1+

no3HI

THE COMEDY OF GEORGE ABBOTT

Robert W. MacClennan

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

December 1975

Approved by Doctoral Committee Advisor © 1976

ROBERT WALTON MaCCLENNAN

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * « 11

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to analyze the comic dramaturgy of George Abbott, by analyzing the playwriting techniques of Abbott with emphasis on his style of comedy; assessing what influence Abbott’s directing had on his playwriting; and, seeking an evolutionary pattern in his work. Ten works were analyzed: Broadway, Poppa, Page Miss Glory, Three Men On A Horse, The Boys Prom Syracuse, Where’s Charley?, Pajama Game, Damn Yankees, New Gi~rl In Town, and Tenderloin. The analysis of thescripts con­ centrated upon identifying and categorizing the comic de­ vices used by Abbott. As a framework of convenience, the analysis applied the comic theory of Alan Reynolds Thomp­ son, an eclectic theory which identifies the sources and natures of laughter in eleven categories. Three sources were examined to identify the features of Abbott’s direct­ ing style: periodical reviews and accounts of shows he had directed; comments by Abbott regarding his directing and playwriting, and comments by actors and actresses who had been directed by him and by lyricists and composers who had worked with him. These findings were applied to the plays and musicals to determine whether there was a relationship between the directing and the playwriting. The study found that verbal effect was the dominant source of laughter, resulting most frequently in the laughter of derision/ridicule, followed closely by con- trast/incongruity. No evolutionary pattern was discovered in Abbott’s work. Abbott’s directing and playwriting are a combined task and influence each other. Ill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This writer wishes to acknowledge the many people who helped him in so many ways. First, he wishes to thank the members of his committee, Dr. Charles Boughton, Dr. Raymond Brown, Dr. Robert Goodwin, Dr. Allen Kepke, and Dr. Norman Myers for their advice and guidance. To Dr. F. L. Miesle, his academic and dissertation advisor, the writer wishes to express his most sincere gratitude for the patience, the encouragement, and the un­ tiring effort he put forth in seeing this project through to its completion. TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1 Objectives of the Study...... 2 Importance of the Study...... ,...3 Method of Investigation ...... 5 Thompson’s Theory of Comedy ...... 9 Organization of the Study...... 33

AUTHORED WORKS...... 37 The Boys From Syracuse...... 37 Where’s Charley?, ...... 58 New Girl In Town...... 74 Conclusion...... 88

CO-AUTHORED PLAYS AND MUSICALS ...... 94 Broadway...... 94 Three Men On A Horse...... 103 Pajama Game ...... 120 Damn Yankees...... 134 Tenderloin...... 148 Conclusion...... 164 V

THE DOCTORED PLAYS...... 169

FP£Pa ...... 169 Page Miss Glory...... 181 Conclusion...... 195

MR. ABBOTT: THE DIRECTOR...... 198 Abbott’s Directing Techniques ...... 199 Abbott's Views of Playwriting ...... 226 Influences on Abbott’s Writing...... 231

CONCLUSION...... 237 Summary...... 237 Conclusions ...... 240 Suggestions for Further Research...... 247

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 250

APPENDICES ...... 257 George Abbott’s Theatre Record...... 258 George Abbott Interview ...... 262 Letters...... 273 1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In 1913 Mr. Abbott went to New York to try to earn a living as an actor ’until some smart producer snatched up one of my great plays.’ But it was a long wait, and in the meantime he became successful on the stage playing leads in such plays as Processional and the Pulitzer Prize play. Hell-bent for Heaven. Finally in 1^26 he had his'first hit as a playwright, Broadway, written with Phillip Dunning. Coquette and Three Men on a Horse, also collabora­ tions’, "Toil owed, and since that time he has usually been co-author, director, or producer of one or two Broadway shows each season.1

Today George Abbott is the undis­ puted dean of Broadway directors . . ., and he has been connected with more hits than anyone in the history of Amer­ ican theatre.2

When a man is active and successful in American com­ mercial theatre for sixty-odd years, a natural question is, ’’Why? What causes a man’s plays to be accepted by chang­ ing audiences for almost half a century?” A listing of Abbott plays will show that most are comedies. Many of these comedies have had successful revivals as many as thirty years after their original production. What causes people to laugh at Abbott’s plays? What comic devices have kept Abbott’s plays popular? It was questions such as these that led to this study, 2 which concerns itself with analyzing the plays of a popu­ lar comic playwright, George Abbott.

I. Objectives of the Study Since Mr. Abbott is a popular commercial playwright, this study examines his plays from a theatrical as well as a literary point of view. His plays have been written to sell, to be viewed by an audience, and their success is determined by how well or for how long they are accepted and attended by the theatre-going public. That they are successful can be established by examining a list of Broad­ way hits from almost any year from 1926 until the present. The question this study hopes to answer is, "What comic devices has Abbott used to make them successful?" Mr. Abbott has written plays and musicals alone and in collaboration, and also has been called upon frequently to act as a "play doctor." Do the works in these three cate­ gories rely on the same comic devices, or does emphasis on particular comic devices differ from category to category? In other words, is it possible to determine what contribu­ tions Abbott made to co-authored and doctored works? Because Mr. Abbott is involved in theatrical work not only as a writer, but also as a director, the question arises, "Can any influence of his directing on his writing be traced?". The mere fact that Abbott has been writing suc­ cessfully over a long period of time raises the questions, 3

“Has his writing changed through the years? Has he used different comic devices or combinations for different gen­ erations of theatre goers? Has he developed a pattern in his writing?” In the analysis of the comic dramaturgy of George Ab­ bott in a theatrical context, three major objectives emerge They are: 1. to analyze and describe the comic devices in specific plays and musicals of George Abbott; 2. to seek a possible evolutionary pattern in Mr. Abbott’s work; 3. to attempt to assess what influence, if any, Mr. Abbott’s directing has had on his playwriting.

II. Importance of the Study George Abbott has been a significant force in the American commercial theatre as playwright, co-author, play doctor, director, actor, and producer. From 1913 to the present he has been involved actively in over one hundred professional productions in one or more capacities. He has achieved financial and popular success, as indicated by the fact that each decade from 1920 to the present has witnessed a significant number of George Abbott “hits” mounted on Broadway. Because he has been so popular over such a long period of time, and obviously has reached a substantial audience, it would seem justifiable to examine his plays and musicals in order to discover the comic 4 devices which helped to make and keep them popular. Mr. Abbott’s sixty years of theatrical activity provide a rare opportunity for the theatre student to examine the develop­ ment of a popular playwright and his comedy. An interesting by-product which might be produced from this investigation is some knowledge about the type of audi­ ence attracted to an Abbott show. Any information of this sort might also reveal whether there has been a change in the comic tastes of audiences through time. To date, there has been no formal study of George Abbott’s playwriting. To be sure, reviews of his plays have appeared in major newspapers and in magazines such as Theatre Arts. Saturday Review. Time. Newsweek, and the New Yorker. Interviews and character sketches of Mr. Abbott have appeared in major periodicals throughout his career and these have commented briefly on his directing and play­ writing styles. Theatre history books dealing with con­ temporary theatre, and especially histories which deal with Broadway history or musical comedy history, list Mr. Abbott’s innovations and contributions to the theatre, discuss spe­ cific productions, and touch generally upon his directing and writing techniques. There is only one published book which concentrates primarily on George Abbott, and that is his autobiography, Mr. Abbott, published by Random House in

1963. Although in this book Abbott reveals many ideas, 5 methods and objectives of his directing and playwriting, the book’s main focus is on his life and work as a whole, with a primary emphasis on stories about friends and ac­ quaintances. There is no work in which the main objective is to investigate George Abbott’s playwriting. This study attempts to fill that vacuum.

III. Method of Investigation Ten plays and musicals will be analyzed in this study. Two criteria have been used to select the works to be ex­ amined. Since Mr. Abbott is author, co-author, and play doctor, the first criterion was to choose works representing each of those three categories. Second, the plays and musicals were selected so that each of the decades of Mr. Abbott’s writing would be represented. In an instance where there was more than one successful work in a particu­ lar category in a particular decade, the work most performed was chosen. In the category of doctored plays, the non­ availability of scripts placed limitations on the amount of material examined. It should be noted that both conventional plays and musical comedies will be included in this study. Although literary conventional comedy and musical comedy are two different forms, in a search for comic devices the differ­ ences in structure and form which exist between the two are not significant. Therefore conventional plays and musical 6 plays will be treated in the same manner. In the musical plays only the libretti will be examined in a search for comic devices for it is the libretti, not the lyrics, which George Abbott has authored or co-authored. Abbott’s authored works first appeared on Broadway in the 1930’s. The Boys From Syracuse (1938) will represent the authored works of that decade. The 1940’s will be rep­ resented by Where’s Charley? (1948), and the 1950’s by New Girl In Town (1957). Mr. Abbott had no authored works on Broadway during the 1960’s. The greatest portion of Mr. Abbott’s playwriting has been done in collaboration, and five examples have been chosen to be examined in this category: Broadway (1926), Three Men On A Horse (1935), Pajama Game (1954), Damn Yankees (1955), and Tenderloin (1960). Mr. Abbott did not have a co-authored work on Broadway in the 1940’s, but had four co-authored works appearing in the 1950‘s. In addition to the two listed above, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and the Pulitzer Prize winning Fiorello were produced. Pajama Game and Damn Yankees were chosen not only because they enjoyed the longest runs of these four co-authored works, but also because they were written only a year apart and with dif­ ferent collaborators. In the "play doctor" category, twp plays will be stud­ ied: Poppa (1928) and Page Miss Glory (1934). Although 7

Mr. Abbott had two doctored plays appearing on Broadway in the 1940‘s and two in the 1950’s, for various reasons it was impossible to obtain the scripts. The only available copy of Beggars * Holiday (1946) by John Latouche with music by Duke Ellington, doctored by Abbott, was an imperfect filmed copy, showing only the even numbered pages of the script. Thus it was unsuitable for use in this analysis. The only known copy of You Never know (1947) by Rowl and Leigh with music by Cole Porter, doctored by Abbott, was located at the Library of Congress. It was a carbon copy of a typescript which was not circulated. The cost of se­ curing a film copy of Out of This World (1950) by Taylor and Lawrence, music by Cole Porter, doctored by Abbott, was prohibitive. Tickets, Please (1950) was a revue put together by Paul and Grace Hartman and was doctored by Abbott. It consisted of comedy sketches, written by many different people, and song and dance routines. No copy of this revue could be found. Therefore, only two plays, Poppa and Page Miss Glory, will be included in this section The detailed analysis of the scripts will concentrate upon identifying and categorizing the comic devices used by Abbott. As a framework of convenience, this analysis will apply the comic theory of Alan Reynolds Thompson.3

This theory will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. 8

The analysis of each play began with an identification of the potential laugh provoking instances. This was a subjective process, in the sense that the writer used him­ self as the indicator of when laughter would occur. In the absense of any possibility of empirical identification of the volume of instances likely to be found, this seemed sound strategy. The writer is a trained ana experienced director, whose professional work and teaching has involved substantial experience in playscxipt analysis. Moreover, the director’s role clearly involves his assuming the posture of the ’’ideal audience,” and viewing the playscript from the vantage point of the spectator. Thus, the process, although subjective, was not idiosyncratic. Admittedly, other direc­ tors or persons not trained to view scripts from the view­ point of the director would arrive at somewhat different totals, and quarrels could be mounted on the validity of a variety of specific judgements. This, however, was not viewed as invalidating the process, since the differences would logically fall within a limited range. The step of identification of potential laugh provoking instances was further confined to the material in the print­ ed playscript. The use of the word ’’potential” in this dis­ cussion indicates the effort of the writer to identify with as much accuracy as the process permitted the laughter po- tential of each script. It is obvious that, once submitted 9

to the production process, some collections of performers and directors would fail to realize the full potential; others would embroider upon it and increase it, depending upon a variety of circumstances beyond the concern of this research. After the potential laugh provoking instances were lo­ cated in the manner described, each was subjected to analy­ sis according to Thompson’s scheme, and tabulated, in a fashion to be described later in this chapter. In order to assess the influence of Mr. Abbott’s di­ recting on his playwriting, three sources will be examined in an effort to identify the features of his directing style These are: one, periodical reviews and accounts of shows he has directed; two, comments made by Abbott himself re­ garding his directing and playwriting; and, three, comments made by actors and actresses who have been directed by him and by lyricists and composers who have worked with him. These findings will be applied to the plays and musicals in an effort to determine whether there is a relationship between the directing and playwriting.

IV. Thompson’s Theory of Comedy To analyze the comic works of George Abbott, an appro­ priate analytic framework is essential for a clear and sys­ tematic approach. This guideline must be sufficiently di­ verse to encompass almost any kind of humorous situation, 10 yet be precise enough to be manageable. Such an approach is supplied by the comic theory of Alan Reynolds Thompson, found in his The Anatomy of Drama. Mr. Thompson’s theory is a synthesis of many comic theories, providing a versa­ tility which is ideal for the kind of analysis attempted by this study: Thompson’s comic theory consists of two divisions with a total of eleven parts. The divisions are termed ’’The Sources of Laughter” and ’’The Nature of Laughter.” Thompson differentiates between the two divisions in the following manner: the sources of laughter are those elements used by the playwright to cause an audience to laugh, while the natures of laughter are a means of identifying the kinds of laughter resulting from the causes. These divisions and their parts are defined as follows: The Sources of Laughter (causes of laughter) 1. indecency or obscenity -- visceral and mental response to a joke that is dis­ gusting or in bad taste; socially unac­ ceptable conversation or physical action that leads to a shocking and, yet, at the same time, sexually stimulating re­ sponse culminating in laughter. Inde­ cency becomes a better source of humor when combined with other sources. 2. the body in physical action — laughter caused by pratt-falls, custard pie com­ bats, beatings, and other such physical nonsense. 3. effedts from plot — misunderstandings, unlucky happenings, cross purposes, mis­ taken identities, all resulting from 11

clever play construction and leading to laughter. These can be visual or verbal. 4. verbal effects — puns and gag lines, the use of novel or unique speech pat­ terns and language; humor resulting from a witty exchange, pointed or fun­ ny remarks about a character, or humor­ ous remarks about a situation. Satire is often the basis for many laughs from the verbal source when used to ridicule a character, characters, or situation. 5. character effects — a fault which a character unsuccessfully tries to hide or one that the character is unaware of but is recognizable in the society of the audience. 6. comic idea -- satire, except when pure ridicule of an individual character. It is basically a comparison of what the dramatist sees in mankind and what he thinks he ought to see. The Nature of Laughter (kinds of laughter) 1. derision/ridicule -- the kind of laugh- iter which results from a sense of su­ periority in the audience. 2. emotional release — the kind of laugh­ ter which results from the sudden re­ lease of erotic inhibitions. 3. play instinct — the kind of laughter which results from the unpleasant taken playfully. 4. mechanization -- the kind of laughter which results from the substitution of the artificial for the natural or the mechanical encrusted on the living. 5. contrast/incongruity -- the kind of laughter which results from the contrast between the real object and its idea.4 In speaking of this classification, Thompson says, “Though the sources of laughter are of infinite variety, 12

it will be useful to classify the more obvious ones that are important in comedy."5 Also referring to his classifi­ cation he says, "... Here again we must distinguish between the effect by itself and the total result when it is combined with other sources of appeal. In other words, although there are many more sources and kinds of laughter than will be listed here, and although these generally appear in an infinite variety of combinations, for the sake of analysis, they will be listed as individual units and in the case of a combination, the dominant trait will be considered the primary one. Thompson’s categories will be the basis used to describe the comic devices in Ab­ bott’s work. All of the comic devices in each of the plays and musicals will be identified, categorized^ and counted. Where combinations are used, the dominant trait in the com­ bination will determine the category in which the device is placed. Examples of each source and the kind of laughter it produced will be selected from Abbott’s works and will be discussed. Any combinations used will be noted in the dis­ cussion following the examples of the specific sources or kinds of laughter. It must be made clear that humor cannot exist in play form without a verbal or physical carrier. In other words, an audience viewing a play must first see or hear something before a reaction such as laughter can occur. However, 13 the words heard or the actions seen are not necessarily the primary source (or cause) of laughter. In many cases the dialogue or action is only the means by which the primary source is externalized. For example, in order for the source of laughter ’’effects from plot” to be effective, it first must.be communicated to the audience by means of a verbal or physical carrier. Thus, in the following ex­ ample, it is not verbal effect, but rather effect from plot which is the primary cause of laughter.

DROMIO S.: I hid the dough and thought I’d come back and see if there’s anything else you wanted. ANTIPHOLUS S.: (Sarcastically. Facing each other.) You, you came back in a new vein I (He prods DROMIO.) You've reformed, eh. (Prods again.) You’re not the comic anymore. (Prods a- gain.)7

The dialogue taken out of context has little or no meaning and cannot be considered a laugh provoking device. But the audience viewing the play in its entirety knows that this particular piece of dialogue reveals a misunderstand­ ing between characters and this misunderstanding is based on an earlier situation. Because this dialogue communicates this misunderstanding, it is simply the means by which the source ’’effects from plot” becomes useable. And it is spe­ cifically effect from plot which causes the laughter in this case. 14

In a similar manner, the physical action in this scene, taken out of context, is not necessarily funny. But once the situation is placed in the context of the play, the specific action called for is seen to magnify the misunder­ standing, and, therefore, is viewed as part of the source "effects from plot," This "carrier" quality will exist in each play or mu­ sical to he examined and will he dealt with as such. It will not be recognized, generally, as a part of the humor of the moment unless it is a direct source of laughter. Each of these carriers, verbal and physical, can be direct sources of laughter, and when they, are the primary source they will be recognized as such. Sources of Laughter. The first division of Thompson’s theory deals with those things from which laughter springs. Thompson opens his discussion on the sources of laughter by relating that the sources "can be ranged in a scale in accordance with the degree of subtlety or cleverness needed for their appreciation."® He then proceeds to work his scale from the bottom up. He puts those elements first which cause unsophisticated persons to laugh. Those elements appearing last on the scale represent the "upper limits" "when the quickest and most highly cultivated audience can Q no longer see the point at once,"

Such a scale does not imply that subtler jokes are necessarily better in 15

a moral sense, though brutality and stu­ pidity naturally go together; modern French farbe is often clever and sophis­ ticated, and highly corrupt, too.*-0

Thompson continues by stating that though a source of laughter might be easy for an audience to grasp, it is not necessarily easy for an author or an actor to create or de­ liver. It is, therefore, difficult to write and act effect­ ive farce. Simplicity should not be disparaged for its own sake. Any source of laughter is precious. This scale will serve as a means of evaluating the kind of audience which has attended Abbott’s plays. The first category Thompson deals with is indecency. He says: It takes no subtlety to laugh at the shock of indecency or obscenity. Such things have a univeral appeal to primitive people. When the laugh­ ter depends on shock alone, the joke, if we can call it that, is the result of a visceral rather than a mental response.11

Thompson’s next classification is the body in physical action. He clarifies what he means by using the phrases ’’pratt-falls and custard pie combats and beatings and the rest of the stock-in-trade of clowns.This type of com­ edy was elaborated in pantomimic form in silent movies, well illustrated by the efforts of Charlie Chaplin.

Charlie Chaplin’s artistry built 16

on clowning, but added such things as social satire and gentle pathos to give his best pictures depth. His earlier ones, done before he began to enrich his clowning with these effects, show how primitive the clowning alone can be. Inci­ dentally, it was often funnier.13

Such physical comedy is enjoyed by all people from infants to the “mature,” but Thompson feels that it is most frequent ly and most greatly enjoyed by children. This is true, he say, because the mature person has seen it many times and it has become stale. Thompson next discusses effects from plot. The effects of this source of laughter come from,

. . . misunderstanding, contre­ temps, cross purposes, mistaken identity, and so on. It takes a somewhat higher intelligence to enjoy these. They are not primar­ ily or merely visual, and sometimes, even in theatre, their intricacies are not easy to follow with all the assistance of the visible and audi­ ble actors.14

Such examples as The Comedy of Errors, The Country Wife, The School for Scandal, and The Way of the World have such intricate and complex plots that in reading as well as in performance, one often has difficulty keeping things straight. The confusion in these plays often is made even greater by the number of disguises and mistaken identities. But it is not because of complexity that a higher level is 17 given to effects from plot. "Like the other two effects jpreceedingj they acquire value when combined with effects of more significant human interest."15 ; The fourth category is verbal. Thompson defines or clarifies this by stating that, "Here are puns and gag lines such as those put repeatedly in the mouths of farce characters. Here also are Shakespearian lines of poetic felicity."16 Thompson states that the position of value of verbal effects is flexible or variable. The position depends on the content. If the verbal effect is part of a farce it is generally lower than it would be if it were part of a play which used language (wit) as its primaryysource of humor. He suggests that,

. . . people with literary (as dis­ tinguished from dramatic) taste often rate it highest of all — this being the reason, no doubt, that Congreve and Oscar Wilde maintain among English comedists the leading places accorded them by literary historians.1?

Thompson provides another example when he says that Giraudoux, whose work is more recent than that of Congreve 18 or Wilde, uses a "novel metaphor or linguistic whimsey" in almost every line of his plays. The plays would be deadly without this kind of verbal treatment. But, con­ versely, Shaw’S plays would still be funny through their "comic paradoxes" even if the dialogue did not exist. 18

Strictly speaking, the verbal appeal in some of these plays is undramatic, but the pleasing is the pleasing, whatever we call it. How­ ever, the ideal comedy could combine clever speech with clever plot; and in the theater wit is best when it does just this. The French distin­ guish three kinds: mots d’esprit or witticisms, like Wilde’s/ wliich may stand by themselves; mots de caractere or remarks that are point­ ed or funny through revelation of char­ acter; and mots de situation or those that point up the drama or comedy in the situation. In a serious vein Nora’s reply to Helmer is all three at once: when he says that no man sacrifices his honor to a person he loves, she retorts, ‘That is what millions of women have done.’19

Thompson goes on to say that the humor of Moliere lies primarily in at least two kinds. Most of his humor is derived from character and situation. He uses as support of his argument the scene in Tartuffe where Orgon has great praise for Tartuffe who has admonished himself for killing a flea with too much temper. Thompson next turns his attention to the last two sources: inconsistencies of character and the comic idea. Inconsistencies in character are common in farce but are generally very elemental. He uses an example from The Frogs by Aristophanes which shows a fluctuation in Dionysus’ character from terror to hunger and back again.

It is of a higher sort when the inconsistency is one which the 19

character himself hides or is ig­ norant of and which we recognize as of a kind we encounter in life. It then depends for effect on the spectator’s possession of social experience and observation. It is then an effect of high comedy. It becomes comic irony when it strikes so close to ourselves as to be pain­ ful. 20

In providing an example of inconsistency of character, Thompson uses Shylock when he exclaims, ”*My daughter! O my ducats!’ in which love and avarice war with such gro­ tesque poignancy.”21 The comedy of ideas, Thompson’s last source of laughter, is not usually found in

. . . ordinary farce that aims merely at laughter, but it is likely to occur incidentally in the farce of highly intelligent and satirically minded writers like Aristophanes. Thus, when Xanthias loudly objects to carry­ ing his bundles all the way to Hades, Dionysus suggests that surely some one of the many dead men who are always traveling thither can help him out. Ap­ propriately at this moment a funeral procession with a corpse on an open bier crosses the or­ chestra before them.22

Dionysus asks the corpse if he would take some bundles to hell with him, and the corpse asks to see them. The bun­ dles are indicated by Dionysus and the corpse says he must have two drachmas. They proceed to haggle over the price, 20 but Dionysus eventually loses when the dead man says, after having been offered ninepence, "I’d best be alive again at that rate,”23 an£ jje exits. The point being made by Thompson with this example is that comedy can come not only from an unexpected situation -- the dead man arguing over a fee — but also from the pin point accuracy of Aristophanes’ satire. Man's desire to get the best of a bargain is exaggerated and broadened to include even the gods. This whole passage is indicative of the long and careful observation the playwright has made of life and how he goes about attempting to remedy the problems he sees in his society. Satire is also part of the comic idea because it in­ volves the comparison of what is and what ought to be as seen through the eyes of the writer. Moliere, for example, uses the comic idea. His satire is universal rather than ’’pettily personal.”24 His satire provides for ’’thoughtful laughter.”25 In summing up this section, Thompson shows the sources of laughter graphically in a scale of increasing subtlety:

Farce High Comedy26 6. Comedy of ideas 5. Inconsistencies of character 4. Verbal wit 3. Plot devices 2. Physical mishaps 1. Obscenity 21

Nature of Laughter. Thompson then turns to the se­ cond major division of his theory, which characterizes the type or nature of laughter induced by the various sources. The first nature is derision. He says, in opening this discussion, In the Poetics Aristotle sug­ gested that the laughter of comedy is derision, and hence that it is caused by a sense of superiority, a feeling always grateful to the human ego.27

Derision, as Thompson sees it, is the result of satire. Whenever a writer wants to ridicule someone he exaggerates his failures or faults or weaknesses, thus causing laughter.

If this ridicule has no further justification than the satisfaction of malice, civilized audiences feel compunctions about yielding to it, and when it is too narrowly person­ al it also lacks general appeal. But if the satire seems to promote social welfare by ‘castigating man­ ners through laughter,‘ as the La­ tin tag has it (castigare ridendo mores), people feel a moral justifi- cation in laughing. Their enjoy­ ment nonetheless rests primarily in their dilight in superiority. We all have the impulse of the savage toward glory in the defeat of others even though we are trained to Sub­ due it. When satire offers us a moral justification for gratifying it, the impulse is, as we might say, unblocked.28

Emotional release is the next kind of laughter. In explaining this nature Thompson says, 22

. . . when we enjoy a joke or comic episode, . . . our expectation is often suddenly disappointed in the way anticipated, only to be highly gratified in another way — and then the joke is the more fully re­ lished. 29

This release can also come from erotic or off-color jokes. Blunt references to these matters are, for Thompson, taboo. However, if the subject is handled without embar­ rassment to the spectator, yet permits sexual stimulation, then the laughter is valid. Thompson finds this kind of humor of little value in “legitimate comedy.” If the effects of such a joke are singularly sexual or obscene, then it is disgusting to many. In good comedy, though, one will usu­ ally find the obscene mixed with other elements that are not taboo-breaking or off-color. “The best involve a com­ mentary on human nature that demands worldly wisdom if they are to be appreciated.”3® Thompson turns his attention to play instinct, the third element of the nature of comic laughter. He refers to Max Eastman's view on laughter as play instinct. “Laugh­ ter has a positive as well as a negative aspect, and . . . the positive is an unexpected satisfaction ... the comic is the unpleasant taken playfully.”31 Mechanization is the fourth element of Thompson’s clas­ sification of the nature of laughter. This is the replace­ ment of the natural with the artificial. Thompson feels 23 that this is a limited application of the last nature, con trast or incongruity, because a contrast is involved when mechanization is seen where life had been expected. Of this final nature of laughter, contrast and incon­ gruity, Thompson says,

Indeed, a contrast can be found involved in almost every situation that arouses laughter and may be ap­ plied to almost all theories mentioned . . . without any denial of the partial truth contained in each of them.32

Thompson believes that contrast or incongruity is the most widely accepted theory of the nature of laughter. The following summary of Thompson’s comic theory is then presented:

Comedy depends on the existence of a playful mood, and is possible only when the person who laughs is detached, at least momentarily, from the object of his mirth. It arises from the sudden perception of a con­ trast which if he were in a sober mood he might find painful, but which, as he is in this playful mood, he does not. The contrast is usually prepared for by the creation of mistaken expec­ tation -- the ’build-up.’ It must be suddenly and strikingly shown and im­ mediately perceived. The greater the tension of expectation and the more violent the contrast, the stronger the laughter, provided that the playful, detached mood is maintained. The laughter is not dependent on other emotions, but may be reinforced by them, as when disappointment of ex­ pectation yields an unexpected grat- 24

ification such as a feeling of su­ periority, or relief from an un­ pleasantness. 33

Sources of Thompson1s Theory. As he developed his theory of comedy, Thompson used the ideas of many other theorists and critics. Following is a discussion of their respective theories and an indication of how their ideas were used by Thompson...... Aristotle had a tangible influence on Thompson’s thoughts on derision/ridicule. In discussing derision, Thompson turns immediately to the Poetics. He says that Aristotle mentions that

. . . the laughter of comedy is derision, and hence that it is caused by a sense of superiority, a feeling always grateful to the human ego.34

Turning directly to Aristotle, one finds that he says,

This difference it is that dis­ tinguishes Tragedy and Comedy also; the one would make its personages worse, and the other better, than the men^ of the present day ... The latter class comedy produced invectives at first, just as others did hymns and panegyrics ... In this poetry of invective its natural fitness brought an iambic metre into use ... As for Comedy, it is (as has been observed) an imitation of men worse than the average; worse, however, not as regards any and every sort of fault, but only as regards one particular kind, the Ridiculous, which is a species of the Ugly. The Ridiculous may be de­ fined as a mistake or deformity not 25

productive of pain or harm to others; the mask, for instance, that excites laughter, is something ugly and dis­ torted without causing pain.35

Thompson’s ‘’derision’’ evidently comes from Bywater’s word "ridiculous.”3? The importance Thompson places on the superior feeling one has while seeing a comedy is clearly derived from Aristotle’s statement that those pic­ tured in comedy are worse than the average man. Therefore, the general public can and does feel superior, permitting it to laugh. An important element raised by Aristotle and used by Thompson is the fact that this lesser quality is not a pain ful thing. In other words, the ugliness of a character is not a painful or destructive ugliness. Thompson has depended upon J. Y. T. Greig for many of his ideas on the body in physical action, effects from plot obscenity, emotional release, and play instinct. In discussing humor caused by the physical, Greig says

Charlie Chaplin makes himself up to show enormous feet, the circus clown trips over anything or nothing, bumps into obstacles that everyone can see but himself, and gives him­ self up willingly to be buffeted and kicked by the master of the ring.38

Thompson speaks of physical humor in almost the same terms as he mentions “pratt-falls and custard pie combats and 26 beatings and the rest of the stock-in-trade of clowns”3^ and the performances of Charlie Chaplin in silent movies. Greig continues his thoughts on physical humor by saying, It is quite obvious that de­ formity, clumsiness, and personal assaults, in so far as they occa­ sion laughter, are not what we are accustomed to ... it is the nose that is outside the average limits in size, colour, or shape, and movements of head, trunk, or limbs, that are more than usually violent, jerky, or stiff, which catch atten­ tion, and may occasion a laugh.40

Thompson agrees with Greig that in the case of physical action, the laughter must come from an unawareness of pain or deformity in order for it to be valid. Greig parallels Thompson’s ideas on effects from plot when he says the disguise is a very common device

... because it gives such unri­ valled opportunity for that double­ ness of view . . . one has only to lay a disguise over some of the characters in the situation, a disguise which deceives the others but does not deceive the spectators, and all the materials of laughter are ready prepared. If the dis­ guise is concrete, a change of clothes, a mask, a false beard, so much the better; it is open, pal­ pable. But the disguise need not be so concrete, it may be represent­ ed rather by some error of vision on the part of one or more of the char­ acters in the comedy, it may adhere to the seer rather than to the thing 27

or person seen. It is all one, so long as the spectator is not per­ manently the victim of the same er­ ror; he must, sooner or later, be permitted to see behind the disguise. Thus the device of mistaken identity is for practical comic purposes the same as the device of disguise.4*

In this is the basis for Thompson's ’’misunderstandings, 42 unlucky happenings, cross purposes, mistaken identities” which he includes as elements of effects from plot. In discussing emotional release, Thompson cites Greig directly when he says, ’’The obscene joke ’simultaneously stimulates in us sexual behavior and modesty’ and thus af­ fords an emotional contrast of high potency.”45 This is so, says Greig, because ”our attitude to the obscene is so openly ambivalent that we are generally conscious both of our liking for it and our dislike of it.”44 This ’’emotion al contrast of high potency” mentioned by Thompson and based on Greig is something of which the respondent to an obscene joke is very much aware. In dealing with play instinct, Greig says,

It is clear that the connec­ tion between laughter and play is very close. Were anyone anxious to deny it, his everyday speech would bewray him, since we all make use somewhat indiscriminately of words like ’’amusement,” “prank,” “frolic,” “fun," “sport," “joke," and so on, leaving it to the context to deter­ mine whether they refer to play as such, or to the laughter that is supposed to accompany the play.45 28

Thompson agrees with Greig in categorizing this element as a nature or type of laughter as opposed to a source or cause of laughter. Freud contributed ideas to Thompson’s theories on obscenity and emotional release. Freud says that obscene humor can possess wit and can be ’’socially acceptable;“ that is, accepted by and repeated by the cultured portions of society.

Not until we come to the refined and cultured stratum does the for­ mal determination of wit arise. The obscenity becomes witty and is tolerated only if it is witty. The technical means of which it mostly makes use is allusions, i.e., sub­ stitution through a trifle, something which the listener reconstructs in his imagination as a full fledged and direct obscenity. The greater the disproportion between what is directly offered in the obscenity and what is necessarily aroused by it in the mind of the listener, the finer is the witticism and the high­ er it may venture in good society. Besides the coarse and delicate al­ lusions, the witty obscenity also utilizes all other means of word- and-thought-wit.46

This passage from Freud is not directly quoted by Thompson, but he does make use of several ideas found therein. Thomp son says that obscenity "is seldom found in legitimate comedy unless combined with more intellectual appeals to laughter, as in Aristophanes.’*47 29

In discussing emotional release, Freud says,

. . . the smutty joke is directed toward a certain person who excites one sexually, and who becomes cog­ nizant of the speaker’s excitement by listening to the smutty joke, and thereby in turn becomes sexually ex­ cited. Instead of becoming sexually excited the listener may react with shame and embarrassment, which mere­ ly signifies a reaction against the eaicitement and indirectly an admis­ sion of the same. The smutty joke was originally directed against the woman and may be comparable to an attempt at seduction. If a man tells or listens to obscene jokes in male society, the original situation, which cannot be realized on account of social inhibitions, is thereby also represented. Whoever laughs at a smutty joke does the same as the spectator who laughs at a sexual ag­ gression. 48

The passage above discusses the basic obscene joke or statement and the nature of the resulting laughter — emo­ tional release. This joke is coarse, directly revealing and stimulating, and uses little if any ”wit.” This mater­ ial provides the source for Thompson’s statement, ’’Freud emphasized the release of inhibitions, particularly erotic ones.”49 It is George Meredith who supplies Thompson with source material for comic idea.

Heart and mind laugh out at Don Quixote, and still you brood 30

on him. The juxtaposition of the knight and squire is a comic con­ ception, the opposition of their natures most humorous. They are as different as the two hemispheres in the time of Columbus, yet they touch, and are bound in one, by laughter. The knight’s great aims and constant mishaps, his chival­ rous valiancy exercised on absurd objects, his good sense along the high road of the craziest of ex­ peditions, the compassion he plucks out of derision, and the admirable figure he preserves while stalking through the frantically grotesque and burlesque assailing him, are in the loftiest moods of humor, fusing the tragic sentiment with the comic narrative. The stroke of the great humorist is world-wide, with lights of tragedy in his laughter.50

Thompson’s definition of the comic idea in which he says the comic idea is “the comparison between what the dramatist thinks ought to be and what he actually finds in his fel­ low men”5l is obviously based in the above passage from Meredith. Meredith goes on to say that comedy should be imper­ sonal, polite, gently warm, intellectual. Thompson agrees with Meredith’s saying that the comic idea contains “the spirit of ’thoughtful laughter. ”’52 It is to Max Eastman that Thompson turns for a defini­ tion of play instinct. He cites Eastman as saying that “the comic is the unpleasant taken playfully.“55 Expanding on this theme Eastman says, 31

Only an instinctively humorous creature could, without warning or instruction, enjoy seeing a trusted countenance turn suddenly into a grinning ape or gargoyle, and laugh instead of cry out in pain. And yet this humor of the ’comic masque,’ . . . is the first thing we rely upon when a baby is by some relentless destiny committed to our care and en­ tertainment. We rely upon his having so keen a lust for the absurd and lud­ icrous in play that we need only by laughing a little ourselves to inti­ mate that we are not to be taken seri­ ously, and then contrive any very neg­ ative programme of shocks and disap­ pointments -- things which would clearly irritate if they did not in their own nature satisfy the intense interest he gives them.54

Thompson draws specifically upon Henri Bergson for the portion of his theory dealing with mechanization. Thompson says that ’’Henri Bergson, the French philosopher, found com edy in the mechanization of the living — the substitution of the artificial for the natural."55 Bergson offers the following statement for consideration. "The attitudes, ges tures and movements of the human body are laughable in ex­ act proportion as the body reminds us of a mere machine. And again he says,

. . .for inside the person we must distinctively perceive, as though through a glass, a set-up mechanism. But the suggestion must also be a subtle one, for the general appear­ ance of the person, whose every limb has been made rigid as a machine, must continue to give us the impres- asion of a living being.57 32

In terms of gesture Bergson says that the gesture for comedy has the appearance of machine control. It must be repeated with a degree of regularity so that the audi­ ence can anticipate its appearance at times, which would then lead to a greater comic reaction. This comic reaction can then be compounded by imitation of one character by another. To imitate someone is to bring out the element of automatism he has allowed to creep into his behavior. This imitation becomes funnier, as Bergson suggests, by even a greater number of imitations — the more direct imitaions there are, the funnier the situation. Each is a carbon copy of the other. In his discussion, Thompson defines contrast as ”an incongruity between the real object and its idea“*’ and uses as his source Schopenhauer as cited by James Sully.59

Do we not, it may be asked, here carry out a process fairly well described in Schopenauer•s theory of the ludicrous, that is, con­ ceive of ’an incongruity between the real object and its idea.60

This statement clarifies an example used by Sully in which a man dons a child's cap and a child dons a man’s hat. The incongruous nature of both situations leads to the laughter of contrast. Thompson believes that contrast/incongruity is the most widely accepted theory of the nature of laughter. 33

Indeed, a contrast can be found involved in almost every situation that arouses laughter and may be applied to all theo­ ries mentioned ... without any denial of the partial ifnth contained in each of them.01

Summary. Thompson combines the ideas and theories of many critics in his analysis of the comic. This synthesis is what makes his theory useful. Although not an ultimate­ ly new idea, it is neither narrow nor one-sided. Thompson combines the best of many ideas and presents a workable and practical comic theory.

V. Organization of the Study This study will be organized into six chapters. The first chapter states the subject, goals, and procedures of research. Included is a brief discussion of the comic theory of Alan Reynolds Thompson which shall be used as a basis for play analysis. Chapters two, three, and four will identify, describe, and classify examples of the sources and natures of laugh­ ter found in Mr. Abbott’s authored, co-authored, and doc­ tored works respectively. Bach chapter will contain ex­ amples of the sources and natures of laughter selected from each Abbott play or musical studied. Chapter five will identify the characteristic features of Mr. Abbott’s directing. It will note any parallels be­ 34 tween his directing and playwriting styles. Chapter six will present a summary of the material studied. Conclusions will be drawn as to what comic de- vices were used most characteristically by Mr. Abbott and what possible bearings these might have had on his success as a comic playwright. 35

Footnotes

*Taken from the publisher’s comments found in George Abbott’s Mr. Abbott (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 280. 2Taken from the jacket notes of Mr. Abbott. Since several comments are made*Tn this Introduction referring to the great number of George Abbott hits produced on Broadway, it should be noted that Appendix I lists all the productions in which Mr. Abbott has been involved and the length of their respective runs. 3This theory is discussed in the chapter on comedy in Alan Reynolds Thompson’s The Anatomy of Drama (Los Angeles: University of California Press', 1^46), pp? 187-237. 4Alan Reynolds Thompson, The Anatomy of Drama (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 194Doubleday and Company, Tnc., 1956), pp. 44-45. ^Thompson, p. 205. 5"Thompson, p. 206. 5"Thompson, p. 209. 54Max Eastman, The Sense of Humor (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 19215, pp. 227-228. 55Thompson, p. 209. 56Henri Bergson, "Laughter," in Comedy, ed. Wylie Sypher (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1956), p. 79. 57Bergson, p. 80. •^Thompson, p. 209. 59James Sully, An Essay on Laughter (New York: Longmans, Green, and C©., 1902), Chapter I. 6°Sully, p. 13. Thompson, p. 209. 37

CHAPTER II AUTHORED WORKS

This chapter will analyze three musical comedies authored by George Abbott: The Boys From Syracuse (1938), Where1s Charley? (1948), and New Girl In Town (1957).

I. Tke Boys PgQM Syracuse The musical comedy, The Boys From Syr acuse, opened on November 23, 1938, at the Alvin Theatre to relatively posi­ tive reviews. Abbott directed and produced the play, Rodgers and Hart wrote the music and lyrics, and Jo Mielziner de­ signed the set. Abbott, in his autobiography, talked about how he was to have written a rough draft of the play based on Shake­ speare’s Comedy of Errors, and then he and Rodgers and Hart were to sit down together and finish it. He wrote the rough draft in three weeks. The script was so well writ­ ten that Rodgers and Hart decided that a major rewrite would be unnecessary, so the script went to production with only minor changes. Joseph Wood Krutch said of the musical,

Improbable as it may seem, one of the big hits of the season is a musical version of the ‘Comedy of Errors* . . . Most of Shakespeare's language is omitted . . . and in its place is some excellent clowning 38

by Jimmy Savo as one of the Dromios . . . The score by Richard Rodgers is rather fuller and rather more am­ bitious than that of the usual mu­ sical comedy of today, and in addi­ tion to some songs in the accepted manner of the moment, it includes several others which struck me as genuinely original ... I have, in­ deed, only a single complaint to make about the whole: one simple physiological joke is desperately overworked.1

The critic for The Catholic World said,

. . . the trio of Abbott and Rodgers and Hart have transformed The Comedy of Etrors into the gayest ofnusical comedies . . . ‘The Courtesans of Ephesus’ might be passed over, per­ haps, as an Asia Minor attribute if it were not for one pantomime ballet by Savo which transcended respecta­ bility without any proportionate humor. We are assured by the management, how­ ever, that this has now been modified. If this is so, The Boys From Syracuse, while certainly as full of sophlstica- tion as twenty-four centuries of ’civ­ ilization’ can make it, is gay and spirited and funny.2

This critic went onto talk about the cast, concluding with, ”We wish the boys .from Stratford and Athens and Rome could see them.“5 Stark Young, writing for The New Republic, was less impressed with the musical.

Mr. Abbott’s evening of 'The Boys From Syracuse’ no doubt drags a little with, for example, the 39

spun-out song about falling in love, with odd moments in the crowd action and with the lack, I imagine, of a more genuine sense of suspense. By this last I mean that the play would have been sustained and speeded up if we had more of a feeling that the brother from Syracuse was really seek­ ing his lost brother, seeking long and passionately, and that the lovers in the story had something desperate­ ly at stake. In general, however, the whole production seemed to me to have gusto and a certain freshness along the ancient classic line. The bawdry of it seemed at the performance I saw to breeze the situations along, and to be closer to the old sources than Shakespeare is, with that romantic veil — drawn from the 'Appollonius of Tyre* — that he throws over the beginning and the end of his play.4

The cast of The Boys From Syracuse included Jimmy Savo and Teddy Hart as the twin Dromios, Ronald Graham and Bob Lawrence as the two Antipholuses, Muriel Aagelus as Adriana, and Marcy Westcott as Luciana. The performer who received the most attention was a teenager, Wynn Murray, who played Luce. The story is very complex. Aegean, the father of the Antipholus twins, has come to Ephesus from Syracuse in search of his lost sons who were parted in a shipwreck and have been in search of one another. Aegean has been caught by the police and sentenced to be executed. Everyone cheers and cannot wait for the event. It is soon learned that both Antipholuses and Dromios 40

are in the city, but neither is aware of the other. Antiph olus of Ephesus is married, and so is his servant, Dromio. Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse are not married. At a very early point the mistaken identities begin to operate. Antipholus of Syracuse is mistaken for his brother by a tailor. Dromio of Ephesus mistakes Antipholus of Syracuse as his master and forces him to go home to "his” wife who is really his brother’s wife. This situation becomes more complicated as Dromio of Syracuse is mistaken for his twin by his twin’s wife, and Antipholus of Syracuse falls in love with his brother’s wife’s sister while he is being taken for his brother. Antipholus of Ephesus comes home late at night with his Dromio, only to find that both his and Dromio’s wiVes are in bed with their ’’husbands.” The confusion runs rampant throughout the rest of the musical until the Drom­ ios finally stumblerx>nto one another and the rest of the discoveries happen very quickly. Antipholus of Syracuse discovers that his father is in town and is about to be executed for trespassing and saves his life when Antipholus of Ephesus has just refused to do so. At this point, Adriana, the wife of Antipholus of Ephesus, realizes the mistake she has made as does Luce, the wife of Dromio of Ephesus. The deus ex machina ending reunites the Antipholuses 41 the Dromios, and the parents of the Antipholus twins: the father who was searching and the mother who had been the seer in the temple at Ephesus. The Boys From Syracuse abounds with humor. One hundred ninety laugh provoking instances were found in the musical. The numerical breakdown for the sources of laughter was as follows: Sources of Laughter Verbal effects ------—— 79 Body in physicala ction —— 63 Obscenity------32 Effects from plot------—-- 14 Comic idea ------2 Total------190 The kinds of laughter caused by the above sources were i- dentified numerically as: Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule ------76 Contrast/incongruity ------— 67 Emotional release ———— 24 Mechanization ------—-— 15 Play instinct------8 Total------190 An example of each of the sources of laughter used by Mr. Abbott will be presented here along with the nature (kind) of laughter produced by that particular source. Verbal Effects. Of the many sources of laughter in The Boys From Syracuse, verbal effects were the most fre­ quently used. Because the verbal effects produced many different kinds of laughter, examples of several different 42 verbal effects will be provided here so that the several kinds (or natures) of laughter can be identified. The first example is typical of the verbal humor of the musical which causes derisive laughter.

ANTIPHOLUS £.: Well, I’ll tell you the secret. Be masterful. Keep them guessing. DROMIO E.: There’s no guessing with my old lady. She makes every­ thing plain. We have our quar­ rels, but we patch everything up -- my nose, ray lips, my ears, my jaw.5

Abbott has made use of several comic elements to achieve this laugh. First, he used a gag line which is the verbal effect that causes the laughter. One does not anticipate Dromio’s saying that his nose, ear, jaw, and lips will be the things patched up. One expects him to speak of his re lationship with Luce being repaired. Abbott also makes use of pointed remarks about Dromio This speech clearly reveals Dromio’s relationship with his wife. Finally, Abbott makes use of satire in this line. The satire is self-inflicted, but it does achieve its goal as one laughs at Dromio and his plight with Luce. All of the comic elements combine for a line which results in derisive laughter through a verbal source. The derisive laugh comes about because the audience feels 43

superior to Dromio and his plight. The audience cannot imagine itself in a similar situation, and, therefore, re­ sponds with laughter. The laughter is aided by exaggera­ tion. These circumstances are above and beyond most cases of reality and aid the laugh producing quality of the line. The second example of verbal effects presented here causes another kind of laughter, that of contrast/incongru­ ity.

COURTESAN: Everyman is a crook. LUCE: Sure, 1 know that. I mar­ ried one. I'm looking for him right now. He's a tall handsome fellow about four feet high, (page 53)

In this speech Abbott again makes use of a gag line which is the verbal effect that causes laughter. "A tall hand­ some fellow about four feet high" is the gag line. The contrast lies in Dromio’s actual size — reality — and the idea — "four feet tall." There is also an implied remark about Dromio*s character, namely that he is not much of a man in Luce’s opinion, which helps to further the line's humorous quality. One also sees within the context of this speech an element of derision. Luce’s attitude toward Dromio as revealed through verbal effects causes derisive laughter. But this is secondary to contrast/incongruity which is the primary nature of laughter. 44

Verbal effects provide another laugh as witnessed in the following speech, and this time produce the laughter of mechanization.

MERCHANT S.: ... If you’re lucky you can get away tomorrow. Pray for the wind and the tide. Here’s your gold. (Passes bag of gold to ANTIPHOLUS.) ANTIPHOLUS S.: (Taking bag of gold.) Thank you, sir. (Gives bag of gold to DROMIO.) DROMIO S.: (Taking bag of gold.) Thank you, sir. (page 8)

In these lines Abbott has made use of a normal phrase, "Thank you, sir," but has arranged the vocal pattern so that it provokes a laugh. The verbal repetition used in this sequence creates the laughter of mechanization. Dromio’s "Thank you, sir," is a direct echo of Antipholus’. Other than the verbal humor present here, there is al­ so physical humor. Although the physical is not the dom­ inant laugh producing agent, it does help make the line funnier. The physical source, also producing the laughter of mechanization^ exists in the passing of the bag of gold from the merchant to Antipholus to Dromio. The humor of the scene would not exist as strongly, however, without the verbal portion. It is essential to the development of the laugh. The last verbal effect that will be dealt with results in the laughter of play instinct. Dromio E. and the Sorcerer 45 meet on the street, and the conversation turns to the ex­ ecution of Aegean.

SORCERER: Going to the execution? DROMIO £.: Oh, I don’t think so. SORCERER: (Shouting off stage.) Give him the axel (page 44)

In this passage Abbott makes use of humorous remarks about a situation as the sorcerer yells his line, ’’Give him the axel” One also sees in this the employment of satire in a situation as y>f>art of the verbal structure of the laugh line The sorcerer’s line, ’’Give him the axel" is the moment when the laughter of play instinct occurs. The very unpleasant business of an execution with an axe is made light of by the sorcerer’s verbal comment. The Body in Physical Action. The body in physical ac­ tion was the second most used source of laughter in The Boys From Syracuse. The first example is typical of the physical humor in the libretto that results in derisive laughter. Antipholus E. and Dromio E. are on their way home late at night. Antipholus has been lecturing Dromio about hand­ ling women and has been bragging about how masterful he is at it. Much to his surprise, however, he finds the door to his house locked against him, and he is very confused and dismayed by this situation.

ANTIPHOLUS £.: Why, she’s usually down waiting for me, crying. 46

DROMIO E.: I guess you got to be more masterful, Maestro. (Does masterful walk.) ANTIPHOLUS E.: Shut up! (Strikes at DROMIO. DROMIO ducks and breaks away Center.) (page 28)

Abbott’s use of several instances of physical nonsense is the source of laughter. As Dromio mocks his master with the “masterful walk” one laughs. One also laughs as Antipholus, seeking revenge for Dromio’s insult, strikes at him. The derisive laughter brought about is seen within the actions themselves. Dromio mocks Antipholus’ masterful walk. The "walk” is a satiric reflection of Antipholus and is, therefor^, derisive. Antipholus, attempting to seek his revenge, strikes out at Dromio. Dromio recoils and retreats very quickly which indicates his level of bravery and is, therefore, derisive towards him. Within these same lines one can also find other ele­ ments of humor supporting the physical action. The dialogue itself has in it verbal wit causing laughter of contrast. Dromio’s line is the verbal wit producing the contrast. He has turned the tables on Antipholus, which is highly unusual for Dromio to do. An instance of humor in the musical which is caused by physical action that results in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity takes place at the end of a song. Dromio and Luce sing “What Can You Do With A Man?“ in which each com­ plains about the other. Luce generally complains about 47

Dromio’s lack of masculinity. Dromio complains about Luce's weight and shrewish behavior. At the end of the song, the stage directions indicate, "DROMIO jumps into LUCE’S arms." (page 12) This physical action results in the laughter of contrast. One does not expect the man to jump into the wo­ man’s arms as Dromio does. A touch of derision exists in this reversal of circumstances. It is derisive to Dromio to jump into the arms of and be held by Luce. This puts Dromio into his usual position -- less a person than anyone around him. Physical action is the source of another laugh when Dromio runs home seeking money to bail Antipholus out of jail. This physical action results in the laughter of me­ chanization.

DROMIO S.: Here, In the desk. The money to bail him out. (Hands key to ADRIANA and drops it.) Oh, I’m sorry. (Picks it up.) Quick. ADRIANA: Sister, sister, the money in the desk. (Turns to LUCIANA, hands key and drops it. Picks up key and gives it to LUCIANA. LUCIANA exits 1 R.) But what is it? What’s he done? (X’s to R of couch.) DROMIO S.: The chain. (Collapses on couch, arms around ADRIANA.) Not paid for. Tide going out. Merchant going in. ADRIANA: Hurry, Sister, hurry. Can’t you find it? LUCE: Get up, there. (Throws DROMIO DL.) What do you think you’re doing. You flatfoot. (Then turns and calls sweetly.) Hurry, 48

hurry. DROMIO S.: I’m exhausted. It was worse than the marathon. (X back to couch.) I ran all the way. LUCE: I told you to get up. (Grabs and throws him DL.) LUCIANA: (Rushing in 1 R with money.) Here. Here. (Hands money to ADRIANA, drops it. ADRIANA picks it up and hands it to DROMIO, drops it, picks it up and gives it to DROMIO.) ADRIANA: Go, Dromio, quick, save him. (Turns to LUCIANA.) Poor lamb, poor dear. (DROMIO prepares for sprint. LUCE kicks him in seat.) Luce J (DROMIO exits 1 L.) LUCE: Hurry, run. Get the lead out! (page 49)

Abbott has very carefully and cleverly built the physical action of this scene. The predominant action is in the passing of the key and the money bag from one character to another. Laughter starts when Dromio drops the key, but it builds with each succeeding drop. The circumstances become even more hilarious when Luciana returns to give the money to Adriana and drops it. Then Adriana does the same with Dromio. All of this repetitious physical action results in the laughter of mechanization. The last example of physical action results in the laugh­ ter of play instinct. Aegean has been brought before the Duke of Ephesus to plead for his life. The Duke will not spare him, so the Sergeant says, ”’He says no!’ (Draws fingers across his throat.)” (page I) The humor of this moment lies in the physical act of 49

the sergeant drawing his fingers across his throat which means that Aegean is going to get the axe. It is this phys­ ical action that brings about the laughter of play instinct. One certainly would not find such circumstances humorous in reality, but because of the nature of the world of the musi­ cal, this inversion is possible and is a laugh producing mo­ ment. Obscenity. Obscenity was the source of many laughs in The Boys From Syracuse. The first type of obscene humor to be dealt with is the kind that results in the laughter of derision. Dromio E. Approaches Antipholus S. thinking that An­ tipholus S. is his master, Antipholus E. Dromio E. has been sent to find Antipholus E. and invite him home for dinner.

DROMIO E.: You ought to be home by now . . . you know that. ANTIPHOLUS S.: Home? DROMIO E.: You know, that place you stay when the chariot’s being fixed. ANTIPHOLUS S.: What in the hell are you talking about? DROMIO E.: Your wife. ANTIPHOLUS S.: My what? DROMIO E.: Not your “what,” your wife, my mistress. ANTIPHOLUS S.: My wife is your mis­ tress? (pages 10-11)

In the line, “My wife is your mistress?” obscenity teams with verbal effects to cause laughter. The double meaning of the word "mistress” permits the implied obscenity to oc­ cur, namely that one man’s wife is another man’s mistress. 50

The resulting laughter is the laughter of derision. Antiph­ olus S. finds it very hard to believe that his wife — if he had one — would be the mistress of such a fellow as Dromio Beyond the elements of obscenity and derision, one also finds effects from plot at work in the above example. The confusion and misunderstanding that take place happen as a result -of effects from plot which deals with mistaken iden­ tities. This source without question plays a major support­ ing role in the humor of the moment, but is diminished by obscenity. Obscenity results in the laughter of emotional release in this next example. The courtesan, keeping her business hustling, speaks to several of her girls.

COURTESAN: . . . What's going on here? GIRL: Nothing. COURTESAN: That’s what I mean. Time is drachmas. (DL couple exits 1 L.) How many times have I told you ... Profit is based on turnover! Go on now — turn over! (She X’s back to ANTIPHOLUS E.) That’s that. Now you lay ... I mean, sit here. (SHE indicates couch.) (page 31)

There is no question about the obscenity in this statement. The laughter which is its result is that of emotional re­ lease. The lines serve as a sexual stimulant and easily manifest the reaction desired. One also finds verbal effects in this same selection. 51

Abbott has again put together a series of lines that have double meaning and clever word order and are the cause of many laughs. In the following, obscenity is combined with physical action as a source of laughter. Again, the nature of the laughter produced is emotional release.

DROMIO S.: Such a pretty apron you’re wearing ... (Looks at bosom.) . . . aren’t they. LUCE: Can I help you? DROMIO S.: No, thank you, just tell me where it is and I’ll help my­ self. (MAIDS giggle, 1st MAID doubles over laughing. DROMIO measures her fanny. SHE straight­ ens up.) But I wonder — is that a little tight around the . . . neck? (Business with costume.) I’ve been having a lot of trouble with mine. I got to let it out someplace. It binds. 1st MAID: No. This is very comfort­ able. DROMIO S.: You’re sure it’s not too tight, eh? It’s always bad to have anything too tight. (Pulls at panty hem — shakes his head, worried•) Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmm. That’s not good. (X’s R behind her. Pulling at hem.) That's not good either. That’s — (Starts to pat her. SHE slaps his hand away.) I can’t caution you too highly. (Backs DR, turns to 2nd MAID who is facing away from him.) Oh, yours is even worse. How can you breathe? You ought to put the color back in your ch. . . (To 3rd MAID) How’s yours, dear? Oh, snug — very snug. (LUCE enters 2 R, X’s to C.) You can hardly contain yourself. (Takes 3rd MAID in his arms.) And 52

neither can I. (pages 35-36)

Dromio’s actions of looking, measuring, comparing, and so forth are all elements of the physical source of laughter. By means of his physical actions, he creates the obscenity which causes the laughter of emotional release. Note that the language he employs while he does this “business” would be almost perfectly innocent if used by itself. It is, in this case, the combination of obscenity and physical action that succeeds in bringing about a moment of laughter. Effects from Plot. In this first example, effects from plot result in the laughter of derision.

ANTIPHOLUS E.: (Off 2 R.) Where is she? Come on, Dromio! (Enter 2 R. Kneels R of Duke.) Jus­ tice, most gracious Duke. As I fought in the wars for you . ♦ • (Rises.) Grant me justice a- gainst this woman here, my wife. She locked me out last night while libertines feasted in my house. {'page 57)

Abbott has constructed his libretto so that the switching of characters, Antipholus E. and Antipholus S., has caused Adriana, Luciana, and just about everyone else to be con­ fused about who is who. All of these instances of character switching resulting in mistaken identity are part of effects from plot. The end product of this source of laughter in this particular example is the laughter of derision. Those 53

persons derided by the situation are Adriana, for having chosen the wrong ’’husband,” Luciana for having permitted Adriana’s “husband” to make “love” to her, and Antipholus S. for having allowed himself to get mixed up in all of this. Beyond the instances mentioned above, the effects from plot source has resulted in Luce’s doing the same as Adriana — bringing home the wrong “husband.” All of these characters are affected by derision because they are seen in a lesser position due to their actions. Effects from plot result in the laughter of contrast in the next example. Dromio S. returns from a task that Antiph olus S. has sent him on. What Dromio does not know is that just a few minutes earlier, Dromio E. was mistaken for him by Antipholus S. and that he, Dromio S., is, as a result of Dromio E’s performance, in for some trouble.

ANTIPHOLUS S.: Dromio! DROMIO S.: Hey,.Boss! What’s the matter? (ANTIPHOLUS S. turns, X’S to DROMIO.) Is something wrong? ANTIPHOLUS S.: (X’s to him.) What’s the idea? DROMIO S.: I hid the dough and thought I’d come back and see if there’s anything else you wanted. ANTIPHOLUS S.: (Sarcastically. Fac­ ing each other.) You, you came back in a new vein! (He prods DROMIO.) You’ve reformed, eh. (Prods again.) You’re not the comic anymore. (Prods again.) (page 16) 54

The mistaken identity of the earlier scene between Antipho­ lus S. and Dromio E. is the basis for the action of this scene. The laughter resulting from the scene is that of contrast/incongruity. The behavior of Dromio S. contrasts to that of Dromio E. and Antipholus’s behavior in this scene contrasts to his earlier actions. There is no monkey busi­ ness here by Antipholus S. The confusion is based on ef­ fects from plot. The last example of humor caused by effects from plot results in the laughter of play instinct. Dromio E. and Antipholus E. have returned home expecting to be welcomed with open arms. Instead they find themselves locked out and men from within speak with authority and used the same names as theirs.

DROMIO S.: (Inside.) Stop that noise out there. ANTIPHOLUS E.: (Backs up.) What did you say? DROMIO S.: We’ve all gone to bed. Go away. You’re making too much noise. ANTIPHOLUS E.: Who are you? DROMIO S.: Dromio• DROMIO E.: What? Who? DROMIO S.: You heard me . . . Dromio. DROMIO £.: (Pushes ANTIPHOLUS out of the way, beats on door.) An im­ poster ! Luce! Luce! For God * s sake — dear wife! You’re being imposed upon. (page 29)

Plot effect is at its zenith in this scene. There is no better m@ment in the show^than this for the successful appli­ 55

cation of misunderstandings, mistaken identities, and clever construction. Abbott has very carefully put together a scene that is influenced by past events and will affect the rest of the musical. The switching of the Antipholuses and Dromios is essential to the final outcome of the musical when Adriana and Luce must each chooser between her husband and his dou­ ble. Each makes the wrong choice, but this adds to the humor of the play. In addition to effects from plot, which is the primary source of laughter in the scene, one finds verbal effects at work in the form of a gag line at the end of the sequence. Dromio declares that his wife is ’‘being imposed upon.” She is without question being imposed upon and is probably doing a little imposing herself. A touch of obscenity exists, too, in the sequence, as seen in the same line by Dromio. Effects from plot result in the laughter of play in­ stinct in the above example. The situation as seen by the characters, especially Dromio E. and Antipholus E., is a very serious one, but, in this context, is playfully han­ dled. Outside of this context it is not humorous. In fact it could prove to be rather disastrous. This is what play instinct is all about -- the serious or unpleasant taken playfully. Comic Idea. The final source of laughter to be con­ sidered is the comic idea. The example which follows results 56

in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Dromio E. has been searching for Antipholus E. to get him to come home for dinner. He finally finds him and puts the question to him gently.

DROMIO B.: Listen, Maestro - - - ANTIPHOLUS E.: Yes? DROMIO E.: Don’t you think it’s time for us to go home? Don’t you miss home cooking? ANTIPHOLUS E.: Yes, whenever pos­ sible. DROMIO E.: If you aren’t home in time for dinner, your wife’s gonna raise hell. I’ll be the one that catches it. She says to me — don’t let him loiter. I says, no ma’am. She says — he’s an irresponsible louse. ANTIPHOLUS E.: A what? DROMIO E.: A louse! That’s what she said. Those weren’t the exact words, but that was the thought, (page 4)

The instance reflects a playful poke at the circumstance of servitude which can be a very unrewarding profession. Abbott’s comment is that the position of servant caught be­ tween two very strong masters -- husband and wife — can be a distressing and troublesome one. The resultingSlagghter of contrast/incongruity comes about because Dromio, trying to do his job, is unable to please either master. Summary. Having examined the sources of laughter and the resultant kinds of laughter produced by these sources, one can see certain trends in the musical. One of these 57

trends is the great dependence on verbal effects. Nearly fifty per cent of the musical’s humor is found primarily in this verbal category. There is also a fairly heavy de­ pendence on physical action and obscene humor. These two sources combined equal a very large portion of the work's humor. It can then be said that for The Boys From Syracuse, Abbott has depended strongly on these three sources of laughter and that most of the laughter resulting from these sources is the laughter of derision/ridicule or contrast/ incongruity. One also finds through examination that Abbott’s dia­ logue construction is not typical of many other playwrights. One finds very few long speeches in this play. Most are in the one or two line category. A great percentage of the speeches are one-liners using three or four words. This quality tends to keep a very rapid tempo going and helps to build humorous situations very quickly and easily. By comparing the numerical analysis of the musical’s humor to that of Thompson’s scale of increasing subtlety, one finds that the audience Abbott's work has appealed to is a middle-to-lower type. Verbal effect is number four on the scale, a middle position, and obscenity and physical action are on the lower end. So the audience, according to Thompson's scale, would then be a less sophisticated type, one with slightly baser tastes, yet larger in numbers than 58

a more intellectual, wit-seeking audience.

11• Where’s Charley? George Abbott’s musical version of Charley's Aunt called Where’s Charley? opened at the St. James Theatre on October 11, 1948. Mr. Abbott directed the production, Frank Loesser did the score, David Ffolkes designed the scenery and cos- turaes, and George Balanchine created the choreography. The cast consisted of the following people: • Brassett —------———- John Lynds Jack Chesney ------—- Bryan Palmer Charley Wykeham ------— Ray Bolger Kitty Verdun ------——-- Doretta Morrow Amy Spettigue ------—---- Allyn Ann McLerie Wilkinson ------Edgar Kent Sir Francis Chesney —------Paul England Mr. Spettigue ------Horace Cooper A Professor —-—------Jack Friend Donna Lucia d’Alvadorez ------Jane Laurence Photographer------—----- James Lane Patricia —-— ------—— Marie Foster Douglas Deane Where’s Charley? opened with a concensus that without Ray Bolger the show would be very mediocre. Brooks Atkinson said, Ray Bolger is not the greatest man in the world. But why quibble? In ’Where‘s Charley?', which was put on at the St. James last evening, he is great enough to make a mediocre musical show seem thoroughly enjoya­ ble. . . ’Where's Charley?’ is a con­ ventional music-show that has been well staged by a man who believes in organization and tempo. Mr. Bolger skips impishly through it like a rustic caricature with winged feet. Sometimes he bounces clear across 59

that rusty plot. 'Where’s Charley?* is a rhetorical question. Where’s Bolger? is more to the point. For­ tunately, he is all here at the mo­ ment, and in fine fettle, too.6

Richard Watts of The New York Post was less complimen­ tary about the musical.

Although the star (Ray Bolger) was the chief reason for high expec­ tations about ’Where’s Charley?’ there were other causes for optimism. The music, for example, was by Frank Loes- ser, . . . there was the expert George Abbott who is famous for his staging of both farces and musical shows. All of them, save Mr. Bolger, proved sorely disappointing in their contributions. Mr. Loesser’s score has several pleasant numbers, but it is, in general, both commonplace and unexhilarating, and it lacks the touch that had been expected of him. Nor did Mr. Abbott turn out the expert job of comic adaptation and inventive stag­ ing for which he has shown such talent in the past. The result is that ’Where’s Charley?’ lacked the zest, humor, style, and high spirits that might have made it worthy of its star’s valiant striving.7

Other critics were as unfavorable to Where’s Charley? as was Watts. Howard Barnes said the production was a

. . . heavy-handed and witless enter­ tainment. The sturdy slapstick of the ’90’s is rarely funny in George Ab­ bot’s libretto.8

tt I can’t advise you to go hurtling today toward the St. James Theatre,” said Ward Morehouse. ”’Charley * s 60

Aunt* was better straight. William Hawkins, critic for the New York World-Telegram, was favorable.

There is no point fooling woufid the fact. ’Where’s Charley?’ is a sublimely satisfactory evening. With its taste, its beauty and its vigor, it is the sort of show you fall in love with, and go back to see over and over again.10

The writer for the Journal American felt much the same as Hawkins. Robert Garland said,

It is an amusing musical they have made from ’Charley’s Aunt.’ ’They’ be­ ing George Abbott, who attended to the direction and adaptation, Frank Loesser, who attended to the words and music; David Ffolkes, who attended to the sets and costumes; and George Balanchine, who attended to the dances. . • I had a good and happy time last night on 44th St. where ’Oklahoma’ used to be.11

Despite the fact that there were more negative than positive reviews of Where«s Charley? the musical had a run of 792 performances. So it is apparent that something more than just Ray Bolger was right with the production. Where’s Charley? is based on Brandon Thomas’ Victorian comedy Charley’s Aunt. Abbott, in his adaptation of the script, made a few changes, but stayed close to the Thomas story. Abbott’s version is as follows: Jack Chesney and Charles Wykeham are in love with Kitty Verdun and Amy 61

Spettigue respectively. Because it is the time of their grad uation from Oxford, they are having a luncheon and have in­ vited the two girls and Charley’s aunt, Donna Lucia d’Alva­ dorez, who is to arrive from Brazil this day. She is impor­ tant, for she is to serve as a chaperone for the luncheon.

She fails to arrive at the specifie« d time, and Jack and Char- ley are in a fix. It justso’happens that Charley is going to be in a little drama and will play the part of an old woman. Be­ cause of this, he is trying on his costume for the director of the production. The director leaves, and Charley is about to change, when the girls arrive. Jack keeps him from chang­ ing and forces him to ’’play” Donna Lucia. He gets away with it, but there are a few complications. One is that Charley cannot be Charley with Amy as he wants to be. The girls* guardian and uncle, Stephen Spettigue, is an obstinate old codger who refuses to let his girls stay for the luncheon until he finds out about Donna Lucia. When he finds that she is reputed to be very rich, he proceeds to court her (Charley). Sir Francis Chesney, Jack’s father does the same. Meanwhile, the real Donna Lucia appears, discovers the game, and sits back and watches. The story is resolved so that each of the young couples is to be married, Sir Francis and Donna Lucia are to be mar­ ried, and old man Spettigue is left to boil in his own bitter. ness. 62

Where ’s Charley? had 118 laugh provoking instances which yielded the following numerical breakdown of comic devices: Sources of Laughter Verbal effects------—---- - 58 Body in physical action -— 51 Character effects ----- 6 Obscenity -—-—------2 Effects from plot------1 Total------118 Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule------75 Contrast/incongruity ------» 30 Play instinct ——9 Mechanization ------3 Emotional release ---- —-----— 1 Total -...... 118

Verbal Effects. Verbal effects were the cause of the greatest percentage of laughs in Where’s Charley? In the following discussion several kinds of laughter caused by verbal effects will be examined. The first example is typical of the verbal humor which causes derisive laughter. This scene finds Charley (dressed as his aunt, Donna Lucia; and Jack in a conversation con­ cerning Charley's having made a fool of Jack’s father, Sir Francis. It seems Sir Francis has forced himself to pro­ pose to "Donna Lucia" because he is in financial trouble and she has a great deal of money. "Donna Lucia" (Charley) was forced to turn him down, but did so with very little grace and decorum. Jack, therefore, is very upset. 63

JACK. . . . and what did you want to make a fool of my father for? CHARLEY. I didn’t make a fool of the fool, you fool.!2

In this passage, Abbott has made use of several different verbal effects. He has constructed a sentence, Charley’s line, which employs a novel or unique word pattern because of the play on the word ’’fool.” He has also made use of wit and satire. The statement belittles Jack and Sir Fran­ cis by referring to them as “fools.” This satiric quality is that which results in the laughter of derision. A second example of verbal humor in Where’s Charley? results in the laughter of contrast. Tliis example follows the preceeding one very closely in the musical. After Charley says his ”fool” line, Jack replies as follows:

JACK. Why didn’t you cut him short and refuse him at once? CHARLEY. I couldn’t refuse him un­ til he proposed. No lady could. I shall find myself in the di­ vorce court before 1 know where 1 am. (page 27)

In this example Abbott has taken advantage of the topsy-turvy nature of the scene. Charley, a male, playing Donna Lucia, a female, becomes so engrossed in his situation as a woman, that he actually begins to think like one. At least one is led to believe he is. By answering as he does about the ex­ pected proposal and then concluding with the imagined divorce 64 court proceedings, he causes the laughter to be that of contrast/incongruity. The contrast to reality is great and the incongruous nature of the moment is even greater. One can also find in this passage a slight reflection of character as a source of laughter. Charley, by being totally absorbed in his role as a woman, reveals a side of his nature which one does not expect to see nor hear, since he complained so bitterly about dressing as a woman at the beginning of the musical. Because of this, one laughs at him and this reflects derision/ridicule. The last example of verbal effects results in the laugh ter of mechanization. In this scene the real Donna Lucia has finally appeared and she is talking to Charley (dressed as Donna Lucia.) Jack is listening.

DONNA. (To Charley.) You haven’t been in England long, have you? JACK. (Aside to Charley.) Change the subject. CHARLEY. Change the subject. JACK. (Aside to Charley.) No. ’Do you take sugar and cream?’ CHARLEY. No. Do you take sugar and cream? (page 33)

Abbott’s verbal structure again leads to laughter. The parrot-like behavior of Charley results in the laughter of mechanization. Charley repeats whatever Jack says as though he were a mechanical device of some kind. The Body in Physical Action. Physical action was used by Abbott to achieve about one-third of the laughter in 65

Where’s Charley? In the first example, Charley (as the aunt) is pouring tea for everyone. He pours a cup of tea for Spettigue who then turns away center.

(CHARLEY puts sugar and cream into Spettigue’s hat.) AMY. Look, the hat 1 (Spettigue turns to CHARLEY who pantomimes ’So sorry’ and puts the cream jug on the tray. SPETTIGUE. My hat, my hat I (He gives his cup to Jack and moves to L. of the table.) CHARLEY. I beg your pardon. (He picks up the hat, rotates it, pours the contents into the teapot, hands the hat, brim upwards, to Spettigue and taps the bottom so that the remains of the tea splash upward into Spettigue*s face.) (page 33)

The action here, physical nonsense carefully planned and set up by Abbott, leads to the laughter of derision commenting on both Charley and Spettigue. The derisive laughter belit­ tles Charley for his immature and imbecillic behavior, while Spettigue is derided by having the remaining contents of his hat splashed in his face before everyone. The act humiliates Spettigue. The fact that he does not respond makes the sit­ uation even more ridiculous. One again finds touches of character effects in this selection which show weaknesses in both characters: Charley’s penchant for irrationality and immaturity and Spettigue’s lack of backbone under the circumstances. 66

Physical action provides another laugh producing in­ stance that results in the laughter of contrast. Here Char­ ley (as Donna Lucia) receives a bouquet of flowers and does not know what to do with it.

AMY. (Moving to Charley and handing him the flowers.) We brought you some flowers. CHARLEY. Oh, thank you. (He puts the flowers under his arm like a sack of flour.) KITTY. I hope your journey from town hasn't tired you. CHARLEY. Oh, no, it was very jolly. (He backs to Jack.) Pleasant, I mean. (Aside to Jack.) What do I do with these things? JACK. Stick 'em in your dress. (Charley looks at Jack, surprised, and tries to stick the flowers in his dress.) (page 9)

Abbott, through physical action, calls for behavior which will cause the laughter of contrast. One does not antici­ pate seeing a bouquet of flowers being stuck into a person’s dress and so the laughter resulting from this action is that of contrast. The next example of physical action involves Charley (as Donna Lucia) and Spettigue and results in the laughter of play instinct. Spettigue wants to marry "Donna Lucia" for her money and is, therefore, willing to tolerate or do almost anything in order to achieve this end. Charley (as Donna Lucia) is on a bench in the garden. Spettigue soon joins him and sits to Charley’s right. 67

(SPETTIGUE . . . moves in front of the seat, sits R. of Charley and nudges him with his left elbow. CHARLEY looks at the audience, shrugs to them and nudges Spettigue with his right elbow. SPETTIGUE nudges Charley who topples L. CHARLEY sits upright, looks at the aud­ ience, taps his fan and hurls himself against Spettigue who topples R. SPET­ TIGUE sits upright and locks arms, his left under Charley’s right. Both rise, disengage, smile at each other and re­ sume their seats. SPETTIGUE lifts his tails. CHARLEY smoothes his skirt. SPETTIGUE reaches with his right hand for Charley’s left knee. CHARLEY catches Spettigue*s right hand with his left. SPETTIGUE reaches with his left hand for Charley’s left knee. CHARLEY catches Spettigue’s left hand with his right. They hold arms up, trying to throw each other. Arms see-saw. Bring arms down, SPETTIGUE breaks the handgrasp and reaches for Charley’s left knee. CHARLEY fights off Spettigue’s hands and slaps Spettigue down on to the right end of the seat. SPETTIGUE falls in Charley’s lap. CHARLEY sits up, threatens Spettigue with a rabbit punch, rises, takes Spettigue by the collar, pulls him to his feet, glares at him, blows out air and looks away. (page 48)

The physical activity provides the laughter. The exchange of nudges, the body blocks, the familiarities, the arms see-sawing, and the rest are all very humorous actions, especially when considered as part of a courting procedure. The resultant laughter is that of play instinct. In a real situation, this method of courtship would be ultimately unpleasant. But the comic situation removes it from the world of reality and makes a very humorous moment of it. 68

An additional nature of laughter can be observed as a result of this action sequence. One sees derision/ridicule as a result of each character’s making a fool of himself in the scene. Character Effects. A small portion of the humor in Where's Charley? was caused by character effects. The two examples to be provided are typical of this source in the musical. The first example happens in the ladies' room on the campus of Oxford. Patricia and Agatha are adjusting Pa­ tricia's corset. Agatha is asked to put her knee in Pa­ tricia’s back so that she can pull the corset tighter. Aga­ tha complies. Then Patricia calls for her to pull even hard­ er as she says, "I’m going to be the delicate type if it cuts me in two." (page 41) Abbott created a moment here where he pokes fun at the vanity of women. Patricia’s desire for a small "delicate" waistline is, as Abbott has constructed it, a flaw in her character. Despite the pain, the great discomfort of wearing something that is severely tight, Pa­ tricia desires that beautiful figure. This action is a re­ flection on her character, her vanity, and is also a social comment. The resultant laughter from Patricia’s line is that of derision. The satire created in this situation be­ littles her. The last example of character effects results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Spettigue has been wooing 69

"Donna Lucia" and hoping for a very profitable marriage. Charley, letting Spettigue woo him, has been angling toward his and Jack’s respective marriages to Amy and Kitty. To accomplish this he has asked Spettigue to write a letter of permission for the two marriages. Spettigue has been re­ luctant to do so, but Charley stages a crying and screaming scene that convinces Spettigue he should comply. If he does comply, says Charley, Spettigue and "Donna Lucia" will be betrothed.

SPETTIGUE. Lucia, that decides me. I’ll go and write the letter now. CHARLEY. All right. SPETTIGUE. And we can announce our engagement? CHARLEY. Yes. Meet me at Jfche Ball. SPETTIGUE. (Rising.) It’s done. I’m off like an arrow. (He moves to the exit up R.) CHARLEY. Go straight. (Spettigue dashes out up R. There is a crash off R.) (Charley kneels on the seat and laughs.) Oh, I say — what de­ vils we women are. (page 49)

The line, "What devils we women are," reflects upon Charley’s character. He has become very involved in his role as Donna Lucia and seems to enjoy it. One findsJverbBlìèffettSKasea secondary source in this example. Charley’s closing line is a punch line or gag line. Both sources, however, produce the laughter of contrast. One does not anticipate Charley’s claiming his identity with the opposite sex. 70

Obscenity. There are two examples in Where1s Charley? that can be classified as obscene, and these are not strong ones. The first example comes in a scene after Charley has been "courted” by old Spettigue. The resulting laughter is that of derision.

CHARLEY. ... You don’t know the things he keeps on saying to me. JACK. What things? CHARLEY. Come here. (He beckons Jack to him. JACK moves to L, of Charley. CHARLEY giggles.) JACK. Come on, Charley, tell me. CHARLEY. (Pushing Jack away.) No, you’re too young. (page 27)

Though Abbott never reveals the actual obscenity in this se­ quence, a very strong implication of obscenity is there, and the audience would understand that reference. The obsceni­ ty comes from Charley’s reference to the things said, his giggle about those things, and then his not telling Jack because he is "too young." The derisive laughter is directed against Jack. He is made out to be a fool and very immature in this scene. One also finds verbal effects at work here as the sequence ends with a punch line, "You’re too young." The second example of obscenity occurs when the real

Donna Lucia has been brought to the tea party by Sir Francis Chesney. She has been wanting to meet her counterfeit and takes advantage of the moment when she finally does. Donna Lucia is seeking her nephew Charley when Charley (as Donna Lucia) walks up and casually introduces himself as Donna Lucia 71

CHARLEY. Is anything wrong? You see, I’m Charley’s Aunt from Brazil — where the nuts come from. DONNA. No, nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, I was only hop­ ing that Mr. Wykeham would be able to tell me where I could find you. CHARLEY. Me? DONNA. Yes. You see, I knew your late husband intimately. (page 32)

Donna’s line, as constructed by Abbott, contains a double meaning. The word ’’intimate“ could mean a very close friend It could, however, mean the most intimate kind of relations. Charley, quite naturally, takes it as meaning the latter and dashes about the place like a frantic frustrated female. The primary source of laughter is obscenity. The resultant laughter can be nothing else but that of emotional release. The sexual implication is strong and one immediately pic­ tures a bedroom situation from the reference. Effects from Plot. The last source of laughter to be discussed in Where’s Charley? is that of effects from plot. There is but one humorous instance that is caused by plot effects,-and it results in the laughter of contrast. The real Donna Lucia happens on the scene and meets an old friend, Sir Prancis Chesney. She does not reveal her true identity because of something Sir Prancis says.

SIR FRANCIS. . . . you must meet-jay son. He’s a splendid fellow. He and this Wykeham chap you’re 72

looking for are entertaining two young girls and a lady from Bra­ zil . . . Donna Lucia D’Alvadorez. DONNA. (Turning to him.) Who? SIR FRANCIS. You know her? DONNA. Well, yes, I . . . Oh, I see, you mean they’re expecting Donna Lucia? SIR FRANCIS. No, she’s here. DONNA. Here? (page 25)

The circumstances Abbott created, such as Charley’s playing ’’Donna Lucia," the real Donna Lucia arriving late and un­ known to anyone, and then her meeting Sir Francis, someone she knew years ago and was fond of, are all circumstances of plot that culminated at the moment cited above. The re­ sulting laughter of contrast comes about because of Donna Lucia's surprise at hearing that someone is "playing" her. Summary. After having examined Where’s Charley? one finds several things worthy of being restated. Most of the musical's humor is found in verbal effects. This comes a- bout as a result of Abbott's great care in constructing his dialogue. One sees economy. There are no long speeches. The tempo, as a result, is very quick and permits laugh situations to build and rebuild quickly. Abbott’s careful word choice often enhances the humor, as when he chooses to pi ay on the words "intimate" or "fool.." These same words will generally find a gentle satiric edge as described in the work of Meredith. One has trouble finding moments in the libretto which harbor biting satire, 73 but there are those gentler moments which make one laugh or smile without a caustic, acidic edge. Abbott's use of physical elements contributes many moments of laughter. The simple fact that a man is dressed as a woman causes one to laugh. To this add the nonsense that is used in the tea scene or in the various courting scenes, and one easily recognizes the clever use of the phys­ ical in the play. When one recalls the wrestling match wooing scene, one sees clearly the contributions of phys­ ical humor. Other moments, such as sticking the bouquet of flowers down the front of a dress and pouring tea into Spet- tigue's hat, then splashing it in his face, contribute to the wealth of physical humor. Each of these situations are prime examples of physical humor and are successful causes of laughter in Where's Charley? This musical comedy is even funnier than Charley's Aunt. Upon which it is based. The reason why this writer feelS that Where *s Charley? is funnier is the fact thay Charley is made the impostor rather than another character, Fancourt Baberly. By having Charley play his aunt, comic situations which did not exist in Charley's Aunt are made possible in Where's Charley? Such situations include Charley's receiv­ ing attention and affection from the girls as Jack stands by powerless to do anything about it; the wooing scenes and Charley's wanting to “make love” to Amy but not being able 74 to do so because of his role as Donna Lucia; and the situa­ tion where the two Donna Lucias meet. All of these help make Where *s Charley? a very funny and successful musical.

HI. New Girl In Town New Girl In Town is the musical version of Eugene O’Neill’s Pulitzer prize winning play, Anna Christie. New Girl opened on May 14, 1957, at the 46th Street Theatre. George Abbott wrote the book; the music and lyrics were by Bob Merrill; and the choreography was by Bob Fosse. Mr. Abbott directed the production, which was produced by Fred­ erick Brisson, Robert E. Griffith, and Harold Prince. The production starred such notables as Gwen Verdon as Anna, Cameron Prud’homme as Chris, Thelma Ritter as Marthy, and George Wallace as Mat. New Girl In Town ran for 431 performances and added to the list of hits under George Abbott’s name. The musical opened to mixed reviews. In the follow­ ing review the book and acting got good reviews, but the music and lyrics were not so well received. The writer for Theatre Arts said,

It is reasonably authentic Anna Christie with a side order of music, and a rather meager one . . . Bob Merrill . . . has made some tentative passes in the direc­ tion of O’Neill’s drama, but most of his music would be more apt if it were part of one of those nostalgic, turn-of-century 75

nosegays that originate periodically on the West Coast. The best that can be said for his score is that certain of its numbers should surely make the neighborhood taverns ring. . . . Anna Christie has not es­ caped this cutting-down process. But what is left is still the out­ line of a very powerful story, one capable of making most other Broad­ way librettos seem pale by comparison, and of doing this withot the benefit of fancy color processes ... A strong book is bound to bring out any acting talent present, or lack thereof; and here there is absolutely no ground for embarrassment. Cameron Prud’horame (the father), Thelma Rit­ ter (the mistress) and George Wallace (the suitor) are all accomplished performers. The real surprise, though, is the emergence of Gwen Ver­ don (Anna) as an actress of genuine perception and authority; the most fitting tribute one can pay her is to say that she could play the part straight.13

Richard Watts of The New York Post wrote, among other things,

It is Mr. Abbott’s libretto that causes me a little worry. In general, it follows the O’Neill dra­ ma with a good deal of fidelity, but problems arise. On the one hand, the story of the old Swedish tugboat cap- tain, his blowzy mistress, his unhap­ py prostitute daughter, and her ro­ mantic Irish lover has a way of inter- ferring with the songs and dances out of sheer determination to be loyal to 'Anna Christie,’ and: on thé other hand, the process of making the nar­ rative fit into a musical comedy has caused most of the dramatic power, 76

the warmth of character and the rich­ ness of speech to disappear.14

Brooks Atkinson, writing for The New York Times was generally complimentary concerning the musical. He was very much impressed with Gwen Verdon. He said, after recog­ nizing her performances in Can-Gan and Damn Yankees.

Don't type her, at least not permanently. For now she emerges in a new incarnation as the slat­ ternly strumpet who is purified by devotion to a tempestuous Irish seaman with the gift of gab. Miss Verdon gives a complete characteri­ zation from the slut to the woman — common in manner, but full of pride, disillusioned but willing to believe, a woman of silence and mys­ teries. It would be an affecting job on any stage. Amid the familiar diversions of a Broadway musical jam­ boree, it is sobering and admirable.)-5

Tom Donnelly of The New York World Telegram and The Sun said of the musical,

It's unfortunate that Mr. Abbott has sought to solve his problems of adaptation by eliminating O'Neill in­ stead of translating him into musical terms. Perhaps 'Anna Christie’ is florid and a trifle threadbare. Still, the only scenes in 'New Girl In Town’ that pack any wallop are those that are reasonably true to the master.16

Newsweek * s writer found the show to be a unique cora- bination of elements 77

’New Gin in Town’ is a reluctant emulsion of opposed theatrical ele­ ments; nevertheless, the final pro­ duct is a skillfully contrived en­ tertainment that is a good cut above the season’s musicals . . . A brave new show to close the tired old the­ ater season.i7

Time magazine had this to offer: ... when a musical is made of O’Neill’s Anna Christie it is George Abbott who writes the libretto and directs the show. The result is no more a miracu­ lous meeting — and mating — of ex­ tremes than a head-on catastrophe. It is, instead, an often pleasant but always misguided show. The trouble is that extremes don’t meet and that oil and salt water don’t even try to mix. They carefully avoid each other: when traffic moves north and south for O’Neill, it halts east and west for razzle-dazzle. O’Neill’s simple black and white (plot) concerning a former prostitute-by-circumstance, her rather bleary, sea-faring father, and her suitor who learns of her sordid past, is set inside a gaudy, frilly, fool­ ish turn-of-the-century lace valentine. Far from being ruthless with Anna Christie, Abbott has been all too faithful to her in his fashion, hewing neatly to the plot line and merely jettisoning all mood, unity and cumu­ lative effect. Anna Christie might make a good, serious musical drama that would sustain O’Neill’s story better than O’Neill did. But for capers-and-confetti musicomedy it can only be a death’s head at a feast.1®

Robert Hatch, writing for The Nation, was complimentary. He summed up his review with this: 78

Broadway is as rich in technical know-how as General Motors and New Girl In Town is the product of that applied skill. I applaud it; I think New Girl is a great show, just as I think my Chevrolet is a great car. Both cost more than I like, but it is impossible to resist the absurdly ef­ ficient machinery.10

Though Chevrolets have little to do with plays, other than perhaps getting one to see a production, the compari­ son is a good indication of the neat, clever, and efficient methodology employed by Abbott in this play. Generally, though many of the critics found the script a disunited one, this writer finds the script quite playable. This opinion

Can be supported by the apparent success of New Girl at the box office. A run of more than 400 performances is very good and proves that the audiences accepted the mater­ ial with little difficulty. The story of New Girl In Town is not a complex one. Chris Christopherson, a barge captain, has a daughter whom he sent, many years ago, to live with some relatives in the north. This daughter, Anna, gets very tired of the sexual abuse by her uncles and cousins and leaves them, only to fall into prostitution. Attempting to escape this, she comes home to New York to her father who knows nothing of her sordid past. While she is sailing with him aboard his barge, they come upon several sailors who are close to drown­ ing because they had been thrown into the sea from a sinking 79

ship. One of these sailors is Mat Burke, and he and Anna fall in love immediately. Things go along fairly well for them except for an occasional objection by Anna's father, until Marthy, Chris's very jealous girlfriend, decides to get drunk at a big party and “shoots her mouth off“ to Mat about Anna's past. Mat leaves in a big storm. Anna goes to Staten Island to work for a potato farmer. One year later on the water­ front, Mat and Chris meet and have words, and Anna appears on the scene. Mat and Anna reunite, and all ends happily. One may ask why a musical like New Girl In Town is included among the comic works of George Abbott. It was chosen because it is an example of Abbott's work as an au­ thor -- not as co-author or play doctor — and there are very few works for which he is the only author. It was chosen also because it was representative of the works of the 1950’s, and there is no other authored work of Abbott's from this decade. Lastly, though it is not a comedy, there is sufficient humor within the musical to warrant its in­ clusion in this study. There were thirty-seven laugh provoking instances in New Girl In Town. The sources of laughter were used in the following way: 80

Sources of Laughter Verbal effects -----—-—-- 21 Obscenity ——-— ---- - — 8 Character effects ------—- 4 Body in physical action —— 4 Total —— 37 Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule -----—— 25 Contrast/incongruity------■— 9 Emotional release ------—-- 2 Play instinct ------— ---- 1 Total — — 37

Verbal Effects. The source of laughter which caused the greatest number of laughs in New Girl In Town was verbal effects. Two examples and the resultant kind of laughter of each will be examined. In the first example, Marthy has been looking for Chris to give him some important news. He has been avoiding her, but is finally caught.

MARTHY ... this time I had important news for you. And I got a notion not to tell you. CHRIS I vas lookin’ all around for you. MARTHY Ah, quit yer lyin’ Dutchy. 1 know you and you know me. CHRIS I yust have vun liddle drink. MARTHY Vun liddle drink. You gotta 20 breath like the Jersey flats.

In this sequence Abbott makes use of verbal effects result­ ing in the laughter of derision/ridicule. The verbal element 81 appears in the form of a punch line: Marthy's reference to Chris' breath smelling like the Jersey flats. One also finds in this speech a satiric reference which refers to the quan­ tity of drink Chris has had. i4arthy also imitates Chris' dialect. These three elements of verbal effects result in the laughter of derision/ridicule because they make Chris appear small, weak, and deceitful. Verbal effects resulting in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity are looked at next. The scene reveals two sailors who have been on a drinking spree and are very drunk. They ask Larry, the bartender, to have a drink with them. He refuses and the drunks decide to leave.

PETE . . . Let's go down the line. OSCAR No, let's have a drink first. • PETE We already had a drink. OSCAR Oh, X forgot, (.pages 19-20)

The humorous remark — Oscar’s having forgotten that he has had a drink — is that which is the cause of laughter. PThis statement coming from a person who is so drunk that he can­ not remember having had a drink produces the laughter of contrast/incongruity. One finds it very surprising and un­ believable that he cannot remember, and, therefore, laughs. * Obscenity. Obscenity is the next source to be examined. In this example, Marthy and Anna meet at Johnny-the-Priest's 82 saloon. Marthy has been sent there by Chris to meet Anna, so that he can clean up and sober up before he sees her. The conversation between Marthy and Anna starts out in a relatively friendly way, but turns eventually to a few snide remarks.

ANNA What you laughin' at? Me? MARTHY Not you. ANNA Guess I do look rotten — just out of the hospital two weeks. I’M goin' to have another. What d’you say? MARTHY Sure I will. (She calls.) Hey, Larry! Little service! ANNA I gotta meet someone. (LARRY comes in.) Same for me. MARTHY Same here. (LARRY takes glasses and goes.) ANNA Well, there ain’t anythin’ wrong with me, is there? You’re sure lookin’ hard enough. MARTHY Don’t have to look much. I got your number the minute you set foot in that door. ANNA I got yours, too. You’re me forty years from now. MARTHY Is that so? Well, anyways, I didn’t just get out of no hospital, (pages 21-22)

The obscenity Abbott makes use of here through a verbal car­ rier is an implication that Anna was pregnant out of wedlock and that she has given birth, or perhaps had an abortion or 83

social disease. The comment made by Marthy results in the laughter of derision/ridicule. This snide comment belittles Anna. Obscenity resulting in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity takes place during a conversation between Mat and Marthy. He is going to be tattooed and Marthy is in­ quisitive.

MAT Yep. A feller down the street wants to tattoo on me -- Our Hero. MARTHY Whereabouts? MAT Huh? MARTHY When it comes to tattoos I always Claim, it ain’t what you say, it’s where you put it. 1 knew a sailor once who — oh, well, never mind. . . (page 61)

The obscenity stems from Marthy*s reference to the special location of a tattoo. Her statement is a surprising one and results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. The last example of obscenity results in the laughter of emotional release. The scene takes place at the opening of the musical. It is the waterfront of New York City at the turn of the century. There are many people milling about in­ cluding sailors and prostitutes looking for work. One of these prostitutes says to another, 84

LILY (An aging trollop) I tell you, this place is a gold mine. (page 3)

One knows the woman’s profession by her appearance, and her line is without question a reference to her trade -- selling sex. She and the other girl are looking for business, and Lily’s statement clearly indicates this fact. This very frank reference to sex results in the laughter of emotional release. The Body in Physical Action. Moments of humor caused by the body in physical action and resulting in various na­ tures of laughter will be the next source to be studied. The first example of humor based in physical action results in the laughter of derision.

(CHRIS CHRISTOPHERSON enters. He is a jovial weatherbeaten sea cap­ tain. At this moment he stumbles somewhat unsteadily on his feet.) (page 4)

It is clear that Abbott wanted Chris to appear drunk here. The state of drunkenness and the unsteady movement that goes with it generally results in laughter. In this case, as in any case of drunkenness, spectators laugh at the party who is drunk, and this is a form of derision. Chris is laughed at in this scene and is, therefore, the subject of this derision. 85

A second example of the body in physical action yields the laughter of contrast/incongruity and happens as Marthy and Chris are dancing. She wants some tickets that he has to the Check Apron Ball and he does not want her to get them.

(They do a little strolling dance, during which she tries to steal a ticket from his pocket ... She succeeds in extracting the ticket, shows it to him and runs offstage. CHRIS follows after her, slowly shaking his head.) (pages 71-72)

One can see the humor in this moment if one imagines this very relaxed strolling dance punctuated by Marthy’s attempt to pick Chris’ pocket. The physical act of stealing the ticket while this very pleasant little dance is going on is that which causes the laughter of contrast. Chris* response to Marthy*s success is laughable too. He just slowly shakes his head as if to say, “What’s the use?" Character Effects. Character effects were responsible for only a small part of the humor in New Girl, but there are two examples upon which to draw. This first example results in the laughter of derision. A reporter has been pursuing Mat for a story about the shipwreck of which he was a part. Mat answers his questions honestly and to the point, until the reporter says, "Come on, something I can use in the paper." (page 54) Mat complies with this request by singing a song with "exaggerated 86 bravado.“ In the song he mentions “sharks are gettin’ thick. . . hit by gales *n bit by whales. . . mermaid out of the sea.” (page 55) After the song is over, Chris speaks up.

CHRIS Vat kind of sense is all dat talk, huh? MAT

The fault in the reporter’s character — asking Mat to ex­ pand upon the truth — puts him in a bad situation. After the song is over, he realizes what he has done and blames himself for the result. The laughter which results is that of derision. Because of the question he asked, he places himself in a position to be belittled by those around him. The second example of character effects reveals Mat in an unusual state which results in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity.

MARTHY . . . She ain’t here. MAT (Smilingly) She will be. 87

MARTHY The way you’re paradin’ around! (Shakes her head.) Men is pe­ culiar. MAT They’re always botherin’ you, eh, Marthy? MARTHY Oh, don’t worry, X had plenty of them in. my time. Not so long ago, neither. Ho, ho, they was after me. They was killing themselves all over the place. I was quite a thing, you know — gay, merry, up on my toes. It was a terrible strain. So I says to myself, ’Marthy Owens, is it worth it? Why don’t you relax?’ So I quit. I quit cold. MAT, Have you seen her this mornin’? MARTHY You ain’t listenin’. Well, the hell with you. (pages 61-62)

Mat is so engrossed in his thoughts about Anna that he thinks of little else to the point of failing to hear or see anyone at times. This condition is a new thing to Mat. He rea­ lizes it; he says at one point, ”1 can’t believe this heart of mine." The moment above refle&fs an interesting fault in Mat’s character and provides the laughter of contrast/ incongruity. Summary. New Girl In Town is not primarily comic, but it does contain laugh producing material that is typical of Abbott’s work. One sees a dependence upon the verbal source, generally resulting in the laughter of derision/ridicule. Abbott’s dialogue ; is consistent with that used in the 88 previous two musicals. His use of short speeches and care­ ful word choice helps him to realize through the dialogue situations that quickly build and rebuild to provide laugh­ ter. The short speeches keep the tempo of the play quick; the audience’s focus never needs to stay in any one place too long. The only exceptions are the songs, and these serve to break the pattern and justly deserve the attention they get. They are also generally endowed with a large quantity of action so as not to become stagnant. The success of New Girl In Town is not dependent upon humor, but it does have its share of laughs that help, upon occasion, to raise spirits and increase audience appeal.

IV. Conclusion The three works studied in this chapter share several common elements. The numerical analysis for each musical indicates that verbal effect is the dominant source of laugh ter in each. One also finds that the sources of laughter most frequently result in the laughter of derision/ridicule, followed closely by contrast/incongruity. The audience ap­ peal (according to Thompson) is to a mid-sophisticated audi­ ence since verbal effects stand mid-way in Thompson’s scale of increasing subtlety. The tastes of Abbott's audiences are generally slightly baser than would be those of a more sophisticated audience, yet they represent a larger portion of society, and, thus, help establish the popularity and 89

success of the musicals. One also sees that Mr. Abbott’s writing style is con­ sistent in each of the musicals. There are no long speeches Tempos are very fast. Humorous situations build and rebuild very quickly. The dialogue is very simple and very clear. Occasionally verbal word play will enter into a scene and raise the level of quality from farce to wit. All three of the works are adaptations. The Boys from Syracuse is based on The Comedy of Errors, Where*s Charley? is based on Charley’s Aunt, and New Girl In Town is based on Anna Christie. Abbott claims that he has never been successful with original ideas. In the interview held be­ tween this writer and Mr. Abbott in Washington,DD.C., Abbott said,

I wouldn’t say that my ideas for plays were entirely successful. I’ve been much more successful in taking somebody else’s material and working with that ... I give an order sometimes to other peo­ ple’s plays . . . but I’ve not been so successful and fresh in starting from scratch.21

Continuing this line of thought, in his autobiography Mr. Abbott revealed that, during his early years as a play­ wright, producers did not offer to produce his plays, but encouraged him to keep on writing.

Looking back dispassionately, I can admit that the theatre was 90

not robbed of any jewels by the blindness of playreaders. They all told me the same thing: ’You have good dialogue and good construction but the idea itself isn’t interest­ ing. ’ That, I fear, is the story of my writing life. I was not a suc­ cessful playwright until I took par­ asitical advantage of other people’s ideas. All my success has been either in rewriting some piece which was created by another author, or in a- daptations for a musical book of such standard works as Charley’s Aunt and A Comedy of Effors.22

The record of Abbott productions shows that Mr. Abbott has had five authored shows on Broadway. Three of these, the three examined in this study, were hits. The other two, Ladies» Money (1934) and Sweet River (1936), both had short runs. Neither of these plays was original material by Ab­ bott. Ladies’ Money was previously written by Lawrence Hazard and Richard Flournoy; Sweet River was based on Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Therefore the record lends credence to Mr. Abbott’s claim of not being successful with original ideas. None of his five produced authored shows sprang from an original ideaSof his; his three authored shows which were successful were adaptations. In these adaptations, one generally finds that the originals have §een greatly simplified. The Boys From Syra­ cuse has simplified language and a less lengthy and less complex plot. Where’s Charley? eliminates several charac­ ters, and abolishes a great deal of exposition. New Girl 91

In Town simplifies the plot of Anna Christie, reduces its overall length and eliminates long speeches. 92

Footnotes

1Joseph Wood Krutch, “Theatre,” The Nation, December 10, 1938, p. 638. 2“The Drama,“ The Catholic World, January 1939, pp. 474- 476. 3Ibid., p. 476. 4stark Young, “Rockets Old and New,“ The New Republic, December 14, 1938, p. 173. 5George Abbott, The Boys From Syracuse (New York: Chap­ pell & Co., Inc., 1965), p. 28. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. 6Brooks Atkinson, “At the Theatre," The New York Times, October 12, 1948, found in pie New York~Theatre Critics© Reviews (New York: Critics1 Theatre Reviews, Inc., i$4S), vol. 9, p. 197. 'Richard Watts, “Ray Bolger Tries Nobly in ’Where’s Charley?’,“ New York Post. October 12, 1948, found in The New York Theatre ferities’ Reviews, vol. 9, p. 197. 8Howard Sarnes, "Here's Bolger,“ Herald Tribune, October 12, 1948, found in The New York Theatre Critics' Reviews, vol. 9, p. 199. 9 Ward Morehouse, "Ray Bolger . . . Very Little Else," The gun, October 12, 1948, found in The New York Theatre Critics’ Reviews, vol. 9, p. 199. lUwiiliam Hawkins, "'Where’s Charley?’ Out of This World," New York World-Telegram, October 12, 1948, found in The New Ÿork Theatre Critics * Reviews, vol. 9, p. 200. llftobert 6aflan

18»fjew Musical in Manhattan,” Time, May 27, 1957, p. 60. 19Robert Hatch, “Theatre and Films,“ The Nation, June 1, 1957. p. 486. 2ÛGeorge Abbott, New Girl In Town (New York: Chappell & Co., Inc., 1958), pp. 9-10. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. 2lGeorge Abbott in an interview with this writer, October 26, 1973. The interview is quoted in its entirety in Appendix II. o 22George Abbott, Mr. Abbott (New York; Random House, 1963), p. 89. 94

CHAPTER III CO-AUTHORED PLAYS AND MUSICALS

Included for analysis in this chapter are the following plays and musicals: Broadway (1926), Three Men On A Horse (1935), Pajama Game (1954), Damn Yankees (1955), and Ten­ derloin (1960). I. Broadway Broadway, by George Abbott andPhillip Dunning, was first produced at the Broadhurst Theatre, September 16, 1926. It starred Lee Tracy, Ann Preston, Edith Van Cleve, Sylvia Field, Robert Gleckler, and Paul Porcasi. The play is a melodrama dealing with the war between two factions of the New York underworld. These factions are fighting over the control of liquor sales in certain dis­ tricts of New York City. Steve Crandall, the boss of one of these territories, kills Scar Edwards for control of his territory. Pearl, Scar’s girlfriend, learns that Crandall killed her man and vows revenge, which she achieves at the end of the play. A second plot deals with a love triangle made up of Roy, a dancer, Steve Crandall, and Billie, a very pretty, innocent girl who is attracted to both men. Crandall is scheming for a sexual victory; Roy is searching for a danc­ ing partner and wife. Roy’s egocentricity and his over­ 95 protective nature cause Billie to falter in her attitude toward him. Steve attempts to buy her with diamond brace­ lets and other rich finery. Roy, always in search of the "big break," finally,gets his opportunity and wants to take Billy with him. The aud­ ience is led to believe that she agrees and goes with him after learning the truth about Crandall. Brooks Atkinson of the New York Times spoke very high­ ly of the play. He said,

... an excellent cast, imaginatively directed. The co-authors of this ex­ citing melodrama have caught the incon­ gruities, the contrasts, the jealousies, ambitions and duplicities, and have tossed them all together in blaring i- ronic confusion.1 He went on to say that "the result is an exhilarating, mad­ ly colored melodrama, a kaleidoscope, spattered with the brightest pigments of local color."2 He praised the direc­ tion and acting and concluded with,

. . . conceived in terms of the theatre, written with a true sense of stage pro­ jection, Broadway makes every part thor­ oughly actable. None of the players fum­ bles his chance.3

Abbott, in his autobiography, Mr. Abbott, ¿poke of Broadway coming to New York. During its previews, Jed Har­ ris, the producer, said that it was certain that the show would be a hit. He suggested that all of the cheap humor 96 and actions be cut to make the script as tight and unified as possible. Both Abbott and Dunning agreed and they did make the suggested cuts. Harris was right about the show being a success for it ran for 603 performances. Despite the fact that Broadway is a melodrama, there are forty-eight laugh provoking instances in the play. The distribution of usage of the sources of laughter is as follows: Sources of Laughter Verbal effects ------— 25 Character effects ---- - — 16 Body in physical action ------5 Obscenity ------2 Total------48 The natureSof laughter corresponded in the following manner: Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule ------—-- 31 Contrast/incongruity ------17 Total------48

Verbal Effects. Verbal effects will be the first source of laughter to be examined. The first example results in the laughter of derision/ridicule. The passage is a fairly long one, but contains several instances of verbal effects that are worthy of recognition.

ROY. Well -- Not to pin any bouquets on myself, but where could you get a guy to do what I’m doing for the coffee and cake money you're 97

paying me? RUBY. He‘s off again. ROY. You see, it ain’t only I can dance, but I got personality. MAZIE. Huh! ROY. Personality plus. MAZIE. Ain’t he a darb? GRACE. He hates himself. NICK. Somethin’ else ya got is a terrible swell head. ROY. Who, me? Nothin’ swell-headed about me, boss. I could-a been that way long ago, if I’d wanted to. NICK. Aw, cut out the bellyachin’ and quit any time you want.4

Abbott has put Roy into an immodest position making him the recipient of many barbs from his peers. Each one of these barbs belittles Roy; they deride and ridicule him. This continued process of derision is topped by Nick when he adds the ultimate insult by telling Roy he can quit any time he wants. All of the humor lies in the verbal by-piay and succeeds in causing the laughter of derision/ridicule. The second instance of verbal humor results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Nick, the owner of the cabaret where the play takes place, is talking to the very scantily clad girls about the previous night’s performance.

NICK. Last night a gentleman gets up in the middle of the first num­ ber. He says to me, ’Outside your place it says: Paradise Club — Best Cabaret in New York -- that’s what it says’ -- and then he walks out. (page 574) 98

The verbal effects in these lines have several parts. One finds elements of satire at work as Nick tells his little story. The satire is applied to the situation at hand as well as to the people to whom Nick is speaking. Secondly, one finds in this passage a punch line — “and he walks out,“ which is one of the causes of the speech’s humor. These causes result in the laughter of contrast which is provided by that same punch line mentioned above. The line strongly contrasts to the rest of the speech. It shows clear ly the difference between what should be and what actually exists in Nick’s cabaret in the form of entertainment. Character Effects. The humor of character effects is based upon a fault which the character cannot see in him­ self or herself. The first example reveals a fault in Mazie’s character which results in the laughter of derision/ ridicule. MAZIE. I room with her and I happen to know she’s a good kid. ROY. And believe me, it pays to be good. MAZIE. Sure, but not much, (page 577)

Mazie’s little joke reflects strongly upon her character. It shows that she feels that it pays better not to be good. And that not being good can be interpreted in several ways. Those ways of interpretation can be narrowed down, however, when one looks into the situation and at the people involved.

These circumstances of not being good strongly deride Mazie. 99

One should feel superior to her and her concept of the merits of being good. The next example of character effects results in the laughter of contrast. Nick has been bitterly complaining to the rest of his dancers about Billie’s missing rehearsal. He does not know where she is and has sworn to reprimand her severely. He no sooner states this when Billie walks in with Steve, a big time hoodlum.

STEVE. Hope I didn't keep Billie from rehearsal, Nick. NICK. I was just gonna ask her where she was. STEVE. Guess it didn’t put you out much, did it? NICK. No, no, it didn’t make so much difference. RUBY, (above piano. Bitterly.) I should say not. NICK, (to Ruby.) What? RUBY. I didn’t say anything, (page 582)

One sees immediately the weakness in Nick’s character when he faces someone with Steve’s power. He backs down quick­ ly. He has put himself into a very awkward situation be­ cause he boasted before everyone about what he was going to do to Billie. He is trapped because of his boasting. Every­ one is present, and it is Steve who has control. The cir­ cumstances with Steve are enough to cause laughter, but Ruby’s comments are sufficient to add insult to injury. Her immediate about-face results in the laughter of contrast which succeeds in pointing out the weakness in Nick’s 100 character again. She backs down just as he did with Steve. Both Nick and Ruby are laughed at, and each time the laugh­ ter is that of contrast/incongruity. The Body in Physical Action. Only a small part of Broadway's humor is found to be caused by physical action. The first example results in the laughter of derision. Steve sells liquor during prohibition. In this scene two of his “boys'’ are trying to get Nick to buy some of the latest stock. Nick has a glass of it as they talk.

DOLPH. Ah, here we are. (Porky holds nose and drinks. Nick lights ci­ gar.) If Steve wasn’t a bighearted guy, he’d never sell you this stuff at the same price. NICK. Good, eh? DOLPH. It's the real thing, Nick, no kid. NICK. (Puts glass on floor.) No, I got quite a lot on hand, (page 583)

Nick's not having drunk any of the beverage and his put­ ting the glass down on the floor communicates subtly that he does not want any. It is apparent that the stock is of poor quality when Porky holds his nose to drink it. Nick catches this action and is not about to be talked into buy­ ing inferior liquor. The resulting laughter is that of derision. Dolph is the subject of that derision because it is he who is lying and Nick knows he is. Nick’s action of putting the glass down clarifies his response to Dolph. It is this act which causes the derisive laughter. 101

In addition to the derisive nature of this sequence, one also finds a secondary nature of laughter — that of contrast. This arises in Porky’s action as he holds his nose to drink the liquor they are selling. Physical action resulting in the laughter of contrast is revealed in the next example. Lil and Porky have been married. They are both rotund people and have both been on an all-night drinking spree. Lil appears in the ladies’ dressing room, which is up one flight of steep stairs. She is seeking Porky and has to come down those stairs.

LIL. Tell him his little wife -- No, I’ll tell him myself. (She finds that coming downstairs backward is lots easier.) (page 639)

The physical humor lies in Lil’s attempt to negotiate the stairs. One can see her, as implied by the action descrip­ tion, starting down the stairs frontwards then turning a- round on them and coming down backwards. Her humorous ac­ tion results in the laughter of contrast. One also laughs at this sequence because of her com­ ment about being his ’’little wife” when one knows she is far from being little. This verbal effect also produces the laughter of contrast. Obscenity. The last source of laughter to be discussed will be obscenity. Despite the setting and circumstances of this play, obscenity was used only two times. Bach case 102 resulted in the laughter of derision so only one example will be provided. Steve gives a huge party for a group of friends from Chicago. These friends arrive while the show at Nick’s is still in progress. During the show the girls have to change costumes backstage and Dolph invites the Chicagoans to "get an eyeful."

DOLPH. Step up, fellows. Don’t be bashful. (The Chicago mob get an eyeful. GIRLS keep right on with their change.) (page 618)

The obscenity is evident in this scene in which the men watch the women change clothes. Neither the men nor the women show any modesty. The resulting derision stems from the women not seeming to care that they are being looked over like a herd of cows. The obscenity causes the audi­ ence to laugh in a derisive way at this immodest behavior. Summary. Broadway differs very little in its humorous structure from the previously analyzed works. One sees the use of short speeches resulting in a fast-moving pace that has been?typical of Abbott’s work thus far. One sees care­ ful dialogue construction which provides the capabilities of quick building and rebuilding of humorous moments. And one sees clarity in the work. Bach speech succeeds in mak­ ing its point quickly and succinctly without any confusion or problematical developments. 103

The numerical breakdown of the sources of laughter and the natures of laughter also indicate that this play’s hu­ mor is similar to those previously studied. One finds that verbal effect is the most frequently used source of laugh­ ter and derision/ridicule is the most frequently used nature of laughter. Only one thing makes this play unusual and that is that only two natures of laughter were used: derision/ ridicule and contrast/incongruity.

II. Three Men On A Horse Briefly, the story of Three Men On A Horse, written by John Cecil Holm and George Abbott, is as follows: Erwin Trowbridge, a mousy greeting card writer who has an uncanny ability to pick winning horses, has a quarrel with his wife, Audrey, gets drunk, and meets three race track touts, Char­ lie, Frankie, and Patsy, who discover his “book of winners.” They keep Erwin under lock and key and use his hunches to make a fortune for themselves. Finally, after many hilari­ ous experiences with the hoodlums, one of their girlfriends (Mabel), Erwin’s boss (Mr. Carver), and his brother-in-law (Clarence), Erwin is reconciled with his wife, and almost everyone is happy. Three Men On A Horse was first produced at the Play­ house theatre in New York, on January 30, 1935. The orig­ inal production was staged by George Abbott and featured William Lynn, Sam Levene, Shirley Boothe, and Garson Kanin. 104

Warner Brothers Studios bought the movie rights to the play and also provided the money to mount it on Broadway. Abbott indicates in his autobiography, Mr. Abbott, that the play was so popular that “eventually there were three road companies and a London production.“5 The play ran on Broadway for 835 performances. Critical response was friendly. Glenville Vernon, writing in The Commonweal said the play was, on the whole, a most amusing farce.

Those who aren’t willing to check their brains at the box office won’t enjoy Three Men On A Horse . . . The success of a £arce like this is dependent upon the speed of the ac­ tion, the guffaws in the lines, and the physical vitality of the acting. The first is there except at times in the second act, the laughs are frequent, and the acting is filled with gustb.6

Vernon went on to say that the play was not exactly polite entertainment, but that it was entertaining. In The Catholic World, the staff reviewer said,

The play has very honest comedy and though Brwin is the most upright and modest of heroes, there are lines and situations of Rabelaisian broad­ ness that no doubt pass muster with a racing audience but prevent our reborn- mending it.7

The critic of The Literary Digest said of the play, 105

The laughter in Three Men On A Horse is hearty and virtually unceas­ ing, with the result that a fabricated play, following the easy lines of very least dramatic resistance, becomes one of the comic tokens of the season, and probably a hit.8

The critic of The New York Times, Brooks Atkinson, found the play

. . . a topsy-turvy comedy that is not so funny as inspired fooling, but is funnier than most journey man jobs. What humors the notion contains, Mr. Holm and Mr. Abbott here shot helter- skelter across the stage.9

Three Men On A Horse is successful in arousing laugh­ ter. Within the play there are 102 laugh provoking instances The analysis is as follows: Sources of Laughter Verbal effects ------60 Body in physical action ------20 Obscenity ------11 Character effects------6 Effects from plot------3 Comic idea ------— 2 Total ------102 Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule ------—— 47 Contrast/incongruity ---- - — 36 Play instinct ------13 Emotional release —------4 Mechanization ---—-—------2 Total---- 102 Verbal Effects. The first example of comedy from Three Men On A Horse is a verbal effect resulting in the laughter 106 of derision/ridicule. In this example, Audrey has called her brother, Clarence, and asked him to come to her house because she has found something in Erwin’s pocket that has disturbed her. It is a little black book with women’s names in it. She confronts Erwin with this while Clarence- is present.

ERWIN. Oh, that book. Is that what upset you. . . AUDREY. (Holds up hand; goes to CLAR­ ENCE, flips pages.) Look at those names. . . Shirley, May, Lena Wee, Bambola, Nell McClatchy, Squeeze . . . not one or two, Clarence, but pages of them . . . look at .those telephone numbers . . . Jamaica 6—2—3—1. . . ERWIN. But darling! CLARENCE. My gosh, say. What are you keeping ... a harem?10

Clarence’s line is that which is the cause of the humor and results in the laughter of derision. The line is somewhat witty and is also a punch line or gag line. It is also a humorous remark about the situation at hand. The derisive laughter happens because Erwin is made to look like a far worse person than he is. Contrast/incongruity is also a significant part of the resultant laughter, for Erwin is just not the kind of per­ son one would expect to have a harem. His physical appear­ ance, his speech pattern, voice, and occupation all contribute to a strong contrast between the image Clarence is attempting 107

to project and the actual character. Clarence’s statement about the harem draws a response from Erwin which is the second example of verbal humor. This source of laughter results in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity.

CLARENCE. My gosh, say. What are you keeping ... a harem? ERWIN. Wait, dear. (Meekly) I can explain. It’s only a hobby. AUDREY. Only a hobby. Oh ---- - (Sits ---- - cries.) (page 8)

Erwin unwittingly has put his foot in his mouth. He has said the wrong thing because his comment has succeeded in making the situation worse than it was before. The play upon the word “hobby” and the confusion over what the hobby is is part of the verbal humor present. The resulting laugh ter of contrast/incongruity is easily seen in the incongru­ ous nature of the implication of Erwin's relationship to “all those girls" as being just a hobby. One can also find the laughter of play instinct in this moment of laughter. A situation such as this one could be a serious one for the persons involved. But, as it is treat ed here, one laughs openly and feels secure in the knowledge that there will be no major repercussions. Erwin’s problems grow more complex as the argument be­ tween him and Audrey continues. Clarence succeeds in making things even a little worse. The next example reveals the 108 depth of Erwin's despair through verbal effects resulting in the laughter of play instinct. Erwin is about to leave.

AUDREY. Where are you going? ERWIN. To the office — I'm late. AUDREY. You’ve forgotten your neck­ tie. ERWIN. What’s the difference? Who cares how I look? To hell with the tie. AUDREY. Erwin! ERWIN. And to hell with this house. CLARENCE. What! AUDREY. Erwin! You’Ll hurt Clarence’s feelings. ERWIN. And I won’t apologize. AUDREY. Erwin. (page 14)

All of the humor of this particular moment is couched in the verbal, resulting in the laughter of play instinct. The laugh provoking element is Erwin’s sudden strength and in­ dependence. His “profanely” stated attitude towards the wearing of the tie (which is not at all the usual for Erwin) his attitude towards the house Clarence built (which he has demeaned before, but always meekly and with an apology), are the elements that cause the humor. Play instinct, or the un pleasant taken playfully, is the basis for the resulting laughter. The situation is, for the characters, a serious one, but for the onlooker it is funny because of the petti­ ness and insignificance of the situation. One might also find that contrast/incongruity supports the resulting laughter. It is unusual to see Erwin stand up as he does here. This is in strong contrast to previous 109 behavior, and one also experiences the laughter of contrast here. The Body in Physical Action. The body in physical action is a major source of laughter in Three Men On A Horse. The first instance to be discussed results in the laughter of derision. Rather than going to work, Erwin has stopped in at the bar of the Lavilere Hotel. It is apparent that he has al­ ready had a couple of drinks because he is not nearly as withdrawn as he was earlier. He orders a drink, has a few words with the bartender, Harry, then notices two men, Char­ lie and Frankie, discussing horses.

FRANKIE. (ERWIN turns. FRANKIE throws down racing paper. Aw, hell, do what you like, Charlie. I don’t see anything good. X think I’ll wait for Patsy. He might have some­ thin ’. CHARLIE. All right. I’m playin’ Rose Cross. ERWIN. (Looks in book. Weaves to ta­ ble.) Excuse me, gentlemen, I see you’re interested in horses. You should really play Semester in the third race. (page 17)

The physical action that is humorous is Erwin’s weaving his way to the table. Erwin’s state of drunkenness presents a funny physical image. One laughs at him for this and he is, therefore, the subject of derision. Audrey becomes the subject of this next instance of 110 humor caused by physical action. The laughter resulting from this instance is that of contrast/incongruity. At the opening of the play Audrey appears carrying one of her slippers.

(. . . As she crosses to foot of stairs she examines sole of one of her bedroom slippers.) AUDREY. (Calling.) Erwin. ERWIN. (Off.) Yes. AUDREY. The paint you put on the kit- shen floor isn’t dry yet. (page 5)

The physical act of walking with one shoe on is funny. Added to this humorous act is the fact that she is examin­ ing her other shoe as she walks. One then learns that the reason for this awkwardness is that she has tread on wet paint and seems to have had so little concern about it. This is the act that becomes incongruous. One finds it hard to accept the fact that she would just walk on a newly paint ed floor without even testing to see if the paint were wet or not. One also finds in this example a touch of derision as a nature of laughter. Audrey’s act makes her appear stupid. This appearance cannot but deride her character. In the next example Erwin becomes the subject of humor caused by physical action. The resultant laughter is that of play instinct.

ERWIN. (Starts back to bar, gets dizzy. Ill

More to himself.) Semester in the third. Hasty Belle in the fourth. (Suddenly feels sick.) HARRY. Hey — right back in there, bro­ ther. ERWIN. Oh. (Heads for lavatory. Exits.) (page 19)

Being drunk, getting dizzy, then getting sick are all phys­ ically funny actions. However, under real conditions these circumstances cease being funny and are unpleasant for the person experiencing them. Within the realm of this play, however, there is no pain or unpleasantness and the result­ ing laughter is that of play instinct. Physical action resulting in the laughter of mechani­ zation can be found in the latter stages of thejplay. Mr. Carver has at last caught up with the “blackguards'* who have “stolen" Erwin. Mr. Carver exclaims that he wants Erwin back, but is soon rushed out the door as Patsy, Char­ lie, and the rest are listening to a race on which they have bet. Their horse wins and as they exclaim their vic­ tory, Carver re-enters.

CHARLIE. He won, huh? (CARVER throws open door.) CARVER. I've been in business since 1898. (CHARLIE slams door shut.) CHARLIE. Out and stay out.

(CARVER at door.) CARVER. Don't forget what the code says about unfair competition. PATSY. Oh, for God's sakes, Harry, 112

take that guy downstairs and throw him in the street. (pages 73-74)

Carver’s continual ejection and his continual re-entry are the physical actions which cause the laughter of mechaniza­ tion. After each time he is removed, he reappears, seeming­ ly undaunted, still wanting Erwin Trowbridge back. One also finds some derision present in the above ex­ ample because Carver is easily removed each time he enters. This demeans his ability to stand and fight for his rights. Obscenity. Though obscenity is not a major source of laughter in Three Men On A Horse, it is a contributing fac­ tor to the play’s humor. In this first example, Mabel has entered the bar looking for Patsy.

MABEL. Hasn’t Patsy come in yet? CHARLIE. Sure, he’s come in. He’s in there. (Gestures with thumb.) MABEL. Oh! I’ll wait for him then. CHARLIE. He’s pretty busy. MABEL. Sure, I guess he is. CHARLIE. I mean he’s got somebody with him. MABEL. Somebody with him — in the — in there? CHARLIE. Yeah — some guy. MABEL. What kind of a guy, Charlie? CHARLIE. Oh, he’s all right. He’s a friend of Patsy’s. MABEL. Do I know him? CHARLIE. I don’t think so. You see — he knew Patsy in the old days — you know -- and he heard how the luck was — and ... and — he just dropped in to tip Patsy off on some fixed races so Patsy could get straightened out. Isn’t that 113

right, Harry? HARRY. Sounds all right, Charlie. MABEL. You mean he fixes them? CHARLIE. Yeah, that's it ... he fix­ es them. MABEL. But what are they doing in the Johnnie ? CHARLIE. Well, he got sick from the heat and some bum liquor . . . I mean he ain’t used to drinkin’. Patsy used to be his best friend. —- He’s holding his head. (pages 21-22)

The connotation that there is something sexual in the re­ lationship between Erwin and Patsy is the obscenity. The resulting laughter is that of emotional release for only one image is clearly indicated until the end of the sequence when Charlie finally reveals why Erwin and Patsy are in the bathroom together. In the next sequence Patsy has left Mabel in charge of keeping Erwin at the hotel. She seems to have taken a liking to Erwin and decides she will dance for him. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity.

ERWIN. Did you sing in the Follies? MABEL. Yeah. I did a specialty once. Ya want to see it? (HE nods.) Say, I’d do anything for you. (Goes to radio.) ’Cause I’m crazy about poetry, that’s.why. (Turns radio on. Music. Tries a few steps.) I may not be so good till I get limbered up. I can’t do a thing with this dress on — I guess among friends it’s all right, huh? ERWIN. What is? (MABEL starts to take off dress. Radio begins to talk — on laugh. ANNOUNCER — 114

’Two tablets daily and assure yourself a perfect health and a happy old age. At this time we present Ivan Aronson and his jaz­ zy cossacks in a program of dance music. — Take it away, Ivan!’ Music.) I think -- I ought to téléphoné my wife -- MABEL. Don’t you want to see my dance? ERWIN. Yes, I do. MABEL. (Gets music.) Here we go. Now, you’re the audience. I come out, you see, with a big spot on me. (Dances.) The oth­ er girls are jealous ’cause I got a specialty -- (She kicks, exposing all.) Of course this is just a rough idea — ERWIN. (As she kicks.) Say, that’s good I (page 50)

The obscenity lies in the action of undressing and in Ma­ bel’s suggestion that she will do anything for Erwin. The laughter of contrast results because it is Erwin to whom this is being said, and he does not realize what opportuni­ ties exist for him. His naivete prevents this realization. One finds that this laughter is supported by emotional release which comes as a result of Mabel’s suggestion?and her action as she dances (“exposing all"). Mabel and Patsy’s relationship is made clear when one learns that she is his girl but that it took him three weeks to get what she was seeminglyjwilling to give Erwin in one day. Their relationship is brought into even clearer focus as she prepares to leave the bar. 115

PATSY. . . . Now you run upstairs and get your bracelet out and we‘11 celebrate tonight. Just you and me. How would that be? Wd’llget dressed and have dinner at Lindy’s and make a night of it. MABEL. Get dressed — all right — but this is the only dress I got. PATSY. Get another one. (Pats her be­ hind. Gives her money.) Happy days are here again, huh, Mabel. (page 31)

The obscenity occurs when Patsy pats Mabel’s¿behind. The laughter is that of derision because it is Mabel who is made to appear less noble by accepting, without argument, Patsy’s familiarity. The way the action is indicated through di­ rection, one also gets the impression that she is being paid for her services, which £gain tends to downgrade her. Character Effects. Character effects are a source of laughter when a flaw in a character’s make-up serves as a cause of humor. The first example of humor caused by charac ter effects results in the laughter of derision. Audrey has discovered Erwin’s little black book, and being upset, has called her brother and asked him to come to her house. She begins to cry. Erwin enters and is tying his shoelace as he notices her. He says,

ERWIN. . . . What’s the matter, dear, something get in your eye? AUDREY. I’ll be all right. ERWIN. Gee, that’s too bad. It’s this dry spell we’re having. Dust everywhere. (page 6) 116

Erwin’s question is indicative of his naivete and blindness to his wife’s emotional condition. This reflects a flaw in his character and results in the laughter of derision be­ cause he is made to look so simple-minded by his dialogue and action. His answer, “Gee, that’s too bad,” to Audrey’s “I’ll be all right“ simply reinforces this character trait of his and adds to the humor of the scene. Another instance of character effects as a source of laughter results in the laughter of contrast. AUDREY. You told me you’d stay home from the office one day this week. ERWIN. I know I did, sweetheart — but not today. How in Heaven’s name am I going to turn out sixty-seven Mother’s Day greet­ ings? AUDREY. (Suddenly; hopefully.) You could write them in the country. We could go for a drive. ERWIN. No. No. I know I couldn’t. I’ve never been able to write in the country — the birds and dbhe butterflies distract me. (page 6)

One again sees humor stemming from Erwin’s«character. This time it is extremely unique. Where birds and butterflies are the usual topic or inspiration for many poets, they serve to distract Erwin. Because the statement is such a surprise and so unusual, it results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. The last example of character effects results in the 117 laughter ofplay instinct. At this point in the story Erwin has been gone for a long time and Audrey is very wor­ ried. She gets a phone call inviting her and Erwin to a party. She begins to cry when Clarence enters.

AUDREY. (Between sobs.) Mrs. Marple phoned. . . CLARENCE. Yes? AUDREY. Invited us to a party, but he may not even be here. (Sobs) CLARENCE. Well, if he isn’t, I’ll go with you. (page 35)

Clarence’s callousness is made very clear at this moment. He never fails to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. This is a weakness to which he is insensitive and this char­ acter defect causes laughter. The resulting laughter is that of play instinct where the unpleasant is taken playfully. Effects from Plot. Clarence was tempted to bet on Erwin’s race choices earlier in the play, but he did not and soon discovered that he could have won a great deal of money. Erwin has returned home with Mabel and Frankie after having been away one night. Frankie drops a piece of paper on the floor, and Clarence finds it and thinks it is Erwin's list of winning horses.

AUDREY. What's that? GLARENCE. Horses. That's what he didn’t want you to tell me, isn’t it? AUDREY. Yes, but — CLARENCE. I found this on the floor. — It’s their list of the winning 118

horses. — Thought he’d hold out on me, did he — well, I’ll show him. — AUDREY. What are you going to do? CLARENCE. (Gets phone.) I’m going to bet my shirt. (page 69)

Because of previous circumstances (parts of the plot), the audience is aware that Clarence is going to lose his shirt. This effect from plot results in the laughter of play in­ stinct. The unpleasant taken playfully in the dramatic situation generally results in laughter. The audience will laugh because it knows Clarence will lose his shirt. He deserves to lose because he has treated Erwin so badly. The Comic Idea. The comic idea reflects what the author sees in society and what he thinks ought to be there. In the example which follows, one sees a picture of human behavior which needs correcting. The laughter which results is that of derision/ridicule.

AUDREY. (Taking photo from phone ta­ ble.) Now, here’s the picture of Erwin. — I hate to part with it. — It‘s the only one I’ve got. GLORIA. Oh, we’ll send it back in good condition — (Writes on face.) Here you are, Al — (Tosses it to Al.) (page 61)

Gloria’s apparent lack of understanding, compassion, and honesty are those things which make up the comic idea source at work here. The resulting laughter of derision/ridicule makes Gloria out to be far less a human being than she 119

could be. One might also find contrast/incongruity in the laughter because Gloria’s actions contrast to her words. In the last example of comic idea, play instinct is the resulting laughter. Audrey has reported Erwin as miss­ ing to the police. The news has spread rapidly and every­ one wants to get involved. The phone rings at Erwin’s house and Clarence answers it. Audrey wants to know who it was.

AUDREY. Who was that? CLARENCE. The Boy Scouts at Eagle­ ville. AUDREY. What do they want? CLARENCE. They want to drag the Eagle­ ville pond for Erwin. (page 64)

Through the comic idea Abbott is making a social comment regarding the morbid nature of man. The resulting laughter is that of play instinct, the serious taken playfully. Ob­ viously the idea of dragging a pond for a body is a serious one, but in the context of the play, it is treated playfully Summary. The quantity of humor in Three Men On A Horse is comparable to the rest of the works studied thus far. As is true of previous works, verbal effect is the most fre­ quently used source of laughter and derision/ridicule is the most frequently used nature of laughter. The quick .pacing, which is one of the keys to Abbott’s work, is evident in this play. Tempo proves to be the crux of many of the scenes. There are no long speeches, and hu­ morous moments build and rebuild with ease. 120

There are no highly complex or confusing moments that require much thought by the audience. The laughter flows freely because of the farcical, light nature of the play. Three Men On A Horse clearly shows the early develop­ ment of a system of play construction that has proven to be effective by many years of successful use.

III. Pajama Game Pajama Game, co-authored by George Abbott and Richard Bissell, was based on Mr. Bissell’s novel, 7j Cents. This musical comedy remains faithful to the novel and captures its humor. Music and lyrics were composed by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross. With a cast including John Raitt, Janis Paige, Eddie Foy, Jr., Carol Haney, and Shirley MacLaine, the play opened at the St. James Theatre in New York on May 13, 1954, to rave reviews. Walter Kerr said,

The bright, brassy, and jubilantly sassy show that opened at the St. James Thursday is not just the best new musical of the season. That would be fairly easy. It’s a show that takes a whole barrelful of gleaming new talents, and a handful of stimulating ideas as well, and sends them tumbling in happy profu­ sion over the footlights.il

William Hawkins said,

The Pajama Game is about 121

the best natured musical you may ever see. It is young and funny and earthy and fast.13 Writing for the New York Times, Brooks Atkinson stated,

The last new musical of the season is the best. It is The Pajama Game, which opened at the St. James last evening with all the uproar of a George Abbott show.13

The New York Daily News writer, John Chapman, opened his review with this comment:

With George Abbott in charge of the general situation and with Jerome Robbins supervising the dancers, ’The Pajama Game’ is a funny and frisky mu­ sical comedy which, during many ensu­ ing months, will be harder to get into than out of.14

Wolcott Gibbs of The New Yorker said the musical’s ’’chief qualities are high spirits, spontaneity, and a mani­ fest determination to please.”15 Harold Clurman captured the reason for the success of the production.

’The Pajama Game’ ... a musi­ cal about a near-strike in a factory (but don’t let that upset yout), is a triumph of efficient showmanship and trained ebullience. Admirably staged by George Abbott and Jerome Robbins, it is chock-full of the energy of a party of gifted youngsters equipped to sing, dance, caper, and cut up as no similar group anywhere else in the world could do. The casting throughout is ex­ cellent.16 122

Pajama Game ran on Broadway for 1063 performances. It is one of a dozen shows with which Mr. Abbott has been con­ nected that have run for more than 500 performances. The story of Pajama Game is a unique one for musical comedy. It deals with a labor dispute in a pajama factory over a seven and one-half cent increase in wages. As the labor and management dispute is approaching a crisis, the superintendent of the plant, Sid Sorokin, and the girl who heads the Grievance Committee of the union, Babe Williams, fall in love. Their strong affection for each other doesn’t change their loyalties, however. Sorokin has to fire Babe for slowing things down. He is very much concerned with keeping production up to the usual speed and standards, while Babe is leading the slow down in protest to not get­ ting a raise. Naturally it all works out happily. Sorokin finds out that Hasler, the boss, had built the raise into the expenses two months earlier and uses this knowledge to settle the problems. Sid and Babe are re-united, and every­ one, except Mr. Hasler, lives happily ever after. Comedy in Pajama Game is rampant. The number of op­ portunities for laughter exceeds that in most of the other works to be discussed. Pajama Game contained 146 laugh provoking instances. Five of the sources of laughter were used as were all five of the natures of laughter. The sources of laughter were used in the following manner: 123

Sources of Laughter Verbal effects ------— 68 Body in physical action 45 Obscenity------15 Character effects ------15 Effects from plot------3 Total — 146 The natures of laughter were broken down as follows: Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule ——— >i Contrast/incongruity ------— 61 Mechanization ------10 Play instinct ------—- 3 Emotional release ——------— 1 Total — 146

Verbal Effects. Verbal effect was the most frequent cause of laughter in Pajama Game. The first example of ver­ bal effects results in the laughter of derision/ridicule. Sid Sorokin and Babe Williams have been “eyeing” each other since early in the musical, but they have failed to get together. Finally, at the company picnic, Sid gets Babe alone and manages to kiss her. Afterwards he says,

SID. Gee, baby, you’re terrific. BABE. You’re not so bad yourself .. . . for a superintendent.17

Though Babe is only teasing him, she manages to ridicule him and the position he holds in the factory. Babe’s re­ sponse is a punch line that is nicely set up by the earlier line. The humor in this simple moment becomes even richer when one realizes that one laughs not only the laughter of 124

derision but also that of contrast/incongruity. Sid and Babe kiss in a very passionate way and as they part one ex­ pects something to be said or physically indicated which would reveal that the kiss was meaningful to both parties. Sid’s dialogue does so, as does Babe’s, until her punch line which is strongly contrasting to the moment. There­ fore, the resulting laughter is a combination of derision and contrast. Verbal effects result in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity when one hears the next speech. Hines, at the musical’s opening, tells the audience about things to come.

HINES. This is a very serious drama. It’s kind of a problem play. It’s about Capital and Labor. I wouldn’t bother to make such a point?of all this except later on, if you happen to see a lot of naked women being chased through the woods, I don’t want you to get the wrong impres­ sion. This play is full of sym­ bolism. I work in the Sleep Tite Pajama Factory in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (page 3)

Abbott and Bissell have made use of humorous remarks about a situation to set up their laugh. The result of this set up is the laughter of contrast. Two of the lines in Hines’ speech, ’’This is a very serious drama,” and ’’naked women being chased through the woods," are juxtaposed in such a way as to produce the laughter of contrast. Also within this example one can find secondary touches 125 of obscenity and play instinct. Obscenity applies in that nude bodies running through the woods can generally paint but one picture. Play instinct can be seen to indicate a possible unpleasant side to all this that is made funny through the comic situation which exists via the verbal effects. The third example of verbal humor results in the laugh­ ter of mechanization. Hines, the company’s time study man, is moving about the plant trying to pick up the tempo of the employees. The girls in the sewing room are telling jokes and are laughing heartily when Hines pops in.

HINES. All right, girls. Cut out the laughing. Cut out the laugh­ ing. Tempus fugit. Tempus fugit. (Hines exits.) FACTORY GIRLS. (Imitating him.) Waste — Waste — Waste!!! HINES. (Sticking his head back in.) Hurry up! (He exits.) (page 10)

The verbal repetition used by Hines and the mocking response by the girls results in the laughter of mechanization. Hines’ respective barks, ’’Cut out the laughing,” and “Tempus fugit,” are the verbal elements which produce the laughter of mechanization. After he leaves the room the girls respond mechanically with their "Waste -- Waste -- Waste!!I” The girls’ response is verbal satire belittling Hines which re­ sults in the secondary nature of laughter, derision. The last example of verbal effects results in the laugh­ ter of play instinct. The picnic is over and people are 126 leaving. Mabel tells a story to some of her friends as they leave.

MAX. Sounds gruesome to me. MABEL. That ain’t the worst of it. Come on, Charlie ... If I can make it, you can. Well, anyway, he was Elsie Bartlett’s second cousin. He fell into the concrete mixer when they were building the new bridge. CHARLIE. My God! MABEL. They never did find the body, so they poured the con­ crete and held the funeral on top of the second pier on the Illinois side. (page 74)

Mabel’s narrative is verbal humor that relates a funny story and makes use of some very unusual events. The re­ sulting laughter is that of play instinct because the un­ pleasant circumstances involved are treated in a humorous or playful way. Besides the laughter of play instinct one also finds the laughter of contrast present in the above example. The laugh­ ter of contrast is caused by three ideas. The first is that someone could fall into a cement mixer. The second is that if he did fall in, he couldn’t be found. And the third is that a funeral would be held at the site of the pier where the concrete he fell into was poured. Each instance is sadis­ tically funny and one compounds and supports the next as these verbal effects build to produce the laughter of play instinct and contrast. 127

Body in Physical Action. In Pajama Game, physical ac­ tion was responsible for a good portion of the musical’s humor. This fact is unusual because prior to this work, physical humor has not been a dominant force except in The Boys From Syracuse. The examples which follow can be con­ sidered typical of the physical humor in this musical. The first example results in the laughter of derision/ ridicule. Mr. Hasler, the boss of the Sleep Tite Pajama Company, has just scolded Gladys for having left the com­ pany ledgers on her desk unprotected. She had gone to the bathroom and hadn’t bothered to take them with her. She siezes the book and walks out nearly crying. Hasler runs out after her, but returss^hh©rt|iy.

HASLER. Gladys is crying. She’s hysterical. (He imitates her.) Gump. . . Gump. . . (page 44)

The physical action of Hasler mocking Gladys yields the laughter of derision for a number of reasons. Initially, the action of the moment does not suit the doer, Mr. Hasler Second is the silliness of the action. This would be funny if it were done by almost anyone, but since it is Hasler who does it, he as well as Gladys are subject to ridicule; thus the resulting laughter of derision is produced. The second example of humor caused by physical action takes place at a union meeting where the “Prez” tells 128 everyone that a meeting with Mr. Hasler has been arranged so that negotiations can begin on the seven and one-half cent raise. Mae, a very stout woman, is present and reacts with great joy.

MAE. (Fat girl.) We’ve won. We’ve won. Hooray! (Mae jumps up and down and squeezes the boy, nearly breaking him in two! She releases him and he collapses, holding his stomach.) Oh, I’m sorry, (page 91)

The physical action results in the laughter of contrast. One does not expect a woman to react as Mae does, nor does one expect a woman to be capable of squeezing anyone uncon­ scious, especially a male. One can also find the laughter of derision here. Mae’s ability to squeeze the young man unconscious is derisive to his physical prowess and to her “femininity.” The last example of physical action as a source of laughter results in the laughter of mechanization. In this scene Hines is once again prodding the sewing room employees to move even faster.

(HINES stamps the rhythm with his foot crazily and the girls work faster, and faster, and faster until . . .) (BLACKOUT) (page 24)

The girls’ being under the strain of Hines’ continual pres­ sure are forced to comply to his demands of “hurry up." 129

As Hines increases the tempo of the work, the girls* phys­ ical action takes on the characteristics of a machine. They almost become machines themselves. Even Hines’ phys­ ical action becomes machine-like. The result of this action is the laughter of mechanization. Obscenity. Humor achieved through the use of obscenity is used sparingly in this musical. The first example shows obscenity resulting in the laughter of derision.

(PREZ crosses to two factory girls. He goes up behind them and speaks to Virginia.) PREZ. (He gooses Virginia.) Her is the cutest onel VIRGINIA. (Jumps - squeals.) Ouch! (page 4)

The actual contact is the obscenity. Prez has very few scruples and frequently has his hands where they do not be­ long. The resulting derision is a reflection on both char­ acters. The Prez is belittled because of his low moral at­ titude, and Virginia is belittled because she does nothing about what has happened to her. She accepts the instance without any defense. Secondarily one will find emotional release supporting the derision in terms of resulting laughter because the phys ical action that takes place will generate a sexual response in the audience. Obscene humor results in the laughter of contrast/ 130 incongruity when the Prez attempts to get Mae to let him take her home from a union meeting which has taken place at Babe’s home late at night. He says:

PREZ. But Mae, there’s prowlers out at this hour of the night. MAE. Single ones, I hope! (She exits followed by Prez.) (page 115)

One anticipates, and Prez is hoping, that Mae will say, ’’Please take me home.” He speaks about the prowlers to frighten her, but instead stimulates her. Her response indidates that she is looking forward to the contact. That response results in the laughter of contrast. The obscenity lies in the implica­ tion that something might go wrong if she were to leave un­ escorted. One also finds that a touch of derision is produced by Mae’s line about the prowlers being single. The Prez is not single, yet he is always “hustling” the girls. This state­ ment is a direct reflection on his status of eligibility and derides or ridicules him. The last example of obscenity finds Hines trying on a pair of Sleep Tite pajamas when an unfortunate accident occurs because he is asked to take a deep breath.

(HINES takes a powerful breath. The button pops off the pants and down they go.) HASLER. My God! HINES. Oh, I’m sorry. (He starts to pull up the pajama pants.) 131

HASLER. No, leave ’em lay. (GLADYS enters, sees Hines and shrieks.) GLADYS. Oh! What are you doing? Playing games? (page 132)

The obscenity, Hines standing in his underwear in the pre­ sence of a woman, and Gladys’ asking, ’’What are you doing? Playing games?” results in the laughter of emotional release. This simple situation becomes complex, and sexual implications are dominant because of Gladys’ presence and her statement. Character Effects. The first example of character ef­ fects as a source of humor results in the laughter of deri­ sion as Hines, showing his jealousy again, is laughed at.

(GLADYS has put a.piece of paper on Sid’s desk. HINES watches it suspiciously. He becomes tense.) HINES. What you doing? Leaving him a note? Huh? (GLADYS gives him a dirty look.) Carrying on with Sorokin, huh? GLADYS. (Exasperated.) Oh, Vernon. HINES. I saw you leave that note on his desk. I’m not blind. That’s why you wore that low neck dress to work today. GLADYS. (She has on a very modest dress.) You make me scream, Ver­ non — you just make me scream. HINES. All right then, what’s in it? I dare you to tell me what’s in it. GLADYS. (Hands him note.) Read it, then cut your throat. HINES. (Strides to the desk and reads.) Okay payroll seven thousand five hundred and two dollars and one cent. (page 36)

Hines’ state of jealousy is so great that he fails to see 132

the fault in his character and amuses the audience through this fault. This weakness is prominent and is used rela­ tively often as a comic source in Pajama Game. In most in­ stances when it is used, the resulting laughter is that of derision as it is in the above example. Everytime this jealousy situation arises, Hines is belittled, made fun of, laughed at. One can also find play instinct as a nature of laugh­ ter in this passage. The situation is a frustrating and serious one for both characters, but because the authors treat it in a playful way, the viewer can laugh. Mae is the subject of the last example of humor caused by character- effects. One must remember that Mae has many masculine qualities; she is big, brawny, tough, and yet in search of a man. She does many things with great gusto and over indulgence, such as drinking beer, but she does have a limit and says so.

MAE. I draw the line at chewing tobacco. (page 111)

Mae’s lack of awareness of her physical build, of the amount she drinks, and of her strength combine to provide many u- nique and humorous moments. This limitation of which she speaks helps to clarify further a fault in her character of which she is unaware. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity. One does not expect to hear such a 133 comment from a woman, not even from Mae. Effects from Plot. The last source of laughter to be discussed is effects from plot. This example follows an event which is important to the development of the story line of the play. Some of the machinery in the factory has broken down, and Sid has sent a repair crew to fix it. When Sid arrives on the scene, the repair crew is not doing any­ thing. He responds angrily and pushes one of the helpers out of the way. The helper falls intentionally and then later files a complaint to the grievance committee. Sid’s push was not really that strong a push; it was just forceful enough to get the helper to back up. As fate would have it, the story spreads and mushrooms. Sid walks into his office and is greeted by Mabel in the following way:

MABEL. Mr. Sorokin! 1 told you to be careful. When I heard about you beating up that boy! (page 19)

The audience is able to laugh because it knows of the pre­ vious incident, and, therefore, realizes the ridiculous proportion to which the incident has grown. Effects from plot cause the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Summary. Pajama Game is one of the funniest plays or musical comedies with which Abbott has been connected. The quantity of laugh provoking instances exceeds all but one other work studied thus far. 134

There are several things in this musical which make it a little different from the other works. As has been the case previously, short speeches have been an Abbott trade­ mark. One finds, however, that in Pajama Game, some speeches get longer. They are, in comparison, longer than those in the earlier works studied in that some speeches have as many as eight or ten lines. This is in direct contrast to the very consistent one or two line speeches which dominated the other works. These long speeches cause something else in the musical to change; that is tempo or pacing. These longer speeches have to affect the pace of the show and cause it to vary more than in earlier works. Otherwise, one finds very little else that is unusual. Except for where these long speeches occur, the tempo remains very quick. The dialogue is clear, concise, and witty. Comic situations build and rebuild with great ease and ra­ pidity. The numberical breakdown of sources and natures of laughter is consistent with those previously analyzed. One finds verbal effects as the dominant source of laughter and derision/ridicule as the dominant nature of laughter.

IV. Damn Yankees Damn Yankees, which opened May 5, 1955, at the Forty- sixth Street Theatre in New York, ran for 1019 performances, The book for this musical comedy was written by George Abbott and Douglass Wallop; the music and lyrics were composed by 135

Richard Adler and Jerry Ross. Damn Yankees deals with base­ ball and how the Washington Senators beat the New York Yankees in a racé for the American League pennant. The mu­ sical is based on the novel The Year The Yankees Lost The Pennant by Douglass Wallop. Damn Yankees is about a middle-aged baseball fan, Joe Boyd, who is rooting for the last place Washington Senators. Joe blames all of the Senators' problems on the Yankees and is so upset about their plight that he says he would give anything to be able to beat the Yankees. At this moment Applegate, better known as Satan, and identified by his red sox, appears and makes an offer. Joe accepts the offer, but insists upon an escape clause. Applegate agrees to make Joe the greatest baseball player in the history of the game in exchange for his soul. Joe is immediately transformed from a paunchy fifty year old fan to a strapping twenty-two year old slugger. Joe becomes the great hero Applegate said he would and his brilliant playing is a rallying point for the rest of the team. But Joe’s popularity doesn’t relieve his loneli­ ness. He misses his wife and decides to return to their suburban home to see her even though she won’t recognize him He goes so far as to rent a room in his own house so that he can retreat there whenever he wants to. Applegate is dis­ turbed by this action and tries to discourage Joe from going 136 home. Applegate’s methods of discouragement are somewhat questionable, but it must be remembered who he is. Lola, Applegate’s cure for loneliness, fails to interest Joe; he is a true husband. Lola, understanding Joe’s reaction (she would like to be loved by that kind of a man) sympathizes with him and toward the end of the musical helps him. Joe tries to make use of the escape clause in order to save his soul, but because of the presence of Sister and ©oris, time runs out and he is caught. The next day the Senators are playing the Yankees in the game which will de­ cide the pennant winner. Lola helps Joe by drugging Applegate so that he sleeps through all of the game except the last out. As Applegate runs into the stadium, a fly ball is hit into center field where Joe is playing. Joe is racing toward the ball when Applegate lifts the spell. Joe manages to hold on, even though he is close to age fifty again, and catches the ball. The Senators win, Joe is saved from damnation, and every­ body except Applegate is happy. The happiness achieved at this musical comedy’s end was carried through in its reviews. Henry Hewes said,

The gleeful romp that ensues is a masterpiece of satire with special thematic use being made of the ball­ players* mincing swagger.18

A Newsweek staff writer said that '‘Damn Yankees is not 137 a homerun, but it is at least a single with the bases loaded with talent.”1^ The Herald Tribune*s Walter Kerr commented,

In short, ’Damn Yankees’ has an appealing idea, a couple of first- rate performers, and an intermittent flair for raising the roof. What it hasn’t got is staying power, a knack for hanging onto its gains and snow­ balling them into hilarity.20

One of the most outstanding reviews given this musical was written by Robert Coleman of the New York Daily Mirror.

Baseball is the great-national pastime, and we predict that ’Damn Yankees’ will become a great nation­ al entertainment. It’s packed with power all down the line, from lead- off man to pitcher. There isn’t a weak spot in the lineup. Here’s a pennant winner if we ever saw one. A real champI21

The '‘lineup” as Coleman called it was loaded with heavy hitters. Robert Shafer played Joe Boyd, Stephen Douglass played Joe Hardy, Jean Stapleton was Sister, Ray Walston was Applegate, Rae Allen was Gloria, and Gwen Verdon played the seductress, Lola. Several reviewers picked at the plot of Damn Yankees by saying there was too much of it. They were probably surprised at the length of the show’s run. The laughter and gaity the reviewers mentioned is plen­ tiful in Damn Yankees. Sources of laughter were used a total 138 of sixty-nine times. The breakdown by source is: Sources of Laughter Verbal effects ------36 Obscenity ------14 Body in physical action —- 10 Character effects ------9 Total------69 The natures of laughter were used in the following manner: Nature of Laughter Derision/ridicule------— 34 Contrast/incongruity ----- 29 Mechanization ------3 Emotional release ------— 3 Total------69

Verbal Ef fects. The most frequently used source of laughter in Damn Yankees is verbal effect. The first ex­ ample results in the laughter of derision. Gloria, a female sports writer, has tried unsuccess­ fully to get information from Joe Hardy about himself. She then turns to Applegate for the same and is again unsuccess ful. Although she is annoyed, she is trying to be nice.

GLORIA He played a nice game tonight. APPLEGATE His batting average went up four more points. Now it’s 524, not bad for a raw rooky. GLORIA (Exiting) Yes, very raw! APPLEGATE Lovely girl. I know she’ll make some nice young man very unhappy.22 139

Applegate’s attitude toward Gloria is made very clear by his use of wit. He has subtly and cleverly made his point. The resulting laughter is that of derision/ridicule because the statement contributes to the creation of a less favorable image of Gloria. One also finds in the same passage the supporting nature of contrast/incongruity. Applegate’s reply ending with '’unhappy” is not the one one expects him to say and, therefore, adds contrast to the resulting laughter. The second example of verbal effects is found in a con­ versation between Smokey and Sohovik. Smokey is working on a crossword puzzle.

SMOKEY Hey, Sohovik, what’s a three- letter word for a sticky sub­ stance? (SOHOVIK points in his mouth, where he is chewing gum.) Spit? No, that’s four. SOHOVIK Gum. SMOKEY Guml (page 23)

Smokey’s response to Sohovik*s physical action is a gag line as written by the authors and is the verbal humor. The re­ sulting laughter is contrast/incongruity because of the un­ expected nature of the response. The last example of humor caused by verbal effects re­ sults in the laughter of mechanization. Since Joe Hardy has come to the Senators, things have changed. They are in first place, and the manager, Benny, has cracked down on the team 140 regarding hours and extra-curricular activities. The lines which follow indicate the line of thought of most of the team members. ROCKY Benny says if we’re going to succeed in the big league we got to pay attention to all them strict rules. MICKEY Well, he’s right. (ALL assent.) ROCKY No drinking, now women — no late hours, no Women. You got to keep your mind on the game. (page 115)

Abbott’s and Wallop’s use of verbal repetition, a unique speech pattern, successfully creates a moment which results in the laughter of mechanization. Rocky seems to be locked into one primary thought: women. If the speech were to go on for several more lines, each phrase would undoubtedly end with "no women.” This can be verified in the song which fol­ lows and reveals a series of fantastic experiences many of the players have had with women. One can also find that character effects help to cause laughter in the above sequence. It is Rocky’s obsession with one idea -- women — that is a unique characteristic of his, and it is this characteristic which is a secondary cause of laughter. Obscenity. In the first example ofiehumor caused by obscenity, Applegate has introduced Joe to Lola. She is a 141 temptress used by Applegate to ruin various people. Apple- gate has brought her in to this situation to try to get Joe to forget about his wife. Lola tempts Joe again and again and eventually makes a blatant request.

LOLA . . . Joe, would you like to take me somewhere tonight? JOE Gee, I sure would like to, but you know what Mr. Van Buren would say. LOLA He’d say you lucky boy. JOE No, no, he’d say it’siil&te. He likes us to get to bed early. LOLA Any particular place? (pages 89-90)

Lola, through her suggestive statement, conveys the obsceni­ ty which causes the laughter. The resulting laughter is that of derision/ridicule because Lola is made to appear cheap and crude. One also finds that character effects sup­ port the obscenity as a source of laughter because it is Lola's ”free-sex” attitude, one of her major character traits which helps to cause the laughter. In addition, emotional re lease is also present as a nature of laughter because of the suggestion made by Lola. Being in bed with her connotes one thing — sex. The building suggestiveness in her tempting of Joe is capped by her final question ("Any particular place?” referring to being in bed) and the build up of erotic 142 inhibitions in the audience is finally released at this point and results in the laughter of emotional release. Obscenity is inferred in the next example which results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Joe has been re­ moved from the game because of trumped up charges concerning his amateur career. The team’s morale is down. They lost to Cleveland the day before and have to face the same team tod£.y. SOHOVIK What did the Cleveland Indians do to us yesterday? SMOKEY They murdered us. VERNON Nix on that stuff. SOHOVIK Beat! MICKEY Talk about something cheerful, will you. HENRY Yeah. Women. (pages 114-115)

Henry’s speech is indicative of the general way in which women are thought of under the circumstances of an all male group. Sex is the general topic of conversation. Though this is only a reference, the implication is clear and easi­ ly identified. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/ incongruity because a different kind of response is antici­ pated considering the conversation prior to this. Lola is again the means by which obscenity causes hu­ mor in this next example. She works hard at sexually arous­ 143 ing Joe. The resulting laughter is that of emotidnal re­ lease. Lola has climbed up on a bench in the locker room to examine some suitcases on top of the lockers. Once up there, she is afraid to come down and asks Joe to help.

LOLA (Looks down from bench as if from a precipice.) You help me down, please? JOE Oh sure. (He offers hand, but she pulls him to her and puts arm around neck, then slides safely down him.) LOLA (Hanging on for dear life.) Thank you. (page 88)

Lola, in playing her “helpless” game is attempting to draw Joe into an illicit relationship. Her actions in this ex­ ample are suggestive and stimulating. Qhei?¿^response, under these circumstances, is to laugh the laughter of emotional release. The last example of obscenity as a cause of laughter results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. The scene is the Senator’s locker room, and Gloria has entered. Van Buren speaks with her.

GLORIA Benny, you’re very foolish to have this prejudice against me just because I’m a woman. My paper gives you as much space as the others do. VAN BUREN I only wondered why you were 144

here so early. GLORIA I came down to see the naked men. (page 30)

Gloria’s response is the obscene statement. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity because Gloria’s statement is unexpected and strongly contrasted to the gist of the conversation. There is, in addition, a touch of der­ ision/ridicule present because Gloria is made to appear less wholesome by her statement. The Body in Physical Action. Physical nonsense is not highly prevalent in Damn Yankees, but there are a few in­ stances worthy of being recognized. The first example occurs in a scene between Applegate and Lola. She has told him a- bout some of her experiences. The conversation changes to Joe Hardy. LOLA Gee, they say he’s great. Clarence just raved about him. APPLEGATE Who’s Clarence?» LOLA You know -- (She puts her hands together and gestures diving motion.) (page 63)

This physical action clarifiesdLola’s statement. It tells the audience that Clarence is the man she corrupted and the one who committed suicide by jumping off a building. She had told this story, verbally, earlier in the musical, and 145 here it is simply restated physically. The laughter is that of derision/ridicule because Lola is seen as a more callous, less compassionate person. The next selection showing physical action as a cause of humor occurs at'¿the musical comedy’s opening. Joe Boyd is watching the Senators on television. He is totally en­ grossed in the game and has intense empathic responses to each and every event. As he watches, he argues with the umpire, compliments the players, and does other things which result in the laughter of contrast/incongruity.

JOB (Slides down in his chair.) Slide. (page 3)

Joe’s extensive empathy results in the physical action that causes the laughter. The resulting laughter is that of con­ trast/incongruity because his behavior is a-typical. The last example of physical action results in the laugh ter of mechanization. The scene is the dugout with several of thej.pl ayers and the coach standing in it looking out. Joe Hardy is at bat and they are watching him.

VAN BUREN and several players sit on the step of the dugout or stand leaning against the rail. All are looking out. They then look diagonally off left where the batters’ box is. They chew gum. There is another crack and all heads turn as they 146

follow the imaginary ball in flight. After the ball has land­ ed they all resume chewing gum violently till the next crack is heard, and the business is re­ peated once more. (page 35)

This example clearly shows physical action causing the laugh­ ter of mechanization. Each man is like an automaton, but each is wound up and operating in unison with the others. One laughs at such physical foolishness. Character Effects. This source of laughter was respon­ sible for only a small portion of this musical’s humor. The examples which follow are typical of the kind of humor caused by character effects. In the first example Joe Hardy is trying out for the Senators. He has batted a few times and has so impressed the coach that the coach wants to send him to a farm team for some seasoning. This is not acceptable to Hardy or Applegate Joe gets one more try.

VAN BUREN Get your bat. (Joe runs off. VAN BUREN calls off to the pitcher.) Buster. (He ges­ tures -- ’give him your tough­ est. ’ All watch intently. There is a loud crack. All the players jump up and come down­ stage. ) APPLEGATE More seasoning, eh? The ball’s only going for a 600-foot ride. VAN BUREN That’s the longest ball I ever saw in my life. 147

ROCKY (Gulps.) I swallowed my chewin’ tobacco. (page 41)

Rocky is so absorbed in his activity of watching that he forgets his tobacco and swallows it. This incident reflects a flaw in his character which he has to be aware of yet tries to hide. He has to be aware of this level of excitement and the reaction because after having swallowed the tobacco he will have remembered the taste. The laughter resulting is that of derision/ridicule since Rocky is made to appear simple minded — almost stupid. The last example of character effects as a cause of laughter involves Sister outside the ball park. She is there seeking autographs. Mr. Welch, the club owner, ap­ pears and she asks for his autograph. She apparently feels embarrassed about asking for it.

SISTER (Walks up to WELCH.) May I have your autograph, please? (WELCH looks nonplused, SIS­ TER smiles.) It’s for my niece -- she’s sick -- muscu­ lar diathermy. (page 51)

This character flaw is one that Sister is aware of but can­ not control. She wants the autograph, but feels stupid or insecure about seeking it and must make an excuse for her action. The resulting laughter isfeifehat of contrast/incongru­ 148

ity. Sister's excuse is so outlandish via the illness of her niece, that the laughter of contrast/incongruity results. Summary. Damn Yankees, in comparison to the plays or musicals already studied, is not unique. The qualities which made it a success are those same qualities which helped to make the other works succeed: clever dialogue construction, fast tempo, clarity, conciseness, and ease in building and rebuilding humorous moments. More than fifty per-cent of Damn Yankee's potential humor was caused by verbal effects and nearly all of the natures of laughter were either derision/ridicule or contrast/ incongruity. All other sources of laughter or natures of laughter were minimal in this musical. In terms of audience appeal, one finds that this musi­ cal again proves to be similar to the others. One does not need to be a highly sophisticated mor extremely intellectual individual to enjoy Damn Yankees. Most of this musical’s humor is directed at the average person.

IV. Tenderloin Tenderloin was based on a novel by Samuel Hopkins Adams. Music was composed by Jerry Bock and lyrics were written by Sheldon Harnick. George Abbott and Jerome Weidman combined their talents again after the very successful Fiorello to write the book for Tenderloin. But, as fate would have it, they were not as successful with this venture. They tried 149

to do as Abbott and Bissell had done in Pajama Game, main­ tain a middle-of-the-road approach to the musical’s subject matter, but failed. Generally, the critics found the script too undecided, too lacking in point of view, and having a poor mixture of the comic and the serious. Tenderloin opened at the Forty-Sixth Street Theatre on October 17, 1960, and ran for 216 performances. For a show that received mediocre to poor, and even bad reviews, it had a respectable run. The length of the musical’s run may have been aided by its three leading performers. Maurice Evans played Dr. Brock, Ron Husmann played Tommy, and Eileen Rodgers played Nita. They all received noteworthy reviews and apparently won con­ siderable praise from audiences who were willing to keep the show running as long as it did. Tenderloin is a musical comedy set in the 19th century in the ’’Tenderloin district” of New York City. Tie Tender­ loin was a district with many houses of ill-repute, gambling halls, and drinking establishments. Dr. Brock, a minister of a church in the Tenderloin, is making headlines as he preaches against the wildness of the area. Tommy, a very energetic writer for a magazine called The Tatler, manages to make friends with both Dr. Brock and the local police who get paid off by the prostitutes and madames. Playing both ends against the middle, Tommy makes 150

out well for quite a while. He gets a ten per cent cut from the police, exclusive stories from Dr. Brock, and makes many influential friends. In his battle, Dr. Brock manages to close down one of the businesses for a few days; then he learns from Tommy how things really are. He plans an invasion in which he and his friends visit a house in the Tenderloin in order to gather evidence to take to court. He is winning his battle against immorality until the police come up with a superimposed photo of the minister in bed with one of the prostitutes. Tommy comes to his rescue with the photo negative of the minister which was used for the phony picture, and thereby saves the minister, but betrays the police. The trial ends, and Tommy goes into hiding as he is being sought by the crooked police­ men. At the musical's end, Joe, one of theipafishioners who was not in on the invasion, marries Nita, one of the prosti­ tutes. She is very pretty, and one is led to believe that she will make a good wife. Brock has been discharged from his church because of the overly abundant publicity he and the church have received. He goes to Detroit. Tommy leaves New York, but plans to come back for Laura, a young and pure girl with whom he has fallen in love. The final scene shows Dr. Brock preaching in Detroit — this time against Detroit’s “Tenderloin,” the Maple Street district. 151

Theophilus Lewis wrote in America,

. . . It is never clear whether they IJhe playwrights] intended to write an indictment of vice or a satire on mor­ al crusading. The result of their neu­ trality is an amusing lampoon of an era of immaturity in which the high jinks in a fancy bordello are more exciting than the scenes in the vestry.33

Mr. Lewis felt that the musical had some merits and conclud­ ed his statements with, “Aging theatregoers will welcome pa Tenderloin as a valentine from the New York that used to be.”15 The New York Times* Howard Taubraan felt much the same as many of the critics. He said,

. . . With a happy touch ’Tenderloin* should be an endless source of any­ thing but innocent fun. But the execution is faulty. The fun is only fitful. The glaring weakness is in the point of view. The creators of ’Tenderloin* are not quite sure whether they are jesting or in earnest. They end by trying to have it both ways. They are for good and evil, and that leaves the show sitting on the fence.35

Harold Clurman also disagreed with Theophilus Lewis about Tenderloin’s catching the period’s excitement, and concluded his comments in The Nation with, ’’The reader will pardon me for taking a moment to indulge in personal remin­ iscence: They have a better flavor than Tenderloin.”26

Robert Coleman of the New York Mirror took a “swing” 152 at the producers as well as the playwrights.

Robert Griffith and Harold Prince have been leading the song-and-dance circuit with five straight hits, but they finally struck out last evening with ‘Tenderloin.1 George Abbott and Jerome Weidman also fared badly at bat, failing to cash in on the sock of the Samuel Hopkins Adams novel.2'

Although the critics largely condemned the show, audi­ ences did not wholly agree. One can’t know for sure why the show fan for as long as it did, but by looking at the comedy contained in it, it may be possible to discover a few of the reasons. There is a considerable amount of comedy in the musical. Through analysis of Tenderloin, it was found that the authors made use of 106 laugh provoking instances. The nu­ merical breakdown of the sources and natures of laughter are as follows: Sources of Laughter Verbal effects ------43 Character effects ------23 Body in physical action — 19 Comic idea ------11 Obscenity —-—------10 Total £----- 106 Nature of Laughter Contrast/incongruity ——- 58 Derision/ridicule ------45 Emotional release ------—■— 3 Total---- - 106 153

Verbal Effects. As in other plays and musicals, the most frequently used source of laughter in Tenderloin is verbal effect. The first example of humor caused by this source takes place near the beginning of the musical and is a part of a series of short vignettes. The resulting laugh­ ter is that of contrast/incongruity. Just prior to this ex­ ample a choir has sung about “this land of freedom and friend­ ship.”28 But it is soon learned that Reverend Brock is waging a war against the Tenderloin district of New York City.

GERTIE. (A prostitute.) Is that a Christian thing to do? Put ev­ erybody out of work? (page 5)

The comedy in Gertie’s statement comes from the way she suc­ ceeds in twisting the theme of Christianity which has been preached earlier. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/ incongruity because of the very unexpected nature of the statement and the source from which it comes. In the second example of verbal effects, Tommy as Ger­ tie did before him, attempts to do some twisting and bend­ ing of circumstances. He is seeking an exclusive interview with Dr. Brock. Tommy manages to see Brock but puts him­ self in a bad position right from the start.

TOMMY. (Earnest.) You’re a great orator, Dr. Brock. The great­ est since Democheles ... I mean Demosthenes. (page 23) 154

Tommy is caught at this moment in his lie. The invented name he uses, Democheles, immediately reveals his lie. He is talking over his head and is caught. The laughter re­ sulting from this moment is that of derision/ridicule. One sees that Tommy is not as sophisticated a person as he wants everyone to think. He succeeds only in belittling himself. Verbal effects resulting in the laughter of emotional release is what the last example of verbal effects provides. In this scene one is amused at the frankness of the conver­ sation between these two very innocent and relatively young, young ladies. The discussion stems from a newspaper account of the closing down of Spanish Anna’s. As the girls are reading the account, they are caught by Laura's uncle who scolds them for reading such filth.

JESSICA. Gee whiz. Men are certain­ ly peculiar. LAURA. They’re just afraid we’ll know as much as they do. JESSICA. Laura, do you know about things? I mean about disorderly houses? I mean, I know men go down there to find women. LAURA. Mostly it’s just adultery. JESSICA. Sure, and fornication. LAURA. Jessica, that *s a terrible word. JESSICA. Oh, no, it’s quite all right. Revelation: seventeen. Well, any­ how, it all means the same thing ... Though sometimes they call it sin and sometimes they call it ’Sweet Mystery of Life.’ (page 42) 155

The laughter is caused by verbal effects. The discussion is primarily about sex and results in the laughter of emo­ tional release. But contrast/incongruity can also be found in the resulting laughter. Two very prim and proper girls discussing sex so openly and frankly produces the laughter of contrast. Character Effects. The character of Joe Kovack causes the laughter in the first example of humor caused by charac­ ter effects. Several members of the congregation are opposed to Brock’s war against the Tenderloin and are attempting to get Joe to join them in their opposition. This question is under discussion when Brock enters.

BROCK. Well, Brother Purdy, what’s the crisis today? PURDY. Your last Sunday’s sermon. And it may interest you to know that Brother Kovack here agrees with me. BROCK. Do you, Joe? JOE. Well — Well, some of the peo­ ple down my way -- they think it’s a scandal to have a minis­ ter saying such bad things right out there in public. Now, I’m with you, Dr. Brock, and I’ll follow you straight to hellt (page 14)

The innocence of Joe Kovack is revealed through this very naive statement. One can recognize this over simplicity as a fault of which Joe is unaware. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity. Not many people would be 156 willing to follow anyone ’’straight to hell” as Joe says he would. Nor would many people think of a minister going to hell in the first place. This unexpected statement brings about the laughter of contrast. The last example of character effects as a cause of laughter reveals the despicable hature of a photographer who works at Spanish Anna’s and Clark’s. The resulting laughter is that of derision/ridicule.

GERTIE. You wouldn’t make dirty pic­ tures, would you, Deacon? DEACON. I’m an artist — I’ll do any­ thing for money. (page 57)

The Deacon’s self-deriding statement, which causes the humor, reflects the depraved nature of his character. He is aware of this fault, but does nothing to change it. The derisive nature of the resulting laughter adds strength to the nega­ tive connotations of Deacon’s line. The Body in Physical Action. In the first example of the body in physical action used as a source of laughter, Tommy has made some drastic changes in his character, and he and Laura have become very close friends. They are at a park one afternoon, and Tommy is taking pictures. He has tak en several of Laura and wants one more.

TOMMY. One sitting down. LAURA. (Laughing and resisting.) No. (They struggle. He wrestles with her and gets her to the ground. 157

The intimate contact affects them both. There is a slight embar­ rassed pause. Then he retreats, picks up his camera, and takes a picture while she sits very still.) (page 71)

The contact, more than is permissable at this time in history, is the cause for the laughter. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity and is produced by the sudden docile action after the very physical action of the couple. The second example of physical action as a source of laughter comes about because of Tommy’s behavior when he is in the presence of Ellington. Ellington is a very wealthy and, for his time in history, a dandy fellow. Tommy attempts to copy his behavior and speech patterns.

TOMMY. (Looking after Ellington and twirling his cane in imitation of the elegant young swell.) The second, huh? (page 12)

The action of copying Ellington is the physical action serv­ ing as the source of laughter. The resulting laughter is that of derision/ridicule. It works in two ways here. Tom­ my is in essence simultaneously mocking and copying Elling­ ton. By mocking him, laughter is provoked. By copying him, laughter is again provoked because one cannot imaging Tommy in that role. He does not fit the mold of the swell. He is, therefore, ridiculing himself. Comic Idea. Though comic idea is used infrequently in 158

Tenderloin, there are a few moments that should be looked at as sources of laughter. Dr. Brock, at this point in the story, has been success­ ful in his war against the Tenderloin. He has been receiving mail, most of which is in support of his efforts. Several members of his congregation, however, are not pleased with his actions.

MARTIN. Dr. Brock? BROCK. (To Purdy and Joe.) Go into my office, both of you, and read some of the mail I’ve re­ ceived on the subject. MARTIN. It’s about your lecture to the Ladies’ Auxiliary — ? BROCK. (To Purdy and Joe.) The let­ ters in the little pile are the ones that disapprove of what IJm doing. (Purdy and Joe exit through the upstage door.) MARTIN. The ladies suggested that instead of your subject being local slum conditions, you give them your talk about the Holy Land. BROCK. (Sighs wearily.) Very well. (page 15)

This comic sequence is a clear statement of what the authors see as a fault in the society. No one wants to hear about nor attempt to cure the ills that cause decay within that society. The Ladies’ Auxiliary chooses to hear about the Holy Land rather than local slums, and the resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity. Tn the next example of comic idea used as a source of laughter, Tommy is caught in a lie. He asks Laura if she 159 would like to read a poem he wrote in her honor. She, of course, wants to read it and does so.

LAURA. Should I read it now? TOMMY. Sure. Read it out loud. (She gives him her cup and takes the poem.) LAURA. (Reads aloud.) ’To the prettiest girl in the choir. ’ ’She walks in beauty, like the night Of cloudless climes and starry skies And all that’s best of dark and bright Meet in the aspect of her eyes.’ TOMMY. That last line was a tough one. I couldn’t quite decide whether ’meet in the aspect and her eyes’ or ’meet in the aspect of her eyes.’ LAURA. (Indignant.) Honestly! TOMMY. (Surprised.) You don't like it? LAURA. I like it very much. TOMMY. (Smug.) I thought it was pretty good. LAURA. Lord Byron thought so, too! TOMMY. (Deflated.) Oh. (pages 46-47)

Tommy’s lies and plagiarism in this instance get him into trouble with a girl he likes very much. It is a circumstance that shows the low level to which some people will go — a fault which is all too often identifiable in society. The laughter resulting is that of derision/ridicule. Tom­ my is made to appear as a far less desirable person because of his cheap trick. Obscenity. Most of the obscene moments in Tenderloin take place at Clark’s. This first example of obscenity as a source of laughter is taken from a conversation between 160

Frye and Gertie. She has a roll of bills in her hand.

FRYE. (Approaching Gertie, leering at her money.) What do you do, print that stuff? GERTIE. I told you I was a thirty dollar girl. FRYE. Let me know when you get marked down. (They dance.) GERTIE. (Bargaining with him.) Twenty dollars? Fifteen? (He is indif­ ferent.) Ten! Five? — Three? -- How about a dollar thirty? — My treat! (page 60)

The obscenity stems, naturally, from the subject of the negotiations. As Gertie attempts to sell herself for less and less, the situation becomes more and more ludicrous. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity. One does not expect a prostitute to haggle over price in such a manner. One can also find a touch of emotional release pre­ sent in the resulting laughter because of the subject matter The next example of obscenity results in the laughter of derision. A group of people are about to stage a “horse race” in the bar area. Two girls are on the shoulders of two men as Maggie suddenly appears, interested in the race.

MAGGIE. (Still naked. She pokes her head out of upper tier.) Hey, who won the race? MAN. (Pulls her back.) Come back here. . . (page 51)

Maggie’s sudden and naked appearance from a room above and her being quickly whisked back by a man establishes the 161 obscenity. It is more than clear that things sexual are or have been underway and will be continued. The lack of modesty displayed by Maggie in her unexpected nude appearance results in the laughter of derision. This laughter is further sup­ ported by both contrast/incongruity for the surprise element and by emotional release for the sexual stimulation experi­ enced by the audience. The last example of obscenity as a source of laughter takes place on the street. Nellie, a prostitute, is trying to get a man.

Joe enters at right and meets Nellie at center as two drunks enter at right. One is a bum; the other is elegantly attired. Joe tips his hat to Nellie and her admirer (the bum) sits down with a thump at right cen­ ter. Nellie meets the dressy drunk, solicits, but he passes out cold on the ground at right center. (page 50)

Nellie is not modest or discreet about her solicitations. They are blatant and are understood easily by everyone. The resulting laughter is that of emotional release because of the nature of Nellie’s business. The emotional release is sup­ ported by contrast/incongruity because of the apparent effect of Nellie’s solicitation. Each man she comes close to passes out. This action is not suspected or usual. Summary. Tenderloin does not differ from the rest of the co-authored works studied in this chapter. The writing 162 style is consistent in that there are the usual signs of the Abbott influence. One sees the significant use of short speeches with careful dialogue construction. This leads to the easy building and rebuilding of laugh provoking instances. The dialogue is concise and clear. This simplistic touch aids in keeping the pace crisp and requires very little intellect­ ual strength nor extremely low taste to enjoy the material. Ingstudying the numerical breakdown of sources of laugh­ ter in Tenderloin, one finds that the primary source of laughter is, as one finds in the rest of the plays and musi­ cals, verbal effect. Character effect is the second most frequently used source which is somewhat unusual. Another change in frequency of usage happened with the natures of laughter. Contrast/incongruity was the most fre­ quently used element as opposed to derision/ridicule being the usual first place element. No other Abbott work, au­ thored, or co-authored, has provided this result. It is, how­ ever, necessary to point out ‘that generally contrast/incongru­ ity and derision/ridicule are relatively close in frequency of usage. For example, in Broadway the only two natures of laughter used were derision/ridicule (31) and contrast/ incongruity (17); in Three Men On A Horse the numerical breakdown of these two elements was derision/ridicule (47) and contrast/incongruity (36); in Pajama Game, derision/ ridicule (71) and contrast/incongruity (61); and in Damn 163

Yankees, derision/ridicule (34) and contrast/incongruity (29). It is not too surprising to find that at least once the leadership changes hands.

What all this indicates is that just once in these five

works derision/ridicule was not the most used nature of

laughter, and one might assume that Jerome Weidman, Abbott’s

co-author, may have influenced the kinds of laughter pro­

duced by Tenderloin. It might also be assumed that the

Weidman influence resulted in character effects being the

number two item under sources of laughter.

This writer finds it interesting to note after having

indicated a possible influence by Weidman on Tenderloin, that

it is this musical which was the least successful of all the

works studied in this chapter. This musical ran for 216

performances, while Broadway ran for 603, Three Men On A

Horse for 835, and Pajama Game and Damn Yankees for over

1000 each. Weidman and Abbott had worked together on Fior­ ello which appeared before Tenderloin and was highly success­ ful (795 performances). Fiorello, however, was basically

serious and did not lend itself to study for this paper. It

is interesting to note that Fiorello has a fairly complex plot and that one of the criticisms leveled against Tender­ loin is its overly complex plot. So here again it appears as though the Weidman influence must be given consideration and can possibly be a partial cause for a less successful venture

in Broadway theatre. 164

VX. Conclusion

This chapter has presented a cross-section of Abbott’s works that vary widely in subject matter and historical per­ iod. These plays and musicals do have many common elements. One of these common elements is that each and every work has used verbal effect as its primary source of laughter. This fact is overwhelmingly true since verbal effects represent close to fifty per cent of the laugh provoking incidents in these plays or musicals. Generally the most frequently used nature of laughter is derision/ridicule. The one exception to that is the musical Tenderloin where contrast/incongruity is the most frequently used nature of laughter". Because the numerical analysis remains significantly consistent in all five works, one can say that though Abbott has worked with other individuals in writing these plays, his influence has been considerable on the kinds of humor used in each play or musical. Jerome Weidman, co-author of Tender­ loin, seems to have been the only person who might have in­ fluenced the total outcome of a musical’s humor. It is in this musical, Tenderloin, that character effects has taken a second place rating under sources of laughter while in oth­ er works studied it is usually found further down the scale. Also in Tenderloin, as stated above, contrast/incongruity for the first time was the most frequently used nature of 165 laughter. These facts are true, but the numerical values are so close that these changes cannot be held to be highly significant. (Specific reference to this subject was made in the summary of Tenderloin.) What is significant, perhaps, is the apparent influence of Weidman. The stylistic elements which have been the keys to the successful development of the plays and musicals, namely simplicity, clarity, building and rebuilding with ease, and quick tempo, have held true, generally, in these five works. In only one instance has the length of speeches shown a sig­ nificant change and that is in Pajama Game. These longer speeches influence the tempo of that musical but also aid in making the romantic moments, of which there are several, more realistic or believable. Audience appeal for these plays and musicals is the same as is found to exist in the works in Chapter 11, Authored Works. The dependence on verbal humor keeps the plays and musicals at a fairly respectable level of appeal, yet they are not what one might call primarily witty. Abbott and his co-authors do make use of elements of farce and some blatant obscenity which lowers the standards of the works involved. What this means, then, is that these Abbott works appeal to a wide cross-section of humanity which possesses a modicum of intelligence yet is not above a lusty joke or display. This appeal is to a large segment of society and helps to increase the possibility of success. 166

All of the works examined in this chapter were, at the time of their writing, new ideas or adaptations from novels.

Broadway and Three Men On A Horse were original ideas devel­ oped by Abbott’s respective co-authors and he was asked to help write the plays. The musicals Pajama Game, Damn Yankees, and Tenderloin were all adapted from novels. The libretti were written by Abbott with the authors of those novels ex­ cept in the case of Tenderloin where Jerome Weidman took the place of novelist Samuel Hopkins Adams as Abbott’s co-librettist

This fact is important when it is remembered that the au- thored^wosks of Chapter II were all adaptations from plays.

This shows further flexibility in Abbott’s creative ability.

He shows an ability to work well with ideas or rough scripts as seen in the case of Three Men On A Horse and Broadway. A further skill is demonstrated by his ability to pull dramatic literature from novels. 167

Footnotes

1 Brooks Atkinson, ’’Behind the Bright Lights,” The New York Times, 17 September 1926, p. 19. 2Tb id. 3lbld. 4Phillip Dunning and George Abbott, "Broadway,” Famous* Plays of Crime and Detection (Philadelphia: The Blakiston Company, 1946), p. 576. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. ^George Abbott, Mr. Abbott (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 174. ^Glenville Vernon, ’’The Play,” The Commonweal, 15 February 1935, p. 458. 7»’The Drama,” The Catholic World, March 1935, p. 724. 8"Mother’s Day Goes for a Ride,’* Literary Digest, 9 Feb­ ruary 1935, p. 20. °Brooks Atkinson, ’’Three Men On A Horse,” The New York Times, 31 January 1935, p. 22. i°John Cecil Holm and George Abbott, Three Men On A Horse (New York: Dramatists Play Service, Inc., 1934),’ p. S'. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. ÜWalter Kerr, "The Pajama Game,” New York Herald Tribune, 14 May 1954, found in The New York Theatre Critics' Reviews (New York: Critics’ Theatre Reviews, Inc., 1954), vol. 15, p. 324. 13william Hawkins, ’’’Pajama Game’ Hits Fast Pace,” New York World Telegram and The Sun, 14 May 1954, found in The New York Critics * Reviews, vol. 15, p. 324. l^Broolcs Atkinson, ’‘Theatre in Review: ’Pajama Game’,” pie New York Times, 14 May 1954, found in The New York Theatre Critics * Reviews, vol. 15, p. 325. 14John Chapman, ’’’Pajama Game’ A Funny and Frisky Musical Romp at the St. James,” Daily News, 14 May 1954, found in The New York Theatre Critics’ Reviews, vol. 15, p. 326. Wolcott Gibbs, ’’The Best At Last," The New Yorker, 22 May 1954, p. 68. löHarold Clurman, "Theatre," The Nation, 29 May 1954, p. 470. 17George Abbott and Richard Bissell, The Pajama Game (New York: Random House, 1954), p. 71. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. l8Henry Hewes, "Broadway Postscript," Saturday Review, May 21, 1955, p. 44. 19»’Theatre: The Bases Loaded,” Newsweek, May 16, 1955, p. 96. 168

20walter Kerr, “Damn Yankees,” Herald Tribune, May 6, 1955, found in The New York Theatre"Critics’ Reviews, ed. Rachel W. Coffin (New York: Critics’ Theatre Reviews, Inc., 1955), vol. 16, p. 310. 21Robert Coleman, ’’’Damn Yankees’ Headed for a Sockeroo Hit If” Daily Mirror, May 6, 1955, found in The New York Thesttre Critics’ Reviews, vol. 16, p. 311. 22George Abbott and Souglass Wallop, Damn Yankees (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 80. Unless otherwise indi­ cated, all subsequent references are to this source. 23Theophiius Lewis, "Tenderloin,”. America, December 3, I960, p. 356. 24Ibid. 25Howard Taubman, "The Theatre: Virtue vs. Vice to Music," The New York Times, October 18, 1960, found in The New York Theatre Critics' Reviews, ed. Rachel W. Coffin (New York: Critics’ Theatre Reviews, Inc., 1960), vol. 21, p. 205. 26Harold Clurman, "Tenderloin," The Nation, November 5, I960, p. 353. 2'Robert-Coleman, "’Tenderloin* Comes Up More Like Meat­ balls," New York Mirror, October 18, 1960, found in The New York Theatre~CrTtics' Reviews, vol. 21, p. 207. 28Jerome Weidman and George Abbott, Tenderloin (New York: Random House, 1961), p. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references are to this source. 169

CHAPTER IV

THE DOCTORED PLAYS

By the late nineteen thirties, George Abbott had ac­

quired a reputation as an invincible play doctor. His rep­

utation was such that it was thought he could fix any and

all plays. This chapter deals with two plays that Abbott

doctored: Poppa (1928) and Page Miss Glory (1934).

In the absense of sufficient evidence, it is not pos­

sible to describe the extent of Abbott’s involvement in re­

writing these plays. Hende, the strategy of including them in this study rests largely upon identifying and describing’

the humor of these plays, compared with those in which Ab­

bott’s contribution is clearly identified. Although no defin

itive conclusions may be drawn from the results, it seems

reasonable to suggest that there might be evident similari­

ties between the comic characteristics of these plays and Abbott’s own, thus providing additional insights into his

comic method.

I. Poppa Poppa, co-authored by Samuel and Bella Spewack, opened

December 24, 1928, at the Biltmore Theatre in New York City

to tepid reviews.

Brooks Atkinson of The New York Times wrote the follow­

ing comments: 170

By attempting to serve the two masters of human drama and ready made burlesque, the fabricators of Poppa . . . make the playgoer’s lot a perplexing one. For if he delights in the rough-hewed humors of a musical comedy type of buffoon, the pathetic story of an east side Jewish family is consistently intruding. If he suspects that the authors, Bella and Sam­ uel Spewack, really had alderman Schwitz- ky uppermost in their minds, the comic- strip antics of young Herbert Schwitzky diverts the plot more than the enjoy­ ment. Despite the many funny passages that have been worked into the-perfor- mance, ostensibly to please the Broadway art lovers, Poppa is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. It looks lively without being genuinely hilarious in its heart. . . . Herbert stages an elaborate jail-break with revolvers and gunmen in the best motion-picture style. Such in­ jections of comedy you might not resent if they grew out of character and situ­ ation. But they are so obviously insert­ ed for the trade that they destroy what­ ever qualities Poppa may have as a drama of Jewish America on the lower east side.1

The drama editor for Theatre Magazine said,

The authors, Bella and Samuel Spewack, have written a mediocre play, in the same language as Abie *s Irish Rose, and even though it will not attract Theatre Guild audiences, it might reach the horde of inane followers of Anne Nichols* success, and so flourish into one of the best box office attractions. There are a few ex­ tremely humorous situations, but who wants to spend three hours in sullenness for three or four laughs. . . . and the father ‘Pincus Schwitz­ ky, ’ splendidly characterized by Jakial Goldsmith, albeit his dialect was not consistently pure.2 171

The last editor was wrong when he said the play might become

“one of the best box office attractions.” Poppa ran for ninety-six performances, which is next to the shortest run of any of the plays or musicals in this study. The story of Poppa is concerned with a lower east side

Jewish family.

Mr. Schwitzky is one of those cross eyed idealists who cannot see his promising insurance business, al­ though it’s right under his nose, but follows a political career, by means of which he will be able to help poor people to have incinerators, frigi- daires and telephones in their own homes; in fact in their very dining rooms. While his wife stints here and sprints there to make things meet, and the moronic son, ’Hoibert,’ scrapes together enough money to send for six- sevenths of all the articles on the mail order market, his father has been elected alderman, through the unethi­ cal intrigues of some politicians who eventually double-cross the victim to save themselves. ’Ruth Schwitzky,’ the daughter and sole provider, not only earns a fine salary as stenographer, but also gets herself affianced to her employer, Philip Rosenthal, an ’uptown* lad, whose mother objects to the ’Schwitz­ ky ’ annexat ion. Strangely enough, through one of ’Hoibert’s' ’trial period-purchases,’ a dictaphone, with which he had been secretly tinkering during one of the frame-up visitations of ’Jake Harris’ and ’Big Boy Shapiro,’ provides re­ corded evidence against the offenders. Peace and prosperity are thus brought of the ’Schwitzky* sanctum through the loutish son and the swankish son-in-law. 172

Poppa, though not the most successful of plays, does

provide material for the study of comic devices. There were

eighty-nine laugh provoking instances in the play. The nu­

merical breakdown is as follows: Source of Laughter

Verbal effects ------42 Body in physical action -- 28 Character effects ------14 Obscenity ------3 Comic idea ------2 Total —— 89

Nature of Laughter

Derision/ridicule ------51 Contrast/incongruity ---- - —- 24 Play instinct------7 Mechanization ------7 Total —— 89

Verbal Effects. Verbal effect is the most frequently

used source of laughter in Poppa. The first example results

in the laughter of derision/ridicule, the most frequently

used nature of laughter. Mrs. Schwitzky has been complain­

ing about her lazy son and husband. Herbert^ her son, is

present and responds to her complaint.

HERBERT. I could have been a doctor if Pop sent me to college. MRS. SCHWITZKY. They kicked you out from high school.

Mrs. Schwitzky*s funny remark about Herbert is the verbal effect. That statement causes derisive laughter which be­

littles Herbert. One can also say there is a touch of 173

contrast/incongruity in the nature of laughter because of

the contrast between what Herbert sees himself as and what

he really is. The next example is drawn from Mrs. Finkel, a neighbor,

and results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity.

MRS. FINKBL. (Into phone.) Hello . . . Dolores . . . Dolores, your father has an operation ... an operation ... on the toenail in Mount Sinai . . . on the foot . . . The tonsils they’ll take out next week . . . (page 46)

This clever dialogue construetionoacts as the verbal effect

which causes laughter. The word combinations and phrases

with well placed pauses result in the laughter of contrast/

incongruity. It is not very often that Mount Sinai has a

toenail removed. The last example of verbal humor results in the laughter of play instinct. In this example, Mrs. Schwitzky has gone

to the jail to try to bail out her husband. He has been

framed by Harris and Shapiro. Mrs. Schwitzky appears at the

jail with seventy-five dollars, only a small portion of what

is needed.

MRS. SCHWITZKY. It’s not enough? Maybe it’ll be enough for a deposit, and then every three months ---- (page 81) 174

This verbal effect, humorous remarks related to a situation, results in the laughter of play instinct, or the unpleasant taken playfully. It is humorous that Mrs. Schwitzky could possibly hope to be able to make payments on bail. The sit­ uation is unpleasant for Mr. and Mrs. Schwitzky, but the audience cannot help but laugh at this unique situation.

The Body in Physical Action. The first example of physical action as a source of laughter results in the laugh­ ter of derision/ridicule. Herbert has a habit of sending for all kinds of articles. This time his mother has caught him and reads the advertisement before he can mail it. He is planning to send for a dictaphone. She, of course, says no.

HERBERT. Aw, there’s big money sell­ ing dictaphones . . . Aw, what’s the use of talking? You don’t understand. (Goes to desk and sits on swivel chair; props his feet on desk.) I’m trying to get set. MRS. SCHWITZKY. You’ve been setting for five years . . . Take your feet off your Poppa's desk, you loafer. (She knocks Herbert’s feet from the desk.) (page 10)

Mrs. Schwitzky is quite annoyed |t this point and does not hesitate to push Herbert around. When she knocks his feet off the desk, she succeeds in belittling him. Herbert is twenty-three years old and to be treated in such a way at that age is humiliating. Thus, the resulting laughter is that of derision/ridicule. 175

. Herbert again serves as the subject of laughter in

this next instance of physical humor which results in the

laughter of contrast/incongruity.

At rise: Herbert holding chair in one arm and a correspondence shcool book on dance lessons in the other. He is a young boy, 23 years old, of a dumb, goof type. He counts from the book while dancing — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 and then again — 1 — 2 — 3 -- 4. He uses the chair as if he were dancing with a-jfemale partner and continues to dance on small rug. (page 6)

Dancing with a chair while holding the lesson book and con­ fining oneself to a small area presents an image that is funny. The physical act results in the laughter of contrast/ incongruity which this moment provides because there is no music and no partner.

Physical humor resulting in the laughter of play in­ stinct is demonstrated in the next example. Harris has framed Pincus and has brought a detective to the apartment to arrest him. Pincus hides in a fake incinerator, but

Herbert manages to reveal him.

HERBERT. (At incinerator door.) Look — you open this door and throw the garbage in. (Sees Pincus inside.) Hey, Pop! (page 76)

Herbert, as usual, has the knack for doing the wrong thing.

Pincus peering out of the incinerator door presents an 176 unusual picture which can be humorous. Herbert’s action of revealing .the location of his father causes the laughter of play instinct — the serious taken playfully. The situation is a serious one for the characters, but the audience laughs because of the play-like circumstances.

The final example of physical action used to cause laughter results in the laughter of mechanization. Mr.

Harris and Mr. Shapiro have come to Pincus trying to per­ suade him to run for alderman. Pincus asks Harris to sit down. HARRIS. Thanks! (Harris reaches into coat for cigars and gives one to Pincus. Pincus looks at the ci­ gar.) Take it. (Pincus takes it. Shapiro takes cigar from his own pocket, and as Harris puts cigar in his mouth, Shapiro does like­ wise, and Pincus does likewise. The three in unison spit the end of the cigar out.) (page 40)

The physical action causes the laughter of mechanization.

The actions of each character during these moments are tied together in such a way that they appear to be robots or ma­ chines controlled by an outside force.

Character Effects. The first example of character ef­ fects as a source of laughter results in the laughter of derision/ridicule. The circumstances in this situation re­ veal a weakness in Herbert’s character. Herbert has gone looking for a job. Instead of getting the job, he bought an expensive fur coat. Everyone wants to know where and 177 how he got the coat.

MRS. SCHWITZKY. Then where did you get the coat? HERBERT. I bought it. RUTH. With what? HERBERT. Never mind what with. My credit is good. MRS. SCHWITZKY. Since when? Mar­ jorie’s cousin must be crazy. HERBERT. He ain’t so crazy. He heard who my sister’s marrying, all right. He knows you’ll stand good for the coat, Phil. Gee, you’re high with him, Phil. (page 19)

Herbert’s character is made quite clear in this segment. The fault he reveals is one that he is apparently aware of but does not desire to change. His actions are self-derisive.

One finds very little to like about Herbert in this sequence or any where else in the play. This example succeeds in de­ riding him even further. The next example shows character effects resulting in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Pincus has just come home. His habit of welcoming himself home is very unusual.

PINCUS. (Three decisive rings at the door up left.) Does Mr. Pincus Schwitzky live here, maybe? No? Yes? Come in . . . Come in . . . (page 28)

This little ceremony is unique and presents an interesting aspect of Pincus’ character. The laughter is that of contrast/ 178

incongruity for these circumstances and events are very un­

usual . Obscenity. Though obscenity in this play is gentle as

compared to that in other plays, it must be recognized as

obscenity. The first example results in the laughter of

derision. Mrs. Schwitzky is talking with Marjorie, a girl

who likes Herbert very much. The topic, generated by Mrs.

Schwitzky, turns to marriage. •

MRS. SCHWITZKY. If you take my advice, Marjorie, stop going around with Herbert. MARJORIE. But I like Herbert. He’s different. MRS. SCHWITZKY. Herbert’s poppa! He was also different. MARJORIE. But who’s thinking of getting married. We’re only going around together. MRS. SCHWITZKY. Better go around with a boy who can give you a home and not just children. (page 13)

The sexual reference is the obscenity. As indicated earli­

er, it is not blatant, but it is an obscene reference result­

ing in the laughter of derision. The person who is derided

is Herbert. He is belittled by his mother’s reference that

he is not capable of anything else but giving Marjorie child­

ren. The next example of obscenity deals with one of Herbert’s

girl friends, a stripper. He has promised to marry her, then decides to back out. She comes to his house in protest.

There is a large group of»people present. 179

FIFI. You can’t get away with that on me! I slipped out just as I am. I’m going to settle this right here and now! (She whisks off her coat and is revealed in a burlesque show costume — very scanty. She walks toward L., turns front, displaying her na­ kedness, then turns her back and puts hands on hips with back to audience, tapping her foot up and down.) (page 72)

Fifi’s lewd appearance and her actions compose the obsceni­ ty which causes the laughter of contrast/incongruity. Her attire, compared to that of the rest of the people in the group — Mrs. Rosenthal, Mrs. Schwitzky, Ruth, Pincus, Her­ bert, and Phil — sets her up in a strong contrast to them.

t Comic Idea. Apartment living becomes the setting for humor in the next example. Mrs. Finkel lives above Mrs.

Schwitzky. Mrs. Schwitzky is cleaning her rug out her win­ dow. MRS. FINKBL. (Off stage as if from above.) Mrs. Schwitzky, please! Only this minute I opened the window for a catch of fresh air. MRS. SCHWITZKY. (Stops shaking rug at ’please.’) Oh, excuse me, Mrs. Finkel, what I’m sending the dust up to you. My Herbert said you wasn’t home. (page 7)

The laughter here is caused by comic idea -- what the drama tist sees as compared to what ought to be. The caverns of apartment exteriors very often serve as a funnel and dust flows up these draughts easily. This situation needs cor­ 180 recting as implied by the authors, but at this moment provides laughter as Mrs. Finkel gets a face full of dust. The re­ sulting laughter is that of play instinct. Mrs. Finkel is the subject of a very unpleasant event, but the situation is treated playfully. Summary. Poppa has characteristics which are similar to many of Abbott’s plays. Such items as verbal effects be­ ing the dominant source of laughter and derision/ridicule being the dominant nature of laughter are typical of other

Abbott plays. The speeches in the play are generally short and, for the most part, clear. The only time clarity is lacking is when one hears speeches that are highly dialectal, and then these speeches need to be decifered. Because of the ethnic nature of the characters, certain language pat­ terns are essential, and if one is not used to hearing that dialect and pattern, a problem in understanding could exist. This strong ethnic nature presents anotherf>problem, i audience appeal. Not all theatre goers are prepared to en­ joy a play heavily dependent on an extreme Jewish dialect. Therefore, it is limited in its appeal.

The mixture of drama and comedy, as put together in

Poppa, is, at times, ill-fitting. Some of Herbert’s antics are very ill-timed and result in disgust as opposed to laugh­ ter. This indicates that perhaps the scenes were inserted or taCked on for laughs and not carefully blerided into the 181

play’s plot. They are generally not an integral part of

the play’s structure. These various limitations are reflected in the length

of the run of the play. Ninety-six performances, even in

1928, was not a successful run.

II. Page Miss Glory

Joseph Schrank’s and Phillip Dunning’s play, Page Miss

Glory, opened in December of 1934 at the Mansfield Theatre

in New York. The play ran for sixty-three performances.

It received mixed reviews.

The drama critic for Catholic World said of the play,

Every successful laugh cue for the last two years have been industri­ ously mingled in this latest farce from the Abbott-Dunning play factory; . . . but the farce reminds us of an institutional baby. It has been written and nurtured by well-trained technicians but it has never been fondled. It has no trace of joyous nonsense.5

The staff writer for Newsweek said,

Page Miss Glory is the funniest play on Broadway. The hilarious tale of Click Wiley’s promotion schemes o- pened last week at the Mansfield theatre . . . Page Miss Glory runs so smoothly it is hard to realize the difficulties involved in its early history.6

That the play is funny is indicated by the fact that 182 there were 167 laugh provoking instances. The numerical breakdown for each source of laughter and nature of laugh­ ter is as follows: Sources of Laughter

Verbal effects ------68 Body in physical action ------58 Character effects ------21 Obscenity------12 Plot effects------6 Comic idea------2 Total ——167 Nature of Laughter

Derision/ridicule ------69 Contrast/incongruity ------67 Play instinct ------14 Mechanization ------— 12 Emotional release------5 Total — 167

The story of Page Miss Glory is a unique one. Click

Wiley, a hustling promoter, invents a scheme to make a lot of money which he and his photographer friend, Ed Olsen, badly need. They are in considerable debt, including a very big hotel bill. The scheme consists of creating the most beautiful woman in the world, through a photograph, and entering this picture in a beauty contest and thereby winning $2500. They create this woman by making a composite picture using the best parts of various Hollywood screen stars, and they name their creation "Dawn Glory.”

Naturally they win the money, but it is not until this time that the real fun begins. Everyone wants to meet Miss 183

Glory. ’’Everyone" includes the contract holder, the press, and even her "mother." Pressure becomes so great that Click and company are forced into finding someone to act as Dawn Glory. This someone turns out to be one of the hotel employ­ ees who has been cleaning their rooms. They succeed in pass­ ing her off as Dawn Glory, but she is not the ideal young lady. She makes serveral passes at various men and eventual­ ly gets Bingo Nelson, a national flying hero, to fall in love with her. They leave to be married, |nd everyone lives happily ever after. Verbal Effects. The dominant source of laughter in Page Miss Glory is verbal effect. In the first example, verbal effects result in the laughter of derision/ridicule, the most frequently used nature of laughter. Gladys, Ed’s girlfriend, has just entered the hotel room of Ed and Click. She notices a strange perfume aroma and asks about it.

GLADYS. . . What’s that perfume I smell? (Again looks suspiciously from ED to CLICK. LORETTA comes . out of the bedroom with used towels. Sees GLADYS — stops short.) LORETTA. Will you be goin’ out soon? Oh — excuse me — I’ll go out through the bedroom door. (Turns and exits R.C.) _ ED. That’s the cologne bottle.

Ed’s funny remark, that Loretta is the cologne bottle, is the verbal effect that causes the laughter of derision. Ap­ parently Lorett^ is wearing enough perfume to be noticed 184

for miles, and this aroma is acting like an advertisement to attract men. This luring process is an indication of cheap tactics and is derisive. The next example of verbal effects again involves Lor­ etta. She and her working partner, Betty, are cleaning the hotel room and are discussing Click and Ed. They both think that these men play the horses.

BETTY. . . They must have picked a winner for a change. LORETTA. Oh, I hope they did make a lot of money I BETTY. Why, what’s it to you? LORETTA. X like that type of feller. BETTY. Yeah — which one? LORBTTA. Both of them, (page 31)

Loretta’s statement regarding her man-hungry nature is the subject of the verbal humor. Her answer is a gag^line and results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. One ex­ pects her to answer by indicating one or the other, but she says both. This response is a surprise and will draw a laugh accordingly. Verbal effects resulting in the laughter of mechaniza­ tion is found in the next example. Click has decided to respond to a Bingo Nelson radio message to Dawn Glory. He calls the radio station and has Gladys disguise her voice \. and answer questions. He dictates the answers.

GLADYS. (Repeats in phone with an attempt at a baby voice.) Hello I 185

This is Dawn Glory speaking. I’m the happiest little girl in the whole United States today — CLICK. (In her ear) Tell my hero — GLADYS. (In phone) Tell my hero— CLICK. Bingo Nelson — GLADYS. (In phone) Bingo Nelson — CLICK. I’m waiting for him — with open arms. GLADYS. (In phone) I’m waiting for him — with open arms. CLICK. And here’s a kiss for Kim — and the whole United States. GLADYS. (Wry face — in phone) And here’s a kiss for him -- and the whole United States. CLICK. Hang up! GLADYS. Hang upi CLICK. (Walks up R. — big steps) No! No! (page 43)

This cleverly set up dialogue builds quickly and smoothly to a repetition that is funny. The resulting laughter is that of mechanization because Gladys is caught in this pat­ tern of repeating and is concentrating so hard on the re­ peating process that she is thinking of little else. She is at this point an automaton and draws the laughter of mech anization. The last example of verbal effects results in the laugh ter of emotional release. Click is attempting to describe Dawn Glory to a group of male and female reporters.

CLICK. . . This girl is an absolutely perfect beauty. There’s probably never been anything just like her before. She hasn’t just got beau­ tiful legs or beautiful eyes or beautiful -- er — shoulders. Her creator gave her — everything, (page 39) 186

Click’s unique speech pattern, the well placed pauses or stammers, help to create a visual image that connotes parts of the body which are not mentionable in mixed company. The resulting laughter is that of emotional release because of the sexual stimulous provided by the description. The Body in Physical Action. In the first example of physical action as a cause of laughter, a woman has appeared claiming to be Dawn Glory’s mother. This is impossible since Dawn is a composite photograph.

CLICK. (To Mother.) Let’s get this straight. What makes you think you’re Dawn Glory’s mother? MOTHER. (Taking a newspaper clipping with photo of Dawn Glory from her purse and showing it to Wiley.) That’s her, ain't it? I ought to know — (GLADYS and ED look at each other; pantomime ‘crazy.’) (page 50)

The physical action of indicating that the “mother” is crazy is the source of laughter. The resulting laughter is that of derision/ridicule for the action by Gladys and Ed derides and belittles the woman. The second example of physical humor results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. In this instance, Click, Ed, and Gladys have just received word that they have won the Nemo Salts beauty contest with the Dawn Glory photo. Their physical reaction provides the humor in this moment. 187

(The BELLBOYS stand still. GLADYS and ED embrace; grab CLICK — kiss. CLICK kisses BATES; crosses R. Lively dance music is heard.) (page 27)

The physical action of celebrating the win leads to laughter when Click kisses the unsuspecting and straight-laced Mr. Bates. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity One does not expect a man to kiss another man -- especially a man like Bates. The kissing relationship between Gladys and Ed is some­ times on the wane as it is in this next example. Gladys has been supporting both Ed and Click and wants them to look for a job. During this discussion, Gladys is rubbing Ed’s sore back with linament. CLICK. (Rises; points with shoe brush.) I told him not to bother looking for that kind of a job. GLADYS. Oh, you did! Well, you listen to me, Click Wiley — you’re not going to make a loafer out of Eddie. He’s got to go to work. ED. Ouch. (page 16)

Ed has unfairly become the victim of Gladys’ wrath against Wiley. She has pressed harder than she should have while massaging Ed’s back and has hurt him. The resulting laugh­ ter is that of play instinct as the unpleasant, Ed’s sore back and his pain, is taken playfully. The last example of physical action deals with Bingo Nelson, an alcoholic pilot and a very playful person. He 188 is in love with Dawn Glory and has come to claim her as his own. Click and Ed try to put him off, but do not succeed initially. Ed makes the mistake of introducing Gladys to Bingo. The results end in the laughter of mechanization. Bingo sits next to Gladys and asks her if she wants to see his write-ups.

GLADYS. Sorry, I haven’t my glasses. NEESON. ’S all right — you won’t need any — these are all head­ lines — (CLICK gestures to ED to get rid of BINGO. BINGO hands her clippings.) All about me — I’m good — honest— (Puts arms around GLADYS. ED pulls him back.) I wouldn’t fool you — Remember the Saint Louis air meet — (ED has to pull him away again.) — nineteen twenty-seven — a world’s record — that’s met Read about it — crossed the Atlantic nineteen twenty-eight — pictures and every­ thing. ED. (Pulling him back again.) I said my fiancee. (page 24)

Ed displays considerable jealousy here, and Bingo displays considerable aggressiveness. He keeps reaching for Gladys each time Ed pulls him away. Bingo is machine-like in his reaction toward Gladys and, therefore, his actions bring on the laughter of mechanization. Character Effects. Click is not a very modest person, and this personality trait causes laughter resulting in deri sion. 189

GLADYS ... Why don’t you get married yourself? It’s probably just what you need. CLICK. (Lights cigarette. Modestly.) I never met a dame yet that could make the grade with me. (page 16)

One learns that though this statement is supposed to be stated modestly, Click’s attitude is a very superior one. This lack of humility is a flaw in his character of which he is not aware, and it is used to deride him. He is shown to have an uncomplimentary personality trait. Click becomes the subject of humor again for the sourde character effects when he and Ed discuss the job Gladys has.

CLICK. (Scornfully.) Stenographer. You call that a job? She hardly earns enough for us to borrow. (page 11)

One again sees the less desirable side of Wiley’s character shine through. His assumption that it is Gladys’ place to work and his right to borrow from her causes the laughter of contrast/incongruity. This fault in his character, as stated earlier, is unknown to him. Obscenity. In this example obscenity results in the laughter of derision/ridicule. Betty and Loretta are talk­ ing about their jobs.

LORETTA. Oh, I didn’t pick this job — the agency sent me for a waitress job. BETTY. Well, what are you doing up 190

here? LORETTA. (Cleaning desk.) The first feller I waited on looked awful poor and nice, so I tore up his cheek — and the next day they told me I could be a chambermaid. BETTY. I guess they figured that what you could give away up here wouldn’t cost them nothing. (page 32)

Betty’s closing statement is an obscene reference resulting in the laughter of derision. Both Betty and Loretta are de­ rided by it. Betty is laughed at for having thought and said it, and Loretta is laughed at for being considered loose e- nough to give away whatever it is she gives away ”up here." Lorettacis again one of the people involved in the next segment on obscenity. She has accepted the role of Dawn Glory but is concerned about the amount of fun she will be allowed to have.

LORETTA. You mean I can’t have any fun? CLICK. What’s your idea of fun? LORETTA. Well — fun is where a fel­ low takes you out and blows you to dinner — and — takes you to a show — or maybe an auto ride — in the country — you know — or don’t you — ? (Looks at him co- quettishly.) (page 78)

The sexual implications of Loretta’s comments, then her co­ quettish behavior, are conducive to obscene thoughts. The resulting laughter is that of emotional release because of the sexual implications. Plot Effects. Two examples will demonstrate the natures 191 of laughter resulting from plot effects. In the first, the audience is aware that Ed and Gladys are going to intro­ duce Loretta as Dawn Glory. Click is not. As Ed and Gladys speak to the reporters about this, Click cannot imagine what is going on. He is completely bewildered.

ED. (To the REPORTERS.) Wait a min­ ute, you fellows. Wait a minute. (GLADYS nods solemnly in agreement as he speaks.) Click — we made a good fight — we thought it was a good stunt to keep her away from the reporters — put her over big like Garbo — (CLICK starts R. toward ED.) We did our best to hide her away, keep her from pub­ licity — but the power of the Press is supreme. CLICK. (Taking ED’S arm.) What’s gone through you? ED. (Pushing CLICK up R.) One side, please. (Crosses up near door R.C. Ad libs from REPORTERS: ’Atta boy!’ ’Now you’re talking!’ ’You said something!' etc. ED goes to R.C. door.) Now, gentlemen, we feel the time has come to draw aside the veil of silence. (Stands with hand on doorknob. WILLIAMS enters L.) CLICK. (Slowly to GLADYS.) What’s the matter with him? (BATES, GRACE, BRONX REPORTER enter L.) GLADYS. (To REPORTERS.) Now, boys and girls, when you meet the little girl, go easy on her — please. CLICK. (To GLADYS.) What’s the matter with you? GLADYS. We’ve kept her sheltered from all this up to now and she fright­ ens very easily. (Nods to Ed.) All right, Ed! E0. Ladies and gentlemen of the Press — I give you — Dawn Glory. (ED throws open the R.C. door. LORETTA, dressed in the Glory Silhouette Outfit, enters, 192

a radiant expression on her face, one hand on her hip and with undulating walk, goes R. past the REPORTERS, who ad lib their admiration and push for­ ward to see her, down to the front. She holds the pose a second and then as the REPORTERS and PHOTOGRAPHERS crowd on her, taking flashlights, hurling questions at her, MET2J ad libs: ’Miss Glory, I’m from the Times.’ Pour REPORTERS come round on her R. CLICK walks up. One PHO­ TOGRAPHER upon chair R.; other PHO^ TOGRAPHER on sofa, etc. She breaks and runs into bedroom, closing the door behind her as the REPORTERS clamor against it. CLICK takes drink.) (pages 66-67)

Click’s having been left out of Ed’s and Gladys’ plans puts him in a very awkward situation. His confusion and amaze­ ment from his lack of knowledge of the plot results in the laughter of contrast/incongruity. In the next example of laughter stemming from plot effects, the resulting laughter is that of play instinct. Bingo Nelson and Loretta, playing Dawn Glory, are alone together. Suddenly Betty, the maid with whom Loretta worked, barges in and ad­ dresses Loretta as Loretta.

BETTY. (The L. door bursts open and Betty hurries in, talking.) Oh, Loretta — that man says he don’t know the phone — (Stops short as she sees NELSON.) LORETTA. (In the grand manner.) I won’t be taking my bath today, maid. BETTY. (Looks dumb, then understands. With a grin.) All right, Loretta. (page 100) 193

The audience’s previous knowledge of the relationship be­ tween Betty and Loretta builds fear and expectation that something like this will happen. Bingo, of course, is un­ aware of the deception which has just succeeded. These cir­ cumstances could prove to be unpleasant had Bingo been a little sharper, but it becomes playfully funny instead. Comic Idea. In order for Click and Ed to survive at the opening of the play, they have been borrowing money from Gladys and hocking their jewelry. Loretta finds a pawn tick­ et and tries to give it to Gladys.

LORETTA. (Running out of bedroom.) Oh, have the gentlemen gone? GLADYS. Yes. Why? LORETTA. Well, I found this pawn ticket under their pillow. GLADYS. (Taking it.) That’s all right — they won’t need that today. LORETTA. They will if they want to know what time it is. (page 19)

Instead of Wiley and Ed looking for work, they have begun to hock or borrow for their needs. The authors, upon other oc­ casions, have made derogatory comments about the joblessness of these two characters. The prevailing source of laughter is comic idea, or what the authors see as a fault in mankind and think needs to be changed. The resulting laughter is that of contrast/incongruity. Loretta’s statement is a sur­ prising and contrasting one. Summary. Through examining this doctored work, one 194

finds that generally the typical Abbott traits are present. There are few, if any long speeches. The language is sim­ ple and clear. Humorous situations build and rebuild easily. While looking at the numerical evaluations of the sources of laughter and the natures of laughter, one finds that the elements which are generally most frequently used, verbal effects and derision/ridicule, are the most frequently used in this play. It can be pointed out that the body in phys­ ical action and contrast/incongruity run closer second places in this play than is normally typical of the other plays and libretti studied. It has been seen, however, that in one play contrast/incongruity was top-ranked (Tenderloin), and that physical humor has often ranked high. This slight change in balance, however, might be attributed to a lesser degree of influence by Abbott on the play. This might also have a bearing on the poor reception of the play. No difference is seen in audience appeal for this play. The kind of humor Page Miss Glory contains is very similar to the humor in the rest of the works studied and would, therefore, draw the same kind of audience. The only noticeable faults in the play are its length and overly complex plot. The addition of a couple of thieves turned kidnappers does not add greatly to the humor of the play and serves primarily to complicate things. With the removal of that segment of the play, length would be cut 195 considerably by the elimination of several scenes and scene changes, and tempo would be enhanced. The only other fault that can be identified which may have been a cause of the play’s failure at the box-office is that in several places it is overwritten. This is not an Abbott trait. Theyreference is to scenes such as the one where Dawn Glory’s mother appears. As the drama critic of Catholic World stated, there is a great curtain line in that scene: ’’I’m her mother.” The scene, however, continues for several more minutes. It is this kind of over writing that possibly was partially responsible for the failure of Page Miss Glory.

Ill. Conclusion It is not possible to identify with certainty Abbott’s influence as a play doctor in Poppa.and Page Miss Glory. Traits such as clarity, brevity, and simplicity which are typical of the works studied earlier are typical also in these plays. Of course, these characteristics are not u- nique to Abbott. Only tempo seems to fall off slightly. One does not have the feeling of great velocity as one reads these plays. This rapid pace was, however, very noticable in the other plays and musicals. They moved at a great pace e- ven in the reading. The plots of Poppa and Page Miss Glory are generally more complex than is typical of an Abbott work, too. This 196 complexity appears in the form of additional subplots or scenes which give the feeling that they have been tacked on for the sake of additional humor, for they show very little relation to the main plots of the plays. The audience appeal for these plays is where the dif­ ference between them lies. Because of the ethnic nature of Poppa, its audience appeal would be different and smaller than that of Page Miss Glory. The elements of humor found in Page Miss Glory are typical of the kinds that Abbott has used previously, and, therefore, the audience appeal would be generally the same as for the plays and musicals studied earlier. 197

Footnotes

1Brooks Atkinson, “Alderman Schwitzky Goes Free," The New York Times, December 25, 1928, p. 31. 2'»

CHAPTER V MR. ABBOTT: THE DIRECTOR

In order to assess what influence, if any, George Abbott’s directing had on his playwriting, it is first necessary to identify the traits and techniques which com­ pose his directing style. A study of '‘The Comedy of George Abbott” would be incomplete without an examination of the man’s directing. He is known as the ’’Dean of Broadway di­ rectors” and has earned that title because of the number of major successes he has had. Available information indicates that he has directed thirteen productions that have played 500 or more performances. They are: Broadway (1926), Three Men On A Horse (1935), Boy Meets Girl (1935), Room Service (1937), Pal Joey (1940), High Button Shoes (1947), Where’s Charley? (1948), Call Me Madam (1950), Wonderful Town (1953), Pajama Game (1954), Damn Yankees (1955), Fiorello&(1959), A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1962). All of the numbers which record successes, however, do not reveal Abbott, the director. In order to glean an idea about Abbott’s directing techniques, one must see an Abbott play and read what critics say about his work; one must draw information from people who have worked for him as actors, composers, and lyricists; and, one must seek the views of Abbott himself, Then one can piece together the parts in 199 an effort to arrive at a picture of the directing style of George Abbott.

I. Abbott’s Directing Technique Critical Comments. The first sources to be examined in an attempt to determine George Abbott’s directing tech­ niques are the theatre critics and reviewers who have re­ viewed his shows. The third production Abbott directed for the New York public was called Broadway, which he wrote in collaboration with Phillip Dunning. Broadway was the first of his 500-plus performance plays. The play was reviewed by Brooks Atkinson who said of it,

. . . excellent cast, imaginatively directed, the co-authors of this ex­ citing melodrama have caught the in­ congruities, the contrasts, the jeal­ ousies, ambitions and duplicities and have tossed them all together in a blaring ironic confusion. — The result is an exhilarating, madly col­ lared melodrama, a kaleidoscope, spat­ tered with the brightest pigments of local color.1

Though Atkinson said the co-authors are responsible for the many things identified, one can easily recognize the fact that these are director’s responsibilities many times. Ab­ bott, however, had an advantage over many other directors in this case. Whenever his directing of a scene showed clearly a need for a script change, it was his and Dunning’s job to make the change right there if need be. 200

Atkinson went on, this time concentrating on specific directorial aspects. By defining the important characters completely and by rushing the drama constantly, especially through the backstage scenes, the authors, who are also the directors, give their play the illusion of motion, even when it is not progressing at all. And the climax to the second act, a perfectly directed incident, has the effect of fusing the various elements of the play definitely. From that time on ’Broadway’ is a firmly packed melodrama.2

It is in this review that pacing by George Abbott is first mentioned. Atkinson mentioned “rushing” the play as though in continual "motion” — never resting or lagging — never bogging down. This was to become characteristic of George Abbott’s directing. This is an important key to the Abbott touch, and he has apparently lived by it throughout his ca­ reer. Evidence of this was visible in the beginning with Broadway and remained visible throughout his career as in­ dicated by the reviewers of most of his plays. Three Men On A Horse, which Abbott co-authored and di­ rected, enjoyed similar comments by its reviewers. The staff writer for the Literary Digest described it as

. . . a rowdy, impious farce which moves so swiftly that its most auda­ cious humors are spoken, passed, and forgotten, by the actors before audi­ ences savor them.3 201

Glenville Vernon made these comments about the play:

The success of a farce like this is dependent upon the speed of the action, the guffaws in the lines, and the phys­ ical vitality of the acting. The first is there except at times in the second act, the laughs are frequent, and the acting is filled with gusto.4

In 1936 Abbott directed and co-authored On Your Toes. For this show he worked with Rodgers and Hart, and although the show was not a commercial success (73 performances), the results were important to the development of musical theatre. It was in this show that a highly integrated libretto and score emerged. Look closely at On YourToes, said Green, and

... you discover that Abbott was not the enemy of new ideas. For in 1936 he joined with Rodgers and Hart in com­ pleting a book that told a tightly-knit story and in inviting George Balanchine to become the choreographer. On Your Toes was the precurser of the revolution for which Oklahoma generally gets all the credit. Its low-down, violet jazz ballet, ’Slaughter on Tenth Avenue,* danced un­ forgettably by Ray Bolger and Tamara Geva, was not a carelessly injected in­ terlude, but a concentrated extension of the story.5

On Your Toes has come to be recognized as an extremely important event in the development of the musical. The ap­ parent "progressive” nature of On Your Toes soon became the accepted pattern in musical theatre. One sees the experience 202

Abbott gained from On Your Toes at work in The Boys From Syracuse. This time, however, there was greater commercial

success. Abbott wrote the book for MTMMhMMeM Boys «FMrMoMmMM «SMMyBHrNaMcMMuMsaMeM himself in three weeks. Again Rodgers and Hart composed music and lyrics. The script, as indicated earlier in this study, is a funny one and was generally well received. Writ­ ing in The New Republic, Stark Young said of The Boys From Syracuse,

The whole production seemed to me to have gusto and a certain freshness a- long the ancient classic line. The bawdry of it seemed at the performance I saw to breeze the songs and situa­ tions along.6

In 1940 Abbott directed and produced Pal Joey. It was a major success running for 540 performances. This show, like On YourJToes, is said to be one of the stepping stones in the development of the musical.

In the musical field two works are proclaimed as lifting sights and a future in which the American pro­ duct would emerge as the undisputed leader. These were Pal Joey (1940) 40(1 Oklahoma (1943) ... In many ways Pal Joey . . . was a greater advance on what had preceeded it than Oklahoma! . . .George Abbott brought his tough theatricality to the staging.7

In 1941 Abbott was called upon to direct On The Town. It became another hit for Abbott, and with it one sees the 203

continuation of another trend set by George Abbott, the use of new performers and production people in his shows. Green said, Because of the inexperience of all those connected with On The Town, they chose as over all director one of the most experienced men in the theatre, George Abbott. The show, which opened in December, 1944, was bright, swift-paced, and engagingly youthful.®

Through the years, the list of aspiring young actors whom George Abbott pointed towards stardom became a long one Only a few can be mentioned here: Ray Bolger, Gene Kelly, Carol Haney, Gwen Verdon, Jean Stapleton, Shirley MacLaine, George Wallace, and Garson Kanin. All had acted under Abbott’s direction in major or supporting roles and were far more important in theatre after their contact with Ab­ bott. The new talent Abbott continually sought was not limited to actors.

The important part George Abbott has played in the careers of young writers for the musical stage has won him the title of apprentice’s sorcerer. Since 1941, he has been the director and fre­ quently the author of the book of the first -- or the first successful — musicals by the following composers and lyricists: Hugh Martin and Ralph Blame (Best Foot Forward): Leonard Bernstein, Betty Comden and Adolph Green (On The Town); Jule Styne (High Button Shoes); Frank Loesser (Where’s dharley?); Richard Adler and Jerry feosh (The Pajama Game); Bob Merrill 204

(New Girl In Town); Mary Rodgers and Marshall Barer (6hce Upon a Mattress); and Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick (Fiorello),9

Nineteen forty-eight was the year for Where ’s Charley?. Abbott was director and author. This musical was one where the critics were wrong. Repeatedly it was stated that with­ out Ray Bolger Where’s Charley? would be a complete waste. Much to the critics’ surprise, however, Where * s Charley? ran for 792 performances. The script is a tight one, and if the stage directions are any indication of the play’s action, it was a very funny show. The show was apparently well directed because people kept coming to see it despite critical comments such as:

. . . and his direction is paced several notches below the humming activity that is the trademark of the usual Abbott mu­ sical.10

The years 1954 and 1955 were big years for Abbott — bigger, in fact, than many of the many big years he had had previously. Pajama Game opened in 1954 and ran for several more years. In all, it had 1063 performances. Nineteen fifty-five saw the opening of Damn Yankees which ran for 1019 performances. Speaking of Pajama Game, Green said,

Following the frequent pattern of George Abbott musicals, most of the 205

people responsible for the produc­ tion were new-comers to the theatre — including the producers . . . and choreographer Bob Fosse.11

Typical reviews of this show described it in the follow­ ing terms:

As staged by George Abbott and Jer­ ome Robbins, The Pajama Game is a smash hit mixture of racehorse and explosive; not in a long time has any musical so merely competent seemed at the same time so gay ... It is so George Abbotty that even the workers’ slowdown gives the ef­ fects of a speedup; it is all so well-managed that even the fumbles seem something new in the footworks.12

(It should be noted that George Abbott was sixty-one years of age at the opening of The Pajama Game.)

It's a show that takes a whole bar­ relful of gleaming new talents, and a handful of stimulating ideas as well, and sends them tumbling in hap­ py profusion over the footlights. The Pajama Game has a fresh and win­ ning grin on its face from the out­ set. 13

’The Pajama Game * ... is about the best natured musical you may ever see. It is young and funny and earthy and fast. Most of the show has the fine snapping air of a beautifully staged class rally. Nobody but George Abbott can ever quite direct it into a show.I4

Damn Yankees was no less successful. Reviewers used 206 the same kind of exciting language:

Dr. Abbott has provided the punch, pace and polish for which he’s famous.15

Heading the board of strategy for this outfit is that shrewd manipulator of talent, George Abbott.16

Old Manager Abbott, the Casey Stengel of the music-show business, has kept control of the whole show. His cast­ ing is unerring, as usual.17

To make certain that the action never lagged for long, however, George Abbott had the actors going through some sort of frenzied motion at all times. As a result, someone on stage was always moving, regardless of whether charac­ ters were singing, talking, or dancing.1®

Again, the swift-moving show had the style and the spirit that has long dis­ tinguished its director’s work; even the Faustian overtones of the story were treated in a breezy manner.

There is a feeling of perpetual motion created by the adroit multiplication of hundreds of large and small movements. Everything is fluid. Everything moves. When one character has to divulge a bit of information to another, they do it either strolling or jumping or running. A show like Damn Yankees has about it the fascination of a fine Byzantine mosaic. At a distance it is a gaudy pageant. Regarded closely, it becomes an artfully assembled design in which many small pieces have been fitted to­ gether by a master craftsman. Damn Yankees should be studied carefully by anybody who ever intends to direct or 207

write anything for the stage — even a play, even a serious drama — not for the purpose of aping Abbott, since he is inimitable, but for the purpose of being inspired by his technique of a- chieving grace and rhythm and movement on a stage.20

Commenting on both Pajama Game and Damn Yankees Green said,

There is little doubt that the firm hand of director and co-librettist George Abbott was chiefly responsi­ ble for the lengthy runs of The Pa­ jama Game and Damn Yankees.21

And of the same two shows Taubman wrote,

Each bore the Abbott trademark of speed and vitality.22

Fiorello, which Abbott directed and co-authored, opened in 1959 and ran for 795 performances. The same type of re­ views greeted this show.

George Abbott directed this show with his usual acute sense of timing, bal­ ancing the few quiet moments with more frenzied scenes involving LaGuardia. Much of the action concerned political intrigue in the backrooms where strategy was planned, but Abbott made certain that no scene ever bogged down. He often varied the pace by contrasting the action. For example, LaGuardia’s excitability and quick movements were balanced by Morris* resigned placidity in the office and by Thea's quiet un­ derstanding in the home.23 208

In 1962, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum opened. It ran for 964 performances. The following comments were made about this show:

The direction of George Abbott, a master of farce technique, emphasized speed, never letting the action lapse. Even when the slim plot remained stat­ ic, it seemed to develop rapidly be­ cause Abbott kept the actors in motion, bumping, kicking, chasing one another, or colliding in door ways. The few quiet moments during the love duets gave audiences a chance to relax be­ fore the comedians would appear again, whizzing from one ridiculous situa­ tion to another.24

The reviews which have been included in this section are, of course, only a sampling of the many reviews cover­ ing Abbott shows. One can read and re-read many critics and reviewers and learn a considerable amount from them about any director or playwright. However, the best method of evaluation and learning is to see the work of a particular director or playwright. This writer has been fortunate enough to see two Abbott productions: Never Too Late, 1965, and the revival of Pajama Game, 1973. The image that is still vivid from Never Too Late is the break-neck pace of the show: actors and actresses running up and down stairs, doors opening and closing with amazing speed and with exact and precise timing. The energy levels were constantly high and effervescent. The cast shared its 209 good time with the audience. One felt included in the play’s action despite sitting in the far reaches of the Playhouse Theatre in New York City. The revival of Pajama Game in 1973 is more easily re­ called and can be discussed more fully. The performance seen was the opening night of previews at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. Bright colors immediately caught one’s attention. The setting, the costumes, the lighting all connoted brightness. As the musical began, this brightness was picked up by the cast and was carried through the whole show. It was very clear that the company was a happy one, for they worked well together. Bach supported the other, helping to achieve the nature of ensemble. This ensemble was achieved despite the fact that there were several big names in the show. Hal Linden and Barbara McNair worked well with the rest of the cast. They were part of the en­ semble. Cab Calloway, on the other hand, seemed to be per­ forming a night club act rather than playing a role in a show. His part was that of Hines, the time study man, and this part was cut considerably as compared to the same part in the original book. The rest of the company, however, worked hard to pick up Calloway’s slack and did an admirable job of it. The staging of this revival of Pajama Game possessed the typical Abbott devices. Entrances and exits were made with crispness. Action was fast and furious. One’s eyes were 210

always moving to keep up with the location of business and action. Dialogue was spoken with great crispness and clari­ ty. There were very few moments when intelligibility was lost. The few times that this did happen was generally be­ cause of under projection by Barbara McNair. The staging was generally very simple. One did not see clever tricks to point to as clever direction. All action suited the situation and supported the general story line. Casting supported the Abbott trend of using new faces in the show. But Mr. Abbott said he was forced by public demand to use stars in the leading roles. 25 Linden and McNair did well together. They presented themselves with great poise and confidence and acted their parts well. Mr. Abbott was so pleased with the singing ability of Miss McNair that he added a song to one of the romantic moments of the show especially for her. It worked well. One of the most interesting segments of the direction of the musical was the handling of the crowd scenes. The union picnic and the Hernando’s Hideaway scenes could very easily have been problems, but instead were outstanding mo­ ments in the show. The crowds entered the scene at the pic­ nic in a line as if walking a path to the picnic grounds. They moved quickly and action was continuous causing the feeling of a much larger crowd than was actually present. During the knife throwing scene many^levels were used. 211

People were sitting on the ground, kneeling on the ground, sitting on picnic table tops, standing on benches or table tops. The variety was endless. Again, the eye of the viewer was continually on the move from location to location. In Hernando's Hideaway many of the same techniques were used. Action was ceaseless, levels were numerous, and en­ semble was ever present. Timing in both scenes was gener­ ally on the money. There was but one exception to the good timing in the show and that was with the knife throwing. The person who was pushing the knives through the board was at times so slow that one could see the technique at work. In summary one could say that the general direction of this revival of Pajama Game was clear, crisp, fast, ever changing and always suitable to the moment. There were a few weak moments, but most of those were where Calloway was involved. Barbara McNair's projection was at times low, but this was probably something that was eventually corrected. This preview was, after all, the first time the play was put together as a whole. It was a dress rehearsal which means that the show was not completely polished at this point. This revival of Pajama Game was greeted by mixed re­ views from the Washington press. On the negative side, David Richards felt that the production was dated and mis­ cast and that the acting, with the exception of Hal Linden, 212

was spotty.

But too much of ’Pajama Game’ is nodsville. The fire is gone; this pro­ duction merely pokes at a few embers. Dying embers, sad to report.26

On the other hand, Richard L. Coe thought the revival was nicely nostalgic.

The 1954 sounds of 'The Pajama Game * ripple deliciously through the Kennedy Center Opera House.27

He praised not only the acting, singing, and dancing, but also the book and the score (’’and the cast headed by Barbara McNair and Hal Linden does them splendid justice.”).23 Coe closed his review by saying,

All told, ’The Pajama Game’¿’is rousing to the ears, easy on the eyes and a grand show to have in town.29

Actors’, Composers’, and Writers* Comments. Having examined critical comments and personal reaction to Abbott’s directing, it is now time to look into what those people who worked for him have to say about his directing style. The following examples are taken from letters received in response to a letter sent to over one hundred people who have worked for George Abbott in various capacities.30

Jean Stapleton spoke openly about her experience with Mr. Abbott. 213

'Damn Yankees* was my first Broadway musical. I found his professional discipline absolute. In this atmos­ phere there was no distraction from work and I consider this the best soil for development in a show.31

Miss Stapleton continued, commenting about Mr. Abbott’s tech­ nique in working with method actors.

Contrary to ray preconceptions about Mr. Abbott, I found that his intelli­ gent directing coordinated well with my Method-oriented training. Mr. Ab­ bott required motivation for every­ thing that was done on the stage.32

She then turned her attention to Abbott’s ability to handle comedy.

His knowledge of comedy, timing, and the structure of a laugh or what begets a laugh is uncanny.33

Miss Stapleton also spoke of the director personally. She said of him,

I admired his energy, alertness, per­ ception, sensitivity, et cetera, et cetera. He wasted not a minute with anything extraneous to rehearsal ... I remember, however, being rather worried and depressed about a certain scene I was.in just the day before o- pening in Boston. I didn’t voice my feelings, nevertheless, I remember Mr. Abbott sensing ray concern and making a point of speaking to me with great encouragement and optimism. In effect, he assured me that I would 'knock ’em dead.’34 214

Another woman who reflected on George Abbott is Helen Hayes. She played the leading role in Abbott’s Coquette in the 1930’s. She spoke about Mr. Abbott being an actor’s di rector.

He is and always has been a great actors’ director. He has the mysteri­ ous gift of communication with an ac­ tor and thank goodness, he has never succumbed to the terrible ’honor sys­ tem’ as we old pros call it. That means, letting actors find their own way and rely on their own inspirations. . . . All of us need guidance and help in performance.35

Carol Burnett, who played the princess in Once Upon A Mattress, said that,

Mr. Abbott was the first director I worked under ... I found him to be absolutely brilliant in his direction, and have incorporated many of his concepts.36 Fiorello was a major Abbott success in 1959. One of the actors in that show was Howard DaSilva. He spoke of Abbott and the demanding nature of the man.

He is not an easy task-master. In fact, his directing technique, in some respects, is an old fashioned dictator­ ial one with endless ’line readings’ and stubborn demands. But because he loves his work, and respects the thea­ tre and its serious requirements he commands genuine respect from actors as well as all others who work with him. In Fiorello for example, he rejected one of the loveliest songs ... because 215

it did not further the action or the ex­ tension of the play . . . When it was thrown out many of us missed the song but all knew Mr. Abbott was right and all respected his completely impersonal objectivity, honesty, judgement and taste I And there are sure as hell not many theatre people you can say that a- bout!37

Mary Rodgers, daughter of Richard Rodgers, worked with Abbott as a composer for Once Upon A Mattress. She made ref erence to Abbott’s handling of actors and his very business­ like approach to directing. She said that in a rehearsal a

. . . method actor asked, having been instructed to move from one part of the stage to another, ’What’s my motiva­ tion?! to which Mr. A. answered, ’Your job. ’ That, in effect, tells the whole thing. G. A. was (is) a no-nonsense, business-like captain of the ship. didn’t always agree with him, but his orderly talent for comedy gave the production a cohesion we couldn’t have gotten any other way. Furthermore, when we didn’t agree with him, he was willing to try it our way: once. (Not twice!) If it worked — fine; if not, that was the end of it. G. A. is a fair and generous guy. Sweet, stern, self-disciplined, demand­ ing and altogether adorable.38

Jerry Bock, who composed the music and lyrics for both Tenderloin and Fiorello, talked of Abbott’s staging of musi­ cal numbers and the blending of crowds into the action of a scene 216

To the best of my recollection, his staging of musical numbers was neither far out nor predictable but, once again, natural and unaffected, letting the song sing for itself as he guided the design of its presenta­ tion with an eye on honest detail ra­ ther than ornamental fuss. He was always on the lookout to illuminate hu­ morous content and would not hesitate to bound on stage, demonstrating an attitude or giving a lyric reading for a song. He also managed crowds very effectively, painting them in with ease. My guess is that he prepared himself in general terms, but allowed the oppor­ tunity of rehearsals to fire his im­ agination for musical staging. He was firm, but not intractable, authorita­ tive but not dictatorial, confident, but not coercive. He was open to sug­ gestion, willing to try options and changes, and finally, determined the ultimate yes or no of it all.39

The first day of rehearsal for Once Upon A Mattress was described by Jay Thompson, a co-author of that musical. He said,

On the first day of rehearsal, Mr. Abbott sat impatiently through a first reading, then called the be­ ginners onto the stage area . . . They began reading their lines and, as they did, Mr. Abbott would take the actors by the shoulders and move them into different positions, much as one would move chessmen about a board. He had them read it a second time. The actors moved to their positions at the times they had been moved. With minor changes, the scene remained that way until the end of the run. His technique was bloodless, mechanically accurate, and cold; the result was brilliantly hilarious. 217

Once or twice since then I have seen a director achieve results that were as satisfyingly right as in this case; never have I seen them accomplished with such dispassionate calm.40

Richard Rodgers, who worked with Abbott on The Boys From Syracuse, stated that,

He was an exacting director but always a kind one and a continuing joy to work with.41

Jose Ferrer, who Acted for Abbott, has turned director since. He commented about organization and management of an Abbott production.

I considered him then and I have no reason to think that today 1 would evaluate him otherwise as a sort of play engineer. He could make a ma­ chine work, as long as it was comedy. When it came to emotion, since it embarrassed him in life, he was to­ tally helpless with it as an artist. . . In production everything always went on schedule and smoothly. He did not understand tardiness or anything of that sort. . . he was the first to have invited run-throughs before an opening, ... I don’t imagine he in­ vented it, but in my youth no one else was doing it, and it has been adopted to some extent since. I feel that in our time he is the father of that method.42

Abbott’s Comments. After reading what others have to say about Abbott’s directing techniques, it is time to read what Abbott himself has to say about directing. Since "speed” 218 was mentioned by so many of his reviewers, Mr. Abbott’s views on this subject seem to be a logical starting place. Morton Eustis interviewed George Abbott for Theatre Arts Monthly, and the interview dealt with the subject of speed.

Ask the average theatregoer what, in one word, is the outstanding attribute of George Abbott’s direction . . . and he will probably answer ‘Speed’ ... [Abbott] knows that the tempo he in­ stills in a performance is a vital part of its integration. But as an arch apostle, so called, of pace in performance, he would like to preface any remarks on direction with the firm observation that tempo is not speed, that it has nothing to do with speed, that the majority of plays he has di­ rected, which were supposed to move at a breakneck pace, actually moved slowly a large part of the time. ’Tempo,’ he says, ’is variety. Bet­ ter still, a combination of surprise, va­ riety, and poise.’ He admits that Boy Meets Girl produces the ’illusion of speed in the mind of the audience.' But this effect, he says, is obtained 'in the con­ trast of character, of movement, even of tone of voice, and not in making the actors speak and move at double-quick time.' To put it another way, ’the real basis of ra­ pidity is fluidity. What the director act­ ually does to establish the desired tempo is to emphasize contrast both in speech and movement; to make the audience, in­ stead of the actors, supply movement, by turning their eyes from one portion of the stage to another; to build up the vol- ume-|0 the speed, the intensity of the tone of voice here, drop it there; accelerate the motion of the actor, both in move­ ment and in gesture; speed up the rhythm of the company as an ensemble, slow it down, then build again; in short, to ap­ proach every problem relating to every­ thing the audience sees, hears or thinks 219

about with variety, inventiveness, and still more variety.,43

Choosing the right actor for the right role is basic to having a show succeed. Mr. Abbott has said that he has made mistakes sometimes in choosing a show, but never in choosing a cast.

I like the satisfaction of not knowing a single thing about the performer ex­ cept what I see up there on the stage where.he is auditioning. In the theatre I can judge an ac­ tor as soon as I hear him read . . . To me it seems very simple: either they ring the bell or they don’t. Oc­ casionally they don’t ring the bell, but a bell; that is, you sense a talent, but not for the part which the actor is auditioning.44

It’s a terrible thing when you have to tell someone that he’s not right for the part. If you audition care­ fully, you reduce the chances of making mistakes. I hate the coldness of the audition. You break a lot of hearts. It’s a business and you try to be po­ lite, but theatre has to be ruthless.45

I would like to give some advice to young actors and actresses who are auditioning for a job in the theatre. Don’t think if you sing a long song, you are going to be more effective than with a short song. Don’t think that when you’re asked to sing one chorus if you slip in a lot of special material you’re making a good impres­ sion. You are not. The director can tell in a very few moments whether or not you are possible for the pur­ poses he has in mind. But if you drag 220

out your audition interminably, you may create such a boring impression that none of those listening will ever want to see you again. Do what you are asked to do and do it as well as ybu can, and give others the credit for having intelligence enough to ap­ preciate your merits.46

Apparent in all these statements concerning casting is Mr. Abbott’s clear view of what he wants, his practicality and decisiveness in making decisions, his business-like view of the theatre and his devotion to conciseness. When asked by this writer during the interview in Washington, D.C., what amount of preparation went into his directing, Mr. Abbott answered,

I couldn't plan in too much detail what I'm going to do until I can hear the actors working on the scene . . . It isn’t a matter of inspiration, it’s a matter of technique. What kind of actors they are, what they are going to do. You see, the same actor in a different part gives you a different way of hahdlingihhiimi-47

Again, Mr. Abbott's no-nonsense, practical attitude is re­ vealed. Morton Eustis recorded more thoughts on Abbott’s prepa­ ration and rehearsal procedures during the Theatre Arts Monthly interview cited earlier.

[Casting^] says Mr. Abbott, is a prob­ lem solved ‘by picking the best avail­ able actors who seem to be best fitted 221 to the parts.* The cast picked, Ab­ bott assembles them and has them read the script to him aloud. 'As soon as the play is read aloud,' he finds, ’if becomes a new thing. Values theretofore latent come to light. The play begins to take on the glow of life.’ Because he does not want to impose his person­ ality on the actors, Abbott never reads the script himself to the cast. He be­ lieves in making actors use their brains as well as his, and in allowing them complete freedom to work out their own interpretations. If left to themselves, actors will often surprise you, he finds, in what they can get out of a part that you never even saw in it yourself. La­ ter in the game he will ’add what he can to their interpretations.’ Before ’active rehearsals’ com­ mence, Abbott begins to map out (with accurate ground plans of the sets) the general movement of his scenes, the ’mechanics of his acts.' Emphatically, he does not believe in mapping out the action in detail at this point. He con­ siders this method ’much too stilted’ — one that allowsjneither the actors nor the director any scope. He plans only ‘the general juxtaposition of the sets and the characters.' In the hectic period of active rehearsals, he takes hold of all the reins. He works out the business, the action in detail, tones up performances, makes changes in the script, goes over the scenes again and again. He believes it is of vital importance for the direc­ tor to remain a pliable instrument — ready and willing at any time to change his entire conception, to doanything to improve his own or an actor’s, or the author’s original idea. Once the actors know their parts and the busi­ ness he has routined, Abbott starts to perfect the timing. He has by then built up, he says, a definite idea of how to time the show -- a problem de­ pendent, often, ‘on things like an actor's tone of voice, his natural gesture, a 222

hundred and one other points impossible to envisage before this.’ He works fe­ verishly to gather loose strings, to gain pace and integration.48

Words such as “discipline,” "control,” and “organiaz- tion" have been used by those describing the directing traits of George Abbott. On the subject of control Abbott said,

It should be a director’s theatre. Unless there's a captain of the ship, it can fall apart. A good director is able to get the whole picture in his mind and to transfer that image to the stage. He has a realistic taste in theatre.49

In ofder to have complete control, obviously, a di­ rector would have to have complete concentration during re­ hearsals.

The need for concentration upon your problem is so intense and so insistent that you are forced to push aside what seem to be the small and petty cares besetting you. The director sits in his chair or walks about the stage, his mind entirely upon what he is doing and what ought to be done. Sometimes when people come to me in the middle of re­ hearsals to give me a message, it takes me a second or two to bring myself back to the factual world and realize what they are talking about. My mind is so preoccupied that I cannot adjust to the real world . . . Even outside the theatre you're not free from the re­ hearsal demon which sits on your back. There are always problems: problems of rewriting; sometimes emotional problems in which the conflict between your loyalty and affection for some actor 223

and your loyalty to the play are at loggerheads. But the play wins — you have to be ruthless.

Included in the above entry is again evidence of Mr. Abbott’s objective, business-like view of the theatre. Reinforcing this view and pointing out the honesty in his directing methods is the following passage from his autobiography.

My method has always been to give all instruction in front of the entire cast or whoever happens to be on stage. I think there’s a certain value in this. If there should happen to be such a thing as a selfish actor who might wish to call attention to himself at the ex­ pense of his fellows, it is well to say before the others, ’Please don’t make that move because it hurts So-and*s

All that he said indicates that his is a very sure, direct, practical, and business-like technique. Asked point blank by an interviewer, ’’What is the Ab­ bott touch?” Mr. Abbott answered: 224

*1 make them say their final syllables.’ ... A joke, but with much sense to it. One of the major faults of too many pro­ ductions is that the actors have sloppy diction. It requires great persistence to get a play clearly spoken, and the ac­ tor who swallows his words is cheating . . . An actor is never a slacker. He wants to be as good as he can. If he has an effective pause, he is quite likely to think a longer pause will be still more effective. The director who can see things from the front and judge the overall pic­ ture must control such matters. The great actor knows that if the scene is good he is good and he does not have to be urged to pick up his cues, but there are other actors under the impression that the more time they consume the better they will be -- and so over and over they must be told to pick up the cue. Not only told — shown — because their ears cheat for them and they leave just a little unwant­ ed space between those precious words ... If I were to give a serious answer to the question about my method, I would say that the quality which I impart to a show that may make it seem different is taste. By taste I mean artistic judgment — the decision as to just how much to do or not to do, at what point to leave one scene and get into another, and for the actor, how much to express and how much to imply. Some reader who has seen Never Too Late may be saying, ’How can a man who gets comedy out of bringing'sbathroom fixtures onto the stage claim he has taste?' But that is the point: it can be vulgar or it can be hilarious — it depends upon how it’s done. And finally, the one thing a play should not have, is just simple un­ controlled speed. The director who thinks that pace is just hurry makes a tragic mis­ take and produces a noisy, violent hodge­ podge devoid of any illusion.52

It should be evident from some of the material quoted in this section, and especially from many comments made in 225

the letters in the Appendix, that many of the aspects of George Abbott, director, are not relevant to the question of a reciprocal influence on his playwriting. Insofar as possible, these kinds of material have not been cited, and significant portions of the correspondence to the writer about Abbott could not be applied to the question at hand. It clearly will not reveal much about Abbott, playwright, to resolve the issue of whether, in rehearsal, he did or did not physically position actors. Thus, it is necessary to summarize the material in a fashion which underscores aspects of Abbott’s directing style and method which could also be involved in his playwriting. After examining play reviews, personal observation, letters from those who worked for him, and comments by Mr. Abbott, one can say in summary that the key words to Abbott’s directing style, which might have some bearing upon his playwriting, are: organization discipline practicality precision command of timing vitality objectivity order economy variety taste clarity 226

II. Abbott’s Views of Playwriting To determine whether Abbott's directing influenced his playwriting, one must continue this examination, for the purpose of comparing directing and playwriting tech­ niques, and look into Abbott the playwright and the theories and ideas that he espouses as a playwright. The first four chapters of this study have examined closely the make-up of the comedy of Abbott’s playwriting. One finds a considerable dependence by Abbott on verbal hu­ mor resulting in derisive or ridiculing laughter. This is true for every play studied except one, Tenderloin, where contrast/incongruity replaced derision/ridicule as the major nature of laughter. The second most frequently used source of laughter changed relatively often. It most often was physical action followed by character effects and then ob­ scenity. This indicates that the second element of dependence for Abbott was usually physical humor. The importance of phys­ ical humor has been established in the discussion on direct­ ing which placed considerable emphasis on the careful hand­ ling of physical action. If one were to look carefully at the numerical analy­ sis of the humor discussed in the first four chapters, one would find that there is generally great variety in the sources of laughter used by Abbott in his plays and musicals. Though verbal humor is always the dominant source of laughter, 227

there are a number of other sources employed in each play or musical. This lends itself to an ever changing type of hu­ mor. Even the verbal humor is of different types and pro­ duces a variety of natures of laughter. One finds all kinds and variations of humor present in the shows. As the analysis of the plays and musicals in the first four chapters was written, many traits or stylistic elements were indicated. Many times brevity was mentioned along with economy — or the ability for humorous moments to build and rebuild quickly. These qualities are visible throughout the entirety of his work. There are few moments in the plays or musicals where speeches of more than two lines occur. The exceptions are generally found in romantic scenes and even then the long speeches are not wordy nor do they wander aim­ lessly. ’’Clarity” is another term that was used frequently in the first four chapters to describe Abbott’s playwriting Style. The speeches in the plays are constructed so that understanding is easily achieved. One does not have to stop and think to understand a joke. It is straight forward and simple. “Tempo" is another word used. This is brought to one’s attention through the brevity and variety mentioned earlier. Short, concise, clear dialogue provides for a racing tempo, while different sources of laughter employed in each show 228

provide variety. Most of the plays and musicals are organized in a sim­ ple, clear, and uncluttered way. The story line proceeds in logical fashion; the order for most shows is beginning, mid­ dle, and end with little or no digression into subplots or extraneous characters. In some instances (Page Miss Glory, Tenderloin) digressions from this practice tended to weaken the tightness of the production. In addition to this summary of Abbott’s playwriting techniques based on the knowledge gained from the first four chapters, included here are passages by Abbott dealing with playwriting. George Abbott went to Harvard to study playwriting under George Pierce Baker. It was here that Abbott learned the tough practicality that has permeated his work in the theatre.

Professor Baker was an inspiring man. He gave you no nonsense about in­ ner meanings and symbolisms; he turned your whole thoughts and energies into the practical matter of how to make a show . . . One of the things he kept hammering was, ’Get the greatest given -- emotional result from the given scene.’53

It is apparent that order held a high place in George Abbott’s priorities for playwriting from the beginning of his career. He was asked to rewrite Broadway, which was to become his first hit, and of this show he said, 229

It was a confused script, full of won­ derful characters and wonderful scenes, but there was no doubt about its possi­ bilities . . . The problem was to give the play order, and to me that did not seem difficult.5’

It was also while working on this production Mr. Abbott gained practical knowledge about taste and about editing and honing a script. He reported in his autobiography that af­ ter Broadway's tryout in Atlantic City, Jed Harris, the producer, said to Abbott and his co-author, Dunning,

'This show is going to get by no mat­ ter whether we improve it from now on or not. But it will be a much more important production if we eliminate all the cheap jokes. We don’t need them. There is enough good comedy so that you can afford to throw out the stuff that downgrades the show.' When we agreed he read the entire play aloud, indicat­ ing the material he felt should be de­ leted. It proved a canny thing to do and a very good way in which to edit a play; since then I have often used the same tactic.55

Speaking, at age 85, of writing comedy for the theatre, Abbott revealed that clarity, variety, and practicality are integral parts of his playwriting.

Parce comedy succeeds in proportion to x how consistently entertaining it is. If for an instant the members of the audience start glancing at their pro­ grams it’s a danger sign in the play. You have to write at a conscious level of entertainment, employing varied moods and texts and rhythms. I suppose I have 230

an innate sense for doing this ... The good play doctor must have a firm sense of construction, and a good theatre sense. The trouble with half the shows today is that they're too muddy -- people don’t know where they are

Again revealing Abbott’s sense of order, clarity, and conciseness in playwriting are these comments from his auto­ biography:

There are playwrights I know who, given a set of characters and an idea, will start writing without knowing ex­ actly where their plot is going, but ray whole training and experience makes me place construction, or story line, first, and words second. A playwright sdems to me like an architect -- he must know what the whole building is like be- for he begins, and he must put up the iron girders first and then after the unadormed frame is standing begin to add the things that show. A novelist can afford to wander, but just let the playwright bring in a new set of unre­ lated characters in the middle of Act Two and see what happens to him. Many good plays are diffuse plays, but the big hits have unity. The differ­ ence between the passable success and the smash hit is that the latter never lets down — that in it each scene leads to the next with interest, so that when it is over there is a feeling of wanting more, a feeling that no matter how long the show is it has*been a short evening. 7

Looking closely at the content of the past few pages dealing with playwriting, one finds that the following words are descriptive of Abbott’s playwriting: 231

taste variety brevity economy clarity tempo order practicality conciseness organization

III. Influences on Abbott’s Writing The original question of this chapter was, what influ­ ence, if any, did Abbott's directing have on his playwriting? The answer is that his directing influenced his playwriting about as much as his playwriting influenced his directing. In other words, each element has served as teacher and student. This contention can be supported by comparing the brief summaries which follow the directing and playwriting sections of this chapter. One finds that the same descrip­ tive words are used as keys to identify the directing and playwriting techniques of George Abbott.

Directing Playwriting organization variety discipline brevity practicality economy precision clarity command of timing tempo vitality order objectivity practicality order conciseness economy organization variety taste taste clarity 232

The similarity of the words cannot be considered chance. Many different sources have used these same words to describe both the directing and the playwriting of George Abbott. To add even further strength to this contention, there are comments from Abbott himself which support the conclusion that his directing and playwriting grew and developed to­ gether and now function together, in his autobiography, Abbott said,

The director must always function to some extent as a collaborator. Some­ times he is one, of course; and in many cases he is one in fact even though he receives no program credit for his work. But outside of these instances in which he collaborates in the actual writing, he is always an influence upon the shape of the play. He influences what is put in and what is taken out.58

When Mr. Abbott was asked to direct High Button Shoes (1947), he accepted but had reservations.

When I was sent the final script on the day before rehearsals started, I realized that I had let myself in for something difficult. The book by Stephen Longstreet, wasn’t really finished. During rehearsals I had to rewrite the show with the help of Phil Silvers who 59 had a great many funny things to suggest.

One sees here that any rewriting that is good for the show must be carried out and accomplished, no matter what the source. Rewriting is always done with the good of the show in mind, as the next passage suggests. 233

One morning during rehearsals for Call Me Madam, there being no au­ thors around, 1 had to write a few words into the show. Before I had time to explain the reason for this to Lindsay and Crouse, they walked into rehearsal. Lindsay listened to the new lines and then said in front of the cast, ’Well, X hope we still have the same title.' It was an uncomfortable moment. I dismissed the company and asked the authors to come out into the lobby with me. A- lone with them I explained that I was working for the good of the show, that to do this I had to have a free hand, and that there must be no con­ tention in front of the cast. They agreed, and henceforth rehearsals proceeded without incident.60

Writing always done to improve the show is again veri­ fied in the following instance. As in the earlier example, Abbott was the director of this show, but unlike the other he was also a co-author. For Pajama Game “Carol Haney came from the coast to be our principle dancer, but she showed such comic ability that Bissell and I wrote her a new part during the rehearsal period.” A It is clearly seen here that Ab­ bott’s directing abilities, being able to recognize a talent­ ed actress, and his writing ability, helping to write a part for Carol Haney, worked hand in hand. One enhanced the other. With Fiorello» Abbott made many script changes during rehearsals. “Many changes were made during the tryout period but all of them were accomplished without friction among us . . . Fiorello came close to ray picture of what it should be.“62 234

Mr. Abbott believes it is the director’s responsibility to "interpret a script.”

It is the director’s job, he ex­ plains, to know more about stagecraft than the author and he feels that the director who ’slavishly and religiously’ treats the script as a ’dead thing* and makes ho changes is a bad director. The good director should ’interpret’ the author’s lines to the audience in terms of the stage with which he is familiar. On the other hand, the director who uses the author’s script as a spring board for a virtuoso stunt which has no relation to the meaning of the play is equally incompetent; unless, perhaps, the stunt is, per se, a work of art.63

What this all indicates is that, for George Abbott, directing and playwriting are a combined task, and knowledge and skill in one serves and helps to develop and improve the other. 235

Footnotes

lj. Brooks Atkinson, "Behind the Bright Lights,” New York Times, September 17, 1926, p. 19. , p. 19. 3*” Mother ’s Day* Goes for a Ride,” Literary Digest, Feb­ ruary 9, 1935, p. 20. ^Glenville Vernon, ’’Three Men On A Horse,” The Common­ weal, February 15, 1935, p. 458. ¿Stanley Green, The World of Musical Comedy (New York: Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., 1960), pp. 219-220. ¿Stark Young, ’’Rockets Old and New,” The New Republic, December 14, 1938, p. 173. ^Howard. Taubman, The Making of the American Theatre (New York: Coward-McCannJ inc., l9ô5), p? 253. 8Green, p. 264. 9Green, p. 3. 10”Not Here, Charley,” Newsweek, October 25, 1948, p. 87. llGreen, p. 303. 12«’New Musical in Manhattan,” Time, May 24, 1954, p. 66. i3walter Kerr, “Spring Picnic,” New York Herald Tribune, May 14, 1954, found in The New York Theatre Critics' Reviews (New York: Critics’ Theatre Reviews, Inc., Ï954), vol. lS, p. 324. 14william Hawkins, ’’’Pajama Game’ Hits Fast Pace," New York World Telegram, May 14, 1954, found in The New York Trieatre Critics’ 'Reviews, vol. 15, p. 324. i5John McCiain, *’*rhis Musical Tremendous!," Journal Am­ erican, May 6, 1955, found in The New York Theatre Critics’ Reviews, vol. 16, p. 310. 1¿Lewis Funke, "Theatre: The Devil Seeks a Soul," The New York Times, May 6, 1955, found in The New York Theatre Critics’ Reviews, vol. 16, p. 311. lVjohn Chapman, "’Damn Yankees’ a Championship Musical and Gwen Verdon’s a Doll,” Daily News, May 6, 1955, found in The New York Theatre Critics’ Reviews, vol. 16, p. 312. iSAbe Laufe," Br o adway » s Gr e ate si: Musical s (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1973), p. l94. 19Green, p. 304. 20Maurice Aolotow, "The Season on and off Broadway,” Theatre Arts, July, 1955, p. 22. 210reen, p. 304. 22Taubman, p. 316. 23Laufe, p. 246. 24kaufe, p. 296. 25stated by Mr. Abbott during the interview between this writer and Mr. Abbott at Kennedy Center. This interview is cited in its entirety in Appendix II. 236

26David Richards, “Losers at the ’Pajama Game’," Washington Star-News, October 29, 1973. BÎRichard L. Coe, "Pajama Game," Washington Post, October 29, 1973, sec. B., p. 1 and p. 7. 28ibid. 29î5îd. 30These letters are included in their entirety in Appendix III. ¿^Letter from Jean Stapleton. Pound in Appendix III, p. 276. 32Letter from Jean Stapleton. Found in Appendix III, p. 276. 33Letter from Jean Stapleton. Found in Appendix III, p. 276. 34Letter from Jean Stapleton. Found in Appendix III, p. 276. 35Letter from Helen Hayes. Found in Appendix III,p. 274. 36Letter from Carol Burnett. Found in Appendix III, p. 278. ^Letter from Howard DaSilva. Found in Appendix III, p. 285. 38Letter from Mary Rodgers. Found in Appendix III, p. 279. 39Letter from Jerry Bock. Found in Appendix III, pp. 280-281. 40Letter from Jay Thompson. Found in Appendix III, pp. 282-283 41Letter from Richard Rodgers. Found in Appendix III, p. 277. 42i,etter from Jose Ferrer. Found in Appendix III, p. 286. 43Morton Eustis, "The Director Takes Command," Theatre Artg Monthly, Vol. 20, 1936, pp. 120-121. ^George Abbott, Mr. Abbott (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 267. 45George Abbott as quoted by Candice Russell, "George Abbott At 85 -- Still the Broadway Dean," The Cincinnati ? Enquirer, May 29, 1974, p. 10. » Abbott, p. 244. 47<3eorge Abbott in an interview with this writer. The interview is cited in its entirety in Appendix II. 48£ustis, pp. 122-123. 49Abbott as quoted by Russell, p. 10. 50Mr. Abbott, p. 220. 5lMr. Abbott, p. 256. 52mt. Abbott, pp. 264-265. 53Mr, Abbott, p. 65. 54mT7 Abbott, p. 117. 55Mr. Abbott, p. 119. 56Abbott as quoted by Russell, p. 10. 57mt. Abbott, p. 248. 58Mr. Abbott, p. 264. 59fôrT Abbott'. P. 219. 60mt. Abbott, p. 227. 61Mr. Abbott, p. 249. 62mt. Abbott, p. 263. 63Eûstîcë',’“p. 122. 237

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION

This chapter will provide a brief summary of each of the preceeding chapters, and present conclusions which may be drawn from the study. Finally, suggestions will be made for further investigations which might grow from this study.

I. Summary Chapter II examined three works authored by Abbott: The Boys From Syracuse (1938), Where’s Charley? (1948), and New Girl In Town (1957). These three musicals revealed verbal effects as the dominant source of laughter, result­ ing most frequently in the laughter of derision/ridicule, followed closely by contrast/incongruity. Audience appeal for these shows was to a mid-sophisticated and, therefore, general audience. Writing style depended on short, terse speeches, quick tempo, and simple, clear dialogue. Chapter III analyzed five co-authored works: Broadway (1926), Abbott with Phillip Dunning; Three Men On A Horse (1935), Abbott with John Cecil Holm; The Pajama Game (1954), Abbott with Richard Bissell; Damn Yankees (1955), Abbott with Douglass Wallop; and Tenderloin (1960), Abbott with Jerome Weidman. Again in these five works, verbal effect was the dominant source of laughter, generally resulting in the laughter of derision/ridicule closely followed by 238 contrast/incongruity. Tenderloin was an exception, since contrast/incongruity was the dominant nature of laughter. Audience appeal for these works was to a mid-sophisticated audience. The writing style remained constant, through short speeches, quick tempo, and simple, clear dialogue. Chapter IV examined two plays doctored by Abbott: Poppa (1928), written by Samuel and Bella Spewack; and Page Miss Glory (1934), written by Joseph Schrank and Phil­ lip Dunning. Verbal effect was the dominant source of laugh ter, resulting most frequently in the latfghter of derision/, ridicule closely followed by contrast/incongruity. Audience appeal was again to the mid-sophisticated audience. However in Poppa, the Jewish ethnic nature of the comedy would seem to limit the general appeal of the material, tending to re­ duce its popularity. The writing style for the plays re­ mained relatively consistent. Economy in the form of short speeches existed. The dialogue generally remained clear and simple. Tempo did fall off in both plays because of un­ necessarily complex plots. Chapter V reviewed the directing practices of Abbott, in an attempt to determine whether his directing influenced his play writing. It was found that, for George Abbott, directing and playwriting are a combined task, and knowledge and skill in one serves and helps to develop and improve the other. 239

To provide the reader with a succinct summary of some of the findings of the study, all the tables in Chapters II,

III, and IV are present here in chronological order.

Broadway Sources Natures (l926, Verbal effects -- 25 Derision/ridicule —- 31 Co-A. ) Character------— 16 Contrast/incongruity- 17 Physical action - 5 Total---- 7RS Obscenity ----- 2 Total — 4E Verbal effects — 42 Derision/ridicule — 51 Physical action - 28 Contrast/incongruity- 24 Character------14 Play instinct ——— 7 Obscenity —-—— 3 Mechanization------—- 7 Comic idea —----- 2 Total — 89 Total — 89 Page Miss Verbal effects — 68 Derision/ridicule —- 69 Glory Physical action - 58 Contrast/incongruity- 67 (1934, Character------21 Play instinct------14 Doc. ) Obscenity------— 12 Mechanization ------12 Plot effects ------6 Emotional release —_ 5 Comic idea —---- 2 Total - 157 Total - 167 Three Men Verbal effects — 60 Derision/ridicule ---- 47 On A Horse Physical action - 20 <5Contrast/incongruity- 36 -^35------Obscenity ----- — 11 Play instinct ------— 13 Co-A.) Character -—— 6 Emotional release — 4 Plot effects —3 Mechanization ——— 2 Comic idea ——— 2 Total - ÎÜ7 Total -102 Boys Prom Verbal effects — 79 Derision/ridicule — 76 Syracuse Physical action - 63 Contrast/incongruity- 67 (1938, Obscenity ------32 Emotional release — 24 A.) Plot effedts — 14 Mechanization -——— 15 Comic idea ——-- 2 Play instinct ------__ 8 Total -199 Total -

Where »s Verbal effects -- 58 Derision/ridicule — 75 Charley? Physical action - 51 Contrast/incongruity- 30 U9?8, Character —------6 Play instinct ------9 A.) Obscenity —------2 Mechanization ------3 Plot effects — 1 Emotional release — l Total - 118 Total - ÏT8 240

Pajama Verbal effects -- 68 Derision/ridicule — 71 Game Physical action - 45 Contrast/incongruity- 61 “7Ï754 t Obscenity------15 Mechanization --—---- 10 Co-A.) Character — ------15 Play instinct ——- 3 Plot effects -— 3 Emotional release — 1 Total — 146 Total — — 146

Damn Verbal effects — 36 Derision/ridicule — 34 Yankees Obscenity------— 14 Contrast/incongruity- 29 ■(ÏS537 Physical action - 10 Mechanization ——— 3 Co-A.) Character ------9 Emotional release 3 Total — 57 Total ---- 69 New Girl Verbal effects — 21 Derision/ridicule — 25 In Town Obscenity ---- —-- 8 Contrast/incongruity- 9 T19577 Character ------— 4 Emotional release — 2 A.) Physical action - 4 Play instinct ——— 1 Total — 37 Total ----- 37 Tenderloin Verbal effects — 43 Contrast/incongruity- 58 (1960, Character ———- 23 Derision/ridicule — 45 Co-A.) Physical action - 19 Emotional release — 3 Comic idea —---- - 11 Total — 1Ö6 Obscenity —-—-- 10 Total - 106

A compilation of the numbers in the ten separate analyses provides the following totals: Sources Natures Verbal effects — 500 Derision/ridicule —— 524 Physical action - 303 Contrast/incongruity - 398 Character --—--- 114 Play instinct —-—— 55 Obscenity ——---- 109 Mechanization —------52 Plot effects —— 27 Emotional release ------43 Comic idea —19 Total---- ÎS77 Total - Ï372

II. Conclusions Conclusions to be drawn from the study are related to the objectives of this investigation. Those objectives were: 241

(1) to analyze and describe the comic devices in specific plays and musicals of George Abbott; (2) to seek a possible evolutionary pattern in Mr. Abbott’s work; (3) to attempt to assess what influence, if any, Mr. Abbott’s directing has had on his playwriting.

The first objective resulted in the close analysis of Abbott’s plays and musicals using the comic theory of Alan Reynolds Thompson. For each play and libretto, examples of each comic device and its resulting nature of laughter were provided. Along with these examples was included a summary table that categorized in numerical order all of the sources and natures of laughter found in the work. The chronologi­ cal table provided above verifies that verbal effects and the body in physical action were the dominant sources of laughter in Abbott’s work, while the most frequently result­ ing nature of laughter was derision/ridicule followed close­ ly by contrast/incongruity. Looking at the summaries, one can observe that there is considerable variety in the humor used by Abbott. As one looks at the first four sources of laughter (verbal effects, physical action, character, and obscenity) there is a clear indication of this variety. In every ten laugh provoking instances in a play or libretto, five would be caused by verbal, three by physical action, one by character, and one 242

by obscenity with an occasional laugh stemming from plot or comic idea. One could argue that, because verbal humor makes up nearly fifty per cent of all the causes of laughter, there is a lack of variety. Not so. Verbal humor is the most flexible of all the sources. Interlacing its use with the rest of the sources helps to achieve a consistent, yet flexi­ ble, comic form. This indicates tb this writer considerable variety in humor, considerable flexibility in the playwright, and considerable enjoyment for the audience. Abbott wrote as an author, co-author, and play doctor. In all three of these categories, verbal effect was the dom­ inant source of laughter, and was combined with a variety of other sources. It may be said that Abbott’s co-authored and doctored works are so similar to his authored works in their comedy as to suggest strongly that Abbott influenced his collaborators, rather than the reverse. The kind of audience appeal that Abbott’s works have, has been measured by Thompson’s scale of increasing subtlety,1 which is a means of evaluating the kind and quality of humor used by a playwright. The scale helps to determine kind by labelling the humor. It helps to determine quality by lo­ cating the area or point on the scale where the humor falls. This point also is some indication of the kind of audience toward which the comedy is directed: a very base or extreme­ ly common group, a partially educated or partially experienced 243 group (the mid-sophisticated), or a highly sophisticated audience. In this country, systems of education and our social structure have made the middle group numerically large. It is for this group that this writer feels that George Abbott consciously wrote. The reasons for this feel­ ing are several: 1. All of the works examined in this study were directed toward this mid-sophisticated audience. 2. Abbott has had many long-run plays with more than 500 performances, all of which appeal to the same audience which happens to be a large segment of American society. 3. The very business-like nature of George Abbott and his economical attitudes towards playwriting, directing, and conducting theatre business, which have been mentioned time and again throughout this study, support this notion. 4. As stated in the personal interview with Abbott, he feels that theatre is just another “story­ telling art,” another indication of his business­ like attitude toward theatre.2 5. The immense success he has had financially by working in every facet of the theatre (acting, directing, playwriting, and producing) shows that his purpose, obviously, is to earn a living.

The kind of audience toward which Abbott’s works have been directed is revealed through Thompson’s scale of in­ creasing subtlety. The tabulations which were provided at the end of part one of this chapter have told much about Abbott. A study of these two parts together can also sug­ gest something about the American commercial theatre audi­ ence. Since Abbott’s work has bee_n and still is popular, 244 since he has been active in theatre for more than fifty years, and since he has been using basically the same level of material, one can conclude that the tastes of the American audience have not altered since 1920 in ways which reject Abbott’s approach to theatre. Abbott’s theatre is a con­ sistently popular, non-changing commercial theatre form. It is a “safe” form that has proved financially successful. The process of analysis used in this study suggests an­ other conclusion. Since Thompson’s theory was the means of evaluating Abbott’s work, and since Thompson drew his theory from classical, neo-classical, and modern theorists, its successful use in identifying the comedy of George Abbott suggests that the comedy drawn on by Thompson is similar to modern popular comedy. Many of the same comic devices that worked for the Greeks, the French, the English and the other nations of the world still work for the writers of this country. At least some elements of comedy have not changed. This writer has found Thompson’s system of analysis to be a fairly workable theory, though at times one gets the feeling that the division of his natures and sources is not altogether precise. It is easy to see some parts of Thomp­ son's theory which he lists as “natures” as being “sources.” The most valuable characteristic of Thompson’s theory is its flexibility. One is able to identify many forms of comedy with it, and yet the theory is not so cumbersome as to be 245

unmanageable. The second objective of this study, to seek a possible evolutionary pattern in Abbott’s works, is a frustrating exercise. Abbott’s humor seems to have remained consistent through the years. The dominant source of laughter he used in the 1920’s and 1930’s is the same as that which he used in the 1950‘s and 1960’s. The only place where a possible trend might be noted is in the relationship of verbal effects and the body in physical action. ' Six of the ten plays or musicals showed physical action as the second most used source of laughter. Of these six, four are works produced in the 1920’s and 1930‘s. They are Poppa (1928), Page Miss Glory (1934), Three Men On A Horse (1935), and Boys Prom Syracuse (1938). This might infer that Mr. Abbott placed more em­ phasis on physical action as a source of laughter early in his career than he did later. It seems that during the 1920’s and 1930’s, one sees a dependence on verbal and physical humor as a combination of primary sources of laughter. In the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s, there is less dependence on this verbal and physical combination, therefore yielding greater variety in the dominant sources of laughter in Ab- vott’s work. It should be noted that, while verbal effect is always the dominant source of laughter, there is no pattern for the rest of the sources used. No two plays fol­ low the same pattern after verbal effects. 246

Abbott’s writing style has also remained constant in that those stylistic elements which were identifiable in the twenties and thirties (such as clarity, economy, variety) have been consistent through the later years. There is no major, discernible change in the writing style or in the sources of laughter of which Abbott makes use. Although there have not been significant changes in the style or in the sources used, one can see a general improvement in Ab­ bott’s writing through the development of tighter scripts, songs that continue the story, better characters, and great­ er economy. Despite the fact that there has been more refinement than change in Abbott’s work, one finds new ideas and new comic pieces in each show. The physical humor in The Boys From Syracuse is very different from the physical humor in Where»s Charley? One witnesses many beatings and chases in “Boys,” but in “Charley” one sees wrestling matches, such as the ones between Charley and Spettigue during the wooing scene. A point which must be made is that the variety that is so much a part of Abbott’s work is very real. One can find very few playwrights who can provide the degree of va­ riety that Abbott does. He makes use of a great deal of non sense, but the nonsense is always different. There is no ev olutionary pattern to be discovered in Abbott’s work, but there is variety and freshness. 247

As indicated in Chapter V, the influence of Abbott the director on Abbott the playwright may be equal to the in­ fluence of Abbott the playwright on Abbott the director. Each aspect of Abbott’s theatre skill has clearly served the other. It can be concluded then, that George Abbott learned these two skills well as a young man. He learned to apply each with great facility, and learned to use each to enrich the other. His work has always been, and will probably con tinue to be, clear, concise, economical, orderlyy variable, and generally interesting.

III. Suggestions for Further Research In studying George Abbott, one often finds the name of George S. Kaufman mentioned. It would be interesting to look at the work of Kaufman, to see how closely related he might be to Abbott. Kaufman, like Abbott, was a playwright director, and play doctor, so the parallels might be very close. One might also examine Thompson’s theory of comedy and attempt to check the validity of his two parts (natures and sources), and the placement of elements as he assigns them to each part. By this study one might determine which ele­ ments are the causes and which elements are those which are the resulting natures of laughter, for there seems to be some discrepancy as they are arranged by Thompson. 248

A third possibility might be the study of the co-authors with whom George Abbott wrote. One could examine their writ­ ings after they had worked with Abbott, to see if any Abbott influence endures. Because of Abbott’s reputation as a respected, success­ ful, and sought-after director, a more detailed study of Abbott as a directer would certainly be justified. Another possibility for further research would be the construction of a more complete theory of the comic. There are many theories and partial theories, but all seem to have at least one weak link. Though this task would be a monstrous one, and one subject to much controversy, the effort might prove extremely fruitful to the world of comedy and its study. 249

Footnotes iThis scale is found on page 20 of this study. 2*rhis interview is reproduced in its entirety in Appendix 250

BIBLIOGRAPHY 251

Books

Abbott, George. Mr. Abbott. New York: Random House, 1963. . New Girl In Town. New York: Chappell & ------CôTTTnc?, 1S33.—------______,. The Boys From Syracuse. New York: Chappell & Co., Inc., 1965. _ Where’s Charley? New York: Samuel French, Inc.,1948. Abbott, George and Ann Preston Bridges. Coquette. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928. Abbott, George and Douglass Wallop. Damn Yankees. New York: Random House, 1956. Abbott, George and John V. A. Weaver. Love ’Em and Leave ’Em. New York: Samuel French, Inc., 1926. Abbott, George and Richard Bissell. The Pajama Game. New York: Random House, 1954. Aristotle. ’’Poetics: Comedy.” Comedy : plays, theory, and criticism. Ed. Marvin Feiheim. New York: Parcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Aristotle. ’’Poetics.’’ The Student♦ s Oxford Aristotle. Trans. Ingram Bywater. New York: Oxford University Press, 1942. Atkinson, Brooks. Broadway. New York: MacMillan Companv, 1970. Bailey, Mabel Driscoll. Maxwell Anderson: The Playwright as Prophet. New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1937. Bissell, Richard and Abe Burrows and Marian Bissell. Say, Darling. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1958. Bissell, Richard. 7i- Cents. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1953. Bogard, Travis and William 1. Oliver, eds. Modern Drama: 252

Essays in Criticism. London: Oxford University Press, 1963? Coffin, Rachel W., ed. The New York Theatre Critics* Reviews. New York: Öritics’ ïheatre Reviews, Ine., vol. 9, 1948. , ed. The New York pieatre Critics* Reviews. New York: Critics* TÎÏeatre Reviews, Inc., vol. Ì5, 1954. , ed. The New York Theatre Critics’ Reviews. New York: Critics’ Theatre Reviews, Inc., vol. 16, 1955. ______ed. The New York pxeatre Critics* Reviews. New York: Critics’ ‘Theatre Reviews, Inc., vol. 18, 1957. ______, ed. The New York Theatre Critics* Reviews. New York: Critics’ Theatre Reviews, Inc., vol. 21, 1960. Cohen, Bella and Samuel Spewack. Poppa. New York: Samuel French, Inc., 1927. Cole, Toby and Helen Krich Chinoy. Actors on Acting. New York: Crown Publishers, 1949. Congdon, Don, ed. The Thirties: A Time to Remember. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962. Corrigan, Robert W. Comedy: Meaning and Form. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1963. Dunning, Phillip and George Abbott. ’’Broadway.” Famous Plays of Crime and Detection. Eds. Van H. Cartnell anœBennett Cerf. Philadelphia: The Blakiston Co., 1946. Eastman, Max. Enjoyment of Laughter. New York: Simon and Schuster,1936. . The Sense of Humor. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1921. Enek, John J., Elizabeth T. Forter, and Alvin Whitley, eds. The Comic In Theory and Practice. New York: Appleton- Century-CroFts, Inc., 1960. 253

Freud, Sigmund. “Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious.“ The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: The ModernLibrary, 1938. Funke, Lewis and John E. Booth, eds. Actors Talk About Acting. New York: Random House, l9'6i. Gassner, John. Masters of the Drama. New York: Random House, 1940. ______. Producing the Play, rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1941. Green, Stanley. Tie World of Musical Comedy. New York: Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., 1960. Greig, J. Y. T., M.A. The Psychology of Laughter and Comedy New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1969. Hartnoll, Phyllis, ed. Tie Oxford Companion to the Theatre. Third edition. London: "Oxford' University Press, 1961?. Holm, John Cecil and George Abbott. Three Men On A Horse. New York: Dramatist’s Play Service, Inc., 1954. Laufe, Abe. Broadway’s Greatest Musicals. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1973. Lewis, Allan. American Plays and Playwrights of the Con­ temporary Theatre, rev. ed. . New York: Crown Pub­ lishers,Inc.,1970. Mantle Burns. The Best Plays of 1927-1972. 45 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1928-1972. O’Hara, John. Pal Joey. New York: Chappell & Co., Inc., 1962. Olson, Elder. The Theory of Comedy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968. Schrank, Joseph and Phillip Dunning. Page Miss Glory. New York: Samuel French, Inc., 1934. Seldes, Gilbert. The Seven Lively Airts. New York: Sagä- more Press, Inc., 1924. . The Stammering Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1928. 254

Seyler, Athene and Stephen Haggard. The Craft of Comedy. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 194^. Simon, Rita James, ed. As We Saw the Thirties. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967. Sully, James. An Bssay on Laughter. New York: Longmans, Green, and“26., 1902. Sypher, Wylie, ed. Comedy. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1936. Taubman, Howard. The Making of the American Theatre. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1965. Thompson, Alan Reynolds. The Anatomy of Drama. Second Ed. New York: Books for Libraries Press, Inc., 1946. Weidman, Jerome and George Abbott. Fiorello. New York: Random House, 1959. Weidman, Jerome and George Abbott. Tenderloin. New York: Random House, 1961. Weisheit. ”An Analysis of the Comic in Five Plays by G. S. Kaufman and Moss Hart." Masters Thesis. Bowling Green State University, 1968. Wichter, Dixon, F. O. Matthiessen, Detier W. Bronk, Brand Blanchard, and George F. Thomas. Changing Patterns in American Civilization. Philadelphia: University oF Pennsylvania Press, 1949.

Periodicals

Aolotow, Maurice. "The Season on and off Broadway." Theatre Agis. July, 1955, p. 22. Atkinson, Brooks. "Alderman Schwitzky Goes Free." The New York Times. Dec. 25, 1928, p. 31. . "Behind the Bright Lights." The New York Times. 17 September 1926, p. 19. ______, "Three Men On A Horse." The New York Times, 31 January 1935, p. 22. 255

Clurman, Harold “Tenderloin.“ The Nation, Nov. 5 1960, p. 353. ______. “Theatre." The Nation, 29 May 1954, p. 470 Coe, Richard L. "Pajama Game.” Washington Post, October 29, 1973, sec. B., p. 1 and p. 7. “The Drama." The Catholic World, January, 1935, p. 469. “The Drama." The Catholic World, January, 1939, pp. 474- 476. "The Drama." The Catholic World, March, 1935, pp. 723-724. “Editor Goes to the Play." Theatre Magazine, April 29, 1929, p. 46. Eustis, Martin. “The Director Takes Command." Theatre Arts Monthly, vol. 20 (1936), pp. 114-123. Gabriel, Gilbert W. “Playgoing With Gilbert." Theatre Arts Monthly, vol. 33 (1949), pp. 17-18. Gibbs, Wolcott. “The Best At Last." The New Yorker, 22 May 1954, p. 68. Hatch, Robert. “Theatre and Films.” The Nation, June 1, 1957, p. 486. Hewes, Henry. “Broadway Postscript." Saturday Review, May 21, 1955, p. 44. Krutch, Joseph Wood. “Theatre.” The Nation, Dec. 10, 1938 p. 638. Lewis, Theophilus. "Tenderloin." America, Dec. 3, 1960, p. 356. “’Mother’s Day’ Goes for a Ride." Literary Digest, 9 Feb. 1935, p. 20. Nathan, George Jean. “Theatre Week.” Newsweek, 2 May 1938 p. 24. “New Girl In Town.” Theatre Arts, July, 1957, p. 14. "New Musical In Manhattan." Time, May 27, 1957, p. 60. 256

“Not Here, Charley.“ Newsweek, October 25, 1948, p. 87. “’Page Miss Glory’ the Girl With Unlimited Charms.“ News­ week, December 8, 1934, p. 26. Richards, David. “Losers at the ’Pajama Game. ”’ Washing­ ton Star-News, October 29, 1973. Russell, Candice. “George Abbott at 85 -- Still the Broad­ way Dean.“ The Cincinnati Enquirer, May 29, 1974, p. 10. “Song-and-Dance O’Neill.” Newsweek, May 27, 1957, p. 70. “Theatre." Newsweek, 31 December 1945, p. 78. “Theatre: The Bases Loaded.” Newsweek, May 16, 1955, p. 96 Vernon, Glenville. “The Play.” The Commonweal, 15 February 1935, p. 458. “Wno’s Wno Among the Producers.” Theatre Arts Monthly, vol. 26 (1942),.pp. 620-621. Young, Stark. “Rockets Old and New.” The New Republic, December 14, 1938, p. 173. 257

APPENDICES 258

APPENDIX I GEORGE ABBOTT’S THEATRE RECORD

This list, minus the performance numbers, is taken from George Abbott’s autobiography, Mr. Abbott, published by Random House in 1963. It can be found on pages 277 - 279 of that book. The performance numbers are taken from the Burns Mantle Best Plays series, volumes 1-45, pub­ lished by Dodd, Mead & Co. from 1928 - 1972. Key: (Act.) - Actor; (A.) - Author; (Co-A.) - Co­ author; (D.) - Director; (Doc.) - ’’Play Doctor’’; (P.) ■ Producer; (Co-P.) - Co-producer.

Year Play 1913 The Misleading Lady (Act.) 1916 The Queen’s Enemies (Act.) 1918 Lightnin* (Act.) Dadaies "(Act.) 1920 Hie Broken Wing (Act.) 1921 Dulcy (on tour) (Act.) 1923 Zander the Great (Act.) White' Desert " (Act.) 1924 Hell-bent for Heaven (Act.) Lazy Bones (Act.) 1925 Processional (Act.) The Rail Guy (Co-A.) 95 performances A Holy Terror (Act.) 1926 Love 'Em and Leave ’Em (D., Co-A.) 152 performances Cowboy^Srazy (D.) Broadway (D., Co-A. ) 603 performances Chicago" (D.) 172 performances 1927 Spread Eagle (D.) 80 performances gour Walls (D., Co-A.) 144 performances Soquette (D., Co-A.) 253 performances Bless You, Sister (Doc.) 24 performances 259

1928 Gentlemen of the Press (D.) 128 performances Ringside 5D., Go-A.) 37 performances Jarnegan (Doc.) 136 performances Poppa iDoc.) 96 performances 1930 Those We Love (Act., D., Co-A.) 77 performances 1931 Louder, Please (D.) 68 performances 1932 Lilly Turner (D., Co-A., Co-P.) 24 performances The Great Magoo (D.) 11 performances Twentieth Century (D., Co-P.) 152 performances 1933 Heat Lightning (D., Co-P.) 44 performances The Drums Begin (D., Co-P.) 11 performances 1934 John Brown (Act., D., P.) 2 performances Kill That Story (D., Co-P.) 117 performances SmallfTracle (D.) 117 performances Ladies* Money (D., A.) 36 performances Page Miss Glory (Doc.) 63 performances 1935 Three Men On A Horse (D., Co-A.) 835 performances Jumbo (ft. 7^ 233 performances Boy Meets Girl (D., P.) 669 performances 1936 On Your Toes (D., Co-A.) 73 performances Sweet River (D., A,, P.) _5 performances Brother Rat (D., P.) 213 performances 1937 Room Service (D., P.) 500 performances Angel Island (D., P.) 21 performances Brown Sugar (D., P.) 4 performances 1938 All That Glitters (D., P.) 69 performances What a Life (D., P.) 81 performances The Boys From Syracuse (D., A., P.) 235 per­ formances 1939 The Primrose Path (D., P.) Mrs. O’Brien Entertains (D., P.) See My Lawyer (P.) 224 performances Too~ Many Girls (D. , P. ) 249 performances Ring Two (D., P.) 5 performances The WhTte-Haired Boy (D., P.) 1940 The Oftconquered (D., P.) 6 performances Goodbye in the Night (D., P.) 8 performances Pal Joey (D., P.) 540 performances 1941 Best Foot Forward (D., P.) 302 performances 1942 Jason (P.) 1^5 performances Beat the Band (D., P.) 68 performances ¿weet~5harity (D.) 8 performances 1943 Kiss & Tell (D., P.) 103 performances Get Away, Old Man (D., P.) 13 performances 1944 XHgjghland Fling (D., P.) 28 performances Snafu (D., P.) 158 performances On the Town (D.) 463 performances 260

1945 Mr. Cooper *s Left Hand (D., P.) Twilight Bar TP?) One Shoe Off (D., P.) gTlion DSTlar Baby (D.) 188 performances 1946 The banceF Tp.T 5 performances Beggar’s Holiday (Doc.) 108 performances 1947 It Takes Two (D.) 8 performances barefoot Boy With Cheek (D., P.) 108 performances HigK BuVton Shoeg (D.) 727 performances You Never Know fDoc.) 1948 Look Ma, I*m Dancin’ (D., P.) 188 performances Where Ts Charley?' Cd. , A.) 792 performances 1949 Mrs J (ribbons’ Boys (D., P.) 5 performances Touch~ahdGo (P.) 176 performances 1950 Tickets, Please (Doc.) 245 performances Call Me Madam (D.) 644 performances but oF’Tfais World (Doc.) 157 performances 1951 A Tree ¿rows in~Brooklyn (D., Co-A., P.) 270 per­ formances The Number (D.) 1952 In Any Language (D., Co-P.) 1953 BhaerfuT Town (D.) 559 performances Me and Juliet (D.) 358 performances 1954 Sajama Game (D., Co-A.) 1063 performances On Your Toes (revival) (D., P.) 64 performances 1955 Damn Yankees (D., Co-A.) 1019 performances ¿kin of Our Teeth (Act.) 1957 New Girl In Town (D., A.) 431 performances 1958 Drink To Me Only (D.) 77 performances 1959 Once Upon A Mattress (D.) 460 performances Fiorello TD., Co-A. ) 795 performances 1960 Tenderloin (D., Co-A.) 216 performances 1961 A Call onHKuprin (D.) 12 performances Take Her, She’¿Mine (D.) 404 performances 1962 £ Emmy Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (D.) ~~ 964 performances Never Too Late (D.) 213 performances

Additional productions since the publishing of Mr. Abbott: 1963 The Boys From Syracuse (off-Broadway revival) (A.) 500 performances 1964 Fade Out, Fade In (D.) 1965 FloraHThe Red Menace (D., Co-A. ) Anya (D., Ùo-a71 16 performances 1966 Where’s Charley? (A.) (City Center revival) 261

1969 The Fig Leaves Are Falling (0.) 4 performances 1970 Not Now, ParIlhg (575 21 performances 1973 Pajama Game (D., Co-A.) (revival)

*• 262

APPENDIX II

GEORGE ABBOTT INTERVIEW

This interview between George Abbott (designated as A.) and this writer, Robert W. MacClennan, (designated as M.) was held on October 26, 1973, at the Kennedy Center in Washington D. C., after the preview performance of the revival of Pajama Game.

M. I’m Bob MacClennan. I’m writing that dissertation on you, Mr. Abbott. I’m studying your plays. . . A. Oh, well, here’s a fellow who will tell you all about me. . . Charming disposition. . . flexible. . . in­ telligent. . . gorgeous. . . M. Very talented. You’re still a very, very good director I enjoyed your production very much tonight. A. Well, it’s a little ragged at this point; but it’s go­ ing to be good. M. All the signs are there, though. A. You can see the first act was better than the second. We’ve worked on that a little more, but it will be smooth in a few days. M. A lot of energy; a lot of light; lots of color. A. Yes. A lot of good actors, too, weren’t there? M. Yes. Very good, very good. I’ve jotted down a couple of things I would like to ask to see how you respond to them. A. 0. K. You do that. M. First of all, I was wondering what degree of prepara­ tion you had before going into the actual show? 263

A. Well, I don’t have as much as a lot of people do be­ cause I think that directing is a collaboration be­ tween the actors and the — so you can’t plan to, at least I can’t plan in too much detail what I’m going to do until I can hear the actors working on the scene. M. A lot of inspiration behind it. A. Well, it isn’t a matter of inspiration, it’s a matter of technique. What kind of actors are they? What are they going to do? You see, the same actor in a different part gives you a different way of handling him. Even cut lines sometimes -- I cut some lines in one of these parts because one actor is different than somebody he used to be. He is better with fewer words. M. You added a song to the production. A. Yes. M. It’s a pretty song. A. Well, I think it is. The reason we did was that we had no solo for Barbara McNair who was our star and at that point we used to sing a reprise and so Dick wrote two songs. The first one he wrote he tried to write her kind of song which was a rhythm song and it sounded so out of keeping with the show that I asked him to write another one and I like this. I think this is — you didn’t see it to good advantage. I’m going to have those fellows light it in a warm way and they’re going to be active, I mean so that you know she is in the back yard and they’re indoors. But this is the first time we’ve tried it like that and they just sat there paralyzed for fear they would interfere with her. That will be all right when I get it fixed. M. Sure a lot of fun. The color and the brilliance; the brightness of it was really, really nice. A. There’s a new designer. I think he’s very good. M. I saw one of your productions many years ago. I wasn't aware that you were the director and producer of it, but I did enjoy it at that time. A. What was that? 264

M. I’m shooting my mouth off and I can’t remember what it was — Never Too Late. A. Oh, yes. M. With Martha Scott. A. Oh, you saw the road company then. No, you saw it late in the run. M. Yes, late in the run. It was in New York. My wife and I had the pleasure of working with Martha Scott one time. She was a guest artist at Clarion State College in Pennsylvania and I was stage manager for the pro­ duction. It was quite interesting. Jerry Bock said in a letter that he wrote to me in response to a question that I asked of him, compar­ ing your directing to other directors, that “it is simply not George’s style. There, I’ve said it, ‘George’,“ and he puts it in quotes, “and I’m glad.” How do you feel about the name business per se? A. Oh, I like to be called by my first name. I — that’s just something that I think got a lot of publicity — that I wanted to be called or that I was called Mr. Abbott.,. And so then actors who would join would think I didn’t want to be called anything else, so they all called me that, but, no, I don't care anymore. M. That’s interesting. Have you ever made use of the “honor system” of blocking as Helen Hayes calls it? She was talking about — A. The “honor system"? M. Alan Schneider as a director. Talking about not direct­ ing the actors. Let them move on their own on the stage. Have you ever used that and then incorporated that into productions? A. No, no — I don't think -- Helen said that? I was in a show that Helen was in that Alan Schneider directed and that wasn’t the way he directed it. He told us where he wanted us to be. M. Well, that’s the way she commented. Well, maybe it wasn't that particular production she was referring to, but she was referring to that — A. Well, there are people that say, "All right, now go find 265

your places there,” and lets them drift around. My suspicion is that all go for the center door. M. Center spot so they get the warmest light, huh? In the letter that Mrs. -- that Helen Hayes wrote, she said that you were directing a play that her husband had written. That was this past summer. A. Yes. Twentieth Century. M. Is that the name of the play? A. Well, I don’t know which she was talking about but that — But I did do Twentieth Century which was Hecht and MacArthur’s show. M. This was in Tallahassee, Florida. Somewhere in Florida? A. Oh, no. That was another play that I’m not going to do, so we won’t mention that. No, that’s something else. It was an old play that MacArthur had written with Nunnely Johnson that had never been produced. No, we’re not going to do that. M. Is there any formula per se that you use for writing your plays? A. No, I can’t say there’s a formula. I always like — I always like a play to be clear — so I think I have at least an idea of the beginning, the middle, and the end But I have not been — I wouldn’t say that my ideas for plays were entirely successful. I’ve been much more successful taking somebody else’s material and working . with that — M. You indicated that in your autobiography. A. So, I — I — you know, I give an order sometimes to other people’s plays that weren’t, but I’ve not been so successful and fresh in starting from scratch. M. When you were at Harvard studying playwriting and so on and so forth, were you exposed to comic theory and was any of it influential to you, do you remember? A. Baker was influential in a certain — but he was very modern. He — this thing he would say over and over is, ’’Get the greatest given emotion from the given scene." And he meant, if it’s a comedy, milk it; if it’s a serious scene, be sure that you don’t just hit it and run but that you extract from it all the emotion or all the comedy that’s there, and I think that’s im- • portant. And he always taught a farce is just as impor tant as a drama. You shouldn’t think any one form of theatre is better than another. M. In looking at your record, I see that there are very few serious plays that you’ve done. A. No, very few. I’m very proud of some of them. I liked Coquette and I like Primrose Path very much and those are two very serious plays. M. Coquette *s a beautiful play. I think it would still work today, perhaps. A. No, I think the premise of it is very hard to take. M. Any particular reason why? A. Well, because the old South is so far gone now that you can't understand it. M. Is there any particular reason why you haven’t done more serious plays? Do you think that musical comedy or comedy is more your bent? Is this what you like to do? A. No — ah — ah. I couldn’t tell you why because I cer­ tainly love to do -- and I’ve done melodrama as you know. I mean I would say that one of my greatest suc­ cesses was Broadway which was a melodrama. M. It’s being revived right now. A. Well — M. Ha-ha. A. Better not. M. O. K. We won’t talk; about that, huh? A. But I mean, no — I’ve done other serious plays and I think I’ve had a tendency to lighten them a certain extent. I don’t know. Did a play called “Kupern,” “Kuprin,” -- what the hell was the name of that show? Was about the first sputnik and they put the sputnik up right while we were rehearsing and killed us dead. 267

M. Oh, boy. The unexpected happens. Have you ever done a Shakespeare? A. Not on a — not, no -- In with an actor group, just for fun. M. Which one? A. But my — which play? Three of them. We did Merchant and As You Like It. I can’t remember what else. Much Ado,"! guess. Just when I had four plays running and to give the actors some community interest, we did Shakespeare on the side. Rehearsed him just for fun. But my instinct, well, it’s coming around now, is to make Shakespeare sound like talk, not like verse. At that time that wasn’t supposed to be very good and now they’re doing that more. M. Would you like to do one? For a professional audience? A. Oh, I don't know whether I would. I admire him so much, you know, and I think it’s just the greatest writing, but — ah — would be — mind, if somebody offered me, I might be challenged, I don't know. I hadn't thought about it. M. What follows Pajama Game? From here? A. I’m not certain. Oh, I know what happens; what follows first is I’m going to Florida and play golf this winter M. Good, good. I appreciated reading in the autobiography the many comments about Florida and the Bahamas and so on. Sounds like you had — A. Are you from down there? M. No, I’m a Texas boy. A. Well, you’re South. That’s South. No, I love the trop­ ical and the semi-tropical weather and I’ve decided that's a present I’m going to give myself for the rest of my life. I’m going to have my winters down there. M. That’s — you certainly earned it, that’s for sure. Do you like to fish? A. No. 268

M. No, huh? A. I’m an impatient person. I can’t sit there all that time. M. In Once Upon a Mattress, in a letter that I received from Jack Sydow, he indicated that you permitted stag­ ing of a scene as he had done it the year before. A. Yes. M. Have you ever done that since? A. Oh, I don’t know if I have. He’s a good director and he had — the scene was just right so we just repeated it, yeah. I hadn’t thought about it. I guess I -- sure — I would say this way — when I’ve taken over shows sometimes I’ve kept the segments I thought were good and thrown away those I thought were bad. ’Course this is one we were starting with a new version of that same story. M. Want to ask a little bit of a philosophical question. Do you think theatre is a ’’bastard art?” A. No, I think it’s — it’s like any other story telling art. M. Could you elaborate a little bit what you mean? A. Well, we read books to take us into make believe land and we see plays for the same reason. Basically. M. But it doesn’t — it’s not — I want to see if I can rephrase my question. I don’t know if you’re -- if we’re on the same wave length. The result of combin­ ations of so many different talents, the scene de­ signer, the stage manager, the director, the playwright, and the combination of this makes the art, so some theorists think, a ’’bastard art.” Do you agree with that? A. Well, I don’t think it’s important what they call it. It’s certainly — you’re certainly right that no one person can do it. You’ve got to — if you don’t have the actors, you could fail, and you could fail for very strange reasons like running out of money and things like that that have nothing to do with how good a show is. Or -- and you could write something good that people don’t know is good until later and all that sort 269

of thing, but — so can a painter. I can’t thin& — I was trying to think of some other art that was so — took so many people. I suppose writing an opera. Composer’s the same thing. He’s dependent on singers and musicians. M. Dance to some extent. Choreography and — A. That’s a mere playing on words anyway you fix it. What’s the difference? M. That’s right. That’s right ... In Three Men On A Horse. I kind of saw a little bit of a contemporariness in the play. In other words, the poor man makes good syndrome. And you played upon that in the play. Here’s this poor little guy that with the horses makes a lot of money all of a sudden. Now was this a deliberate at­ tempt? A. Well, this again is another fellow’s play that I worked on, you see. This is John Cecil Holms' play and I re­ wrote it. But the idea of the milktoast with the gift for picking horses was his. That wasn’t me — that was what I worked on. M. So there's no — you don't see any inspiration. A. I just saw a funny show -- nothing more — nothing more psychic than that. M. Very good. Well* I appreciate your having me here, Mr. Abbott. It’s an honor to meet you. A. Well, thank you. M. And I have looked very much forward to this and I know that for several nights now I will not sleep having been here and spoken with you. A. Ha-ha. Well, maybe you’ll see — if we have a long run maybe you’ll see the show in its finished form and see what — oh, it won't be so very different. It’ll be smoother, but the overall picture will be the same. Some of the actors will get better and some of the things will work. Like the knife throwing which ought to be an hilarious scene and always was -- and so was the pa­ jama scene -- which isn’t working yet. M. The finale? 270 A. No, the one where he changes his — M. Oh, when he takes the pants off and puts the — A. Yeah. M. Yeah. A. It’s the first time it’s even worked approximately. Well, of course, this is only our second show so — M. Oh, this is your second performance tonight? A. Uh - huh. M. I thought you’d been running longer than that. A. No. Just opened to the public yesterday and this is, of course, preview. We’re not supposed to be visible at this time. M. And when is your opening here? A. Tomorrow night. M. Tomorrow night. A. Play a matinee and then we open. And the little girl who plays Gladys has got — a — mono — monolucleous — How do you pronounce that? M. Mono — mononucleosus. A. I can’t — What’s wrong? M. Sleeping sickness. A. Did you like her? Did you like that little girl? M. Yeah. A. I did too. M. I enjoyed the whole company. It’s so bright and cheer­ ful. A. Did you like Cab? M. Yeah. He’s got a lot of style. Boy, he sure has poise and presence. Come’s across very, very nicely. And his body is still lithe and limber. 271

A. He‘s got an awful big corset on. Ha-ha. M. Does he? Ha-ha. Oh, boy. But he handles himself very, very well. A. Well, of course, the great improvement over the original company is the leading man — is Hal Linden — much more of an actor than John Raitt ever was. M. Boy, he sings beautifully too — nice strong voice. And that girl! Boy, is she pretty. A. Did the miscegenation bother you at all? M. Huh-uh. A. ’Course she looks like an Italian girl more than a Negro. I tell you, this is a little microcosm of what the world ought to be. There’s no more consciousness of any race in this company. They all like each other. They’re judged by whether they’re dumb or smart or witty or ugly or what -- with no thought of color at all. I literally mean it. You do not think who’s black or who's white. And of course I just love that orchestra leader. She’s great — brilliant woman. M. Has real control. You know she’s master. A. Oh, she's so good. M. Poise and carriage« A. I went to a show once, was a failure called Via Galcia. I was with my daughter. And I said, well, the show isn't good, but that orchestra leader is a marvel be­ cause I hear the lyrics and yet I hear the orchestra. And she says, ’’You know it’s a black woman?” And I Couldn't believe it. So I’m very lucky to have her here and I’m very pleased. M. You have a reputation for bringing young and aspiring talent into your productions. A. I’d like to do more, but you can’t do it any more. You know, you’ve got to have names in order to sell theatre parties before a big expensive show dares — start. And it’s just too bad because you could use people with great talent who are not known to achieve things. M. Have you got anybody in this show that you think is 272

going — A. Oh, I think that little girl — I think little Miller — Karen — Sharon — Sharon Miller’s her name. And there’s another little girl with a great personality, but she hasn’t technique yet, and that’s the one that plays Poopsie. Little black girl. M. Uh-huh. Yeah. Has a lot of spark. A. You — every single time she’s on the stage you gotta watch her. M. Yeah. You do. A. And — there’s a good actor. That boy who plays the first helper that gets his arm hurt. Now he’s just a bit actor — but he’ll be there. ‘Cause he’s good. He plays that part as good as a star would, you know. He’s really good. M. Sure. Does a nice job. A, Well, we’d better get out of here before they lock the doors and lock us in. 273

APPENDIX III

LETTERS

The following is a letter sent to over 100 persons who worked in some capacity for Mr. Abbott. On the pages following this letter are the replies received.

Dear , I am a student at Bowling Green State University working on a Ph. D. in Theatre. My dissertation topic is "The Comedy of George Abbott," and I am in the process of studying Mr. Abbott’s playwriting and directing tech­ niques. In studying his directing, I plan to make use of criticisms, reviews, and personal comments made by people who have worked with him. Because you have worked with Mr. Abbott, I am writing to ask if you would be kind enough to relate to me any impressions you have of Mr. Abbott as a director. I realize that your schedule is a very busy one, and I will greatly appreciate any information you might send me. To insure that the information you provide will not be misrepresented, your letter will be reproduced in full in the dissertation. I want to thank you in advance for your co-operation. Sincerely,

Robert W. MacClennan 274

.235 N. Broadway Nyack, N, Y. 10960

May 20, 1973

7■? i Dear Mr. ■ MacClennon: j Indeed I have many things, too many i things to remember and recount about j George Abbott as a director. i Trouble is, 1 haven’t the time to i sit down and put them in order for you. '■ He is and always has been, a great actors,’ i director. He has the mysterious gift ; of communication with an actfbrtand 7 thank goodness, he has never succumbed 1 to the terrible ’’honor system” as we i old pros call it. That means, letting i actors find their own way and rely on 5 their own inspirations. - 4 George was a very fine actor in his i youth and remembers from that, that all \ of us need guidance and help in perform- J ance. We get so little of it today. j 1 J George came back to the theatre to act j with Mary Martin and me in ’’The Skin of > Our Teeth” some fifteen years ago. } Director, Alan Schneider, as usual, gave no j direction during rehearsals - only called : us afterwards one by one and. read off 5 notes taken by his secretary in the dark i 275

of the auditorium as he had watched us going through the play. After a week or so of this, I remember George blurted out, "Why don't you just tell us when we go wrong, what's so shameful about being directed that we have to get it in the confessional?" It’s my great delight that George Abbott is about to direct a play of my late husband which has never before seen the light of day. George is working on it and will soon start direction for the University of Florida in Tallahassee. I hope it will be another great typical Abbott hit. Sincerely 276 R.D. # 2 Fayetteville, Pa. 17222 June 23, 1973 Mr. Robert W. MacClennan Rt. 2 - Box 157 Weston,. Ohio 43569 Dear Mr. MacClennan: You have chosen a great talent to analyze for your Ph D dissertation. I think that working under Mr, Abbott's direction was a high point in my career, also an educational experience since'DamYankees1'was my first Broadway musical. I found his professional discipline absolute. In this at- mos/tphere there was no distraction from work and I consider this the best soil for development in a show. Contrary to my preconceptions about Mr. Abbott, I found that his intelligent directing coordinated well with my Method- oriented training. Mr. Abbott required motivation for every­ thing that was done on the stage. His knowledge of comedy, timing, and the structure of a laugh or what.begets a laugh is uncanny. He did so much of the rewriting while we were out of town in^Damn Yankees*'and honed the script, which is always skeletal in a musical, so that every word counted. I admired his energy, alertness, perception, sensitivity, et cetera, et cetera. He wasted not a minute with anything extraneous to rehearsal. This may have made him appear in­ accessible and formidable, especially to the younger members of the company. I remember, however, being rather worried and depressed about a certain scene I was in just the day be­ fore opening in Boston. I didn't voice my feelings, neverthe­ less/ I remember Mr. Abbott sensing my concern and making a point of speaking to me with great encouragement and optimism. In effect, he assured me that I would "knock 'em dead." I cannot say enough about his knowledgeability of comedy and his demands for the best from his performers. I admire this greatly in a director. I will always love Mr. Abbott for these qualities. I hope these comments are helpful to you and I wish you success with your dissertation.

js/md / Jiichard ¿Rodgers 277 598 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022

Telephone MUrray Hill 8-3640

July 11, 1973

Dear Mr. MacClennan:

In the many shows I did with George Abbott

I found him a curious mixture of seriousness and

good humor. He was an exacting director but always

a kind one and a continuing joy to work with. My

respect for him as a .director and a man has no bounds.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Rodgers

Mr. Robert W. MacClennan, Bowling Green State University, Department of Speech, Bowling Green, Ohio, 43403. 278 (Typed reproduction of original hand written copy)

July 13, 1973

Robert W. MacClennan Rt. #2, Box #157 Weston, Ohio 43569 Dear Robert: Thank you for thinking of me with regard to your disserta­ tion on "The Comedy of George Abbott.” Since Mr. Abbott was the first director I worked under, I am particularly interested in your study of him. I found him to be absolutely brilliant in his direction, and have incorporated many of his concepts in comedic situations as I have built my own career. Certainly, without the good start he gave me, X would not have been able to find the success that I have through the years. Again, thank you for writing. I appreciate your interest and want to wish you well, both now and in the future. Sincerely,

Carol Burnett CB:at 279

(Typed reproduction of original hand written copy)

Dear Mr. MacClennan -—-- You’ve probably already heard the story about Mr. A. and the method actor who asked, having been instructed to move from one part of the stage to another, “What’s ray motivation?” to which Mr. A. answered, “Your job.” That, in effect, tells the whole thing. G. A. was (is) a no-nonsense business-like captain of the ship. We didn't always agree with him, but his orderly talent for comedy gave the production a co­ hesion we couldn't have gotten any other way. Furthermore, when we didn’t agree with him, he was willing to try it our way: once. (Not twice!) If it worked -- fine; if not, that was the end of it. G. A. is a fair and generous guy. Sweet, stern, self-disciplined, demanding and altogether adorable. You may quote me. Best---- —- Mary Rodgers (Guettel) July 31, 1973 280

(Typed reproduction of original hand written copy)

P. O. Box 79 Pound Ridge, N. Y. 10576

August 6, 1973

Dear Mr. MacClennan, I’m happy to respond to your request and hope you find it useful. I had the good fortune, from 1958 through 1960, of working with George Abbott on two musicals in consecu­ tive fashion, namely FIORELLO and TENDERLOIN. Here are some of my impressions of that experience based on recol­ lections, admittedly somewhat veiled by fifteen years, and as seen through the eyes of a composer. Mr. Abbott has a love of music and it showed through his response to songs while we were writing the scores, as well as his staging of musical numbers during rehearsals and out of town. His musicianship was natural, instinctive. Although he is alleged to be an authoritarian, I found his response to music open-minded and unashamedly affectionate. When we played him a song he enjoyed his pleasure was in­ stant and apparent, albeit economical. And, conversely, so was his displeasure. No prolonged discussions of in­ tentions, motivations or the like. I assume he asked him­ self two questions, and I presume in the following order: Do I like the song? Does it serve the show? Theoretically, both those questions can be answered yes or no. Very few directors are able to manage such brevity. Among those who can and do is George Abbott. To the best of my recollection, his staging of musical numbers was neither far out nor predictable but, once a- gain, natural and unaffected, letting the song sing for itself as he guided the design of its presentation with an eye on honest detail rather than ornamental fuss. He was always on the lookout to illuminate humorous content and would not hesitate to bound on stage, demonstrating an attitude or giving a lyric reading for a song. He 281

also managed crowds very effectively, painting them in with ease. My guess is that he prepared himself in general terms, but allowed the opportunity of rehearsals to fire his imagination for musical staging. He was firm, but not intractable, authoritative but not dictatorial, confident, but not coercive. He was open to suggestion, willing to try options and changes, and finally, determined the ul­ timate yes or no of it all. Mind you, that “yes” or “no” has been fed through the roots of a uniquely long and productive career. Though he is a man of few words, they carried the weight of a director in the golden age of his achievements. His ability to communicate with concise simplicity may very well have been the rich results of an historic theatrical career of enormous prolific activity. I’m not certain that, as novices, we fully appreciated these abbreviated reactions. But now, in hindsight, I view them as singularly refreshing and effective. Mr. Abbott set the tone by his lack of rhetoric. The fact that we wrote and had produced two shows in two years, something we have not done since, might be attributed in no small part to the swift metabolic rate of creating, of reacting and of decision making that Mr. A. exemplified. In fairness, we have worked with other di­ rectors, achieving equally happy results, whose creative pulses beat more slowly, though no less fruitfully. But that is simply not George’s style. There — I’ve said, “George” -- and I’m glad!

Most sincerely,

Jerry Bock 282

Deai' Mr. MacClennan,

Once Upon a Mattress vzas the first play I ever worked on, and Mr. Abbott was the first top-flight director

I ever worked with; how I remember him is mixed up with the vivid muddleheadedness I was victim of at the time, so I am afraid this short note will be more in the nature of a memoir rather than material for the more scholarly work you are embarked on. However, here are one or two thingsyou might want to know.

Mr. Abbott told Dean Fuller (my collaborator on the pro­ ject) and me the first day we met that he did not — contrary to common gossip — either write or rewrite the plays he directed. In the case of Mattress, this was strictly true. Dean and I had a problem with the dungeon scene. We vzrote a version, rewrote it, discussed the scene with Mr. Abbott, then admitted defeat. It was only then that Mr. Abbott wrote the scene. (Whether Dean collaborated with him on the scene or not, I jlan- * not remember. I only know I contributed next to nothing.)

On the first day of rehearsal, Mr. Abbott sat impatiently through a first reading, then called the beginners onto the stage area of the rehearsal hall. They began read­ ing their lines and, as they did, Mr. Abbott would take

the actors by the shoulders and move 284 them into different positions, much as one would move

chessmen about a boards He had them read it a second

time. The actors moved to their positions at the times t they had been moved. With m^nor changes, the scene re­

mained that way until the end of the run. His tech­

nique was bloodless, mechanically accurate, and cold;

the result was brilliantly hilarious. Once or twice

since then I have seen a director achieve results that were as satisfyingly right as in this case; never have I seen them accomplished with such dispassionate calm0

At one point during rehearsals Mr. Abbott tqrned to me

and said, “Right here I need a very funny line for the

Queen.” I froze and asked idiotically, “When?” Mr.

Abbott looked at his watch, said, “Fifty-eight seconds,”

and walked away to talk with Jane White. After a few

seconds, my mind reached a state of crystal-clear chaos, and 3. scribbled a line on a piece of paper. When Mr.

Abbott came back (I don’t know exactly how much later, M i I would bet a gread deal it was exactly fifty-eight seconds), he read what I had written, allowed a wintry smile to cross his face, and said, “All right.” I believe he knew then what I only found out during previews: the line was cripplingly funny0 And after fourteen years, my agent and I are glad to report, it still is. For me this has always been a perfect example of “Ask a silly question —“ 284

Mr. Abbott was above the new writer’s conceit that has to say "I wrote that" every time the audience laughs.

Once Upon a Mattress in a slightly different form had been performed at Tamiment, Pennsylvania the previous summer. The penultimate scene (in which Winnifred tries to go to sleep) had been directed by Jack Sydow. Jack recreated his.staging for Mr. Abbott and the latter suggested that it go into the play as is. He felt no desire, evidently, to add an "improvement" so he could see his thumbprint on the work. This, for me, is one of the finest achievements of the man.

I doubt that any of this will be of value fo you, but

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to ramble. I itbenrdHbe most interested in seeing "The Comedy of

George Abbott" when it is completed. I am fyprf&f in­ terested in the position of the true artist in what I can only consider a bastard art.

August 6, 1973

Jay Thompson 8264 W. Norton Avenue Los Angeles, California 90046 285

(Typed reproduction of original hand written copy)

Sept. 10, ’73

Dear Mr. MacClennan: I congratulate you on your choice of topic for the dissertation. I have great admiration for George Abbott. He sees a work in its en­ tirety and is committed to make each part, every contributing craft and art and skill a hand­ maiden to the telling of the heart of the play. He is not an easy task-master. In fact his di­ recting technique, in some respects, is an old fashioned dictatorial one with endless "line readings" and stubborn demands. But because he loves his work, and respects the theatre and its serious requirements he commands genuine respect from actors as well as all others who work with him. In Fiorello for example, he re­ jected one of the lovliest songs by Harnick and Bock because it did not further the action or the extension of the play. It was reworked several times and when it was thrown out, many of us missed the song but all knew Mr. Abbott was right and all respected his completely impersonal objectivity, honesty, judgement and taste! And there are sure as hell not many theatre people you can say that about! Cordially,

Howard da Silva 286

Ossinino. H . Y . Oct 2 73

My first, contact with 6 eon re Abbott was in the. Fail of 1 35 , when I first wo r k e d for him. I was assistant stage-manager to the road company (now posiposslv called National Companv) of a show by Sam and Bella Spewack called BOY MEETS GIRL.

I remember him as being tall and elegant, curt in speech and very much to the point. I liked him, did not find him distant, nor did T find him warm. He was maater of fact.

Subsequently, I worked for him'in BROTHER RAT. Before that he had seen me in an understudy rehearsal of B MEETS G and had decided that I could be useful to him and so again métter of fact he told me that I would always have ajob with him whenever I wanted it, that I could lease him if better opportunities came alon.g, and then come back if things didn't work out etc... t ’ ■ As I matured as an actor I formed a fairly definite opinion of him as a director and co-author of many plays, never the sole author. I considered him then and I have no reason to think that today I would evaluate him otherwise as a sort of play engineer. He could make a machine work, as long as it was comedy. When it came to emotion, since it embarassed him in life, he was totally helpless with it as an artist. The highest praise you could get from him was® a factual statement of his opinion, which dealing in superlatives would come out "That was good".

I learned directing technique from him. The importance of movement or lack of movement, the ksksrs. maki ng of a poi nt, etc. . .

In production everything always went on schedule and smoothly. He did not understand tardiness or anything of that sort. In my experience he waws the first to have invited run-throught before an opening, a techinique that I have adopted and n ever abandoned as a director in the years since. I don't imagine he invented it, but in my youth no one else was doing it, and it has. been adopted to some extent since. I feel that in our time he is the father of that method and that I have inherited it from him and helped to propagate it.

If you want more, do write specifically and ask in particul ar. terms. Sorry for the delay.

Jose Ferrer