CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE THE PREPARATION OF THE ROLE OF TOM MOODY IN CLIFFORD ODETS' GOLDEN BOY An essay submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theatre by Robert T. Hollander June, 1981 The Essay of Robert T. Hollander is approved: Prof. c(§!g Nieuwenhuysel Dr. Georg~ Gunkle, Committee Chairman California State University, Northridge ii ABSTRACT THE PREPARATION OF THE ROLE OF TOM MOODY IN CLIFFORD ODETS' GOLDEN BOY by Robert T. Hollander Master of Arts in Theatre Golden Boy was first produced by the Group Theatre in New York in 1937. Directed by Harold Clurman, this 1937 production included in its cast names that were to become notable in the American theatre: Luther Adler, Frances Farmer, Lee J. Cobb, Jules (John) Garfield, Morris Carnovsky, Elia Kazan, Howard Da Silva and Karl Malden. Golden Boy quickly became the most successful production 1 in Group Theatre history and was followed in 1939 by the movie of the same name, starring William Holden and Barbara Stanwyck. Since then, there have been countless revivals, including a musical adaptation in 1964 which starred Sammy Davis Jr. Golden Boy certainly merits consideration as one of the classics of modern American drama. 1Harold Clurman, The Fervent Years: The Story of the Group Theatre and the Thirties. (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. A Harvest Book, 1975), p. 211. 1 2 The decision to prepare the character of Torn Moody as a thesis project under the direction of Dr. George Gunkle was made during the spring semester of 1980 at which time I was performing a major role in The Knight of the Burning Pestle, a seventeenth century farce written by Beaumont and Fletcher. My participation in this play, also under the direction of Dr. Gunkle, resulted from an agreement that a successful relationship in this produc­ tion would be a preliminary requirement to our working together for my thesis project. As a result, my casting was announced before general auditions were held for Golden Boy in late August 1980. Regular rehearsals commenced on January 5th, 1981, and the production ran as scheduled for thirteen performances from February 27, 1981 through March 15, 1981. In addition to the foregoing schedule, an exper­ imental class, theatre 496L, was proposed by Dr. Gunkle and approved by the Department of Theatre for the fall semester of 1980. Students accepted for this class, which met two and one-half hours, twice a week, were primarily cast members of Golden Boy. A limited number of others with a demonstrable interest in this production were also accepted with the consent of the instructor. The purposes of this class were twofold. First, students were assigned areas of research in order to collect the information needed by the actors, the direc- 3 tor, and ultimately the designers. (Appendix A) Second, the class involved improvisational work which took this accumulating information and used it as the context within which each character could emerge and grow. (Appendices B, C and D) In this fashion we took our first steps to develop the ensemble which matured slowly over the next six months. THE RESEARCH PERIOD Our research effort began in September 1980 and continued throughout the fall semester. Research assign­ ments were made by the director with the circumstances of the actor's character and interests in mind. The result­ ing papers were then compiled into notebooks which became assigned reading. In this way, the assembled information was disseminated to members of the class. Very early in this process, a natural division evolved for the cast. For both research and improvisa­ tional purposes, it became practical to separate the cast into two groups. One was the "boxing crowd" consisting of characters associated with boxing scenes in the play. These included Lorna, Roxy, Tokio, Joe, Fuseli, Pepper, Mickey and Tom Moody. The "family group," on the other hand, was represented by Mr. Bonaparte, Frank, Anna, Siggie, Mr. Carp and, of course, Joe, who belonged 4 naturally to both groups. This division, with some overlapping, was maintained throughout the fall semester and most of the rehearsal period. It was not until a little more than two weeks before opening night that both groups were brought together. For many in the cast this was the first opportunity to see the other scenes of Golden Boy in rehearsal. Much of the research work was also done in these groups. For example, the "boxing crowd" went on field trips, which included a visit to the Main Street Gym. (Appendix E) On several occasions we attended the Thurs­ day night fights at the Olympic Auditorium. (Appendix F) On one occasion a videotape interview of Angelo Dundee, trainer for Mohammed Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard, was viewed by the "boxing crowd." We also viewed tapes of the Pinter­ Davila bantamweight championship bout and the second Sugar Ray Leonard-Roberto Duran fight. Some of the research was done individually. I prepared two papers describing the quality of life during the Depression. (Appendices G and H) Most of the source material for this came from historical texts. Some was supplemented by a movie shown to the class, depicting the political, social and economic changes occurring in the 1930s. In addition, I prepared two papers on the subject of the boxing world of the thirties. (Appendices I and J) Since very little printed information was available on 5 this subject, I used interviewing as source material for one of these reports. Two of my interviews were conducted at the Main Street Gym. The other, my interview with "Kid" Chissell, developed from an article in Ring Magazine. This article described the activities of the Los Angeles Cauliflower Alley Club, an organization of retired fighters. I called the secretary-treasurer and solicited an invitation to attend one of their luncheons. There I got my interview with the "Kid" and I was also able to persuade him to become my "expert" advisor. I called him frequently afterwards and he turned out to be an invaluable source. During the research period, our cast collected an impressive range and volume of information. Much of it was applicable and of great value to the production. All of us picked up facts which helped us develop insights into our characters= Often these were useful in interpre­ ting the script. For example, in the very first scene Tom tells Lorna that Kaplan gets four hundred dollars to fight the Chocolate Drop. My research in the boxing area helped me understand the real implications of this statement. For one thing, the size of the purse in 1937 dollars meant that this fight had to be a major bout, a ten round main event. After expenses, Tom's share of the purse would probably be about one hundred dollars. Since Kaplan was 6 Moody's only working fighter at this time and represented his sole source of income, it gives us an insight into Tom's financial predicament, especially after Kaplan breaks his hand. Therefore, the pressure on Moody was (and had to be) enormous to use the unknown kid, Joe, as Kaplan's replacement. One also appreciates the enormity of Monica's demands when she asks for five thousand dollars. No wonder Lorna laughs bitterly when Tom tells her the price of divorce. THE IMPROVISATIONAL WORK Even before the research period began, we had started improvising, since Dr. Gunkle used it as a major audition technique. By using an improvisational approach, he could better judge the onstage personality of the actor, his responsiveness, concentration and creativity. The audition situations were related to the play but were not parallel to scenes in the script. They were set in gymnasiums, offices, parks, living rooms and stores. The improvisations were open ended. The auditioning actors were given a character summary for each role of interest, and they were encouraged to react spontaneously and not "play-write." With the completion of casting, the first step in the rehearsal process was a series of group and indivi- 7 dual improvisations. The focus of these exercises was upon getting the actors better acquainted with each other through the "masks" of early and tentative characteriza­ tions. We tried to be spontaneous, reacting as freely as possible to other characters and to our situations. We allowed no audience, not even other actors, and we were told to avoid conflict, drama, theatricality and allow the way others treated us to help shape our growing sense of our characters. We were cautioned by our director not to play actions--that would come later--and not to allow our accumulation of the facts of the period to make us judg­ mental about what information others were giving us in the improvisation. The most frequent factual errors in these exercises were anachronisms but we were cautioned to ignore these and never stop the flow of any imaginative sequence. Many of the facts would gradually fill in for us through the research process we were simultaneously employing. Dr. Gunkle felt that character relationships and behavior are better developed through improvisation than through discussion. Accordingly, there were very few discussions of character, and the tendency to reduce an understanding of character into a typically oversimple logic of human behavior was strongly resisted. In his view, a complex growth process was taking place, but in 8 an organic, i.e., natural, quasi-biological way. He monitored our behavior continuously in ·rehearsal, but his process of shaping it was subtle and we were rarely conscious of his hand at work. In effect, all improvisation activity during the first months of rehearsal was devoted to the development of characterization.