Variety (January 1953)

X^^npBcTav, January 7, 1953 Rantblings in the Theatre (More Ahecdota About Plays and Players of Another Era) By CHARLES O’BRIEN KENNEDY •Many years ago the first Installment of a novel appeared in a magazine and a shrewd playwright got to work. I-Ie continued from month tb month and shortly after the last chapter appeared, the first version of “East Lynne” was ready for the stage. Charles Reade was a hit dilatory in completing the manuscript of “Masks and Faces” which he had promised Steele Mackaye for the opening bill of the Madison Square Theatre season. Mr. Mackaye had a play named “Hazel Kirke” touring the provinces and in desperation he put it into his theatre as a stopgap. It was derided by the critics and the managerial profession generally could see little hope for it. The outlook Chas. was dark until Reade’s manuscript O'B. Kennedy fina u y arrived and the company start- ed rehearsing feverishly. But, as Fate would have it, Mr. Trade’s play did not seem to come to life, while the box- nffice receipts for “Hazel Kirke” were skyrocketing. ‘‘Masks and Faces” Was abandoned and “Hazel Kirke” became a nationwide success. Once Corse Payton was obliged to give a Saturday morning performance of the Diav in his two-a-day stock company. This rather sug- gests that critics and theatrical moguls were quite as fallible in those days as they are in these. In his youngher days the late Sir Henry Irving bore a striking physical resemblance to the Irish patriot, Robert Emmett whom he greatly admired. Irving commissioned Frank Marshall to write a play around Emmett and an- nounced his intention of producing it. But there were Land League agitations in Ireland and the British Govern- ment delicately hinted that it would be well if the play were abandoned. Then, as now, it was considered subver- sive to revere a patriot who was on the other side of the fence. Later on Irving gave the manuscript to his friend, Dion Boucicault, who completely rewrote it and presented it in Chicago with Joseph Haworth in the leading role. It was a failure. The only successful drama about Emmett was written and played by the handsome and talented Brandon Tynan, now residing in Brooklyn. In earlier times most American plays were adaptations from the French or German, In 1884, William Gillette made an adaptation from the German, “Der Bibliothekar,” and called if “Digby’s Secretary.” Some time later still another version appeared entitled “The Private Secretary.” There were rumblings of lawsuits but the matter was set- tled out of court, Mr. Gillette abandoning “Digby’s Secre- tary” and taking over the road rights of “The Private Sec- retary.” It would seem that the canny New Englander got the best of the bargain by far. The published version of his play gives the authorship to Charles Hawtey. While in London, William J. Florence attended a per- formance of T. W. Robertson’s “Caste.” Florence saw this comedy every night for weeks and memorized the com- plete text; then, unhampered by copyright laws, he pro- duced the piece on Broadway. The public resented this sharp practice, and poor patronage forced Florence to withdraw the play. Laura Keene knew how to appease the fastidious when she played that risque drama, YCamille,” with a new end- ing, showing that it was nothing but a dream. Poetic Justice | A Chicago lawyer, Samuel E. Gross, wrote a play which he gave to Coquelin, who took the script to Paris and later appeared- in “Cyrano de Bergerac,” by Edmond Ros- tand. Gross sued and the courts upheld his contention, throwing the Rostand play into public domain. Richard Mansfield produced Rostand’s play in this country and out of its enormous receipts paid the Frenchman handsome royalties. Augustin Daly produced his version of Ros- tand’s work without payment of royalties and scored a failure. Somj saw poetic justice in this. To paraphrase Les Kramer, one of the major wits of The Lambs, “William Charles Macready was the greatest living authority on William Charles Macready.” Once at a party this great actor besought the budding young poet, Robert Browning, to “write me a play and save me from going to America.” The poet acquiesced and the result was “Stafford,” a miserable failure. On his return from America, where he helped make unfortunate history, he was relieved to learn that Browning had abandoned the theatre as a medium. In fact he was busy concocting some comic verses for Macready’s little boy, Willie, having to do with a pied piper and some rats. But there is some- thing about playwriting that infects the most rational, for the poet turned up with another tragedy which he called “A Blot on the ’Scutcheon.” Chary of Mcready’s dyspeptic judgment, the work was first submitted to John Forster (Dickens’ biographer) who in turn passed it on to Dickens for appraisal. Thirty years were to elapse before Brown- ing read Dickens^ enthusiastic verdict. Macready was skeptical about “A Blot on the ’Scutcheon” and passed it over to a comparatively unknown young actor, Samuel Phelps, although the great man magnani- mously volunteered to direct it. As rehearsals pro- gressed Macready’s ears began to perk up and he became more and more intrigued with the possibilities of the lead- ing part in the new drama. When Phelps became sud- denly ill the director obligingly stepped into the role. Things were going serenely until Phelps recovered and demanded his part back. After a heated argument Brown- ing decided in favor of Phelps. Here was a mighty mo- ment in the life of a tragedian scorned. In a passion, the gi’eat Macready crumbled the manuscript and dashed it to the ground, declaring Mi\ Browning to be “a very dis ; agreeable and offensively-mannered person.” But, Mr. ■Browning, Victorian gentleman that., he was, merely Pulled his hat down over his forehead and strode from 10 theatre. In those days, this implied the Height of contempt. Browning won th.e argument, and “A BLot on mo Scutcheon” was a failure, so,I.think w.e can call it a draw. Forty-seventh P'j&ZTETY Anniversary ' LEGITIMATE 269 Broadway Legit Vs. West End Paramount’s Story Editor, Ex-Drama Critic, m/ J Compares N.Y. With London Stage By JOHN BYRAM When darkness descends early at this time of the year the London theatrical district, off Piccadilly Circus and the Strand, bears a resemblance to Times Square. On Shaftes- bury Avenue along to Charing Cross Road lights spell out star names and titles to brighten dingy theatrical ex- teriors; garish shops advertise their wares, including cut-rate liquors; popular price eating places, even milk bars, bid for customers and there is that all too familiar and exasperating snarl of traffic. But beneath such sur- face similarities there is a distinction and several differ- ences between the two capitals of the English-speaking theatre. Noting and trying to analyze them is a complex busi- ness involving more than the matter of the similar or dis- parate tastes of the two publics. An American observer who spends considerable of his time and eyesight in keeping up with the trans-Atlantic theatre has come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, our plays currently stand a little better chance in the British theatre than theirs do in ours, Shakespeare and Shaw excepted. It is not that we are less hospitable on this side of the water— on the contrary, we have an intelligent and receptive audi- ence which is surprisingly large—but it is that the pace of the two cities is different, as are the economics of the the- atre business. In our frenzied New York life it is some- times difficult to accept a play which is a reflection of a slower, better ordered scheme of living. This is also re- flected in the business of theatre-going itself. Whether or not it is apparent to the Britisher, one of the distinguishing features of play-going to the Broadway emissary is that it seems more leisurely over there. At matinees there is the sociable clatter of tea trays and in the evenings, with early curtains continuing from war- time days, there is the cheer of the bar. Although the number of theatre productions has decreased markedly in New York during the past score of years, the activity has grown more febrile and intense, which seems paradoxical until you think a little about it. Ours may be described as a Benzedrined theatre but London’s is not so hopped up. It is necessary for the Gothamite to be passionately ad- dicted to the drama or to possess a great amount of forti- tude and stamina when he invades Times Square. In Lon- don it is still somewhat easier to go to the play. In London, too, people attend the theatre as an institu- tion, while in New York we go to hits. It wasn’t always that way. Remember the crowds that used to swarm into Leblang’s basement to buy bargain seats for any attrac- tion? But a number of factors operating since the depres- sion days, including high producing and running costs, have served to change this situation. The suicidal eco- nomics of the New York theatre have been cussed and dis- cussed so often that there is no reason to go into them again, but the fact that it is far cheaper ttr present plays in London has considerable to do with the differences in the theatrical fare of the two cities. Also across the water tickets are less expensive and the critics have not been placed upon the pedestal of supreme authority that, against their desire, they occupy here. Possibly as a result of this, our London playgoer does not demand as steady a kick as does the Broadway patron; he will take the good things that crop up along the way in the writing or charac- terization of a play which, to us, is lacking in impact. Furthermore, it is generally known that our British friend is traditionally loyal to established favorites and will go to see players whom he esteems without concerning him- self too greatly over their plays. Also, generally speaking, the taste of audiences assembled near the Eros Statue or the Nelson Column is apt to be broader and less critical than ours in certain matters of comedy and farce. Rattigan’s A nalyses Recently, in a sound and provocative article, Terence Rattigan, author of “The Deep Blue Sea,” was, fittingly enough, enumerating the factors which cause sea changes in plays. One, he said, was the change of focus that so often occurs in transplanting a play. That is to say the interest, instead of being centered on character rela- tionships and dialog, turns toward noting a strange back- ground or the small external differences of the people. A Negro maid, for nstance, instead of a cockney servant. There is, as Mr. Rattigan took pains to point out, also the matter of emphasis which leads to a particular type of play or set of dramatis personae being mistaken for a generalized study. Mr. Rattigan noted that this oc- curred in the case of “The Browning Version,” which was intended as. a portrait of a very particular school master and his very particular wife, but was regarded in America as a more general— : and therefore sketchy—picture of English public school life. All of which brings us, by fairly easy stages, to Mr. Ratti- gan’s current play, which is successfully being exhibited on both sides of its namesake. Having seen the play first in London, I happen to feel that it is expertly written and belongs among his better and more mature work but that was not the prevailing opinion of the New York review- ers, one or two of whom thought it resembled soap opera. A Manhattan critic of renown accompanied my wife and me to “The Deep Blue Sea” that night in London. Dis- cussing the play after we had seen it in both capitals, we agreed that without detracting from the great charm and talents of Margaret Sullavan the performance of Peggy Ashcroft in England was nearer what the author intended and that while the cast here was excellent, the English company gave Mr. Rattigan’s work more effective- ness and meaning. Even though the intent is to duplicate an original company, casting and direction can do odd things to plays as those who have seen Chicago companies of New York successes go awry can attest. N. Y.-London E x chan ge As is well known, American' musical shows with their vitality and their'unhackneyed, frequently unorthodox treatment, have been Immensely popular in London since the war. But what of our plays?' Taking the last five years as an arbitrary yardstick. London hafc seen, in that period, the following, among others, from the category of our dramatic wonder-works: “A Streetcar Named De- sire.” “Anna Lucasla,” ‘‘Diamond Lil,” “Family Por- trait,” “Burlesque,” “Four Hours to Kill,” “I Remember Mama,” “Dark Eyes,’ “Rocket to the Moon,” “The Glass Menagerie,” “All My Sons,” “Harvey,” “The Heiress,” “Tobacco Road,” “Death of a Salesman,” “Detective Story,” “Mister Roberts,” “The Biggest Thief in Town,” “The Philadelphia Story,” “The Country Girl,” “Two Loves Have I” (“Trio” over here), “Second Threshold,” “The Young Elizabeth,” “Third Person,” "Red Letter Day,” “Under the Sycamore Tree,” and “The Trouble Makers.” On the other side of the coin English playwrights, since 1947, have sent us such wares as “An Inspector Calls” and “The Linden Tree,” both by o. B. Priestley, - “The Winslow Boy,” “Edward, My Son,” “Yes, My Lord,” “The Browning Version,” “Clutterbuck,” “A Phoenix Too Frequent,” “Daphne Laureola,” “Black Chiffon,” “The Gioconda Smile,” “The Day After Tomorrow,” “The Lady’s Not For Burning,” “Edwinna Black,” “Ring ’Round the Moon” (adapted from the French), “Seagulls Over Sorrento,” “Venus Observed,” “Women of Twilight,” “Legend of Lovers” (adapted from the French), and “Lace on Her Petticoat.” Perhaps “The Cocktail Party” by the American-born T. S. Eliot, who has long been a British citizen, should be included. Defining a success as a play which recoups its produc- tion costs and earns a few honest pounds or dollars, there would seem to be a higher incidence of hits in our ex- portations than in the plays dispatched to us from Albion during this five-year period. An examination of these lists further reveals that our native dramatists have the advantage in originality, dramatic impact and vitality. On both catalogs are plays of literary quality from Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Ruth and Augustus Goetz, Priestley, Rattigan, Christopher Fry and Eliot, among others, and they, are, generally speaking, the ones that, have been successful both East and West of Gander Air- port and Land's End. For a while this seaso- it looked as if there would be something in the nature of a theatrical invasion from England, despite the spat between the British and Ameri- can actors’ unions. For the moment the tide seems to have receded leaving three successful deposits on the shores of 44th and 45th Streets. One Of these is the limited engagement of "The Millionairess,” but that really shouldn’t count, since Shaw is a perennial. Another is “The Deep Blue Sea,” and the third is “Dial ‘M’ for Murder.” Until Mr. Ustinov’s intellectual stunt, “The t Love of Four Colonels.” comes galloping into the Shu-‘ bert to replace the Shaw play, there is nothing from the West End in the immediate offing. Except for the mu- sical show authors, our local boys presently are doing about as well, perhaps a little better, in London. j Whodmiits Always B. Q> | That “Dial ‘M’ for Murder” is a success on both sides of the ocean is no great surprise. It illustrates a taste shared by us and the British for an entertaining puzzle about homicide with an agreeable savor of suspense. Partly as a result of films, television and popular priced mystery books the Broadway stage has seen few exhibits of this character in the last several years. The result is that “Dial *M\” an excellent example in its field, .al- most wears the appearance of novelty over here. The English public dotes on murder plays and- there are usu- ally two or three of them on the boards or in process of production. In fact, one, recently opened, has been tagged as a worthy successor to “M” and is already scheduled for Times Square presentation. Londoners, it would seem, are less reluctant than Americans to pay theatre ticket prices for their murders. ■ In the foregoing list of American productions in the West End, there must certainly be five or six titles which even theatre followers might not recognize. What, you may ask, is “The Trouble Makers?” It is or was a play by a young American author, George Beliak, which was given a hearing at the New Dramatists Workshop here last year. Oddly enough, since it deals with the problem of witch hunting and violence in an American university, it was optioned by London producers who engaged Gene Lyons, a New York television actor, for the leading role. Both the play’s dramatic turbulence and a university background which was not precisely Oxonian, seem to have been a novelty for the London critics who gave it a good press. Though the play ran only a few weeks in the West End, and was forced to close because of a prior theatre booking, it did serve to get a sympathetic hear- ing for a young American author and proved again that the English are receptive toward drama from the States. ! Rosenihal’s London Im pact | “The Young Elizabeth,” which is not about the current Queen but Elizabeth I, is likewise American in its au- thorship and it has been running since last April, “Third Person” and “Red Letter Day,” are the work of Andrew Rosenthal, an ex-Ohioan whose abilities as a playwright are steadily increasing. To date he has not fared well on Broadway but both of his London productions en- joyed respectable runs. And then, of course, with' the incomparable Alec Guinness as its star, Samuel Spewack’s “Under the Sycamore Tree,” which has not been seen in this country, chalked up a winning number of per- formances during the spring, summer and fall. Under the title of “Winter Journey,” Odets' “The Country Girl,” was likewise a solid hit at the St. James Theatre. All in all, it can hardly be denied that American playwrights have been well treated along the Thames. Setting aside an epigram of Oscar Wilde, which will be quoted for a small fee, and the animadversions of eritics and creators in both countries, the dissimilarities of taste between Broadway and the West End now seem to be less apparent than real*, which is unfortunate. To proceed from the parochial'districts of Ihe commercial theatre to a more general consideration of England and the United States, Hollywood pictures, the number of Americans overseas from the war years' to the present, our big musical shows, and even our entertainers at; the, Palladium have ‘served to establish common denominators’ of speech, thought, reactions and entertainment likes and dislikes.