fi—vw—F ' -—-—— THE PLAYS» OF WELLIAM MOTTER INGEs 1948-1960. Thais far {rho Dogma 0! Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSlTY Pat-tron Eackwood 395.2 MICHI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1293 00085 4574 LIBRARY Michigan State University W 2.7 '8735 W '22 K147 5711‘” H ‘i- ' ’ , " ’ 1‘ p...» jib/1MP ‘Z‘QC'T. apt; .54 ., £51}; @163 TE 0] ”£13m: 43994 rzé r (if THE PLAYS OF WILLIAM MOTTER INGE: 1948-1960 By Patton Lockwood AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Communication Arts Department of Speech 1962 ABSTRACT THE PLAYS OF WILLIAM MOTTER INGE: 1948-1960 by Patton Lockwood This study considers the plays written by William Motter Inge prior to 1960. It identifies those aspects of his plays which are characteristic, and considers their dramatic effectiveness. Idea, character, story, dialogue, and structure, the standard dramatic elements, along with Inge‘s philosophy are considered. The study is limited to the published versions of Inge's plays except in the case of "Summer Brave," an earlier version of Picnic, and the unpublished one-act plays, typewritten copies of which were made available by the playwright. The first chapter brings together the scattered biographical material that is available on William Inge, provides an outline of his occupational and geographical peregrinations, furnishes a concise introduction to some of the incidents and characters in his life that are re— flected in his plays, and indicates the development of his theatrical aSpirations, and introduces the playwright’s early ideas on dramaturgy. Patton Lockwood The bulk of the dissertation deals with the Specific plays, one chapter being devoted to each of Inge’s five New York productions: Come Back, Little Sheba (1950), Picnic (1953), Bus Stop (1955), The Dark at the Top of the Stairs (1957), and "A Loss of Roses" (1959), and one to his one- act plays. A recapitulation of the action, a detailed consideration of the major characters, and a critical evaluation was made of each play. The final chapter is a summary of Inge's techniques and subject matter. Inge's plays were found to be true to life, utiliz- ing characters and situations in an unobtrusive manner. All of his plays were found to be striking in their apparent sincerity. Inge himself was found to be a plain—Speaking playwright, fluent, yet prosaic, who exploited both senti- ment and dramatic conventions. His plays were found to be filled with irony, humanity, and objectivity. Freely con- structed to the demands of free character interrelations, _the plays were found to reflect a philosophy of resignation, interpreted and expounded in Freudian terms. Midwestern locale, a naturalistic presentation, inconclusive conclusions, and colloquial dialogue were also found to be characteristic. It was concluded that Inge had not been an innovator, having neither introduced new dramatic techniques, nor changed the course of contemporary American theatre. It was felt that Inge's skill lay in his ability to bring Patton Lockwood together familiar literary elements, in particular au— thentic Midwestern Americana and dark, Freudian torments. Inge was placed in the company of such American playwrights as Eugene O'Neill and Tennessee Williams in his use of Freudianism, Naturalism, and genre background. It was concluded that Inge, aware of the demands of the commercial theatre and sensitive to the temper of his times, is among the best American playwrights writing today. 437 Words W K , Piaf/l (i) f \ F7"?! Approved: ,;,¢UV\ V}_svkLCLuuuLal ['Thesis Director \ Copyright by PATTON LOCKWOOD 1963 THE PLAYS OF WILLIAM MOTTER INGE: 1948-1960 BY Patton Lockwood A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Communication Arts Department of Speech 1962 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to several individuaksfor their assistance: the playwright, who willingly lent me for a considerable length of time the only c0pies of his unpublished one-act plays; Dr. Nat Eek, whose copy of "Summer Brave" threw considerable light on Inge's second Broadway play, Picnic; and the members of my Doctoral Committee. I would like eSpecially to express my appre- ciation for the practical advice, constructive criticism, and patience of Dr. John A. Walker and Dr. John A. Waite, who have contributed so much of their time and energy. My deepest gratitude goes to my wife, Nancy, for her constant encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Matrices Standards II. COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA . . . . . . Background Action Characters Dream Symbolism Structure Other Factors Preliminary Evaluation III. PICNIC .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Action Principal Characters Summer Brave Evaluation IV. BUS STOP . . . . . . . . .'. . . . Action Principal Characters Evaluation V. THE DARK AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS . Action Principal Characters Evaluation VI. A LOSS OF ROSES . . . . . . . . Background Action Characters Evaluation iii Page 22 51 78 96 125 Chapter Page VII. THE ONE—ACT PLAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 The Mall Glory in the Flower The Tiny Closet The Day I Did Wrong An Incident at the Standish Arms To Bobolink, for her Spirit The Rainy Afternoon Sounds of Triumph A Corner Room Memory of Summer Bus Riley‘s Back in Town People in the Wind Departure VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Summary Conclusions BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study describes, analyzes, and evalutes the plays which William Motter Inge wrote in the first twelve years of his professional playwriting career. The purpose is to discover the dramatic strengths and weaknesses of Inge’s plays, and to locate and identify their character- istic elements. The study does not consider Inge's film scenarios and adaptations, except briefly in passing. While no precursive criteria have been established, analy- sis of his use of the standard dramatic elements of idea, character, story, dialogue, and structure has been con- sidered a logical starting point for the investigation. The study considers all of the plays which Inge wrote before 1960 for which scripts are available. These include five full-length plays which have had Broadway productions and thirteen one—acts. Only the final pub- lished versions are available for Come Back, Little Sheba, Bus Stop, The Dark at the Top of the Stairs, "The Mall," "Glory in the Flower," and "The Tiny Closet," In the case of Inge's 1959 failure, "A Loss of Roses," the preliminary working script, published in Esquire, is the only source. Picnic is the only play which has an alternative but un- published version, "Summer Brave." 1 2 The study is thus limited to the published versions except in the case of "Summer Brave" and the one-acts which were lent by the playwright. There is no doubt that William Inge is one of the most important contemporary American playwrights. Next to Tennessee Williams, William Inge has written more plays that have been produced on Broadway in the last decade than any other American. His plays have had an additional im- pact in their film versions, especially Picnic, which proved to be extremely popular. -De5pite Inge's prominence, no comprehensive study of his plays has been undertaken. Scattered reviews exist which are limited to evaluating or discussing Specific productions, but between 1950 and 1960 only one magazine article was written that considered Inge on the basis of all of his works to that time. "A Loss of Roses," which marked a radical structural change from his earlier plays, has been forgotten or is unknown, and few people are aware of his one-acts, even those that have been. published. It is time that this material was brought to- gether. Both the failure of "A Loss of Roses," which followed four commercially successful Broadway plays written by Inge, and the fact that Inge turned from the legitimate stage to write specifically for the films, mark the end of a period in Inge's playwrighting career, the period with which this study is concerned. 3 It is expected that William Inge will continue to write for both Stage and screen, and that in the future further evaluation will necessarily take place in the light of additional evidence. But it is also clear that this is a most convenient and appropriate time for an initial survey. William Inge's life has been filled with incidents and individuals whose influence is repeatedly and clearly revealed in his plays. While one tends to look with some scepticism on sequences which indicate an elementary cause and effect relationship, biographical material can provide convenient points of reference and occasionally considerable insight into an artist's subject matter, working methods, and objectives. The scattered biographical material that is available on William Inge, besides providing an outline of his occupational and geographical peregrinations, furnishes a concise introduction to incidents and characters in his life that are reflected in his plays, indicates the development of his theatrical aSpirations, and introduces the playwright’s early ideas on dramaturgy. While Inge unfortunately has never made a detailed statement of his objectives, a few limited comments on objectives exist, and these need to be considered, as they provide an invaluable basic orientation. Such a preliminary frame of reference will serve as a useful guide until the plays themselves can be considered. Matrices William Inge was born in Independence, Kansas,l on May 3, 1913. His life has been superficially quiet and un— Spectacular, but, like his plays, this apparent calm hides moments of fear and loneliness, defeat and triumph. Consider— ably younger than the four older children of Luther Clayton Inge and Maude Sarah Gibson, William Inge grew up lonely and self-contained. His father, a travelling salesman and small— town merchant, contributed to the boy‘s loneliness by his frequent absences from home. Like Sonny in The Dark at the Top of the Stairs, William collected movie magazines and memorized recitations, the imaginary world of the theatre providing him with an outlet for his imagination and an escape from his loneliness. Inge's histrionic abilities first made themselves known at the age of eight when he memorized a Speech, which his sister, Helene, had prepared, and proudly Spouted it in an elocution class. Hi-yo, Peter Johnson Come inside that fence 1The city of Independence (chartered 1872) is lo- cated in the southeast corner of Kansas. A city of some 12 ,000 population which boomed with the discovery of oil in.l903, it acts as the distribution point for a consider— able agricultural area. Today, Independence is noted Inflimarily for its Neewollah celebration, which takes place in one hundred and fifty- six acre Riverside Park, located in the Verdigris Canyon some miles outside of the city. 5 I done told yo' yesterdgy Yo‘ ain't got no Sense. Remembering that day many years later, he remarked, For the first time in my life I felt that audience reaction. It meant an awful lot to me. I hadn't been a very good student at all. From then on I found a way of getting along with people that I hadn't had.3 Longer poems, then monologues and dialect pieces followed Hi-yo, Peter Johnson, and soon Inge was established as an attraction at church Socials, school programs, women's clubs and local talent shows. Young Inge was alone among his brothers and sisters in his enthusiasm for the *theatre. Although his interest in the theatre was not shared by his immediate family, it was encouraged by his mother’s brother, John W. Gibson, who ran a harness business in Wichita. John Gibson's accounts of his own early experience with a ShakeSpearean troupe intrigued and excited Inge, as did the trips the boy took with his uncle to Kansas City to see repertory theatre.4 By the time he graduated from Montgomery County High School in Independence in 1930, Inge had accumulated a con- siderable amount of acting experience. In the fall of that year he went to the University of Kansas where he enrolled as a Speech and Drama major. During his years at the University of Kansas, Inge was active in dramatics and became a member of the National Collegiate Players. While ZMilton Bracker, "Boy Actor to Broadway Author," New York Times, March 22, 1953, sect. II, p. 1. 31bid. 4Ibid. 6 he was in college, he Spent two summers touring Kansas with a "Toby Show" acting juvenile roles. The Toby Show was an old-time tent Show which featured a hayseed clown, traditionally called Toby. It was an exciting but precari- ous existence. "I lived on peanut butter sandwiches and milk," Inge recalls.5 In the summer of 1934, the year before he graduated from the University of Kansas, Inge took a summer job act- ing with the Maxinkuckee Mummers, a small stock group which was Sponsored by Culver Military Academy in Indiana. The job was to lead the following year to a more re5ponsible one as a teacher and director, replacing Major C. C. Mather, the head of the Speech and drama department, while the latter was on leave from the academy. Inge hOped to finance a trip to New York with what he expected to make that summer, and, like hundreds of other h0pefuls, he saw himself on the verge of a brilliantacting career. However, after working all summer, Inge found himself insolvent. At this critical juncture he was offered a graduate scholarship at George Peabody Teachers‘ College in Nashville, Tennessee. He accepted and temporarily gave up the idea of professional acting in New York. Recalling his decision to go to Tennessee, he remarked, "I gave up acting with no inner contentment. I became morose."6 Two weeks before he 5"'Picnic’s‘ Provider," New Yorker, April 4, 1953, p. 23. 6Bracker, loc cit. 7 was to receive his master's degree, he developed what he termed "a sickness of mood and temper."7 Later he recalled, I Sort of based my life on the theatre. Having given up the theatre, I'd given up the basis I'd set my life upon. I was terribly miserable and confused. I went home to Kansas and began to flounder.8 Unwilling at the time to accept teaching as a pro— feSSion, Inge first took a job working on a Kansas highway gang for the summer. Working on days when the temperature occasionally reached 118 degrees, he found some peace of mind in physical exhaustion. "I started sleeping at night."9 For a period he stayed with his uncle in Wichita and worked briefly for a time as a radio newscaster in that city. In the fall of 1937, Inge accepted a position in the high School at Columbus, Kansas, located some fifty miles east of Independence. The job consisted of teaching classes in English, Speech, and dramatics and lasted for nine months. The following summer Inge returned to Nashville and completed his masterfs work. His thesis was written on David Belasco and seems competent, if possibly uninSpired. In the fall, Inge accepted a position at Stephens College for Women, located in the center of Missouri at Columbia. The Stephens job lasted for five years, during which time Inge worked in the Department of Communication Skills and in conjunction with the drama department, headed by the well- 7"William Inge," 20th Century Authors, Stanley J. Kunitz, ed. (New York: H. W} Wilson Company, 1955), p. 475. §Bracker, loc. cit. 9Ibid. 8 known actress, Maude Adams. While at Stephens, Inge had an opportunity to act in and direct productions of the Burrall Bible Class, a vigorous, philosophically-oriented, non— sectarian organization which included the entire student body of Stephens. For this group he played his last acting role, the drunken choirmaster in Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, and directed Watch on the Rhine. During the years at Stephens, Inge was charming, casually well-dressed, and good—looking, and deSpite his phlegmatic consti- tution and chronic detachment, he was a fine dancer and a Social Success when he made the effort. He was particularly noted for his detached and sar- donic humor and his great Skill as a teller of elaborate stories. 0 The years at Stephens were restless years. While there, he lived with an interesting group of brilliant and Some- times eccentric intellectuals in a furniture-cluttered, ante-bellum mansion presided over by a landlady of Boone County’s old Southern aristocracy.11 In 1943, Inge left Stephens and moved to St. Louis, where he became culture and entertainment critic for the St.LouiS Star-Times. Inge arrived in St. Louis weary of institutional life and with a vigorous unfulfilled interest in the theatre.12 The job with the Star-Times was appar— ently exactly what he needed. He took a room in one of the 10Interview With John A. Waite, August 24, 1960 (Michigan State University, East Lansing). 11Idem. 1220th Century Authors, p. 475. 9 less desirable sections of town,13 worked, because of the nature of his job, mostly at night, and for the first time in his life was really content. Inge found the job both stimulating and enjoyable and no doubt would have been happy to continue it indefinitely had circumstances allowed. His articles for the Star-Times, after a somewhat flamboyant start, settled down to routine factual reviews dealing with films, records, concerts, and theatre. He devised a standard review format based on four factors: (1) audience numbers, (2) audience reSponse, (3) theatricality, and (4) a Synopsis of the plot. If anything distinguishes these reviews, it is their occasional reference to the classics, theatre history, or the origin of the play itself. It Should be pointed out that, although Inge did review the dramatic events that took place in St. Louis during his stay, by far the greatest number of his reviews were film reviews. It was not uncommon for him to report on five a week. The theatre Season might provide him with ten legitimate plays, and he filled in his job with infrequent record reviews, occasional personal interviews, and a com- 14 plete coverage of musical events. In the last year of his job with the Star-Times he seems to have favored the films more and the theatre less. Summing up his theatrical experiences of four years he wrote: 13Tennessee Williams, "Writing is Honest," Passionate Pla oer,ed. George Oppenheimer (New York: Viking Press, I95gi, p. 246. l4Bracker, loc. cit. 10 The theatre today remains a somewhat isolated enterprise, Still full of talent and expressing occasional brilliance, but limited by the select nature of its audience, whose tastes haVe become either recherche or obsolete. The theatre must expand its appeal and enlarge its audience if it expects to continue an independent existence much longer.15 Two significant influences made themselves felt during these years. The first was the staggering number of plays and films Inge saw, ranging from the best to the worst Hollywood and Broadway had to offer. It is difficult to assess whether these viewing experiences were beneficial or harmful. No doubt this massive dose quickened Inge's graSp of dramatic techniques and dramatic structure and revealed to him the theatre's limitations and capacities, but at the same time it must have dulled his senses by burdening them with a collossal amount of trivia and inferior theatre. In any case, this exposure impressed on his mind the temper of the times, the era's psychology, its logic, its needs, its demands. The Second significant influence was Tennessee Williams. Ingels earliest effort in playwriting was made while he worked on the Star—Times. In November, 1944, Inge contacted Tennessee Williams, whose home was in St. Louis, concerning an interview. Williams, under considerable pressure from the rehearsals of The Glass Menagerie, had returned to St. Louis to get away from the tension. Realizing the nervous strain Williams was under, Inge Suggested that the interview 15W‘i111am Inge, "Theatre in Wartime," St. Louis Star- Times, May 12, 1945, p. 11. 11 take place in his own apartment. Williams accepted and, during the interview, he and Inge found themselves kindred Spirits. Inge's article in the Star-Times on this interview clearly reflects his admiration.16 Just before Christmas Inge went to Chicago to See Williams’ play and afterwards revealed to Williams his own desire to become a playwright. Williams states17 that at the time he thought Inge was try- ing to cheer him up, but Inge had, in fact, been deeply moved. "It was so beautiful when I saw it there. It was the finest thing I had seen in the theatre in years. I went back to St. Louis and felt, 'Well, I've got to write a play,”18 Later he admitted, "I felt a little ashamed for having led what I felt was an unproductive life."19 NeWSpaper writing had given Inge confidence, and he thought he could write as well as the authors of Some of the plays he had Seen. In three months‘ time he wrote "Farther Off From Heaven." "I didn‘t always know what I was doing," he admits.20 This initial work, having won WilliamS' support, was first sent to Audrey Wood, who was Williams' agent. She firmly rejected it, suggesting its production by an experi- mental group. Inge was insulted at the time but has Since 16William Inge, "St. Louis Personalities," St. Louis Star-Times, November 11, 1944, p. 11. 17Passionate Playgoer, p. 247. 18Bracker, loc. cit. 1920th Century Authors, p. 476. 20Bracker, loc. cit. 12 concurred with her judgment. The play was a "family- portrait sort of thing," Inge stated in 1953. "It didn’t have much story or action. I regard it as a first draft. I‘m thinking of rewriting it."21 Earlier he had admitted that "the play had none of the action or plot interest that are minimum essentials in any Broadway production."22 The play dealt with "a shoe salesman, his ambitious wife, and two maladjusted children."23 In 1947, Inge decided to send the play to Tennessee Williams, who was in Dallas working with Margo Jones, and it was produced there as a companion piece to Williams’ Summer and Smoke. The play proved to be acceptable to the critics. Inge recalled: I felt pretty encouraged, but the play itself didn’t dig very deeply into peOples' lives. It Suggested the deeper meanings pretty tentatively. It was a sort of Sketch—-Something I want to do in deeper perSpective.24 With the end of the war, the friend who had held Inge's job before him returned, and Inge relinquished the position. In 1946, he took an extension teaching job with the English department of Washington University in St. Louis.25 21Ibid. 22Richard Gehrman, "Guardian Agent," Theatre Arts, July, 1950, p. 21. 23Bracker, loc. cit. 24Ibid. 25Bernard Sobel, ed., The New Theatre Handbook and Digest of Plays (New York: Crown Publishers, 1959), p. 379. 13 Inge continued to write plays while in St. Louis and produced two works, one of which, "Front Porch," was later to provide the characters for Inge's most famous play, 26 Inge's third effort was more successful. "I be- Picnic. gan to develop [an earlier fragmentary short story] and it began to write [piss] me. I felt for the first time that I really had a play."27 This play was produced in New York by the Theatre Guild after a successful summer run in West- port, Connecticut. Its title was Come Back, Little Sheba. Sparked by the acting of Shirley Booth and Sydney Blackmer, it was to be the first of four commercially successful plays by Inge: Come BackJ Little Sheba (1950), Picnic (1953), EEE Sigp (1955), and The Dark at the Top of the Stairs (1957). The Broadway productions of Sheba, Picnic, and Bus Stop were followed almost immediately by motion picture versions for Which the film industry paid Inge one million dollars before taxes, according to Time Magazine.28 "A Loss of Roses" (1959) followed. It ran just nine days for eleven performances. In addition to his full-length plays, Inge has written a baker's dozen of one-act plays, three of which have been published: "The Mall,"29 "Glory in the Flower,"30 and 26At two intermediate stages the play was titled, "A House With Two Doors" and "Women in Summer." 27Bracker, loc. cit. 28Time, December 16, 1957, p. 54. 29William Inge, "The Mall," Esguire, January, 1959, pp. 75-8. 30William Inge, "Glory in the Flower," 24 Favorite One-Act Plays, ed. Bennett Cerf and VanTH. Cartmell (New York: Doubleday, 1958), pp. 133-150. 14 "The Tiny Closet."31 The one-acts are of Special inter— est, as Inge tends to develOp his major productions from such materials.32 Inge, strangely depressed and disillusioned by his success, underwent psychoanalysis a few weeks after Sheba opened. Recalling this period, Inge provides us with a partial answer as to why. Other people, friends and acquaintances, couldn‘t imagine why I started being psychoanalyzed at this time. "But you're a success now, they would assure me. "What do you want to get analyzed for?" AS though successful people automatically become happy. . . . None of [my plays] has brought me the kind of joy, the hilarity, I had craved as a boy, as a young man. . . . Strange and ironic. Once we find the fruits of success, the taste is nothing like what we had anticipated. Inge's problems were further complicated by alcoholism, a condition with which he had struggled and which led to his becoming a member of Alcoholics Anonymous a short time after Picnic, his second play, opened on Broadway in 1953. It is to be noted that his first play, Come Back, Little Sheba was based in part on Inge's own eXperiences as an 34 alcoholic. 31William Inge, "The Tiny Closet," The Best Short Plays: 1958-1959, ed. Margaret Mayorga (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp. 35-43. 32Recently Inge announced that he was about to write a full-length version of "Bus Riley‘s Back in Town," a one— act play that was produced at Pennsylvania State University in 1958. (Milton Esterow, "News of the Rialto: Inge's Plans," New York Times, June 17, 1962, sect. II, p. 1.) 33William Inge, 4 Plays (New York: Random House, 1958), p. vi. 4Bracker, loc. cit. 15 Inge's public life has been extremely limited Since he moved to New York in 1950 after a two-months residence in southern Connecticut. He has, of course, been present for the openings of his plays in 1953, 1955, 1957, and 1959. But he seems to prefer to remain apart, living in an apart- ment in one of the more conservative neighborhoods bordering Central Park. Occasionally his name gets into the papers in connection with a dramatic festival or theatrical planning committee. Recently, for instance, he was elected a trustee of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Theatre ArtS,35 was chosen to be a judge for the U.N.—A.N.T.A. Sponsored one-act play competition,36 and was named as a member of the Theatre Advisory Group to Dartmouth College’s new seven-and-a-half million dollar educational and cultural center.37 Except for such honorary appearances, however, he seems deliberately to avoid publicity. Describing him in 1953, Milton Bracker wrote that Inge was a quiet, articulate, determined man, unmarried, and without ostentation.38 Four years later Maurice Zolo- tow added, Inge 154a plump, slow-moving, slow-speaking man. His face is large and noble, his features are patrician, his eyes are light tranSparent blue, very large and sensitive eyes. 35New York Times, January 11, 1959, p. 2. 36New York Times, January 22, 1959, p. 26. 37New York Times, April 3, 1959, p. 122. 38Bracker, loc. cit. 39Maurice Zolotow, "Playwright on the Eve," New York Times, November 22, 1959, sect. II, p. 3. 16 Currently Inge is on the West Coast writing for the films and working on two new full-length plays, "Natural Affection" and "Bus Riley's Back in Town." This year (1962) a book of one-act plays is Scheduled to be published.40 It is clear that he intends to continue writing for both stage and screen. I like writin for the films because they are a mass media [Sic. and because they are visual. I will continuETfiriting for them (and the theatre when I feel like it) as long as I can write either original stoiies or adaptations of novels that really interest me. Standards Inge has written very little concerning his objectives. What he has written about his plays (and he has written an excellent commentary on his Broadway successes)42 has been tailored to the existing facts. Until a play is produced, public reaction to it can- not, of course, influence the playwrightfs thinking, but when the play opens and the reviews and critiques are pub- lished the playwright may find himself in a defensive position which calls on him to rebut criticism and defend his own opinions and objectives. At the same time, he is exposed to a variety of penetrating and often provocative analyses. Under such circumstances, a playwright is likely 40New York Times, June 17, 1962, sect. II, p. 1. 41William Inge, "Writing for Films," Playbill, October 16, 1961, p. 9. 42William Inge, 4 Pla S, pp. v—x. 17 to adopt in his own defense approaches which other critics have taken, if they further clarify his basic intentions. The result may be a considerable development of his original approach if not a complete reworking of it. Inge has written several Short neWSpaper articles in which his objectives are suggested, and there are a few relevant passages to be found in the mass of material he wrote as the theatre critic of the St. Louis Star—Times. However, no detailed summation of his objectives has been published. The vast majority of Inge's non~dramatic writ- ings are ex post facto descriptions of his play's pro— duction and content, in which he explains and justifies what he has done. This material will be discussed in the final chapter. In his early reviews for the St. Louis Star-Times, Inge made conventional judgments using familiar theories and terminology. "The main antagonist of any drama," he wrote in 1945, "must be hated, and to be hated with justifi- cation, he must be the conscious perpetrator of evil."43 The sentence Smacks of William Archer. Having read some- where that characters should develop during the course of a play, Inge wrote in an even earlier review: It is perhaps debatable whether Life with Father actually is a play. There is no basic motivation for anything the actors do, and at the end of the third act, none of the characters is changed in any 43William Inge, "'Tomorrow the World' Has Message On Post-War Nazis," St. Louis Star—Times, October 25, 1945, p. 9. 18 reSpect from what he was at the beginning.44 While there is not enough evidence to draw absolute conclu- sions, it is clear that during this period, Inge tended to measure and evaluate plays according to conventional standards. When Inge moved to New York he began to develop a personal rationale which can be pieced together from the statements he made in a number of articles he wrote and interviews he gave. In 1954, after he had written three Successful plays, he made this brief but significant state- ment of his objectives: I want my plays to provide the audience with an experience they can enjoy (and people can enjoy themselves crying as much as laughing) and which Shocks them with the unexpected in human nature, with the deep inner life that exists privately be- hind the life that is publicly presented.45 Inge has also clearly stated his antipathy for any play de- signed to dramatize a message. I don't think the pure "message" play gets across or changes the audience's mind. I hate a play that tells me what to think.46 . So he wrote plays in which he claimed there was no apparent message. I have never written a play that had any intended theme or that tried to propound any particular idea.47 49William Inge, "’Life with Father’ Still Proves En- joyable In American Return," St. Louis Star—Times, November 15, 1943, p. 4. 45William Inge, "From 'Front‘Porch‘ to Broadway," Theatre Arts, April, 1954, p. 33. 46Bracker, loc. cit. 47Inge, Theatre Arts, April, 1954, p. 33. 19 Taken literally, this last statement may Seem an overstate- ment. Art is a structured eXperience and reflects a point of view (theme), whether it is stated explicitly or not. Fortunately, Inge modified his initial stand three years later. "I never £3153 [italics mine] writing with a Itheme' in mind," he admitted. "I find my themes only as the characters and the situation develop."48 His belief. per- sisted, however, that a play Should provide an experience rather than an idea or story. A play should be admired for the experience it gives, not for the ideas a playgoer comes away remembering. He should feel richer within himself, more reSponsive, more aware. It is clear that what Inge is rejecting is merely the pure thesis or prOpaganda play and trite moral aphorisms. De- Spite Inge's ingenious explanations of his intentions, his plays reflect ethical and intellectual judgments. Inge never defends his plays from criticism on the basis of fixed criteria. Rather he deflects criticism by carefully describing and explaining his dramatic intentions. This conveniently limits discussion to determining whether or not the playwright has succeeded in achieving what he says he intended. While such a discussion may be interest- ing, it ignores any comparative judgment based on the efforts of other playwrights, or the intellectual concerns of the day. An attempt to determine Inge's position as a 48Time, December 16, 1957, p. 42. 49Inge, 4Plays, p. vii. 20 contemporary dramatist must, of necessity, judge him in terms of what is happening throughout the theatrical scene. It is not surprising that Inge, whose plays vary greatly in structure, has favored free form. Dramatic form, he has stated, Should be the by-product of character inter- action. "Form" he wrote in 1958, "is the shape any creative work must take in order to exist with its ultimate force, beauty, and meaning."50 Inge has repeatedly exploited psychoanalysis to help him uncover "the deep inner life that exists privately,"51 and to help provide the audience with an experience rather than a story. His plays are filled with its terminology, its findings, and its techniques. Asked to what extent he was affected by the Freudian interpretation of the nature of man, he replied rather obscurely: Any writer inwardly involved with his own time cannot help but reflect the feelings and vieWpoints that Freud exposed in us. . . . I feel that the understanding and sympathy expressed for human characters . . . come about as the result of Freud's discoveries, even though the authors . . . may not have read Freud or any of the psychoanalytic writers since.52 The other articles that Inge has written are filled with provocative statements and opinions. But in all cases they are ex post facto judgments, not propositions; com- mentary, not statements of objectives. Only 3§_the individual SOInge, 4 Plays, p. vii. Sllnge, Theatre Arts, April, 1954, p. 33. 52W. David Sievers, Freud on Broadway (New York: Hermitage House, 1955), p. 256. 21 plays are investigated will we discover how Inge "provides an audience with an experience . . . which shocks them with the uneXpected in human nature."53 Only pfpgp we have investigated them can his objectives be deduced. 53Theatre Arts, April, 1954, p. 33. CHAPTER II COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA Background Come Back, Little Sheba was written by Inge while he was an instructor of English at Washington University in 1948. Developed from a fragmentary short story, the play convinced Inge of his ability and provided him with the first genuine satisfaction he had derived from play writ— ing.1 It will be recalled that Inge had written "Farther Off from Heaven" the year before and that it had been produced with Williams' Summer and Smoke in Dallas. Evidently this earlier play provided Inge with little more than the temporary relief of his frustrated artistic wish to express himself. Certainly it did not give him any lasting satisfaction. Phyllis Anderson, the associate producer of Come Back, Little Sheba, and the head of the play reading department of the Theatre Guild, has contributed an exact record of Come Back, Little Sheba's production history from February 4, 1949, when it was initially submitted by Inge’s agent, Audrey lMilton Bracker, "Boy Actor to Broadway Author," New York Times, March 22, 1953, sect. II, p. 1. 22 23 Wood, until it closed in July of the following year.2 Two months after it was submitted to the Theatre Guild, Cpm§__ Back1 Little Sheba was selected for the Theatre Guild's Westport, Connecticut, summer season. After tryouts, Shirley Booth and Sidney Blackmer were selected for the leading roles. The play, which opened at Westport under Daniel Mann's direction on September 12, was acclaimed by the critics. It was so well received that the Theatre Guild decided to produce it on Broadway. Unfortunately, Sidney Blackmer, Shirley Booth, and Daniel Mann were al- ready committed to other plays, and Come Back, Little Sheba's opening was postponed for five months. The play finally Opened on Broadway on February 15, 1950. Inge, whose anxiety had been tremendously increased by the five months delay, consoled himself with coffee and waited for the review.3 The play was modestly successful and, after a number of uneven performances, settled down to a comfort- able run of 190 performances. In early July, the film rights were sold, and the following fall a touring company was formed. The fact that the film industry and the in- vestors who Sponsored the touring company were willing to buy the play attests to its commercial value. Commenting on the initially luke-warm reSponses awarded Come BackJ Little Sheba, Inge wrote long after the 2Phyllis Anderson, "Diary of a Production," Theatre .Arts, November, 1951, p. 58. 3Ibid. 24 play had closed: It takes the Slow-moving theatre audience one or two plays by a new author, who brings them something new from life outside the theatre, before they can feel sufficiently comfortable with him to consider fairly what he has to say. A good author insists on being accepted on his own terms, and audiences must bicker awhile before they're willing to give in.4 As audiences became aware of Inge’s intent and familiar with his procedures, they stopped "bickering." Action Come Back, Little Sheba is concerned with a crisis in the lives of an unsuccessful, middle-aged couple, Doc and Lola Delaney. Both of them have found ways to avoid the realities of their own blighted union, a union initiated with a hasty marriage and the birth of a still-born daughter. The action of the play takes place in two rooms of the Delaney home, the kitchen and the living room, both shown simultaneously. The first scene, which is the play's longest, clearly reveals Inge's method of organizing a play as a composite, a conglomerate in which each incident by its interaction with other incidents contributes to the overall picture. The scene opens in the Delaney's kitchen at eight o’clock on a Spring morning. Inge establishes Doc, a quiet middle-aged man, as the figure around which the action momentarily centers. In quick succession he appears in episodes with Marie, a young energetic boarder, then with .. 4William Inge, 4 Plays (New York: Random House, 1958), p. v11. 25 his apathetic wife, Lola, and finally in an episode with both of them. The opening unit reveals his affection for Marie, the second his lack of communion with his wife, and the third his resentment of Turk, an athletic ex-serviceman who drops by to take Marie to the library. Soon after Turk's arrival Doc leaves for his office, and Lola becomes and remains the central character up tO the end of the scene. Lola's conversation with Marie reveals that Marie is engaged to be married to Bruce, a rather uninteresting young man who "comes from one of the best families in Cincinnati,"5 and discloses some of Lola's background, including her protected youth, her quick marriage to Doc, the loss of their daughter, her inability to have any more children, and her father‘s complete abandonment of her. For a short time after this long unit Lola is left alone. Then a mailman, Lola's next—door neighbor named Mrs. Coffman, and a milkman temporarily relieve Lola's loneliness. Lola tries to prolong each of their visits, but each has reSponsibilities which call him away. Alone again, Lola immerses herself in a radio program. "It's Ta-boo, radio listeners," says an oily voice, "your fifteen minutes of temptation."6 A few moments later a Western Union messenger delivers a telegram for Marie, which Lola opens to learn that Marie‘s fiance] will arrive the following day. Marie brings Turk 51bid., p. 13. 61bid., p. 22. 26 back to the house to pose for her life drawing, and Doc re- turns from his office. The scene ends with a contrapuntal Sequence in which Doc and Lola, Marie and Turk, take part. In the kitchen Doc angrily accuses Lola of encouraging Turk, while unseen by him Turk starts making advances to Marie in the living room. The remaining scenes in the play are much shorter. In the seCOnd scene of the first act, the contrast between the two couples is disclosed. The first half of this scene bares the relationship between Doc and Lola, the second that between Turk and Marie. Joining the segments is another of Inge‘s contrapuntal scenes in which the dialogue and the action of the two couples are set against each other. The opening Segment between Doc and Lola establishes Lola‘s simplicity, romanticism, and her deSperate drive to recapture her youth. It also makes it clear that Doc is equally deSperate to forget the past. Each time that Lola tries to discuss the past Doc changes the subject. "Remember the dances we used to go to, Daddy?"7 Lola asks. And Doc answers, "Please, Honey, I‘m trying to read."8 "Remember the walks we used to take?"9 "That was twenty years ago."10 "Remember the first time you kissed me?"11 "Baby, what's done is done."12 "Remember the Charleston, Daddy?"13 71bid., p. 31 8Ibid., 91bid., p. 32. lolbid. 11Ibid. 121bid., p. 33. 13Ibid., p. 35. 27 "What’s in the past can't be helped. You . . . you've got to forget it and live for the present."14 The episode between Marie and Turk which balances Doc and Lola's is appropriately about the future, the imme- diate future. "How about tonight, lovely; going to be lonesome?"15 asks Turk, and Marie demurely accepts his proposition. "Tonight will never come again,"16 she says as they embrace and start to dance. Two examples of Inge's contrapuntal technique will illustrate how Inge binds these two contrasting episodes to- gether. His first method is to juxtapose dialogue and action. "Do you have to go now?"17 asks Lola as Doc prepares to -leave. In the living room Turk and.Marie move closer on the couch. The implications of this juxtaposition are obvious: the older couple is separating, the younger couple is uniting. A second example which illustrates how Inge’s characters interact obliquely occurs just before Doc leaves for his Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. It is contained entirely in a stage direction and indicates how important is Doc's belief in.Marie. Each time that Doc hears Turk laugh he turns to a whiskey bottle, but Marie’s giggle and Lola's voice turn him away. (DOC is at platform when he hears TURK laugh on the porch. DOC Sees Whiskey bottle. *Reaches for it and hears MARIE giggIe. Turns away asITURK.lau hs again. Turns back to the BOttle and hears LOLAIS—' voice from upstairs.)18 14Ibid., p. 33. 151bid., p. 41. 161bid., p. 42. 17Ibid., p. 37. 18Ihid., p. 39. 28 This episode does more than illustrate the way in which juxtaposed characters interact in Inge's plays, it also clearly identifies the tenuosity of the restraints which hold Doc from alcoholism: his belief in Marie and his reSponSibility toward Lola. The second act of Come Backl Little Sheba is made up of four short scenes. In the opening Scene, Doc remarks to Lola at the breakfast table that he thought he heard a man's voice in the night. Then, as he leaves for work, he is sickened to hear Turk laughing in Marie's room. He stumbles outside but soon returns looking for the whiskey bottle. At the door he meets Turk who Slips away mumbling unintelligible apologies. Cautiously Doc secretes the bottle in his rain- coat. Lola comes down stairs and kisses him good-bye, Marie catches his eye and smiles. Doc goes out. In the Second scene of act two, which takes place that evening, Inge once again juxtaposes two worlds. This time they are the romantic, candlelit world that Lola has created for Bruce and Marie, and the world of sick panic which engulfs Lola when she discovers the whiskey bottle missing and realizes that Doc is out on a binge. The third scene of the second act contains the climax of the play. Unable to believe that Marie is reSponsible for her actions, and blaming his wife for encouraging the couple, ‘DOC returns home and attacks Lola with an axe. Fortunately he .is almost at the point of physical exhaustion and