Variety (January 1953)

268 UBGITIMATB V.orly-sevenih MStlEFr 'Anniversary Wednesday, January 7, 1953 Hie Theatre Getting to Depend On Just a Handful of Creative Talents By HOBE MORRISON “South Pacific” is more than a money machine. It’s also, and per- haps more significantly, a striking example of how the entire legit setup has become dependent on a relative handful of authors, com- posers and lyricists. The Richard Rodgers-Oscar Ham- merstein 2d musical has provided nearly four years (so far) full-time employment for about 225 actors, Stagehands, musicians . and man- agerial and production staffs, plus theatre personnel such as boxoffice men, ushers, etc. In addition, it gives part-time work to a small army of service and supply peo- ple, advertising and printing help, and so on. And, indirectly, it gen- erates productive activity for the whole economic system. The notable fact about the situa- tion is that it typifies the entire the- atrical setup. Not just the Broad- way theatre and the road, but also stock, the amateur field and to .a considerable extent the foreign stage. Everywhere there’s a the- atre, the vital creative element is supplied by all too few writers. Several years ago, a study of the Rodgers & Hammerstein produc- tion books showed an' annual pay- roll of around $2,000,000. Rodgers said at the time that the idea of having so many dependents was “frightening.” But if the R & H salary list made the composer-pro- ducer uneasy, the same situation on a wider scale is no less sobering a prospect for the theatre. Legit, as a whole, not merely the scapegoat Broadway, but the pro- fessional ahd even the amateur the- atre to a major extent, lives on hits. Nobody really profits from a failure. Although it may provide brief employment to a few people, a flop doesn’t provide, livelihood or sustenance for anyone, but dis- courages everyone, particularly the backers and others who lose money ojr months of work. But hits are the theatre’s lifebook, inspiration- ally as well as economically. 1 Commercial Effects [ The commercial effects of a smash are fairly obvious. “South . Pacific,” for' example, has earned about $3,500,000 profit for its man- agement and investors, plus a for- tune in royalties for authors and director, and a comfortable liveli- hood (in some cases considerably more than that) for numerous ac- tors and others. It has also con- tributed employment and income for bill posters, cab drivers, clean- ing establishment help, trucking employees and an endless assort- ment of individuals. But who can enumerate or esti- mate the intangible effects of such a s'how? Hbw many people, for in- stance, acquire the theatregoing habit from seeing this musical, or a “Call Me Madam,” or any one of such plays as “Life with Father,” “Mister Roberts,” “Street- car Named Desire,” or “Death of a Salesman”? Who can speculate, except in the broadest terms, on the inspirational effect of any such show on authors, musicians and creative artists in other fields? A few actors, directors, produc- ers, choreographers. and designers may also “create” theatre on occa- sion. But in general it is the writer (or composer or lyricist) who provides the basic element that brings theatre into being and keeps it alive. Whatever it may have been in the past, the contem- porary theatre is primarily the au- thor’s theatre. That is why the limited number of playwrights, composers and lyricists capable of turning out hits is so disquieting. Until there is some indication that talented authors are increasing in number or productive capacity there is little prospect of any sub- stantial renaissance of the the- atre. Except for backers (who are apt to take the strict view that a hit is a production that pays off), the theatre generally defines a success as a show that has a fairly lengthy run—say six months or more. Such an operation at least creates em- ployment and remunerative activ- ity for most people involved, though the management may make little or nothing and the backers actually' not get back their entire investment. Even on that basis, there are disturbingly few authors who have had consistent records in recent years. The Playwrigh ts [ Some of the playwrights include Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Clifford, Odets, Maxwell Anderson, S. N. Behrman, F. Hugh Herbert, Lillian Heilman, Anita Loos, Mary Chase, Joshua Logan, Terence Rat- tigan, Sidney Kingley, John van Druten, Lindsay and Crouse, Bella and Sam Spewack, Paul Osborn and Christopher Fry. Those who have had consistent records in the past but have been relatively inactive or less success- ful recently include Robert E. Sherwood,. Moss Hart, George S. Kaufman, Elmer Rice, Garson Ka- nin and Ruth Gordon, Samson Ra- phaelson, Norman Krasna, John Cecil Holm, Joseph Fields and Je- rome Chodorov, George Kelly, Thornton Wilder and Noel Cow- ard. One-shots who have not yet dem- onstrated the ability to repeat in- clude Jan de Hartog, Joseph Kramm, Fay Kanin, Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcynski, William Archibald, William Inge, Robinson Jeffers, Carson McCullers, Robert McEnroe, Howard Richardson and William. Berney, Wolcott Gibbs, Ruth and Augustus Go£tz, John Patrick, Arthur Laurents and George Axelrod. In the musical field the recent cleanup hitters include Rodgers & Hammerstein, Irving Berlin, Cole JOHN BEAL l^^STAGE: Voic* of the Turtle—Lend An Ear — Jollyanna—New Faces of 1952 (Director of Sketches) ^^^BREEN: My Six Convicts—Remains to Be Seen Radio and Television Porter, Frank Loesser, Arthur Schwartz, Lerner and Loewe, Dor- othy and Herbert Fields, Giap- Carlo Menotti and E. Y. Harburg and Fred Saidy. Jean and Walter Kerr have had one respectable-run musical, but have not as yet re- peated. In the revival classification there are a few giants who continue as a creative force year after year. They include Shakespeare and Shaw, of course, and then Ibsen, Chekhov and Gilbert and Sullivan. THE MISSING LINK l—By ROBERT DOWNING—* A stage manager grows accus- tomed to producers who forget to invite him to opening-night parties, and to playwrights who pass out signed copies of their work to walk- ons and understudies—but never to the chap with the .prompt script. Oversight is one thing—but maybe this business of relegating the stage manager to position “x” in the far background is going just a bit too far for the general health and well-being of the theatre. Public anonymity of stage man- agers is a good thing. Certainly the customers shouldn’t be con- scious of the man who pulls the strings. But perhaps the stage manager’s co-workers and employ- ers. should be more aware of how the strings are pulled. The stage manager carries a con- siderable and not always appre- ciated responsibility. He’s not as clever as a director or, as one pro- ducer told me, he’d be the direc- tor. He’s not as gifted as the stars, or he’d probably be acting and not pushing buttons. But the stage manager has to keep a director’s work in Class A shape long after the director leaves a show; and he has to help even the stars retain a perspective on the job at hand. The “improvements” that creep into a production can, without the stage manager’s attention, curtail the run of an attraction. __ Marking Time? [ At present writing, a stage man- ager is someone who is doing a job he doesn’t particularly care about to the best of his ability, until he can find a position in show busi- ness that he prefers. Almost every- one in the theatre seems to be “on the way.” Not the stage manager. He marks time in the prompt cor- ner year after year while under- studies become stars and producers get rich and directors go to Holly- wood or into TV. He sees design- ers muddle around with their first efforts (using some helpful sugges- tions from the prompt corner), and he watches those designers soar to dizzy heights of achieve- ment. The stage manager observes that, there are no ceilings on the opportunities or upon the salary potentials of most theatre workers —himself excepted. Where strong union protection is guaranteed to most of the theatri- cal arts art crafts, the stage man- ager finds that he is Equity’s step- child, and that in many branches of the profession away from Broad- way there is absolutely no protec- tion for people in stage manage- ment. Somewhere in the evolution of modern theatre, the stage man- ager became - the missing link. Neither actor nor technician, he is expected to be the straw boss for both actors and technicians, at the same time owing a certain loyalty to the producer who pays his sal- ary. With stringent qualifications demanded of almost all other types of theatrical personnel, anyone— but anyone can become a stage manager—and almost everyone does! The duties of the stage manager have never been clearly defined. Every practitioner in the prompt corner has his own notions about the extent of his authority and the manner in which he should con- duct himself at his job. To pin- point the discrepancies in the craft, take a look at some prompt scripts from Broadway hits. No two books will be marked alike, and in many cases the script of an efficient, well- oriented stage manager will be Greek to an experienced colleague. Assistant stage managers serve no apprenticeship save the training they may get from their immediate superiors during their first seasons behind the scenes. This isn’t good enough for good theatre. When committees are being formed for the study of ways and means to secure lasting benefits to the living theatre, it seems to me that the vagnries of the prompt corner deserve immediate atten- tion. Great Names Lend Lustre To the Small Concert Biz By F. C. SCHANG (President, Columbia Artists Mgt.) The very smallest division of the amusement industry is the concert business: it grosses less in one year than a medium-sized 5th Avenue department store. Yet it is subject to scrutiny because there are great names who lend it lustre. Right now there are people who say that these great names are on their way out, that the ticket buy- ers are in revolt against a one- man show, and that orchestras, opera companies, ballets, choruses, groups and ensembles will consti- tute the subscription courses of the future. There is a modicum of truth in these observations. Just how much is what we are going to examine. First let me say that if recital- ists find themselves in this predic- ament they have themselves large- ly to blame. Most of the top draw- ing cards are operating on a basis set up by tax accountants. When they hit a certain income figure they are through for the year. If they make a ’ killing on recording royalties they decide to leave the field fallow. This means that they let their concert market ride, and buyers have to start looking for second choices. These choices are always in the group field, as the chances of paying hall rent and high local expenses are better with a group than with a soloist who is not a drawing card, however excellent said soloist’s performance may be. On the one hand, stars can hard- ly be blamed if they prefer home with the kids rather than paying high-bracket percentages to Uncle Sam. On the other hand, this sit- uation has discovered for concert- buyers that their publics can be well pleased with a stage full of performers rather than one lone lass and her pianoforte, accom- panist and word-book. This raises a question which is the crux of the matter: how do re- cital programs rate as entertain-, rrient? | Jenny Lind’s 1st U.S. Con cert | I have before me a photostat of the New York Daily Tribune, Sept. 5, 1850. It contains an advertise- ment of Jenny Lind’s first concert in Castle Garden. In addition to the services of Mile. Lind, prob- ably the greatest concert drawing card in American history, the-pro- gram listed an orchestra of 60, a two-piano team, two solo flutists and a baritone.. Mile. Lind sang the Casta Diva of “Norma,” a duet with Sig. Billetti, the baritone (from Rossini’s “II Turco in Italia”), a trio for voice and two flutes by Meyerbeer, the Swedish Echo Song; and closed with a num- ber composed by the orchestra leader, Mr. Benedict, specially for the occasion, entitled “Welcome to America.” Mile. Lind thus sang five num- bers on the program, being entire- ly satisfied to share the evening with a numerous company. Twenty-five years ago the Celeb- rity Concerts of Lionel Powell & Holt, the British impresarios, pre- sented annual concert series in 12 leading cities of Great Britain. The format for all of these concerts was the same: three stars each gave two numbers and combined in others to complete the program. Some of the combinations which come to memory are Melba, Kube- lik and Hofmann; McCormack, El- man and Destinn; Ruffo, Kreisler and Bauer, etc. Messrs. Caruso and Chaliapin never gave a recital in their lives. They always had at least two as- sisting artists. The concerts of Rosa Ponselle, Maria Jeritza, Paul Robeson, Gigli, Grace Moore, al- ways employed at least one assist- ing artist, and often more. Alda, Martinelli, DeLuca and Lazzari never were great shakes as recital sellers. But as the Met- ropolitan Opera Quartet they sang hundreds of dates. My conclusion is that if recital audiences are dwindling, this is not a revolution; it is rather the com- pletion of a cycle. The combina- tion required for a recital which draws capacity audiences is a great name, a great talent, a great reper- tory but most of all a great per- sonality. All four of these attri- butes in one performer are not found often. And when they are found, like as not their owner will prefer to share the program, thus obeying a cardinal rule of show- manship, the same rule which gave this paper its name: variety. The generation reared on recital fare is growing old, and the art- ists who developed this following are dying out. Perhaps the new generation of concertgoers is mur- muring: “Pardon me, but your show is slipping.” Shows in Rehearsal Keys: C (Comedy), D (Drama), CD (ComedyDrama) , R (Revue), MC (Musical Comedy), MD (Musi- cal Drama), O (Operetta). “Crucible” (D)—Kermit Bloom- garden, prod.; Jed Harris, dir.; Arthur Kennedy, Walter Hamp- rlpn cfarc “Hazel Flagg” (MC)—Jule Styne, Anthony B, Farrell, prods.; David Alexander, dir.; Helen Gallagher, Thomas Mitchell, Benny Venuta, John Howard, stars. * “Josephine” (C)—Leonard . Key, Luther Greene, prods.; David Pressman, dir. “Maggie” (MC)—Franklin Gil- bert, John Fearnley, prods.; Mi- chael Gordon, dir.; Betty Paul, Keith Andes, Irene Bordoni, stars. “Picnic” (D)—Joshua Logan-The- atre Guild, prod.; Logan, dir. “Touchstone” (D)—Elaine Perry, prod.; Hale McKeen, dir. “Wonderful Town” (MC)—Rob- ert Fryer, prod.; George Abbott, dir.; Rosalind Russell, star. Greetings SAMUEL FARBER Musical Director, National Company “GUYS AND DOLLS”