—190.

McCarten, John. ”Solo With Williams." The New Yorker. February 16,
1952, p. 58.

. ”Exercise in Elocution." The New Yorker. September 24, 1960,
p. 97.

. "Tour de force.” The New Yorker. February 9, 1963,

p. 66.

Malcolm, Donald. "Off Broadway, A Restoration Comedy." The New
Yorker. April 18, 1959, pp. 80—81.

The New Yorker. November 7, 1959, p. 88.

Moorehead, Agnes. ”Staging Don Juan in Hell.” Western Speech
(May, 1954), pp,.163—166.

Morse, Ben. ”Three Ballads." Players Magazine. February, 1964,
p. 138.
"Charles Dickens as [siCJ

Murphy, Theresa, and Murphy, Richard.
y Journal of S eech, XXXIII

Professional Reader." Quarterl
(October, 1947), pp. 299—307.

Newsweek. February 18, 1952, p. 92.

January 12, 1959, p. 56.

February 11, 1963, p. 84.

Oliver, Edith. The New Yorker. January 13, 1962, pp. 62—64.

December 15, 1962, p. 132.

 

November 9, 1963, pp. 98—99.

1111

November 23, 1963, pp. 146—147.

January 4, 1964, pp. 61—62.

October 25, 1965, pp. 96—98.

HM

 

 

 

396
Prideaux, Tom. Life. March 4, 1966, p. 15.

Reynolds, Nydia Joan. "A Lively Art." Today's Speech, (April,
1961), pp. 15-17.

Simon, John. Theatre Arts. March, 1962, pp. 60—61.

Speech Association of America, Oral Interpretation Interest Group.
"Readers' Theatre Bibliography." Central States Speech
Journal, (February, 1966), pp. 33—39.

Shyre, Paul. ”O'Casey's Pictures Come to Life." Theatre Arts.
March, 1957, pp. 31-32.

Theatre Arts. December, 1957, p. 27.
. November, 1960, p. 10.
. March, 1963, p. 64.

Tipg. November 5, 1961, pp. 63—64.
. February 18, 1952, p. 61.

December 22, 1952, p. 55.

May 4, 1953, p- 84.

October 14, 1957, p. 88.

October 21, 1957a P- 56.

January 12, 1959, p. 66.

April 20, 1959, p- 71.

April 27, 19591 p- 53-

July 13, 1959, p. 44-

February,22, 1960, pp. 100—102.

March 28, 1960, p. 53.

September 26, 1960, p. 86.

\HHH

January 12, 1962, p- 50:

 

 

397

Tynan, Kenneth. "Singles and Doubles." The New Yorker
January 10, 1959, pp. 68-69. -

 

 

"Down the River." The New Yorker, March 26, 1960, pp. 80-81.

 

Stambusky, Alan A. ."The 'America First'.Attitude in U.S. Colleges
and UniverSlty Play Selection: A Five Year Report."
Educational Theatre Journal, (May, 1966), pp. 136-139.

Wyatt, Euphemia Van Rensselaer. Catholic World. February, 1946,
pp- 457—458.

March, 1946, p. 554.

 

. . February, 1952, p. 390.
March, 1952, p. 462.

June, 1953, pp. 228-229.

December, 1957, pp. 227—228.

H!

March, 1959, Pp- 505-506-

- . June, 1959, p- 240.

 

Young, Stark. "The Majestic; the Royale." ‘pr Republic.
February 11, 1946, p. 189.

.prspaper.Articlg§

September 30, 1957-

.Aston, Frank. New York WorldrTelegram and SEE.
after referred to as

New York—Theatre Critics Reviepg, (Here

 

 

 

NYTCR).
. . October 8, 1957.
. . October 16, 1957, yyggg.
. . December 29, 19583.8:293:
. . April 7, 1959.

I . . October 29, 1959.
. . February 9, 1960, NYTQR.

 

 

Aston, Frank.

Atkinson

\Hl

\\\\H\

3

\\1111111111111111'

New York WorldsTelegram and Sun.

398

 

September 15, 1960, NYTCR.
October 14, 1960.
December 9, 1960.

March 15, 1961, NYTCR.

Brooks. New York Times. October 23, 1951.

 

November 4, 1951.
February 5, 1952.
February 17, 1952.
April 15, 1952.
April 20, 1952.
February 16, 1953.
February 22, 1953.
May 16, 1954.

March 19, 1956.
May 28, 1956.
September 17, 1956.
September 23, 1956.
October 8, 1957.
October 16, 1957.
December 29, 1958.
April 19, 1959.
October 29, 1959-
February 9, 1960.

March 18, 1960-

March 18, 1960, NYTCR.

 

399

Beaufort, John. Christian Science Monitor. December 8, 1951.
. . February 9, 1952.
. . February 21, 1953.
. . April 25, 1953.
. . January 3, 1959.
. . April 11, 1959.
. . October 31, 1959.
. . September 17, 1960.
Bender, William. New York Herald Tribune. September 11, 1963.

November 1, 1963.

 

November 18, 1963.

1

December 21, 1963.

 

Bernheimer, Martin. Christian Science Monitor. November 29, 1963.

Bolton, Whitney. New York Morning Telegrapp. October 23, 1951.

. _February 6, 1952.

 

February 17, 1953.

April 22, 1953-

October 9, 1957-

11111

April 8, 1959.

October 31, 1959.

February 10, 1960.

April 27, 1960.

October 15, 1960-

December 10, 1960.

March 16, 1961.

111111

November 16, 1961-

111111111

 

Bolton, Whitney.

Bron.

Variety.

Calta, Louis.

11111

1

 

 

Candide. Villager.

Carr, Jay.

New York Morning Telegraph.

New York Times.

400

October 1, 1963.

November 2, 1963.
November 7, 1965,
November 18, 1963,
December 25, 1963.

October 13, 1965.

October 24, 1951.

March 1, 1956.
April 8, 1959.

May 6, 1959.

April 11, 1961.
November 15, 1961.
September 11, 1963.
October 18, 1963.

November 29, 1963.

November 7, 1963.

New York Post. September 11, 1963.

 

Cars. Variety,
Gates, Joseph.

Chapin, Louis.

Chapman, John.

 

 

1 1 1

111

New York Times.
Christian Science Monitgp.

New York Daily Neyg.

December 19, 1945.

October 16, 1963.

October 23, 1951-

February 5, 1952.
February 16, 1953.
April 22, 1953.

September 17, 1956.

September 18, 1963_

December 24, 1963.

 

 

 

 

Chapman, John.

New York Daily News.

401

 

 

1

 

Christian Science Monitor.

Cohn, Al. Newsda .

1

Coleman, Robert.

 

111111111

New York Daily Mirror.

October 9, 1957.

October 16, 1957, NYTCR.
December 29, 1958, METER.
April 10, 1959.

February 9, 1960, NYTQR.
March 18, 1960,'NYTQE.
September 15, 1960, NYTCR.
March 15, 1961, ygggg.
January 30, 1963, NYTCR.
September 30, 1963, NYTQR.
November 19, 1963, NYTCR.

October 22, 1960.

November 5, 1963.

October 23, 1951-

February 5, 1952.
February 16, 1953.

April 22, 1953.

April 26, 1955.

October 3, 1957, NYTCR.
October 16, 1957?.82293'
December 30, 1958, NYTCR.
April 7, 1959.

February 9, 1960, NYTQR.

March 18, 1960:,EXEEE°

September 30, 1957, NYTCR

 

402

Coleman, Robert. New York Daily Mirror. March 18, 1960, NYTCR.

 

September 15, 1960, NYTCR.

October 14, 1960.

March 15, 1961, NYTCR.

April 11, 1961.

January 30, 1963, NYTCR.

1.

. September 30, 1963, NYTCR.

 

Cooke, Richard P. Wall Street Journal. October 30, 1959.

September 12, 1960.

 

April 13, 1961.

January 31, 1963.

11111

. October 1, 1963.

11

. November 19, 1963..

. October 13, 1965.

Cotsworth, Staats. Variety. July 4, 1956, letter to the editor.

Cue. November 7, 1959.

 

. February 9, 1963.

 

. November 16, 1963.

1

. November 30, 1963.

 

Dash, Thomas. Women's Wear Dai_y. October 23, 1951.

. February 5, 1952.

 

October 29, 1960.
February 9, 1960-

October 17, 1960-

 

 

403

Davis, James. New York Daily News. October 17, 1960.

 

November 6, 1963.

Dorin, Rube. New York Morning Telegraph. January 5, 1962.

January 31, 1963.

Dust, Don. Newark Evening News. October 12, 1965.

E.L. Cue. October 23, 1965.

Esterow, Milton. New York Times. August 4, 1962.

Field, Rowland. Newark Evening News. April 21, 1953.

 

October 8, 1957-
October 29, 1959-

October 14, 1960.

Freedley, George. New York Morning Telegraph. December 18, 1945.

 

111

 

 

Funke, Lewis. New York Times.

 

11111111

1111111

January 29, 1946.
November 5, 1951.
February 11, 1952-
March 24, 1953-
April 24, 1953.
January 6, 1952.
February 17, 1954-
September 17, 1956.
March 3, 1957-
January 11, 1959-
July 12, 1959.
October 18, 1959.
February 7, 1960-

January 12, 1962-

 

~ on"
messy-V

 

 

404
Funke, Lewis. New York Times. November 6, 1963.

- November 16, 1965,

. . December 21, 1963.
H.B. New York Times. May 29, 1953.
Harris, Leonard. New York World—Telegram and Sun. November 1, 1963.
Hawkins, William. New York World-Telegram and Sun. January 16, 1950.

October 23, 1951.

 

February 5, 1952.

February 16, 1953.

1 1

 

April 21, 1953.

 

Herridge, Frances. New York Post. September 30, 1957, NYTCR.

April 7, 1959.

 

. February 9, 1960, NYTCR.

. December 9, 1960.

o

. April 11, 1961.

11111

. January 4, 1962.

. November 17, 1963.

111

December 22, 1963.

Hipp, Edward. Newark Evening News.
. January 30, 1965-

 

January 28, 1962-

 

November 19, 1963.

11

 

Hobe. Variety. February 6, 1952.
February 18, 1955-

 

October 2, 1957- ‘

February 10, 1960.

February 6, 1963-

111

 

405
Hobe. Variety. October 2, 1963.

Garland, Robert. New York Journal American. January 16, 1950.

 

- . October 23, 1951.

Gelb, Arthur. New York Times. October 21, 1951.

 

. . April 26, 1955.

. . March 28, 1957.

. . September 30, 1957.
. . January 5, 1959.

o 0 April 7, 1959.

 

. . April 13, 1959.
.6 . August 23, 1959.

April 26, 1960.

O 0
“

"Campaigner in the Cause of Sean O'Casey." New York Times.

September 25, 1960.

Geor. Variety. October 9, 1957-

Gilbert, Justin. New York Daily Mirpgp. October 8, 1957.

Gottfried, Martin. Women's Wear Dai_y. November 1, 1961.

. January 30, 1963-

 

September 11, 1963.

. November 6, 1963.

. . November 18, 1963.
. November 19, 1963.

October 12, 1965-

 

 

Grif. Variety. May 4, 1955-

J. T. Village Voigg, November 4, 1959-

Jaal. Variety. April 12, 1961.

 

 

406

Jess. Variety. December 31, 1958.

Kali. Variety. October 26, 1960.

O I O
_

December 21, 1960.

May 3: 1961.

Kerr, Walter. New York Herald Tribune. October 23, 1951.

1111

11111

M
u.”
0
w
w
w

 

February 5, 1952,

February 16, 1953.

April 21, 1953.

April 27, 1955.

September 17, 1956.
September 30, 1957, NYTQR.
October 16, 1957.

December 29, 1958.

April 7, 1959.

October 29, 1959.
February 9, 1960, NYTCR.
March 18, 1960, NYTCR.
September 15, 1960, NYTCR.
October 14, 1960.

March 15, 1961, METER.
September 30, 1963, pm.
November 6, 1963.

November 19, 1963,,NXEQE-

Kenn. Variety. January 17, 1962.

1

 

September 18, 1963-

 

 

 

407
Kenn. Variety. November 11, 1963.
. . November 27, 1963.
. . October 27, 1965.
Kronenberger, Lewis. P.M. New York. December 17, 1945.
. . January 28, 1946.
Kupferber, Herbert. New York Herald Tribune. .April 11, 1961.

. . October 12, 1965.

 

L.C. New York Times. December 19, 1956.

.F. New York Times. April 21, 1953.

[7"

.N. Variety. January 28, 1946.

1:"

.S. Brooklyn Daily Eagle. October 2, 1950.

IT'

Landi. Variety. October 28, 1957-

. March 23, 1960.

 

 

Laughton, Charles. "How Mr. Laughton Became the Devil." New York Times.

March 23, 1952.

Little, Stuart. New York Herald Tribune. November 11, 1963.

November 12, 1963-

 

 

Lowe. Variety. March 14, 1951.

M.S. Village Voipp, November 21, 1963.

McClain, John. New York Journal Americgp. February 5, 1952-

February 16, 1953.

 

 

April 21, 1953.

September 17, 1956.
September 30, l957,.§2§9§°
October 8, 1957.

October 16, 1957-

 

 

 

McClain, John.

MacGregor,

Maddocks, Melvin.

 

Mishkin, Leo.

Mitchell, John.

 

408

New York Journal American. December 29, 1958.

 

 

Martha.

 

1 1

 

Christian Science Monitor. February 13,

New York Morning Telegrapp.

New York Journal Ameriqgg.

Morgenstern, Joseph.

 

1

April 7, 1959.

October 29, 1959.
February 9, 1960, NYTCR.
March 18, 1960, NYTCR.
October 14, 1960.
September 15, 19601.8XEEE°
December 9, 1960.

March 15, 1961, NYTCR.

 

January 30, 1963, NYTQR.
April 15, 1963.

September 30, l9631.fl§2§3°
November 1, 1963.

November 19, 1963, NYTCR.

New York Post. October 17, 1965.

1960.

February 2, 1963.
October 2, 1963.

November 21, 1963.

April 12, 1961.
September 12, 1963.

November 6, 1963.

December 9, 1960-

New York Herald Tribupg.

January 4, 1962.

 

 

409
Nadel, Norman. New York World—Telggram and Sun. November 15, 1961.
. . January 22, 1962.
. . September 30, 1963.
. . November 6, 1963.
. . November 16, 1963.
. . November 19, 1963, NYTQR.

December 21, 1963.

October 12, 1965.

 

Nathan, George Jean. New York Journal American. November 5, 1951.

. March 1, 1953-

 

. June 18, 1955-

Nedi. Variety. April 15, 1959-
November 11, 1959.

Newark Evening News. October 23, 1951.

Newsday. October 19, 1960.
. February 6, 1965-

New York Herald Tribune. July 23, 1963-
. February 9, 1965.

New York Morning Telegraph. May 5, 1955-

New York Times. November 11, 1945-

 

May 179 1959-

 

May 1, 1960.

March 19, 1962.

February 14, 1963-

April 26, 1963-

May 24, 1963.

111111

June 29, 1963-

 

 

W)

 

410

New York Times. June 30, 1963.

. October 3, 1963.

. December 27, 1963.

. January 13, 1964.

. October 12, 1965.
Nichols, Lewis. New York Times. December 17, 1945.
O'Conner, Jim. New York Journal American. April 11, 1961.

. . January 4, 1962.

O'Neill, Eugene, Jr. "One Solid Vote for the 'Audio'." New York Times.
December 16, 1945.

Oppenheimer, George. Newsday. January 7, 1959.
. . March 23, 1960.
. . April 5, 1961.
. . September 30, 1963.
. . November 18, 1963.
.' . November 19, 1963.
December 23, 1963.

October 12, 1965.

 

 

Palatsky, Gene. Newark Evening Nepg. September 30, 1963.

. November 6, 1963.

 

 

. November 16, 1963.

W

 

Pollock, Arthur. Brooklyn Daily Eagle. December 17, 1945.

. January 28, 1946.

#

 

. _Dgily Compagg. October 24, 1951.

 

R.I.A. Women's Wear Daiyy. December 13, 1960.

Roscoe, Burton, 'Ngw York World Telegra h. December 17, 1945.

 

 

411

Ross, Dan. New York Herald Tribune. February 7, 1960.

 

Saffron, Robert. New York World—Telegram and Sun. April 11, 1961.

 

Sainer, Arthur. Village Voice. October 10, 1963.

. . November 14, 1963.

. . December 26, 1963.
Savino, Guy. Newark Evening News. December 9, 1960.
Schmidt, Sandra. Village Voice. December 15, 1960.

. . April 20, 1961.

 

Schumach, Murray. New York Times. May 2, 1963.

 

Shanley. New York Times. August 8, 1954.

Sheaffer, Louis. Brooklyp Daily Eagle. October 23, 1951.

. . February 5, 1952.
. February 16, 1953.

. April 21, 1955-

Shepard, Richard F. "Professor Talks." New York Times. December 15, 1963.

Sherman, Susan. Village Voice. October 21, 1965.

Smith, Michael. Village Voice.
. November 7, 1963.

February 7, 1963-

 

Stage News. January 19, 1960.

Stern, Harold. New York Standard. January 31, 1963.

Sylvester, Robert. New York Daily News.

Tallmer, Jerry. Village Voice. October 20, 1960.
October 12, 1965.

December 17, 1945-

c
_—_———

Taubman, Howard. New York Times. September 15, 1960.

"Page or Stage." New York Times. September 25’ 1960'

.
___——

 

 

“HR-nag»-

 

412
Taubman, Howard. New York Times. October 14, 1960.
. . December 9, 1960.
. . March 15, 1961.
. . March 30, 1961.

. . January 4, 1962.

January 14, 1962.

January 30, 1963.

September 30, 1963.

November 1, 1963.

November 19, 1963.

. June 28, 1964.

 

Thompson, Jack. New York Journal American. November 16, 1963.

. December 21, 1963.

Variety. December 19, 1945.
. May 27, 1955.

April 18, 1956.

May 30, 1956.

October 2, 1957-

November 13, 1957-

January 21, 1959-

September 21, 1960.

March 22, 1961.

November 20, 1963-

January 11, 1964-

1.11111

April 12, 1964-

 

Vene. Variety. April 22, 1953.
. June 3, 1953.

1

 

 

 

413

Villager. January 11, 1962.

. November 7, 1963.

. December 5, 1963.
Waldorf, Wilalla. New York Post. December 17, 1945.
Watts, Richard, Jr. New York Post. October 23, 1951.

. . February 5, 1952.

. . February 16, 1953.

. . April 21, 1953.

. . October 16, 1957, NYTCR.
December 29, 1958, METER.
. . October 29, 1959.
. . March 18, 1960, 11131393.
. . September 15, 1960’.HXEQE'
October 14, 1960, NYTCR,
March 15, 1961, NYTCR.
. January 30, 1963, NYTCR.
September 30, 1963, METER.

. November 1, 1963.

. . November 6, 1963.
. I . November 19, 1963, NYTCR.

 

Watts, Stephen. "The Man Who Would be Dickens." New York Timgg.

February 3, 1952.

"On Wilde's World." New York Timgg. March 12, 1961.

 

Weisner, Jacob A. Variety. January 2, 1952.

West, Anthony. Show. May, 1963.

Young, B.A. New York Times. February 15, 1964.

 

 

 

W -«—- -

 

414
Zolotow, Sam. New York Times. July 16, 1951.

. _________. February 4, 1952,

March 27, 1953.

July 22, 1956.

January 4, 1957.

January 27, 1959-

. . December 15, 1961.
. January 15, 1962.

. March 27, 1963.

 

. June 27, 1963.

. . November 22, 1963.

 

Personal Letters to the Writer

1968.

Atkinson, Brooks. Critic, New York Times, January 6,
Actor, When I Was a Child, July 9, 1968.
1968.

Bartenieff, George.

Barton, John. Director, The Hollow Crown, June 10,

Beaufort, John. Critic, Christian Science Monitgp, January 10, 1968.

Brookes, Jacqueline. Actress, An Evening's Frqpp, June 18, 1968.
1968.

Cisney, Marcella. Director, An Evening's Frogp, June 10,

Clurman, Harold. Critic, Nation, January 8, 1968.

Cornell, Katharine. Actress, Dear Liar, June 11, 1968.

_The World of Carl Sandbupg, June 8, 1968.

_Piptures in the Hallway,

Corwin, Norman. Adaptor,

Cotsworth, Staats. Actor, IyKnock at the D093,
June 9, 1968.
1968.

Hewes, Henry. Critic, Saturday Revigfl, January 4,

Geer, Will. Actor, pp Evening's Frogp, June 22, 1968.

 

 

 

 

415
Gielgud, Sir John. Actor and Adaptor, Ages of Man, June 13, 1968.
Glaeser, Gaye. Actress, When I Was a Child, July 6, 1968.
Green, Martyn. Actor, Drums Under the Windows, July 2, 1968.
Jackson, Anne. Actress, Brecht on Brecht, July 22, 1968.
Johnson, Richard. Actor and Adaptor, The Golden Age, June 11, 1968.

Kerr, Walter. Critic, New York Herald Tribune and New York Times,
January 6, 1968.

MacLiammoir, Michael. Actor and Adaptor, The Importance of Being Oscar,
July 4, 1968.

Moorehead, Agnes. Actress, Don Juan in Hell, July 6, 1968.

 

Morrison, Hobe. Critic, Variety, January 2, 1968.
Redfield, William. Actor, U.S.A., July 5, 1968.
Schenker, Joel W. Founder, Readers Theatre Inc., March 21, 1967.

Actor, and Director, I Knock at the Door, U.S.A.,

Shyre, Paul. Adaptor,
, Drums Under the Windows, June 15, 19 .

Pictures in the Hallwa

Stickney, Dorothy. Actress and Adaptor, A Lovely Light, June 17, 1968.

Taubman, Howard. Critic, New York Times, January 4, 1968.

 

U.S.A., July 19, 1968.

 

Thompson, Sada. Actress, Under Milk Wood and

 

Van Patten, Joyce. Actress, Spoon River, June 11, 1968.

Actress and Adaptor, The Brontes, July 1, 1968.

Webster, Margaret.
Wickwire, Nancy. Actress, Under Milk Wood and The Golden Age,
June 3, 1968.

Windom, William. Actor, U.S.A., July 12, 1968.

Yurka, Blanche. Actress, Oedipus Rex, June 4, 1968.

 

 

 

 

416

Miscellaneous Unprinted Materials

Audit of the financial books of Dear Liar, by accountants Pinto,
Winokur, and Pagano, found in a scrapbook of clippings on
Dear Liar in the Theatre Collection at the Library and
Museum for the Performing Arts, Lincoln Center, New York,
New York. (Here after referred to as Theatre Collection.)

Barkentine, Marjorie. An undated press release found in the Readers
Theatre vertical file, Theatre Collection.

Carlino, Lewis John. Letter quoted in Monroe's dissertation, (see below).

Linn, James Reive Lindsay. "A Historical Study of Oral Interpretation
in London, 1951—1962 as a Form of Professional Theatre."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California,

1964.

 

McClintic, Guthrie. An undated, unidentified clipping found in Dear
Liar vertical file, Theatre Collection.

Monroe, Elizabeth Annette. "The Group Reading of Drama: Its Essence
and Aesthetic Principles." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1965.

Press release dated September 11, 1960. Found in vertical files,
Theatre Collection.

Press release dated June 3, 1965. Found in vertical files, Theatre
Collection.

An undated, unidentified clipping found in

Stickney, Dorothy. .
Theatre Collection. ‘

A Lovely Light vertical file,

Williams, Emlyn. "My Unfavourite Word is Rea .
unidentified article found in the ”Reading
Theatre Collection.

ding.” An undated,
5" vertical file,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

MMMMM

I L w W

R

WW