Herbert Blau: Directing a Revolution in American Theatre, 1952-1965
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HERBERT BLAU: DIRECTING A REVOLUTION IN AMERICAN THEATRE, 1952-1965 BY AMY ELIZABETH POYNTON DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theatre in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Esther Kim Lee, Chair Robert Graves, Dean, College of Fine and Applied Arts Assistant Professor Valleri Hohman Associate Professor Kathryn Oberdeck ABSTRACT Herbert Blau is more widely known in theatre history as a theorist and less as a director who strove to identify his directorial style during a time when American values were evolving and American regional theatres were gaining recognition, specifically 1952-65. Using many of Blau’s books and articles - most notably his first book, The Impossible Theater: A Manifesto - plus a wide range of newspaper critiques, personal interviews, articles on Blau and on the Cold War, this dissertation examines Blau as a practical director behind the theory and defines the Blauian style of directing. It explores the journey of Blau from theatre novice to professional director and ponders whether he effectively engaged his personal theories, thoughts and political views to his work on stage. And, in the process, did he maintain, service, and advance the artistic integrity of the work itself? The chapters highlight Blau’s attempts to realize his theoretical ideas through his practical directorial work onstage through three key productions: Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children (1956); Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1957-58); and, Georg Büchner’s Danton’s Death (1965). These productions represent the arc of Blau’s directing career from beginning theory through the avant-garde and onto the national stage. They are presented, in conversation with Blau’s own writings, in order to prove or disprove what he has said about his work and to offer an objective viewpoint. The probing work accomplished by Herbert Blau as he developed his directorial style at the height of the Cold War has not been given due credit in ii American theatre history texts. Blau’s goals as a director were to: 1) emulate and keep strong the ensemble ideas forged by Harold Clurman and the Group Theatre; 2) utilize discussion as a way to delve into the text at a time when discussion was looked upon as borderline subversive; 3) introduce to American theatre through production such new playwrights as Bertolt Brecht, Samuel Beckett, Marie Irene Fornes, and Harold Pinter; and, 4) to ultimately change the direction of American professional theatre. This dissertation presents a clearer portrait of a man whose later theoretical writings have been described by Tony Award-winning director Daniel Sullivan as “impenetrable,” but have ultimately been used by noted theatre theorists such as Richard Schechner, Elin Diamond, and Phillip Zarrilli to launch new theories that are currently reshaping and redefining the American theatre in the twenty-first 1 century. 1 Daniel Sullivan, personal interview, 2 April 2007. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my director of research, Dr. Esther Kim Lee, whose mentorship, wisdom, extreme patience, and boxes of tissues have been invaluable. Thank you to the members of my doctoral committee--Robert Graves, Valleri Hohman, and Kathy Oberdeck--for their guidance and steadfast support of this project. I gratefully acknowledge Mary Rose Cottingham for her voluntary editing, cheerleading, and friendship. Thank you also to Daniel Sullivan, Josephine Harris, Dick Blau, Priscilla Pointer, Bert Brauer, and Helen White for offering their insights and personal experiences that enrich this study. The staff at the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center was tireless in their efforts to locate materials that had gone missing. Thank you also to Linda Heard for taking me on a most excellent tour through the bowels of the Vivian Beaumont Theater. David Swinford was always there with the right form or email contact and his help in handling the paperwork for this process is gratefully acknowledged. Thank you to Jordan Kreie whose dog-sitting skills enabled me to spend many a late night at the computer. To my family and friends--what can I say but, without you, I am nothing. Thank you for always supporting my wild ideas and adventures in particular - Jim, Beth, Tom, Mary, and Bob. Thank you to Peter Davis whose advice, intelligence, and sincere friendship supported and encouraged me year after year. Grateful thanks to Herbert Blau for sharing his memories with me and for answering the seemingly endless emails with patience, enthusiasm and support. Thank you to my parents, June and Ed Stoch, for everything that I am or ever hope to be. Finally, to my son – Bobby - iv who gave up so much and asked for so little in return, thank you with my whole heart. v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………….1 CHAPTER ONE: OFF THE BALCONY AND INTO THE ABYSS ………………24 CHAPTER TWO: MOTHER COURAGE AND THE ENTRANCE OF THE POLITICAL …………………………………………………………………………….58 CHAPTER THREE: WAITING FOR GODOT—“A TRANSFORMING EVENT” ……………………………………………………………………………….128 CHAPTER FOUR: DANTON’S DEATH--“RISKING THE BAROQUE” ……….183 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………….228 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………..236 vi INTRODUCTION On the night of February 28, 1952, in a dilapidated loft above a Judo academy on Divisadero Street in San Francisco, a group of actors performed a workshop production of Philip Barry’s Hotel Universe for an invited audience of fifty people. The co-founder and self-appointed dramaturg of the group, Herbert Blau, explained to the gathered crowd that what they were about to see was the start of a new theatre, The Actor’s Workshop of San Francisco (TAW). It was also the start of a new style of theatre - an actor’s workshop where ideas were first, analytical critique was accepted as a way to explore the work, and polished production and glowing reviews were not a priority. Their “modest aim,” Blau explained, was to “provide the circumstances in which actors could practice their art.”1 After the performance, the enthusiastic audience urged the group to perform the play again and offered donations to help them start their theatre. Buoyed by the response of the audience, the group nonetheless refused both offers and went on to another project, keeping intact their commitment to slow, thorough explorations of the works they carefully chose. 2 Thirteen years later, on the evening of October 21, 1965, the atmosphere inside the glitteringly new Vivien Beaumont Theatre was charged with wary anticipation and more than a little self-righteous indignation as the New York City audience awaited the 1 Herbert Blau, The Impossible Theater: A Manifesto (New York: Macmillan, 1964) 140. This is Blau’s first book and is an important source for his subjective view of the early events of his directing career. This book is introduced more thoroughly later in this introduction. 2 The factual information contained in this anecdote is solely Blau’s take on the events that happened on the night of TAW’s first performance. The story can be found in The Impossible Theater: A Manifesto; “The Theatre Journal Auto/Archive: Herbert Blau.” Theatre Journal (2004); and, Blau’s recent book, As If: An Autobiography, Volume I (Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2011). 1 start of Georg Büchner’s Danton’s Death, adapted and directed by Herbert Blau. The cast, a combination of transplanted actors from Blau’s Actor’s Workshop of San Francisco and actors remaining from the previous directorship of the Repertory Company at Lincoln Center (LCR), also awaited the start of the play with nervous anticipation. The Beaumont, with its massive stage, large acoustical dead spots, and innovative stage machinery, was difficult to perform on at best. At worst, it could completely overwhelm even the strongest actor. Along with these problems was the added pressure on the company to succeed where prominent others before them had failed. There were high hopes for LCR when it opened two years prior under the directorship of Elia Kazan and Robert Whitehead, hopes that had not, as yet, been fulfilled. The theatre society in New York waited to see if the new directorship of Herbert Blau and his partner, Jules Irving - two exported Californians and their mixed company of Broadway and non-Broadway actors - could turn what was viewed as a disappointment into a viable, exciting company. The curtain rose, the cast performed, and the disappointment remained. The new regime had failed to impress and, a scant two years later, Blau left Lincoln Center.3 This span of thirteen years, beginning with the humble opening of an actor’s workshop dedicated to the exploration of the craft and ending with the highly criticized entrance of an evolved version of that workshop onto the national stage, represents the professional theatrical career of Dr. Herbert Blau, currently the Byron W. and Alice L. Lockwood Professor in the Humanities for English and Comparative Literature at the 3 This is a compilation of facts taken from newspaper critiques of Danton’s Death, a personal tour of the Vivian Beaumont Theater, and from Blau’s book Take Up the Bodies: Theater at the Vanishing Point (Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1982). 2 University of Washington. What happened in the years between those two vastly different opening nights has fascinated and bewildered Blau for most of his over sixty- year involvement in the theatre. Theatre critic Robert Brustein explicitly defines the metamorphosis of Blau and his company, from committed workshop to overreaching Theatre Company, in his November 6, 1965 review of Danton’s Death: “Their ads pronounce their theatre a shrine; their program notes are full of inspirational pieties about Civil Rights, the Human Spirit, and the Advance of Culture…a lot of creative energy that might be more effectively channeled into a rigorous confrontation of the plays is now being wasted in public posturing.”4 Blau would have been appalled had he been able to read this 1965 critique of his work when he started in 1952.