'E’HEATEE‘E {:MTKS A§ EVEEEMEB EN Té‘iiEEE EEWEWS @F ”WEE 33%? PLAY? FQR THE §EA$QNS {$56 - 1%0 Thosts {up film Dawn of pin D. MECE‘ILGRN STATE EIEWEBSWY Kenneth Regenbaum £1966 9 Pain .0 v' 4.31. .. lfiicbigan J.» llhfivemsflqr This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONCERNS OF SELECTED NEw YORK THEATRE CRITICS AS EVIDENCED IN THEIR REVIEWS OF "THE BEST PLAYS" FOR THE SEASONS 1956-1960 presented by Kenneth Paul Re genbaum has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pho Do degree in SpeeCh QM I: M Major professor Date April 20, 1967 0-169 l|(.lo.lrlll - : .‘ Com-9H.“ VV. 4} (- Wu; . ,- Imus) Q? n.“ . A, .k k u 3... A. vs 2, xv ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONCERNS OF SELECTED NEW YORK THEATRE CRITICS AS Emma!) IN THEIR REVIEPS 0? ”THE BEST PLAYS' FOR THE SEASONS 1956-1960 by Kenneth Regcnbaum The purpose of this study was to describe the concerns that selec- ted New York dramatic critics have shown in the theatre reviews that they . have written for the major New York City daily newspapers, during the per- iod 1956 to 1960. To accomplish this purpose an objective evaluation of a selected “or of Broadway reviews was undertaken. One-hundred-fifty reviews (for twenty-five productions, over the five-year period, by six newspaper W critics: Brooks Atkinson, John Chapman, Robert Coleman, Walter m. Richard Watts, Jr., and John McClain) were carefully read to deter- Iina the critics’ "concerns", that is, the subjects--such as the Script, the Acting. etc 4..th they were writing about. It became apparent as the analysis of the reviews was conducted. fig acne concerns of the critics were broader and more inclusive than a, 1‘0”. For example, critical commentary upon the "theme", or the smart", or the "Plot", was considered aspects of the concern of H U glfi’ctipt." This, the concerns were ordered into "general" (inclus- " Tfl ”specific" (subsidiary) classifications. with all synonomous ' ". . calcified together. Eventually, all concerns mentioned by the .ov . Abstract - page 2 Kenneth Rege'nbaum fitter each review was read, the number of words that was devoted ' hm concern was counted. (The total number of words recorded for M plural concern equalled the sum of all the specific concerns sub- m to it. For example, the total for Acting equalled the combined .W for the specific concerns: General Acting Technique, Technique of the Individual Actor, Background of the Actor, and Comparison With Billet iiork.) These words were then subdivided, within each concern for ”Oh review, according to the "favor"--positive, neutral, or negative-- I. expressed in a judgement the critic made about that concern. From the objective data so gathered, it was possible to posit me to the following questions: «float do the critics, as a group, look for in a production? p, allow such attention do they, as a group, devote to the con- do each critic equally concerned with the same concerns? ' . «What is the amount of favor, neutrality, and disfavor that each , mm above per concern? .7? -. . cools the amount of attention and the amount of favor directed e 21"” critics toward the same concerns or toward different concerns? a ”k . ”hiring the five-year period of the study, do the critics de- 0 - < {gear-nu amount of attention year by year as they do production by " V3". _ ‘ f3 J .,_ ' use found that all six critics spent the greatest amount of f ' \‘f , ifitheir reviews on the concern of the Script (63.3%, in mean {M large amount of Script space was distributed among the 9» . ; or Script: the Playwright, Character, Plot, Structure. O . . It . c .. .. .. at. I l I l . Q. . . U .l i . . I . .. a I .s a O l I a c 4 7.. u s s .o s ‘ 0.. \g‘ 1,. \. 30. e. o v s: s . a .. .. I. r . l 8 u a , c I .L 01 A r .- \.i ‘ n a s ’ Q . s In. I s I Abstract - page 3 Kenneth Regenbaun . . L“. and Script Style, with Character and Playwright emerging as the . '1 “It 'Mcrtant determinants of the large concern for Script. All the critics gave the concern of Acting the second largest amount of space (23.0%). The remainder of their attention was distributed, on an average, in the following order: Production (6.87.); Directing (3 .41); Technical mm (2.6%); and Audience (1.07.). In spite of the over-all consensus in regard to the ranking of the concerns, the individual critics showed differences regarding the was given each concern, as well as in both the amount and the kind a! favor that they ascribe to that concern. Walter Kerr evidences a high- »: or concern for Acting than any other critic, and shows both highly posi- tive and negative indices of favor for that concern. Richard Watts has W mt degree of concern for Script of all the critics, and is high- ‘~' 533 concerned, both positively and negatively, with the specific concern a . - '9! the Theme. John Chapman and Robert Coleman evidence high concerns for 1,: ..3._‘ Script, but theirs is the highest positive favor for the specific con- ' “~- 10! the Plot. Brooks Atkinson expresses a high degree of concern, .. high positive and negative dispositions with regard to favor, for .3: 'gflcific concerns of Structure, Theme, and Character within the Script. . R was found that the large amount of space devoted by the critics, Abstract - page I; Kenneth Regenbaum AN 31‘" 1‘ a“ ”filtration and of favor shore: to a concern by the manners...” inch- Itudy, was found to fluctuate. 1"" m amend-uncles. as a group, within their reviews of in- m productions, rather than over the theatrical seasons. an WON mm was mans or menu new you: mm camcs as m n mm was or 'm as; new FOR nu: smous I 1956-1960‘ By Kenneth Regenhaun .. A 138815 Submitted to . Michigan State University ., II will fulfillment of the requirementa ‘ g for the degree of soc-new mm Dam of Speech ‘-.~~.:—‘._'_ ‘j- - ‘ . (03 Copyright by Kenneth Reg 1967 win». _ Cup: " te‘hea great plounre in dedicating this etudy to his - a, '2» 7 4.17. ' ‘ ' hie lovely Susanne. nur v r I O. we I':“' I" .m’ 0 “1‘1 I w . “" “ ‘er «mew y. er. mm,- 4 u,’ agape it [hing u.’ ‘ I” given - _‘ ,3! w Lm‘fi ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This author wishes to express his appreciation to the many people Ibo have contributed of their time and energy in the furtherance of this investigation. The author is especially indebted to his adviser, Dr. James Brandon, whose good counsel regarding the nature and the form of the emergent study, and whose careful judgment throughout the weeks of its development have been instrumental in bringing the study to realize- tion. The other members of his committee, Dr. E. C. Reynolds, Dr. John White, and Dr. Arthur Weld, have offered helpful suggestions and advice at crucial stages in the investigation. Dr. Vincent Persce and Dr. Randell harrison, of the Communications Department of Michigan State Uni- versity. have given valuable assistance in the utilization of the numer- ical data, in the formulation of the interpretive concept known as 5.925;: 133:3],difgggengial, and in the construction and interpretation of the tables presented in the study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DIDIOATION AOINONIIIIHIINTS Till! 0? CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE INVESTIGATION 0...! The Purpose of the stun, The Approach of the 3:.:, The Need for the Stud, The Value of the Stud, Relat NV.L. The Scope of the Stud, Methodology A j A.‘ w as... was; 56 II. ATTENTION MUST BE PAID: The Ranking Concerns in the Productions: 1956 through 1960-- The 35:11:: The'“ n T The Technical " ‘ AA) The iv Page ii iii iv N Obuu 10 12 13 14 102 155 171 179 196 Page . I‘ll. m BIAS: The Amount of Favor Shown by the Critics in Their Concerns in the Pro- ‘ “ 206 l . Favor in the Script and in the Acting-"um 210 Fever in Production, Directing, Technical 1! Theatre and ‘ “ 278 Conclusion to the Comparison between the Favor for Script and the Favor for Acting” 278 If. BIAS “I THE BEST: Over-all Conclusions-------- 283 The Concerns of the Critics as a Group-“"- 283 The Concern of Each Critic----------------- 288 The Favor of-Bsch Cr ti. 292 Conclusions Regarding the Favor of the ‘*“‘ 299 The Concerns of the Critics Over the Five- , Tear 12-1-: 300 The Critics' ' 1, * 302 Page Esau Per-cents of Words in the Concerns for all 13 it Total Concerns by can. 14 m The Concern of Script: 5 _l.o_ng 932:3 g_o_ur_ngz 195! m 20 TV The Concern of Script: 9 2511 M 2522...”... 24 V The Concern of Script: E 229513; ll_e§r_t---------- 28 V1 The Concern of Script: Orpheus Descending-------- 33 m The Concern of Script: 5 Clearing i_n_ the My" 37 VIII The Concern of Script: T_h_e_ 2955323 Manna-- 42 n The Concern of Script: 5 M_o_o_n for; the Mg- beggtten - 45 8 The Concern of Script: 5 m 52 a £1211 Bang;- 49 a The Concern of Script: 1.295 Homewafl, éBEEl""" 52 in The Concern of Script: mngMQfi the Stein 5') Linn The Concern of Script: m m Mnuu-H- 61 “(3” _.TheConcern of Script: mmmmm hour 64 The Concern of Script: 1.1,, 67 The Concern of Script: E Disenchanted---------- 70 '1 The Concern of Script: A M 9; the Egg-"n" 72 . of Script: The W of His 76 . ml of Script: A m; m at mu-.. 32 M o! Script: A Innis in m sun-«m- 82 in of Script: m as "7's! Script: m m mum-«um 87 vi The Concern The Concern The Concern m Concern The Concern of Script: of Script: of Script: of Script: of Script: 322 W Egg-u--- £3016!!! §o_r 3 g----------.. FL: 293.; _Mg-------- ...... 1212 £13 £22 £22""------- The Scripts: l956-1960------ I 3!“ Concern of Acting: vii fie Concern of Acting: A 3:295 E212 Journez 23:3 The Concern of Acting: _A_ 3311 Sficial M-......... The Concern of Acting: _'i_'_h£ Em iguana"--. The Concern of Acting: Ogheus Descendiggn-«v-u-n- The Concern of Acting: _A_ Clearigg 1.2 .t_h_e Mun-- The Concern of Acting: 11:5 Potting £11.29." ------ .---- The Concern of Acting: _A_ m 35;; 3319 Misbeggttenu- The Concern of Acting: A 119.15 m 3 Ml mu-- The Concern of Acting: 1,991; mm, mun-u-- TheConcernofActing: munmmg She Stairs The Concern 0: Acting: _T_h_e_ 53.95 Dancers-unw- ------ The Concern of Acting: m m m m 5.119. M“” The Concern of Acting: Linn”; ................ The Concern of Acting: Th: Diser ' ‘ ’ The Concern of Acting: A M 9.; 51.2 Mann".-- The Concern of Acting: A Sunrise at Cambgno-u.-- E Concern of Acting: T_h= Pleasure 25 lg: .02“: 9.. £93 M if. Y29£h'O--O-uo A m 12 m M‘-'O----.- mm. Page 89 92 95 97 105 106 109 111 112 113 116 118 120 121 123 125 126 128 130 133 135 131 139 1101 m concern Of Acting: m MEI-OD-II-n-o-uupggc The Concern of Acting: Thg_Andersonville Tria1-----~- The Concern of Acting: Reguiem EEE.E.§227"""""" The Concern of Acting: g§s_nesc EEET' ........... .---. The Concern of Acting: 1:023 13 L112 Attic- ........... - The Concern of Acting: The Productions: 1956-1960--- The Concerns of Directing, Technical Theatre, and Production: The Productions- 1956-1960 ............. The Concern of Audience: The Productions: 1956-1960- Mean Percent of Favor for the Concerns of Script and Aet‘ "U Mean Percent of Positive Favor for Script and Act- ing, With Neutral and Negative Percentages of Favor 1. LA. a. UUUF The Percent of Favor for the Concerns of Script and Acting: mum ' mmmmm- The Number of Words Devoted to Favor for the Concerns of Script and Acting, Showing the Specific Concerns “Script ammmmm« ------- - The Percentage of Favor for the Concerns of Script Mkt1m=élen§2m£i& The Percentage of Favor for the Concerns of Script and Actin8= The gender lie-a... The Number of Words Devoted to Favor for the Concerns of Script and Acting, Showing the Specific Concerns of Script: mhm W The Percentage of Favor for the Concerns of Script mums: Wm" ----- The Percentage of Favor the Concerns of Script and Acting : The Number of Words Devoted to Favor for the Concerns eT Script and Acting, Showing the Specific Concerns a! Script: W-u-u-"u-"u ‘1".L‘; Thrcentage of Favor for the Concerns of Script Page 142 144 145 147 I48 150 191 201 207 208 214 215 222 229 236 241 241 250 I «.h e I p e . o . .. . ‘ . e as u u . . . u . . . . . ‘ I . s . n a c i ' v . a n . . a . no . N s . s .5 In. . a u . a e e, e . . e . a on .e a u u u o . . . u a . u a t I. u s . . e a. 0. v . . ,.. . . . e . . . . . . a p a . . . .i . . s e . o . . . . l a o , a a . 0 ~ _ e. u n 9 p . a ‘ . . .ss .1. The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script 8M5ct1n3= W.-..-------..--.--- The Percentage of Favor for the Concerns of Script and Acting: WWW-""- The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: Wises-"u ------- - The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: Wnnu -------- ~- The Number of Words Devoted to Favor For the Con- cerns of Script and Acting, Showing the Specific Concerns of Script: W" -------- The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: W The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Acting: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of Script and Action W11; Comparison Between the Average Positive and Non- Positive Percentages of Favor Shown the Concerns of Script and Acting For All the Critics For the The Concern of Script: The Mean Percentages For —' uthe Specific Concerns of the beip: ix Page 254 258 262 263 264 266 267 269 271 272 273 274 275 277 281 284 { Page mu Mean Percents in the Concern of Acting and Character For All Critics For All Productium 285 m The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of the Critic that. 292 m The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of the CTTCIC ”use 293 m: The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of the Critic " ‘ 295 1.2mm The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of the Critic ‘“ r 296 WI! The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of the Critic Afikiuuvu 297 m The Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of the Critic McCl ‘ 298 ram: The Mean Percentage of Favor For the Concerns of All Critics For all Productions 300 APPENDIX A .' The Percentage of Favor Per Concern g mmmmm Ammm firmness); WW ammmm WWW ammmmm Annamafiwallflsnet rmwsnaal MMnmermsssi-a mmm mmmmmm isla- MW AMaiihtm chainsaw shamanism D “mam ‘ U .‘h’ iviafia'araiaaaanwaa‘“'5'“ xi Page 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 fl “COM did the “can: e‘ in“; an. ‘7 m nth can proportions, mom I " Wren to nu: INVESTIGATION etSud W 3 w; ‘ The study aims to describe the concerns selected dramatic critics 4 . ‘ ‘, "NW m scene in New York City have shown in the theatre reviews .:'" have written for the major New York City daily newspapers, during : ”new 1956-1960. -,-. ' A oahoft S d N..- ‘7 .t.‘ The study.. Each review for each critic over the five-year period was sub- To accomplish this purpose, an objective approach is employed in m. ' "3m to content analysis to determine: first, the amount of attention '. , ,.; _ : to each concern, and second, the degree of favor accorded each ‘1'. m the objective data so gathered, it has been possible to de- . 3.97 1. ‘ihet the critics, as a group, look for in a production. 0 ‘ ~ ‘. "VD-p.528. Doe-mob attention they, as a group, devote to each of their 1‘. . - H9. J . " -. gash-Sher each critic is equally concerned with the same con- ’ 3'! ' my”; ‘: Aiv' ." so '3'; {he must of favor, disfavor, and neutrality that each crit- " . (the amount of attention and the amount of favor are di- 7?“ m the sons concerns in the some proportions, {The are directed in different degrees to . 1 an d here is no question that the dramatic critics for the New York City newspapers exercise an influence of considerable weight upon the Broadway scene. Margaret A. Leitner, Sanford Moss, and Percy Tannen- bails, writing in a study that was part of the research program of the Mass Commications Research Center at the University of Wisconsin com- mented on this influence: I Dramatic criticism is readily accepted as a legitimate function of the press in reporting events seeking public patronage and offering fair cement and criticism. To . some authorities, however, the pressumote specifically, its principle representatives in this area, the drama criticso-is seen as exercising an inordinate influence on how a given theatrical venture may fare. }_ Since the dramatic critics do exert an influence upon the Broadway theat- rical scene, it is important to study the concerns--that is, the express- .d interests of the critics, or what they write about when they review a production. in a systematic framework that will enable the examiner to pursue such Further, it is important to examine these concerns with- . a study in seine breadth: to describe the concerns within each review ' 9‘" “all critic; to compare critics and their reviews for similar pro- - -_, ions; to compare productions for each year; and to compare the find- . '1' Mil! all the five years under study. in this way, 1: is hoped that the study will help us to determine ’3 me. provide strictures which define what an audience ought or . i]. {to are. ,7 .Snjunctions? Does the critic provide judgments about Does the influence of the critics extend to positive ‘ .. 9 Tsitset, Sanford Moss, Percy E. Tannenbaun "Who - Inn?" W W: “0- 3 (Smer, 3 "‘fim or does he report their existence only? Is the critic pre- m to favor certain concerns within a production? Va 0 Stud Ithis study seeks to clarify what the critics look for in a pro- auction. Assuming such clarification is possible, a basis is provided hr the exploration of: l. The possible relationship between critical concerns and critical standards . 2. The possible connection between the critics' concerns and the audience's concerns. The concerns of the playwright as compared with the critics The concerns of the critic that relate to the form of dram- Bie productions over the course of several theatrical seasons inflated Works There are three other studies which deal with the dramatic crit- 5 e ”a, but none of then systematically investigates all the critics con- '”1 the first study, Lillian Edna West's W £22122! Criti- “vanity of Wisconsin, Ph.D., 1951) presents a broad over-view 2 The sec- ‘ -5‘-;‘ Eh grities’ work from 1920 until the turn of this century. twin-lanes neuul'sngmmmcrmgv gm Wumnmnm_mmna mmm—mamnmm has been node to find West' s study, but to no avail. ~ ~ lost by the Library of the University of Wisconsin and 4 mm 93 m3” Elli 1914-49 Seasons Inglusivg, (University of Uichigan, MA. , 1951), discovers that there is a consistency in the critical evaluation of the concern, Acting, during the seasons in ques- tion. The third study probes the influence of the dramatic critics, and forlsd a part of the research program of the Mass Communications Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, 1962-1964. The results of this study were reported in the Journalisg Quarterly, IV, No. 3. The study establishes that the dramatic critics for the seven New York City dailies do exert an influence upon the success of failure of the theatrical ven- ture on Broadway . The Sena of the Study The period chosen for investigation, 1956 to 1960, represents a time wzen there were a large number of productions on the boards of The six dramatic critics studied: Brooks Atkinson, John Chap- fln. Robert Coleman, Walter Kerr, Richard Watts, Jr. , and John McClain, were writing the daily theatre review for their newspapers over the five . ”its. Bach sun was the only regular Broadway theatre critic for his her. As such, he represented his paper as an elector of the productions me James Hansel. mmummmwm mm Embark on Assist in Drier to Emma: maths: mere ‘- a W m the Fairies: Embassies at W in -- mmmmmmmmm. 1r _ ' ,(University of Michigan, M. A. ) 1951. ‘: superstive remarks on the theatrical seasons in Louis Kron- Ephesus: (add.- an m 21m. 1956-1960 (New York. Dodd, read " ; occasions another individual from his newspaper was a ‘-"- flat the regular dramatic critic. These reviews that tritten by the critics in this study were not included. s - I , - . F 5 - h h included in the Burns-Mantle yearbook of "the best plays" as“ W am The productions chosen for study were among "the best plays" W in burns-Mantle. Out of a possible fifty productions, (ten "best plays" for each of the five years under study), twenty-five were selected as «uprising a unified body of material: they all originated in this wintry. were first produced on Broadway, and are serious dramas. The productions (and playwrights) covered in this study are as follows: 1936 " m m m 131:3 m (Eugene O'Neill) Q m m m (Robert Alan Aurther) “MM; (Joseph Fields 6: Jerome Chodorov) .m M (Tennessee Williams) & m n m m (Arthur Laurents) ’ - i 143? a l‘ {m m (Graham Greene) ' gramme. (Eugene O'Neill) A '. .. is. a mu jam (Gore Vidal) M- Ami (Karel Fringe) “I: “m m 2g. 59: mg. (William Inge) = n worm Wishengrad) ‘ “ fflm gm (3. s. Behrmsn) ‘ ; mus) . 1' " “Nib-ts ail-my breit) I ‘ :m Mini!” ’7 .1 W 5M) i ’4 I a m . . It‘s! .. has. v.1; Q C O . .o s I . . ho. . m i. . r -c.....\ 1:.- . , N - w. ‘9‘ keg a u ..\ | lb ll‘ ‘ u . . . . . Q a . . . . . . . I . a .l ‘ . . . . a o. i \ . ‘ I . . . v . - .. s a a P . I . . x . 4. a .. . . . I u . 3. I 4. . . . 5 . I a l I. ' a I . ix . \\ \v. 6 :9 '9‘ m m (Samuel Taylor 6: Cornelia Otis Skinner) - {Mm aim (Tennessee Williams) Lém in Sb. 3.3 (Larraine liansberry) m (Shines Wincelberg) m. hath m (Paddy Chayefsky) n W gm; (Saul Levitt) m m 9,, m (William Faulkner) 1960 um .13; (Gore Vidal) - m in m m (Lillian Bellman) Procedure 7’ The procedure of investigation was as follows: {% one hundred and fifty reviews of the six critics for the twenty-five were read to discover the critics' "concerns," the subjects-- “‘ imwmhtisg. Directinguthat they were writing about. A "concern" is I :_Wd interest of the critic in one aspect of what appears on-stege .- 2 . ’ Hm; The masher of words that each critic devoted to each concern = h each review. ‘ is“ it appeared that a critic was writing about a subject, an I‘ . ..' Gusto describe that subject, or concern, with a single word, doting, Directing. , ;.apparent as this analysis proceeded, that some concerns " ‘flrs brashr and more inclusive than others. One critic. A, ‘jrits: or a production, that the "Script" was good ‘i- 'nmm. amused as follows: "lt is s y in i L fl 7 genus a complicated play. It is also, I think, a very good one in its muses, defiant, edgy way...") , while another critic might write of the "Theme" of the same production (witness Brooks Atkinson on % Pgttim M: "Was the return...[t.o life] a miracle? Mr. Green thinks it is and he acts about illuminating it. He has a theme. lie has the power to de- velop it...") In this case, "Theme" can be considered one aspect of “Script." "Structure," "Character", "Dialogue," "Plot," "Playwright," and "Script Style" are also generally considered to be aspects of Script. Thus, as the various concerns suggested themselves, a system of classification was arrived at. Synonomous concerns were classified to- gether. (i.e. "Background of the Individual Actor," "Comparison With Other Actors," "Comparison With Other Work," are grouped together.) Also, the concerns were ordered into "general" (inclusive) and "specific" (sub- sidiary) concerns for the reason mentioned above. Eventually, all con- cerns discussed by the critics were included in a list consisting of six "general concerns": Production, Script, Acting, Directing, Technical Theatre, am Audience, which were further subdivided into twenty-eight "specific concerns," and, in addition, the general category, Irrelevant to Critics' Concerns, completed the list. hence, the list provided for ths fact that all the words of the critics in their respective reviews could be counted. The general concern, Production, is an all-inclusive term for what- ._svsr the audience sees. It contains the subsidiary or specific concern, .. of Production, which refers to the work of the producer. The yl‘rodoction, is also used as the one of the work that is presented 8 no specific concerns within the Script are: Structure, the organization schsu of the Script, its time, place, unity, coherence; Character, the revelations on-atage of the interior workings or motivations that reflect the pattern of behavior of a person in the Script; Dialogue, the passages of talk in the Script; Plot, the plan of action of the Script that pro- duces the interaction of the characters as performed on the stage; Theme, the purpose of the playwright as interpreted by the production; Play- wright. the originator of the Script; Comparison With Other Work, any conntary that the critic makes upon this Script as compared to another; and Script Style, the Playwright's conception of the environment he has created in his Script? The general concern, Acting, refers to the performances on-stage of the players. It includes these specific concerns: General Technique, all-embracing cements which refer to the entire company; Technique of the Individual Actor, specific consents that express concern for a per- formr who is singled out for motion; Background of Individual Actors, biographical information about a single performer; Comparison With Other Actors, comentary upon one performer as compared to another; Comparison With lurk on Other Productions; and Acting Style, the interpretation of the parfornmr of the world of the character he is portraying. The general concern, Technical Theatre, refers to comments upon ~‘r' on physical properties of the stage, exclusive of the living performers. it insides the specific concerns: Set, concerned with the designs for -« slap; Lighting, concerned with the plotting and production of the 1‘ . as. cl. m more W (New York: Appla- ' ' mm. 1959). pa ‘9. 9 stills costumes for the styles of acting, directing, and the script. The general concern, Audience, is concerned with the over-all reac- tion of the body of people in the auditorium to any element they are view- ing on the stage. The specific concerns specify this reaction: Reaction to the Entire Production; Reaction to the Acting; Reaction to the Direc- tion; Reaction to the Technical Theatre; and Reaction to the Script. After the total number of words was counted within each general and specific concern, the words spent on each concern were further divi- ded into three categories according to the amunt of favor, neutrality, or disfavor the critic expressed when he discussed that concern. These parts were designated "positive," "neutral," and "negative" Favor. Favor refers to the mount of judgnent that the critic injects into his dis- cussion of a concern. If the critic is in favor of that concern, the words discussing that concern are counted under "positive"; if he des- cribes the concern without dispensing a judgment about the concern's mer- its, the words are counted as "neutral"; and if he expresses disfavor, the words are counted as "negative." In this way, every word dealing with each concern was given a place under one of the three Favor head- ml. and counted once as a part of the total number of words for that mm . , has pointed out in T_h_eHsesurem gt 9_§Me any, a coupon 7% 1‘ 7’ ‘0'! 098°“. W Mg (Urbano: Univer- -- "3"“ mm. Press, alga-7). See alsogéthiel de Sole ”Pool «1., (Urbano: University of Illinois ' l s I . s o .0 l I o. 0).. ‘ ll. as d .J .a .. .- ‘. ‘vao l ‘s s s .l u use. a 5'8 in | en to 1'! ‘- ‘v [If 10 but Melting is to measure frequency, and to measure attention to- “a that frequency as separate items. This would have rneant that the m of words expressing some kind of judgment, and the entire phrase for finish the judgment was rendered, would both be counted. For example, the word "excellent" of the phrase "the excellent acting" would be count- ed, and the entire phrase would also be counted. The difficulty with _ this approach is that the same word is counted twice. Therefore, there would be an inaccurate index of Favor. The alternative, and the method chosen, was to determine first the amber of words each critic used to evaluate a concern. Then, to com- pare the attention shown in percentages to each concern by each critic in each production. Third, to compare critical attention for all critics as well as for each critic, for each and all concerns, among all the pro- ductions for one year, and for all the productions among the five years, 1955 to 1960. Finally, and only at this juncture, this author divided Wands each critic used to express his attention for a concern into I’poaixflwe ," ”neutral ," and "negative" categories, depending upon whether a 'fit critic expressed favor, simply described the concern in question, or W disfavor. Thus, this method has the virtue of counting one “ ‘~..‘g§t a tin while preserving the unity of the whole. figgization 9!? critic has. Supporting each passage is the numerical q 1‘“... I. ll ‘dlia is! each review. The study is descriptive, and not normative. It does not attempt to probe the statistical differentiations of the percentages from crit- ic to critic. The critics studied are not meant to represent all crit- ics, nor are the productions of this period meant to represent all pro- ductions for all periods. The focus of the study is upon the critics' concerns; these are inductively arrived at and described as exhaustively as possible. To facilitate an understanding of this description, two kinds of data are given in the text and tables. Wherever the emphasis is upon the individual critic, and where the purpose is to show the amount of space that he has devoted to a concern, the smallest unit of analysis, the word count, is employed for clarity and convenience? But wherever comerisons are being made on a larger scale, percentages are used in the text and tables because of the great variation in the numbers of words in each review. The conclusions in Chapter IV are presented entirely in terms of percentages. In place of a statistical differentiation, the conclusions probe the significances of the study in terms of a Win; differen- m. A meaningful differentiation is one which, based on the com- ‘4'}; vs percentages in the concluding chapter, leads the author to its that, given a difference between two percentages (between -‘ _fl, , batman concerns, or between years) of at least 10 percent, 1'! large enough difference to preclude chance reactions. The ' mm W is a convenient means of present- ive significance of this study in order to interpret a son, ‘tent ' lysis," in Gardner Lindsey, m- W (New York, 1958) p. 508. ‘. ll b,- disaster each review. The study is descriptive, and not normative. It does not attempt to probe the statistical differentiations of the percentages from crit- ic to critic. The critics studied are not meant to represent all crit- ics, nor are the productions of this period meant to represent all pro- ductions for all periods. The focus of the study is upon the critics' concerns; these are inductively arrived at and described as exhaustively as possible. To facilitate an understanding of this description, two kinds of data are given in the text and tables. Wherever the emphasis is upon the individual critic, and where the purpose is to show the amount of space that he has devoted to a concern, the smallest unit of analysis, the lord count, is employed for clarity and convenience?! But wherever comparisons are being made on a larger scale, percentages are used in { ‘fihl text and tables because of the great variation in the numbers of words .In each review; ,‘ The conclusions in Chapter IV are presented entirely in terms of '-w'8. In place of a statistical differentiation, the conclusions .;‘«r~f'ths significances of the study in terms of a EEEBLHfiEEl differen- that, given a difference between two percentages (between I774 concerns, or between years) of at least 10 percent, .:.; enough difference to preclude chance reactions. The .. ent :- lysis," in Gardner Lindsey, Bang: W (New York, 1958) p. 508. 12 tw' finds he concerns that are examined in the text are treated as proper J” and capitalized to designate the critic's specified realms of in- -, 1: ‘._ Thus. if a critic says, "The acting is fine," the general con- . . Acting, is credited with four words. Similarly, when reference is A _.w to a critic's expression of judgment, his Favor is capitalized. .- T '4'?" o W is based upon the stud- ‘ ~ and upon a number of discussions among - dd. Dr. :andell llarrison, Department of Commication, am annuity. and Dr. Vincent l'arace, Department of u « mchigln State University. This procedure is p - v to account for all the variables in the investi- '; a critic is subject to chance reactions, any differ- "m is discounted as a possible result of such reac- -i causes of reactions would include: illness of ’ mum of his place of work, the rudeness of ~ '- _v. and Other cannon circumstances. ’iie I." CHAPTER II Attention Must Be Paid: Che Ranking Concerns in the Productions: 1956 through 1960 Table I shows the concerns of the critics. Table I Mean Percents of Hbrds in the Concerns for all Critics for all Productions In the reviews of the productions which are considered in this :itfldy. the six critics have written a total of 78,385 words. The con- .‘, ‘- 9! Script clearly outstrips all other concerns in terms of space. the concern second in popularity. Two questions need to be an- ‘gg:§otellrify the meaning of the dominance of the Script in the re- .fislfida large amount of space? Second, what component parts «5 01 the Script (specific concerns) reflect this high 13 I ' o e v a. . e. I Q s ‘1 C .. . I .s ,. t I v I. ' at e.- v... . .f 4- Ifi'.o-~ea : .u. I- 4"- 14 Table II demonstrates that for all the critics there is indeed a large amount of attention for the Script. Table II Total Concerns By Critic words by brewer, the degree of concern for Script goes from between 507. to 66% in the case of five out of six reviews, to a high of 757. for Richard ”to, Jr. This is to say, that for all the critics, at least as much QWM is devoted to Script as for all the other concerns put to- 't '.l' . I ‘z‘yflthes. and for Richard Watts, Jr., three-fourths of his attention is for Script critic by critic. The Specific Concerns which .“l )I “I 5. ‘t ‘(v‘ I: 15 m the concerns of Script are: Structure, Character, Dialogue, me. than, Playwright, Comparison with Other wntk, and Script Style. A Em pax'g £2521 Into Night Eugene O'Neill‘s drama, Long D_ay_'_g Journey Inge, light, is the first production to be considered. Brooks Atkinson's review totaled 552 words and 213 of them were devoted to Script. Surprisingly enough, however. the largest amount of space within the concern of Script was devoted to an examination of the Structure. Mr. Atkinson cements at length on the size of Eng 29.21.3— gourney mg m. ". . .refers to a conception of theatre as a form of epic literature. ..like a Dostoevsky ML..." Atkinson's apparent reason for spending one-ninth of the Script space on the Structure , is to tie his statements in regard to Structure hack to his lead point. which is in reference to the product— ion as a whole, "With this production. ..the American theatre acquires site and stature. It restores drama to literature, and theatre to art?" M. for Atkinson, the size of the script is justified because it is such a titanic undertaking that it is worth the amount of attention that “I reviewer is giving to it. Similarly, under the concern of Comparison M Other ink, at. Atkinson deals with the fact that he believgs that fits” drsms ”ranks with slang. and Desire age; the egg" in its “I'm ad ability to hold an audience riveted. For fifty-five hair style and their use of long simulation speeches. Atkinson use! in- ’ P~ no. "- n. ‘1 \ ( '7’ 16 ”masses the plot wherein he says: "Factually it is a sordid story...roughly those are the facts..."1 Within this discussion, it be- cones clear that the format considered is not the story at all but rath- er the manner of telling. The poet who is doing this telling is to be lost important. Although after careful consideration, Atkinson feels that mm M £32 Eight could be pruned of some of its excess- es "...its spacious point of “swig/he is most impressed by the manner of the telling and by the dialogue. "Strindberg has written the dia- logue." As for the Playwright: "...one of the greatest of all time."6 In sum, then, the Structure provides Atkinson a springboard for a dis- cussion of the Dialogue, the Character of the Script, the Playwright's Other Hark, and finally the Plot. men we turn to the review by John Chapman, we see a rather dif- ferent picture. Out of a total of 483 words, 344 are devoted to the Script. A discussion of the Playwright's great power and deserved fame occupies this space. "this is O'Neill's mst beautiful play...In it O’Neill became a poet." 7 Although Chapman agrees with Atkinson regard- iw the plot: "...a summary of the plot seems dismal..." (but Chapman .mions us not to "forget some things...") this plan is a biographical ..ene and therefore great even unto that. For 91 words, Chapman goes on ' into the mind of a genius, this play is worthy of the greatest Just as Atkinson had used the length of the work to dwell upon " e of the play in its meaning, so Chapman uses the same length l"! L’ .; \ l7 12/ to dwell upon Character. "One by one they are magnificent." For one- aixth of the amount of space of the Scriptural Concerns, Chapman diss- ects the various members of the twisted, tormented family that O'Neill presents upon the stage. If for no other reason, Chapman finds this play a tribute to the developing genius that was to be Eugene O'Neill. Robert Coleman, the critic for the New York Daily Mirror, spends 529 words on 1,235 m Journey Lug fight and of this total nearly half, or 260 words, on the Script. Midway between Atkinson and Chapman, Mr. Coleman denigratas the Structural length: "It lived up to its title for it ran about four hours. It needed editing..."20but the critic finds the Structural size justified because Long Day's Journey Into Night is "...a sprawling, ruggedly chisled mnument to the misbegotten youth of a future genius."2 A little less than a quarter of the total words in the review (125 words), and almost half of the words devoted to Script itself, are spent linking the Playwright and his technique and his char- acters together. And once again the autobiographical element is under- scored: Before his death, O'Neill wrote a play...it was autobio- graphical and bitter, it met have been like sticking a knife in his heart and twisting it over and over...0'Neill's technique. ..the mother, father, and sons setting one another up with seeming kindlinees...for revealing blows. It is a vivid, harrowing study of frustrated hate-ridden people. 2_2_/ o :. Again the Comparison With Other Works by other playwrights is ”and this time it is not to O'Neill's credit: "It is overlyzy3long ‘ ‘ l» ; with a vengeful bite and too little genuine compassion." For _ t. the, the important item is the biographical context. Therefore, or» ‘N 18 the Ila/in concern is the background of the Playwright that led him to fuse himself into his characters. Halter Kerr of the New York Herald Tribune dwells mostly upon the concern of the Playwright's psychological state as manifested in what he considers to be the Theme of BBB I_)_a_yis_ Journey L132 Night. "Ibis, I think, is what O'Neill was doing..."24 He portrayed the fact that for him, now, “pain is gone." In elaborating upon this, Mr. Kerr spends 264 words out of a total of 295 on Script: he believes that Mr. O'Neill was stripping himself bare at his depiction of his own family and showing himself, now that rm pain was gone, able to see what it was like to look at the dry bones of what once were the figures of those people dear to him. Thus, nearly half of the entire review, 637 words, is spent describing the Playwright's psychological motivation for writ- ins lees 2213.: M539]. Leer. £132.. Richard Watts, Jr., the critic for the New York Post, spends more words than any of his fellows describing the Script and this is evident from the very first review. He spends 362 words, out of a total in the review of 549, to discuss the Script and of those 362 words, 266 are spent dismissing the manner as versus the matter of O'Neill's work. "Al- though intensely dramatic, there is very little plot. O'Neill is merely concerned with the day of terrible crieis."§l Mr. watts, mre than the .6”: reviewers, finds nothing to complain about in regard to the size ' Pi O'Neill’a work. Just as the Playwright has stature, so met his ‘ 1% reflect that stature: W inportant thing is it [the dramatic actiog/ does build. .. Wing in its emotional intensity. All that does hap- eon is that the father and his sons come to know each other '6 \a ! l }\u [’1 1' ' 11.; .. 1-_ 19 better Compromise? O'Neill is incapable of compro- mise with himself or with his audience. .. Eugene O'Neill's autobiographical drama broods with unsparing candor to- wards understanding, compassion, and dark lamented beauty.. . the giant stature was unmistakably O'Neill. _2_6_/ lbtts holds that this production, as "in M C_g_me;_t_h, demon- strates the stubborn and uncompromising authority of his genius "..le (This statement is counted as part of the concern, Comparison With Other Work.) Thus, for Richard Watts, the material on Script was used to em- body the critic's conviction that O'Neill is an uncompromising and hon- est Playwright and therefore his Script is a successful one. John McClain, the critic for the Journal-American, spends the fewest amount of words on the Script: 153 words out of a total of 492. Like Richard Watts, Mr. McClain takes time in his review to praise the Playwright: he has no time for a cavil about the length of the Play- wright's work: "Log 1812 ourne m m runs four hours but the time is magically well spent."28 Again, the space is divided almost equally between the Playwright and his biographical Plot material: "With searing siwlicity he makes an incision that lays bare the souls involved in his own life."29 As far as Comparison With Other Playwrights is con- earned, Mr. McClain makes the most unequivocal statemnt of all: "O'Neill lakes today’s playwrights look a little silly."30 that can we say then about m 9.43.1.9. My 1293 Eight in re- .flrd to the Script therein? Tab 1e III The Concern of Script: A' Long Day's Journey Into Night number of words Table III shows the large amount of space, given here in terms of words rather than percents, which the critics give to Theme, Struc- tore, Character and Playwright. W In the reviews of the second production in 1956 entitled A 1911 m m by Robert Alan Aurther, Brooks Atkinson takes 476 words to discuss the entire production, 286 of those words are used to des- . - at“. the Script and the largest amount of space is occupied with dis- ; «agreeing Character (97 words), Plot (56 words) and Playwright (52 words). 4 850 critic is taking Mr. Aurther to task for his " lack of roots" ., p. 208. s m mu m- as no 5|! 5 ".S‘ 21 II apends .139“! deal of his critical attention documenting his charge. my, Characters are described as "shallow", the Plot is des- 32 cribed as one in which "the excitement is on the surface," and as far as the Playwright is concerned: men the final curtain falls, nothing seems to have been accomplished except that the author has stayed the distance. Whatever idea he originally had in mind seems to have been overwhelmed by the external fury and excitement. 32/ Hence, it is interesting to note that the kernel of Atkinson's review when he is denouncing this Script rests within the diatribes against the Playwright: Since Mr. Aurther writes in primary colors at top speed and in full voice, it is a little difficult to understand what he is driving at until well into the evening... Robert Alan Aurther is a very earnest, highly-wrought play- wright... 35/ Similarly, John Chapman, whose review comprises 397 words and whose concern with the Script amounts to nearly 70%, uses that amount of space to be unkind to the Playwright. "I have a feeling the author. .I 22 has tried most earnestly to combine Eugene O’Neill and Paddy Chayefsky." Hr. mum, however, zeros in on the playwright's use of dialogue: Somebody is always protesting 'Oh pop' or, 'you don't love me, pop‘...'ro his (playwright's) credit, he can write straight pithy dialogue but there is no depth to the char- acters who speak his words. 99/ here we can see that the critic manages to dismiss both Dialogue and Character in a single blow. The Structure of the Script is likewise dealt with by Mr. Chapman: "The drama is a long, dreary, and exceed- in” noisy fuily squabble." 31] .l .- § .6- \r. s0.l ) .a 0.0- . 22 Robert Coleman apparently has a good deal more respect for the Script of A m M w than his fellows. In a review of 303 words, 322 are reserved for a discussion of the Script. The largest chant of this discussion, 204 words worth, deals with the Plot. The bald recitation of events, wherein an "Italian patriarch" tries to rule his family with an iron fist, is called "the elements for terse drama" by Mr. Coleman. the honesty of the Playwright is praised and, almost as an afterthought, Coleman realises that Mr. Aurther is "seldom able to take the ingredients and make them explode with a truly terrifying crash." For the first time, then, we have a critic who ascribes the failure of a Script exclusively to the weakness of the Plot. Walter Kerr's review is the first time that we see a critic who does not spend more than one-fourth of the space in his review for the attention of the Script. Out of 610 words, Kerr only spends 125 words on Script. For him, the Script has small characters, bits of detail, and a problem: "the problem--and I don't mean to dismiss it--is to get... [the baby] out of the front door." This, about the lead character in the script! 10 punctuate his concern for the smallness of the Script, Mr. Kerr spends most of his time avoiding the discussion entirely. In- stead, he goes on to discuss the Set.“ Richard watts, Jr. goes on to a whopping 394 words, out of a to- “I of 688 words in his review, to discuss the virtues of part of the play's Structure and of the complete honesty of the Playwright. After Ming that the first hzéf of the Script was "an unrelievedly depress- ' a! alias-of- life drums," he observes that in "the final three scenes, ,g ”a .8 h'a‘ :11 .- .. .- -1. - as. .. a P» » .u o: ..1 :- h... nu canx h. \\ n . r. n ..C- .h- all 2 \. .,. ..xu Q . t ‘ — n . o c n ' .. O U ..s a s s f V ' I I ‘ Q C s a . . . . . . a. 1 l. ‘o n . s . s I . p . l . .v ' a b s a ,- O . s . c . u .s . r. a D a .. .. I . . . . I. ) u v p .0 ' . . s . o . s ‘ . .- U s .I- I. C u C C I l u. b a O a a l p O U a .n I . 0 § .. . I V law 0 u . ., IQ . , O . . . . so . ' I . s . . . a . a so . s 23 it quite amazingly, comes to sullen and resentful life." Again, this is a paean to the honesty of the Playwright. Mr. watts discusses how Aurthar manages to achieve real force and compassion, given the small characters. It would have been simple for the playwright to make the rebellion of the son seem triumphant, give the daughter a ringing scene of denunciation, and overwhelm the . . . father in defeat and it might have given the drama an easier road to popularity. But it would have been less honest, relentless and it is immensely to his credit that he (the playwright) is, when he gets down to it, so forth- right and unafraid. 59/ For 127 words, Watts praises the dramatist's honesty. Watts distinguish- es, however, between this honesty and the spirit of tragic exultation that is missing, he feels, in the Script. The critic wishes Mr. Aurther had "a greater gift for eloquent tragedy." Thus, there is a remarkable similarity at the outset of the study, in regard to the critics' great concern for the integrity of the Playwright. Together with this concern, and sometimes superceding it, is the concern for the Structure of the Script. The final critic's com- ments on A Very Special Baby are indicative of the latter idea: ". . . A quite saving one-act drama which stubbornly refused to be stretched i into a full evening in the theater." John McClain spends a total of 517 words to describe A leg; £552; M1: 227 of these on the Script, and 160 on the specific concern, Structure. ...it should not have taken so long in the telling. The second act is enough-cans by that time it is too late ...As it is presented, the first act is mostly dreary exposition, the procedure which even T.V. has discover- sd means of reducing. a] 24 As we will see below, critical vituperation regarding the Struc- ture of the Playwright's work and fastening upon his moral attitudes is a favorite stratagem of the reviewers. Let us reserve this for a detail- ed discussion later in this chapter. m Table IV The Concern of Script: 1 A.Very Special Baby Specific 9,3 1': I Q 5 k f A Congergg Agflgggn 1 Chem Coleman Kerr __.!ESSL McClaig Script number of words 1 1 * Strucsgre 0 3;. 41 ‘ 153 182 136 Characger 97 :56 9 O ___28 O Dialoggg ‘ 9 A Q 0 24 0 0 Plot :6 ‘ 115 k 204 80 21. 77 1 Theme 0 0 10 0 O O P a 62 0 0 O 131 0 Comparison wlgther gk. 0 4; 134A 0 0 0 Script Sgyle 62 O 24 O 9: l4 , Script 1 To sis 286 248 322 257 48 227 m Pager Heart The next production, m m 1.32;; by Joseph Fields and Jer- ome Chodorov, merits 622 words, and half of these describe the Script in a review by Brooks Atkinson. Once again, the tone is leveled at the redeeming honesty within the Script, this time a feature of the make-up of the Characters. "It's funny and delightful Emma... it also in- cludes some forgiving truth about unpretentious people." For 93 words 58] Ibid., Lbs Pondgr geart, p. 361 . .. s . . s u 4' . . l .u . . u . . o . . . . . . .. s . . . . . u . . .. a . . . s o p . a e. . a . . u . s 1. . . u . . . .. s . u . . . .. s s l. .. . I .. v u I. . . . A In. a . . 7 s. .1. . . r 25 out of the 309 devoted to the Script, Mr. Atkinson has a joyous time des- cribing Uncle Daniel Ponder and his friends, to this effect: The critic demonstrates that as the hero of the Script is disarmingly gauche, so the proceedings capture his attention. He is even able to make a favorable comparison between E m m and the Script of 32 1m 22; fig};- g_e_a_n_t_s_. Finally, the critic takes off on the acting because he has laid the groundwork in the sweet absurdity of the characters . Strictly speaking, Uncle Ponder must be a whack. He doesn't seem to be able to deal with the realities of the world. . . . He likes people and wants everybody to be happy.... Over the whole work, Mr. Wayne presides with an expansive heart, a cheerful nature, devotion to his friends, soothing speech, and flowing gestures. 42/ John Chapman, after spending 90 of the 187 words he devotes to the Script (there are 472 words in the entire review.) on a recitation of the Plot, ties this in to a tribute of praise for the characteriza- tions . At the beginning, Uncle Daniel Ponder is coming up for trial on the charge of having murdered his bride . . . Bis bride was a girl whom the old rake trapped into marriage by getting her drunk on pistachio ice cream and giving her a solid gold wedding ring from a box of crack- er jacks . . . She was the kind of girl who could spend hours trying to figure out how the tail of the C gets through the 1 on the Coca-Cola sign. §_0_/ Robert Coleman digresses from this critical approval for Char- acter above all. And his digression takes us right back to Structure and Plot as obstacles, for Coleman, to the success of the Script. There are 422 words in Coleman's review, 191 of them are about the concern of Script and 159 of those words on Script deal with the Plot while 32 addi- tional words remark upon the Structure. Since the critic finds the Ponder character human but implausible , he blames the Plot for lacking 9.21 1215- i‘ll mg. , p. 359. no“ :3. - 9 H 26 suspense and build. He [Ponder] is completely likeable . . . so that we can't help doubting that his fellow townsmen ever permitted him to be indicted for a murder he didn't comit . . . There was never any question in our mind but what the jury would reach the right verdict. a] An ingenious character than, is sometimes not enough to wrest a production out of the doldrums of structural difficulty in the Script. However, as we will see below in the section on Acting, a merger of ex- ceptional performances with inviting characters can get critical plaud- its. Walter Kerr goes along with this merger of Acting and Character- ization. In the shortest review that we deal with as an example of his criticism during this study within 454 words, 257 of which comprise his discussion of Script, Mr. Kerr is willing to let the Structure go by the boards in favor of the Character that sparks the Acting: Its most serious passages have a ripple of cracker-barrel shiftlessness and corner-store humor about them. It's offbeat and tenuous and dramatically impertinent. But like Mr. Wayne, it has a bubbling spirit beneath its lazy graces. 2;] Richard Watts, Jr. , in an interesting departure from the con- cerns with Character and Structure and Plot, feels apprehension not with the moral backbone of the Character but instead, with the over-all moral- ity implicit in the entire Script! This is our first clear example of a critic concerned with the implications of the Theme. Watts confesses that "until the third act, The Ponder Heart worried me a little." . . . There was something [wrong about the relationship of the two central figures, an innocently quixotic South- ern gentlemen and his feeble-minded child bride, which y min I" 3580 §_2_/ Lbid., p. 360. 21/ Ibid., p. 358. . N h- u n u. . a. u , 1 an... “:0 5., I “he. “an. we. . .‘u 5 w I? 27 seemed to contain a hint of pathological overtones merg- ing on the uncomfortable . W But Butts is relieved to find that in the third part of the Script the thread which would have developed this "uncomfortable" theme was broken and the style of the Script: the satirical satire of the fantastic trial of the leading character comes to the fore. ‘Meanwhile, the critic has declaimed for 95 words about his thematic disappreciation. John McClain has the last word on the concern of Character. After admitting that as "the entire effort is a study of Daniel ander, the beguiling wayne character, and it must be agreed that it nearly comes off," iMr. MbClain blames the overextended Character for the Script's lack of success'with hum. "One is apt to wind up with the con- clusion that everybody is too far off the beam to bear further consider- ation.“2é/ He spends 62 words (out of 242 words on the Script, and 415 words in the total) ridiculing the plausibility of the Characters and an additional 33 words denigrating the plausibility of the Plot. Fin- ally, he dismisses the Script Style: "The line between straight farce fill and unbelievable comedy is too often crossed." H w p O- I, p. 360. rilefi It?! P . 9 Ht “9 In I Ig“ ’5" V, 27 seemed to contain a hint of pathological overtones merg- ing on the uncomfortable . :5] But Watts is relieved to find that in the third part of the Script the thread which would have developed this "uncomfortable" theme was broken and the style of the Script: the satirical satire of the fantastic trial of the leading character comes to the fore. Meanwhile, the critic has declaimed for 95 words about his thematic disappreciation. John McClain has the last word on the concern of Character. After admitting that as "the entire effort is a study of Daniel Ponder, the beguiling Hayne character, and it must be agreed that it nearly comes off," iflr. MhClain blames the overextended Character for the Script's lack of success with him. "One is apt to wind up with the con- clusion that everybody is too far off the beam to bear further consider- ation."2y lie spends 62 words (out of 242 words on the Script, and 415 words in the total) ridiculing the plausibility of the Characters and an additional 33 words denigrating the plausibility of the Plot. Fin- ally, he dimmisses the Script Style: "The line between straight farce and unbelievable comedy is too often crossed." r. o' [A o. i I, p. 360. H O‘ p. 0. mil; IE] IE1 u 12. N \,W. .‘R Jr. 28 1 Table V The Concern of Script: 1 The Ponder Beart 5”? M _._— 1 Specific C R I T l C S Cone ns Atkinson C ai Script 1 Structure _§8 0 ar er l23 149 min 0 "*0 P at 9 91 , £323.“ 4Q W0 Pla _f_ 24 a, 0 Comparison ‘wlother wk. 22 0 Script ._§£Il£~ i2, .JEL___‘ Script Totals 339 *8: 229 1 284 246 2:2 1 Qrgheus Descending when we come to the production of Orpheus Descending, we might expect to find a reversion to the concern for Playwright and Comparison With Other‘flork, but the interest in Character and in Plot is still evi- dent. Iflr..Atkinson, in a SS9-word review, spends 802 of his space dis- cussing the Script. One-fourth of this amount deals with the Playwright and a detailed comparison with Williams' work. Mr. Atkinson finds that Hilliams, "a genuine writer," is writing one of his "pleasantest plays." But this praise of Williams' ability does not last long for it only leads to the comment on Script Style and Structure: Mr. Williams' style of writing elliptically is a funda- mental part of his gift. He does not attack his scenes head-on. They grow out of improvisations . . . m O a v .‘ . A . 0 . .I’. . ‘ a .. . . . a ..e .. - . . ,' -~ 3 O A 0 . . I I v Q . - . ' . t ' O . . . ..-. ‘ . . I . s ‘ a I v ~ 5 a a a .a 'a .0 ‘ ' s . 1 . - .' . " ‘. - ~ ' o a . . ' K . . n a ..a. , a l. p'r . I ’- . . ' ..., . A. . .- , _ .. A: .. ,..,. . .. o I a I I a , . .. .. , .e ' ' eI -- ‘ a . _ . . vr 9‘ “I .‘. f I ! 29 m is a loosely woven play-coverwrittcn in some of the scenes, uncertain at times in its progressions. 18] Structure is here the crucial concern. It is interesting to see how the critic underscores the importance of Structure and Plot at the expense of a number of the other concerns: m: we are left with is a discursive tale with an at- tractive locale, a sense of small town realities, some original characters and several wonderful scenes . . . But this time he (Uilliams) has not ordered his world as decisively as usual. Orpheus is not always sure of his direction. L9] There is a total of 119 words which Atkinson uses to describe the faulty play structure. It seems that poor structure is a hydra-headed animal and can pull down in all directions everything from Character motiva- tion through to Dialogue and Script Style. . . . It seems to this playgoer that Mr. Williams has his story less thoroughly under control this time, and his allusive style has a less sturdy foundation. The purple patches that explode magnificently in his best work sprawl and crumple when they are not soundly moti- vated. 99/ John Chapman seconds the large amount of concern for the Struc- ture. If anything, he takes the playwright more to task for the loose- ness of the format of events. Chapman objects to the lack of direction, to the feeling that "one is never certain what Hilliams is driving at or where he hopes he is going," and even to the ending "... on a shrill note of melodrama that seems to be Banner of expediency rather than a 6 logical and inevitable conclusion." Chapman's denunciatory review has 110 words describing Structural inadequacies out of 243 words des- cribing Script. (There are 415 words in the entire review.) Thus, 18] $331., p. 310, 011;:qu Descending. 52! m. a O \ ., p. 310. as. 5% . 3| . at i! an' ~0- ‘- k.. .‘, ”b n 30 these remarks are our highest point, to date, that reflect purely Struc- tural dissatisfaction. Indeed, perhaps the harshest statement regard- ing Williama' work is made by this critic when he describes his react- ion to the end of the production: "The curtain falls on a scene of brutality and disillusioment because Williams hasn't been able to think of a better way out of the mess he has created for himself ."éy There are times when we observe that commentary upon the Structure of a Script becomes the most direct form for censure of a Playwright. Robert Coleman's review employs a unique approach. Although the critic seems to be spending most of his time on the concern of Script (out of 451 words in the review, 335 deal with the Script), and although he seems to laud the Playwright's work, in reality he is mak- ing an oblique coment upon the sadism of the Audience. The entire re- view leads to the climactic statement: fiilliamsJ... pulls out all the stops with...hypnotic results. The first-nighters sat spellbound throughout the harrowing dip in Hades. It may. ..turn the stomachs of the squeamish but Williams' brutal rhythms exert the fascination of a cobra for playgoers. .63! We will discuss the implications of this concern when we take a detail- ed look at the Audience, later in this chapter. Halter Kerr spends 542 words dealing with Script. (His review is 722 words long.) Again, Plot and Structure loom large in the scene. Further, Mr. Kerr identifies a lack of Character Hotivation for the poorly constructed Plot: Regarding one high point in the action, Kerr has this to say: There is no real cause for the intolerance that has brought...fanatica into the story... .When there is a 29.1 pm. $1 Ibid., p. 311. .... .4: ..fih o.‘ .‘ s . . ‘ a n a . n v I n . . ‘I I a s . O . .a . . . o I. s a l . . . .v . . Q I. t a I. .p . . I .A o . ... s ~w . a a .l a , . 1 . . . ., .. . . . . e . a. A . . u 4 . D t‘ I u . . . .I . m s . a ..A . . . . ’l I . 31 pitched battle between_the lover over the matter of getting out of town, Lthe hero's failure to tell the truth is an expedient one; it keeps the scene going-- but it drains them of such character as he seems to have had. 6}] The critic deplores what he considers Hilliams' "sentimental dialogue." His denunciation of the Dialogue verges into a condemn- tion of the Characters: Apart from the 'nobody ever gets to know nobody’ sort of philosophical exercise, he [Williams] permits his characters to talk about the 'sweetness we Americans used to have for each other,‘ about how a guitar 'washes me clean like water whenever I feel dirty' and he finally has one of them rip right open into declamation on the order of 'my body has burst into flower.’ 66/ The critic becomes sardonic when Williams waxes poetic. Kerr spends 119 words on Character and 79 on Dialogue, and all of it is roundly condemnatory. (For a more detailed description of Kerr's disfavor see Chapter III.) Richard Watts, Jr. disagrees with the morning trio of critics , Atkinson, Chapman, and Coleman, in declaring Williams' Script morally cathartic. Although he agrees with his fellows that "222%.“. Descendigg seems a little more scattered in its drama than is usually the case with Mr. Williams,"£ynr. Watts deprecates the importance of this because: The actual villain (which serves as the unifying force in the drama) is the petty and spiteful atmosphere of this small unnamed town and the air of doom that hangs over the drama is an almost impersonal kind of vindic- tiveneas which the playwright sets down with bitter understanding. w This critic emphasizes the environmental and social reform which he feels is behind the Playwright’s work: "More than mat of Mr. Williams' 6F bd., .313, 3.59.! Li... 9 Lbid 9-7.! 12.1.9.» p. 312. 25! Ibid. }5 “I II .‘ 32 plays , it contemplates not only the personal tragedies of a few frus- trated misfits but also the ugly tensions, hatred, jealousies, and _6_g/ narrow-minded stupidities of an entire backwoods Southern community." Ninety-percent of the critic's review is concerned with Script and 115 words within this Scriptural concern are related to Theme. Further, 115 words are concerned with Character. It is interesting that Watts' notes that "there is. ..the good prostitute of 'good' family whose pre- occupfion with sex is the tortured reaction from one time social ideal- 0 ism." For Mr. watts, the concerns of Script (Character, Dialogue, Plot, Script Style, and Theme), are intimately connected with the significan- ces of social reality. John McClain also spends close to ninety percent of his review of 586 words, upon the Script. The overwhelming bulk of his material is devoted to a sensationalistic description of Williams' Characters. But the import of the following is similar to that in Robert Coleman's review, and therefore, we will consign the discussion of such a state- ment as this to the third chapter: Dogs from the chain gang devour unclad fugitives , an old Indian sells fresh animal skulls, an Italian inmigrant‘s homestead is burned down by the vigilantes and the old man loses his life in the fire, a young belle having lost her fight for non-segregation, is now devoting herself to juke-crawling and backseat romancing with any new face that appears in the country. These are only a few of the charming people one encounters in this new Hillimns' play and it seems almost unbelievable that they can be made persuasive and valid enough to hold an audience for an evening. ..with one or two exceptions all the characters in the drama would cause any one of us to bolt the door... We wouldn't wish to spend an evening with them in the flesh, but we cannot help being fascinated with them just as one might linger over-long at the cobra cage in the 22] Ibid. 19! Ibid. 1;] lb d., p. 311 k.l' 33 Suffice it to say, this paragraph does not only refer to the Characters; it has the purpose of whetting the appetite of the Audience, and there. fore, it is an extremely positive statement with which to credit the production. Table VI below shows the concerns for Orpheus Descendigg. The fascinating thing here is that when this table is compared with Table IV, we can note the steady progression away from concern that is solely ‘with the Playwright, and toward large percentages of words for multiple concerns: Character, Plot, Dialogue, and Theme. The critics are con- cerned with the Playwright as the progenitor of all the aspects of drama. We will continue to note this trend in terms of future product- ions. Table VI The Concern of Script: Orpheus D'éscending Specific CRITICS ncerns Atkigggn Lhamn ‘ Coleman ! Kerr Watts , mum num r of wor s Stgctgge 69 ;6_2 o 70 30 __g___;, Character 3;: $0 1) #160 . 15: 1 192 4212:2222 0 o as 79 0 0 P10; 0 35 25 93 27 :9 Theme 2 O 39 { 0 L9, 10 51 ‘ Plamight 4O 0 LL 24 6Q 59 , Comparison ‘wlother wk. 0 0 6 0 :3 A 92 _ SScript S O 6 30 ‘ ale ;OS 60 22 18; , To als 298 227 33 448 4 O 440 3 a»... - 3. v- ...—- . u u ...wu . .. a . . . a - o l h . .’0a 0.0- l a a ; . o . w I o a . . ... s 4 .. h\ 34 A glean” 13 gm Eds For the production _A_ m m the, 213293 by Aurther Laurents, Brooks Atkinson spends 268 words out of his total of 480 words denoun- cing the Playwright and all for which he is responsible. He strikes the keynote with his Comparison With Other Work: "Raving succeeded with the possible in he of C , Aurther Laurents has now tried the impossible."7 The major reason for the Playwright's failure, according to Mr. Atkinson, may be traced to his delineation of an uninteresting leading Character. Virginia is not an interesting woman. She is an ego- tisto-a sick egotist--and she has nothing except her sickness to offer the audience. . . .she is an abstrac- tion when she finds a way to make peace with herself she is naturally elated. But the elation is private . . . that is the reason a £33ng in the Wags always seems remote and detached like a series of figures painted on a screen. 12/ This analysis of Atkinson's is given in this chapter in order to help explain the large amount of concern Atkinson places upon diar- acter delineation. Over half the space that he uses to describe the Script is dedicated to a dissection of Mr. Laurents' leading Character. The culminating blow falls when the critic gets to the subject of Script Style: "Poetry is a better medium than psychoanalysis for the job Mr. Laurents is trying to accomplish."w How very different a consent of this ilk is from Mr. Watts' concern for social reform and moral intent- ions . Richard Watts, Jr. spends 907. of his space (454 out of 539 words) 12.! m2..p.310.e£lse£issiatbe!2e