This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 7-6382 WARYE, Richard Jonathan, 1929- A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF COMMUNITY THEATRES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1966 Speech-Theater

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ■ C' Copyright hy

Richard Jonathan Warye

1967 A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OP COMMUNITY THEATEES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREAS OP THE UNITED STATES

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Richard Jonathan ffarye, B. S. Educ., M. A

The Ohio State University 1966

Approved fcy

Department of Speech A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF COM.UNITY THEATRES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES by Richard Jonathan Warye, Ph. D. The Ohio State University, 1966 Professor Roy H. Bowen, Adviser

Current indications are that the community theatre Is one of the strongest and most active of the arts on the American scene. Therefore, it should receive a more promi­ nent position in academic research than It has found in the past. This study attempts to remedy the paucity of research by providing an accurate description of the status of the community theatre movement at this time and supports the contention that the community theatre movement is strong and active. The report of this research also may serve as groundwork for future studies. For the purposes of this study, a community theatre was defined as any organization not primarily educational in Its purpose which regularly produces drama on a non-commer­ cial basis. Five hundred questionnaires were mailed to community theatre organizations in the one hundred largest metropoli­ tan areas of the United States. One hundred thirty-six use- able replies were received from the three hundred sixty-four questionnaires which were delivered. Tabulation and consideration of the data received has been divided into five general categories: general in­ formation about the groups (year of establishment, committee structure, membership, productions, and policies on direct­ ing and casting), finances, staff, play selection (policies, problems, and productions presented in the I962-I963 season), and the facilities utilized by the organizations responding. Thirty-two tables were included to present the information as clearly and concisely as possible. Comparisons with pre­ vious reports were presented so that trends in the community theatre movement are readily observable. Among the results of the survey were indications of substantial increases from previous reports in the number of performances given major productions, the production of mu­ sicals (now occurring in two-thirds of the groups responding), the size of the annual budgets, and the number of paid staff positions. The average budget of a community theatre, the survey disclosed, is now over five times greater than it was in 1948. The average theatre group now has between three and four employees, most frequently including a managing director, play director, technical director-designer, and a Janitor. Little change was detected In the number of major productions, percentage of membership participation, average total audience size, or sources of income. The survey showed a continued concern with entertainment rather than artistic aspects of theatre, although the proportion of com­ edies being produced is decreasing in favor of drama. In addition to the customary summary, the means or modes of the various items surveyed were combined in a pres­ entation of a profile of a composite community theatre, which provides an example of the characteristics of the average community theatre organization. A CRNOWLEDGMENTS

There is little remaining in today's world which can be done alone. Any practitioner of the theatre, the most collaborative of the arts, certainly is well aware of that fact. The writer was completely dependent upon and is especially grateful to the many workers in the community theatre who responded to the questionnaires mailed them. Their names, with their organizations, are given in Appen­ dix II. Permission to quote from his book Advance from Broadway was granted most graciously by Norris Houghton. Dr. William Work, Execuutive Secretary of the Speech Asso­ ciation of America, was equally gracious in allowing quo­ tation from reports of his studies in The Quarterly Journal of Speech. My thanks also go to the editors of Holiday maga­ zine for permission to cite material from their March, 1966, Issue, "In Pursuit of culture: A Critical View of America's Flourishing Arts," and to The Ridge Press for the quotation from John B. Kennedy's essay, "The Arts in America." The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Wallace A. Fotheringham of the Department of Speech of The Ohio State

11 University for assistance In the preparation of items for the questionnaire, and his own former students at Bates College, Mrs. John Dolan (nee Fredette Torrey) and the Reverend Robert L. Livingston for assistance in mailing it. Dr. Marston Balch of Tufts University and the Na­ tional Theatre Conference provided valuable assistance, as did Mr. Robinson I. Whitney of the Auburn Maine School of Commerce. A special note of thanks is due to Dr. Roy H. Bowen, not merely for’his praiseworthy service as my adviser, but especially for his continued stimulation, encouragement, and development of my interest in community theatre in particu­ lar which began while he was managing director of the Players Club of Columbus, Ohio, and I was still an undergraduate. And a final word of gratitude to my wife, Verna, and daughter, Pamela, whose assistance and encouragement for the completion of this work, each In her own way, are immensely appreciated.

H i VITA March. 4, 1929 Born - Columbus, Ohio

1 9 3 1 ...... B. S. in education, The Ohio State Uni­ versity, Columbus, Ohio 1951-1952 . . Graduate Assistant, Department of Speech, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1951-1952 . . President and Charter Member, The Ohio State University Chapter 62 of National Collegiate Players 1952 ...... M. A., The Ohio State University, Columbus 1953 ...... Instructor, Claridon Local School, Claridon (Marion County), Ohio 1953-1956 . . Communications Natch Officer, United States Naval Reserve July, 1955 . . Play Director, Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) Little Theatre 1957-1950 . . Instructor, Uest High School, Columbus, Ohio February, 1957 Play Director, Strollers Dramatic Society, The Ohio 3tate University, Columbus, Ohio Summer, 1957 . Graduate Assistant, Department of Speech, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio October, 1957 Play Director, Village Little Theatre, Upper Arlington, Ohio Summer, I960 . Technical Director, Ross Common Playhouse, Wind Gap, Pennsylvania 1960-1966 . . Instructor in Speech and Director of Broad­ casting, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine iv FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Speech

Studies in Theatre, Professors Roy H. Bowen, John H. McDowell, Charles J. McGaw, and Everett M, Schre k Studies in Communications. Professors Franklin H. Knower, Harrison B. Summers, and Paul A. Carmack Minor Field: History of Fine Arts Professor D. Alexander Severino CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii VITA ...... IV FIELDS OF STUDY ...... v TAELES ...... viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 General Background Review of Previous Studies Methodology II. GROUP INFORMATION ...... 20 Year of Establishment Committees Membership Major Productions Musicals Other Productions Policies on Directing and Casting III. FINANCES...... 52 Budgets Admission Charges Membership Dues IV. S T A F F ...... 73 Summary of Positions No Paid Positions Full Time Positions Part Time Positions Both Full and Part Time Positions vl Chapter Page V. PLAY SELECTION...... 87 The Selection Process Preferences by Types Problems Encountered Actual Productions Reported VI. FACILITIES...... 12** Theatre Ownership Theatre Plants VII. S U M M A R Y ...... 133 Appendixes

I. COMPLETE MAILING L I S T ...... Ity II. RESPONDING T H E A T R E S ...... 16^ III. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE...... 181 IV. LIST OF 1962-1963 MAJORPRODUCTIONS ...... 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 196

vii TABLES Table Page 1. Year of Establishment...... 22 2. Executive Committees ...... 23 3* Standing Committees ...... 25 4. Membership Figures ...... 2? 5* Percentage of Participation...... 29 6. General Membership Meetings HeldPer Year . . . 3*+ 7* Number of Major Productions ...... 36 8. Number of Performances of Major Productions . • 38 9. Production of Musicals ...... *+1 10. Musical Accompaniment ...... ^3 11. Activities Other than Major Productions .... 4 5 12. Overall Budgets...... 53 13. Sources of Income...... 57 1^. Season Ticket Costs ...... 62 15. Season Ticket Costs per P l a y ...... 65 16. Individual Ticket Costs ...... 6? 17. Membership D u e s ...... 71 18. Theatre Staffs by Positions ...... 7^ 19. Numbers on Staffs...... 77 20. Responsibility for Play Selection...... 89 21. Type Preferences Reported...... 93 vili Play Types Preferred for Presentation . . . . 94 Comparison of Preferences ...... 94 Number of Different Types of Plays Presented 96 Play Selection Problems ...... 98 Difference Between Most and Least Troublesome 98 Hesitation to Produce Certain Playwrights • . 102 Types of Plays Actually Produced ...... 105 Most Frequently Produced Plays of 1962-1963 . 109 Most Popular Authors ...... 113 Theatre Types and Capacities ...... 128 List of 1962-1963 Major Productions ...... 186

ix CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

General Background In his speech, of dedication for the Robert Prost Library at Amherst College, our late President John P. Kennedy proclaimed: I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full rec­ ognition of the place of the artist. . . . I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will stead­ ily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportun­ ities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well.l Previously he had written of the need for the arts in our national life: The life of the arts . . . is very close to the center of a nation's purpose— and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilization. To work for the progress of the arts in America is exciting and fruitful because what we are deal­ ing with touches virtually all the citizens. There will always be of necessity, in any society, a mere handful of genuinely creative Individuals, the men and women Kho shape in words or images the enduring

■*-Sew York Times, October 27, 19-53, sec. 1 p. 87. 1 2 work of art. . . . Outside the group of active par­ ticipants stands the great audience. Perhaps no country has ever had so many people so eager to share a delight in the arts. Individuals of all trades and professions, of all ages, In all parts of the country, wait for the curtain to rise— wait for the door that leads to new enjoyments to open. . . . To further the appreciation of culture among all the people, to increase respect for the creative individual, to widen participation by all the proc­ esses and fulfillments of art— this is one of the fascinating chalbaiges of these days.^ The concern and interest of our chief governmental executive was hut one manifestation of a national interest in artistic endeavors, of which community theatre Is a sig­ nificant part. This Interest eventually led to the public law authorizing the establishment of the National Founda­ tion on the Arts and the Humanities signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 29, 1965. As Dr. William H. Schuman observed, this "means that the arts have been officially, and therefore powerfully, raised in the scale of our national values.M3 "Whether resulting from federal encouragement or not, what has been termed "The Culture Boom" by "William Murray^- is reaching grand proportions and attracting the attention

2john F. Kennedy, "The Arts in America," Creative America, ed. Jerry Mason (New York: The Ridge Press, Inc., I9^2TT p p . 4 and 8. ^William H. Schuman, President, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Commencement Address at the $ne Hun­ dredth Commencement of Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, April 25, 1966. ^William Murray, "The Culture Boom," Holiday. XXXIX (March, 1966), p. 70. 3 of hopefully, the public as well as the mass media. Mr. Hurray reports: Last year alone, Americans lavished close to $4,000,000,000 on culture, a rise of about 130 per cent since 1953— which compares very favorably with similar outlays for recreation and sports. The glowing statistics, in fact, are endless. In music we now have 1,400 symphony orchestras; we bought nearly 20,000,000 classical records last year; we have 37,000,000 amateurs ferociously sawing and tooting away on musical instruments. In art we have new galleries all over the place; new museums; new people flocking to them; and thousands of new buyers. . . . In the theatre, Off Broadway, hemmed In by unions and costs, is moribund, and Broadway manages, with fanfare, to squeeze out a handful of bearable entertainments a season; but elsewhere In the country repertory companies are producing real plays in abundance, while some 5,000 community groups flourish, some­ times only on dedication, vanity and relatives. Some twenty professional and 200 semi-professional ballet companies strain toe and thigh from coast to coast. . . . People bought nearly 02,000,000,000 worth of books last year, not all of them porno­ graphic, some of them readable, and they contin­ ued to throng to the libraries at a rate of In­ crease three times that of the population during the past five years. Even the movies . . . can claim a share of the new glory, the so-called art houses, specializing In films of generally high quality, number more than 700, and they are not losing money.& Neither Mr. Murray’s dissatisfaction with today's professional theatre, nor his implication that community theatre, along with repertory, is the hope of the future

5Parade magazine (a Sunday newspaper supplement), March 3, 19^3, reported: 120,000,000 Americans attend cul­ tural events annually. Twice as many go to concerts and musical recitals as attend major league baseball games. There are more piano players in the U.S. than licensed fish­ erman, just as many artists as hunters." ^Murray, op. cit.. p. 73. 4 for American drama is an unusual evaluation of the state of theatre in the United States today. The increasing aware­ ness of the need for and practice of the arts, however, in­ dicates the growing significance of the community theatre movement as an artistic force. Although an amazingly small amount of consideration has been given to academic research on the community theatre movement, it has been the topic of dozens of articles in periodicals (notably Theatre Arts which ceased publication in 1964) and has been a source of satisfaction to thousands of part-time Thespians before and behind the footlights. There is little agreement on specific historical information about the community theatre movement, but it has been signif­ icant theatrically for well over a half-century. A quarter- century ago Horris Houghton wrote:

The community theatre movement ha3 passed from the first flush of its period of youthful idealism and dreams into a realistic phase of middle-age. It has built mansion for itself in a hundred spots: some magnificent, some humbler. It has grown in size and stability and has proved that it was no short-lived, flighty and fashionable phase of Ameri­ can culture, no mere momentary manifestation of post-war excessive Bohemianism. It Is occasionally an Institution that takes its place alongside of the art museum, the orchestra, the library, the school as one of the cornerstones of local culture. These tributes must be paid to this kind of theatre. It would be useless and unfair, however, to let It go at that; for this movement has far from reached its goal— If, that is, its goal is the de­ centralization of the American stage, the creation of a real people's theatre. There are certain gen­ eralizations— obviously not universally applicable— which I feel bound to make. . . . Already I have said that many of these theatres 5 have lost their experimental character, their youthful Idealism; I have said that today they appear middle-aged, realistic, quasi-commercial. The movement which started as an opposition force to Broadway and the road, voicing dissatisfaction at the fare offered by the commercial theatre, has swung pendulum-like toward more and more frequent imitations of Broadway. Using Broadway's own jus­ tification, that "this is what the public wants," the community theatres have clanuared for the re­ lease of Broadway's latest hits; they have rarely had the patience to read its less successful plays with the thought that something hew York did not fancy might yet be good; they have banished the classics from any important place In their reper­ tories as old stuff and dull; they have lacked the courage to give new playwrights a hearing before the stamp of Manhattan approval was upon them. They are no longer artistic pioneers; they are now cautious followers in the ruts of Broadway.7 The exact origin of community theatre in the United States is submerged in a profusion of contradictory claims and reports, not to mention problems of definition of the term "community theatre" itself. The range of dates of origin extends from the con­ tention of George Freedley and John A. Reeves that amateur activity can be traced as far back as April, 1958 (a Span­ ish language performance of an original play by men with the explorer Onate on the banks of the Rio Grande in what is now New Mexico),8 to the claim of the Memphis Little Theater to be the "oldest continuously operated little

7uorris Houghton, Advance from Broadway (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 194!), pp• 129-30. ^George Preedley and John A. Reeves, A History of the Theatre (revised ed.; New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1955J, P. 296. theatre, "9 having been founded in 1920. Other sources have indicated that the Thalian Association founded in Wilming­ ton, North Carolina, in 1788, may be entitled tc the honor. A report from Detroit indicates that in 1798 amateur per­ formances "were given in Military Hall within the fort, and by 1816, officers and their wives from Port Shelby fitted up a theatre in the government warehouse at the foot of Wayne Street. . . . "-*-1 Macgowan prefers to date the little theatre movement from the 1852 establishment of the Deseret Dramatic Association of Brigham Young's Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake C i t y . Response from the Footlight Club of Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, to a survey made by the National Theatre Conference reported that the Footlight Club was founded in 1877 and has operated continuously since that y e a r . ^-3 other early groups in the Boston area still in production, that survey revealed, are the Belmont Drama Club founded in 19°3, the Brookline Ama-

^Edwin Howard, "Theatre Memphis," Theatre Arts. KLVI (August, 1962), p. 63, 10nFirst Little Theatre," Recreation. XLVIII (May, 1955), p. 242 and Kenneth Macgowan, Footlights Across America (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co •, i'929) * p7 42. ^Richard T. Cloonan, "Theatre: U.S.A.: Detroit," Theatre Arts. XLIV (October, i960), p. 62. 12Macgowan, op. cit.. pp. 43-44. ^interview with Dr. Marston Balch, Executive Secre­ tary of the National Theatre Conference and Co-Chairman of its National Theatre Appraisal Committee, August 6 , 1966. 7 teurs Club of 1907, and the Concord Players, whlgJLrmi.ly originally established in 1874, but whose continuous oper­ ation now dates back to 1919* 4 194-9 report cites the Mont­ clair (New Jersey) Dramatic Club as being active for sixty seasons, therefore established in 1889.^ Three groups still active in Detroit: the Pine Arts Society, The Arts Club, and The Players, were founded in 1906, 1910, and 1911, respectively.15 The Duluth Playhouse, also founded in 1911 as the Duluth Little Theatre, vras termed "the country's old­ est" by Sterling Sorenson, who also reports the establish­ ment by Alfred Arvold in 1914 of the Little Country Theatre

at Fargo, North D a k o t a . 1^ Not to be neglected, Le Petit Theatre du Vieux Carre, begun in New Orleans in 1916, de­ scribes itself as "not only the oldest, but one of the most respected and well known Little Theatres in the country . . ."17 Seven other community theatres that responded to the questionnaire which will be detailed subsequently also re­ ported their founding date to be 1920 or earlier.3-®

14Alan Branigan in "Regional Theatre: U.S.A.," Theatre Arts. XXXIII (August, 1949), p. 22. l-Scioonafc, op. clt.. p. 78. ^Sterling Sorensen in "Regional Theatre: U.fl.A.," Theatre Arts. XXXIII (August, 1949), p. 44. ^ " L e Petit Theatre du Vleux Carre Approaching a Half Century of Theatre" (printed brochure, 1962). 18 They are, with the years In which they were es­ tablished, The Players (Downtown T. M. C. A. of St. Louis), 1911; The Honolulu Community Theatre, 1913; Fenimore Players, » Deferences to community theatres from various other sources would Indicate that there was considerable activity between 1910 and 1920, so that the honor of being the ini­ tial community theatre must, at least, belong to a group founded prior to 1910* As the claim to the distinction of being the coun­ try's first or oldest community theatre is in dispute, so is there an equal— or even greater— disparity as to the act- !* ual number of community theatres In existence today in the United States. The problem of defining the term "community theatre" is encountered here, for some figures may refer to any group comprised of non-professionals, therefore includ­ ing high-school and college producing groups. A definition developed from the one established by William Work for his 1948 survey will be used In this study. "A community thea­ tre is any organization not primarily educational in its purpose which regularly produces drama on a non-commercial basis."^9 Research for this study revealed some sixteen refer­ ences concerning the number of non-professional theatre groups presently existing in the United States, hone of

Inc. (Mamaroneck, N. Y.), 1914; Tacoma Little Theatre, 1917; Des Moines Comunity Playhouse, 1919; Peoria Players, 1919* and the flayers Club (Worcester, Mass.), 1920. 19william Work, "Current Trends in Community Theatre Operation, "The Quarterly Journal of Speech. XXXV (December, 1949), p. 464. His definition continues, ", . . and in which participation is open to the community at large." 9 these estimates, ranging from "1,000 or s o " 20 to "distrib­ utors of scripts estimate the number of amateur dramatic groups at 300r000,"21 pretends to give a precise number. There are two references each to 2,000, 13,000, 20,000, and 150,000 groups, and four references to 5,000. It would seem that the Rockefeller Panel Report may be most definitive when it states: "The community and amateur theatre movement In the United States has assumed large proportions. In 1964, there were approximately five thousand formal amateur thea­ tre groups having some continuity of organization, while other groups, performing on varied schedules, were estimated at about thirty-five t h o u s a n d . ”22 An interesting sidelight relating to the numbers of groups is that, in three refer­ ences, Life magazine gives three completely disparate fig­ ures: "... 150,000 active amateur theatre groups, . . . "23

". . . a n astounding number of groups— 13,000 or more, . . ."24 and ", . . a n Mtonlshing number of them [regional

20Josiph Stocker, "Somewhere West of Broadway," The Survey. LXXXVII (November, 1951)* p. 468. 21Jean Carter and Jess Ogden, Everyman's Drama (New York: American Association for Adult Education, 19 3 6 ), P. 11. 22Rockefelfcler Brothers Fund, Inc., The Performing Arts: Problems and Prospects. Rockefeller Panel Report on the future of theatre, dance, and music in America ^New York: McGraw-Hill Book Oo., 1965), p. 41. 23"Everybody Gets in the Acting," Life, XLI (July 23» 1956), p. 108. 24nStage-Struck Texas," Life. XLV (Dec. 22, 1958), p. 122. 10 playhouse^ about 5,000.h25 Also significantly, a Gallup Poll surveying the use of leisure time reported that three million Americans participated in theatrical productions and eighteen million went to the theatre.^6 Virtually all the early community theatre groups felt that one of their primary purposes was to present plays of experimental and cultural value which were un­ likely to gain professional performances by Broadway, road, or stock companies. Concurrent with the rise of motion pictures and the decline of the road companies, the commun­ ity theatre movement increasingly produced recent Broadway plays and shifted its emphasis to one simply of achieving enjoyment from the process of play production. The outward appearance of community theatre activity today would seem to be much the same as it was in 194-1 when Norris Houghton wrote his observations quoted earlier. To continue his analogy, community theatre today would seem to be in a prolonged period of middle age. Since no recent studies have been published concerning the detailed status of community theatre activity, such a study is long overdue.

25"Theater Groups," Life. LII (Jan. 5» 1962), p. 12. ^"Leisure: How Now, Brown Cow?" Time. LXXXI (March 1, 1963), p. 66. 11

Eeview of Previous Studies Somewhat coincidentally, the last previous studies of community theatre activity were all made around 1950. Edwin Robert Schoell in a doctoral thesis at the University of Denver surveyed the drama in the community theatre through three periods: 1910-1920, 1920-1940, and 1940-1950, compar­ ing activity in thirteen categories, concentrating upon types of productions. Comparisons of the three periods disclosed that the major trend in drama activity has been the shift in emphasis from classical fare to popular Broadway plays. Activity in foreign drama has decreased from a position of major significance to a point where approximately three out of every four plays produced are of American origin. One-act plays have been rel­ egated largely into the workshop programs of the larger and more significant community theaters. Dur­ ing the 1940-1950 period one-act play programs were almost never produced as a part of the regular pro­ gram schedules of any of the community theaters. The production of new plays, which received its impetus from the early little theater movement, con­ tinued to play a dominant part in the activity pro­ gram of the community theater of the 1920-1940 per­ iod. Production in this area declined sharply during the 1940-1950 period. . . • Local drama and experi­ mental theater activity declined steadily through the 1920-1940 and 1940-1950 periods. In purpose and objectives the current community theater is concerned with the problem of furnishing community entertainment. • . . The activity patterns of most of the organizations investigated revealed that they felt no responsibility to produce anything other than those types of plays that would assure box-office favor. The attitude toward the drama was not one of selection based on the building of audi­ ence interest in and appreciation of good drama. A number of directors believed that there was a need for raising the level of audience taste in the drama 12 but few of them were able to activate programs aimed at fulfilling this objective.27 Two other noteworthy studies were made at that time by William Work. The one from which the definition of com­ munity theatre cited earlier was adapted concerned a 1948 survey of 196 groups, their ages, employees, receipts and expenditures, production schedules, play types, and facil­ ities, He noted then that The presentation of literary and "art" plays, the encouragement of the native playwright, and experimentation in scenic design are now seldom mentioned. . . . Tko main objectives were cited most frequent­ ly by the organizations which responded to the question regarding their principal alms. One was to bring good theatre to the community; the other to provide a recreational outlet for both partic­ ipants and audience.2° A subsequent survey conducted by Dr. Work and John E. Dietrich for the 194-9-1950 season detailed the play selec­ tion. and production activity of 135 community theatres. Dr. Work and Dr. Dietrich then concluded that Community theatre activity is expanding with­ in the already existing organizations. More plays are being presented for longer runs before larger audiences. This activity is encouraging, but it would be more encouraging if it were coupled with

^Edwin Robert Schoell, "A Quantitative Analysis of the Contributions of the Community Theater to the De­ velopment of the Drama" (unpublished doctor's thesis, Grad uate College, University of Denver, 1951), pp. 355-57. 28work, op. cit., pp. 468-59. 13 greater diversification and balance in the pro­ grams. 29

Reviewing the literature failed to show any surveys of community theatre activity more recent than these, so it was assumed that survey research on the current status of community theatre activity would be beneficial. A question­ naire was prepared along the lines of these previous studies and was mailed in 1963. Among the responses to that mailing was a letter from Marstoa Balch, Go-Chairaan of the National Theatre Con­ ference National Theatre Appraisal Committee. Dr. Balch acquainted the researcher with an enquiry of that committee which "inevitably embraces various aspects of the growth of community theaters and their role and effect."30 That study was based on a questionnaire of thirty items. Among the items were questions on founding date, facilities, budgets, staff, and plays of that season and their popularity, The survey also Inquired into the purposes of the organizations, attempts to determine theatrical knowledgability of their audiences, use of new, unpublished play3, and the attitudes of the local mass media toward the worh of the theatre on a cultural level. The National Theatre Appraisal Committee has not yet completed its analysis of the responses or pub-

29john E. Dietrich and William WorZc, "Dramatic Activity in American Community Theatres: 1949-1950." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. XXXVII (April, 1951), p. 1£0.

3^Letter from Marston Balch, May 9* 1963. 14 lished any Information concerning them. Bather, it has shifted its emphasis toward the study of the problems of the American playwright and the production of new plays. An interview w'.th Dr. Balch disclosed several items of significance, among them the founding dates of several early community theatres reported previously.31 That survey, however, was of broader scope, both in types of organizations and geographical locations, and the fact that analysis of the data is still incomplete precludes comparison with the study reported i.i the remainder of this dissertation. Of 208 community theatres responding to the question on the National Theatre Conference survey inquiring whether "absolute theatre" or "social service" is higher in the ob­ jectives of the organization, 110 (52 per cent) said abso­

lute theatre, 55 (25.4 per centT said social service, 29 (13.0 per cent) said both, and the remaining 14 (6.7 per cent) said neither or failed to reply to that item. A simi­ lar item was not included on the questionnaire prepared for this study, but such information is pertinent to subsequent discussion on play selection.

3llnterview with Dr. Marston Balch, Co-Chairman of the National Theatre Appraisal Committee, August 5, 1956. Above p. 6 . 15

Methodology In order to collect the data pertinent to a study of metropolitan community theatres a questionnaire was prepared. The questionnaire, consisting of two 8| by 14-inch sheets mimeographed on one side, was constructed of short-answer and check-type questions and included a space for listing the productions and dates of the 1962-1963 season. It was planned so that It could be completed by busy directors in about one-half hour of their time. A copy of the question­ naire Is Included In App endix III of this dissertation. A cover letter, also Included in Appendix III, and self- addressed stamped envelope were mailed with the question­ naires. In order to keep this study within workable limits it was decided to limit the survey to community theatre groups in the one hundred largest metropolitan areas of the United States.-^ Names and addresses of groups were obtained from the American Educational Theatre Association publica­ tion A Directory of Nonprofessional Community Theatres in the United States. 1952. the National Theatre Conference's Ameri­ can Theater Appraisal Committee, references to particular groups in articles in such periodicals as Theatre Arts.

^United States Census population figures were ob­ tained from the 1963 edition of The World Almanac and Book of Pacts, ed. Harry Hansen (New York: New York World Telegram and The Sun, 1963), pp. 293-300. 16 Encore. and others, listings in telephone directories, and requests for Information made to local Chambers of Commerce. The location of accurate names and addresses of community theatre groups became a major difficulty in research, for, as was indicated earlier in this dissertation, no compre­ hensive listing exists. Five hundred questionnaires were mailed to ninety- nine of the metropolitan areas. Ho contact was discovered for Knoxville, Tennessee (ranking sixty-fourth in popula­ tion). Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 21 were returned with notification from individuals that these groups are no longer extant and 115 were returned by the post office as undeliverable, leaving a total of 364 delivered question­ naires (72.8 per cent of the mailing). Inasmuch a3 many of the addresses used for the mailing came from sources as much as thirty-four years old, the number of questionnaires undelivered is not considered to be prejudicial to the effectiveness of the study. Because of this fact, too, It is possible that a significant number of questionnaires, although not returned to the sender, were not delivered to groups still active In community theatre production. Of the 364 delivered questionnaires, 136 (37.4 per cent) useable replies were received, 22 (6.0 per cent) were returned from groups not suitable for the survey (profession­ al, children's, college, opera, et cetera), and 206 (56.6 per cent) were not returned, even though a second request was made. 17 On a geographical basis, ostensibly delivery was effected to at least one group in every area other than Knoxville. Useable replies were received from seventy-seven are$s. The complete list of responding theatre groups con­ stitutes Appendix II. The twenty-three areas which could not be included in this study are, with their rank among the country's metropolitan areas and in descending order of pop­ ulation: Seattle, Washington (19); Dallas, Texas (20); Kansas City, Missouri (22); San Bernadino-Riverslde, Cal­ ifornia (28); Providence-Pawtucket, Rhode Island (30); In­ dianapolis, Indiana (33); Jersey City, Hew Jersey (42); Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana (45); Syracuse, Hew York (47); Jacksonville, Florida (58); Salt Lake City, Utah (62); Flint, Michigan (63); Knoxville, Tennessee (64); Wilmington,

Delaware (65); Fresno, California £6 6 ); Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pennsylvania (68 ); El Paso, Texas (79); Uew Haven, Connect­ icut (80); Bakersfield, California (83 ); Reading, Pennsyl­ vania (91); Trenton, Hew Jersey (94); Tucson, Arizona (96); and Columbia, South Carolina (98). These omissions are not likely to affect the study adversely to any significant extent, however, for the omis­ sions do not result in a limitation of geographical variation, for the survey represents 34 of the 39 states and the Dis­ trict of Columbia with metropolitan areas large enough to be included in the survey, nor does the largest gap in numeri­ cal rank (62 through 66) cover a variation greater than 18 17,090 In population. Consequently, the returns received, may he considered to be representative of groups over the range of metropolitan areas considered both by geography and population. The returns appear to give a representative indica­ tion of the structure and activities of community theatres in the metropolitan areas surveyed, reporting information from groups varying widely in membership, financial re­ sources, and number of productions. The fact that the Bureau of the Census at that time regarded 212 cities as standard metropolitan statistical areas (of which New York City with a population of 10,694,633 was the largest and Meriden, Con­ necticut, population 51,850, was the s m a l l e s t )^3 indicates that, although biased towards larger populations, 34 this study still encompasses nearly fifty per cent of the country's metropolitan areas. All respondents to the questionnaire completed vir­ tually every item with the exception of attaching lists of ma^or productions produced from the 1950-1951 through 1961- 1962 seasons presented as an optional request. Many respond­ ed with the addition of programs, brochures, and letters de­ tailing helpful supplementary information about their thea-

33lbld. ^Charleston, West Virginia, the one hundredth largest area and point of limitation for this study, had a population of 252,925. 19 tres. Computations of percentages are to the nearest tenth, consequently the total percentages In some tables show a variance from one hundred per cent of from 0.1 to 0.4 per cent. Tabulation and consideration of the data has been divided into five general categories In this 3tudy, each one becoming a subsequent chapter in this dissertation. They are: group Information, finances, staff, play selection, and facilities. Inasmuch as this study was designed primarily to report descriptive data, statistical tests of signifi­ cance were not computed. CHAPTER II

GROUP INFORMATION

This chapter will be concerned with certain charac­ teristics of community theatre groups which tend to give each one its basic identity. These are such characteris­ tics as the year of establishment, committee organization, membership, and policy concerning productions, play direc­ tors, and casting.

Year of Establishment As was mentioned previously, the two oldest groups responding to the survey were the Duluth Playhouse and The Players of the Downtown Y. M. 0. A., Saint Louis, Missouri. In contrast to these two, the newest ones responding were The Last Stage of Chicago, founded in 1962, and three groups established in 1961: the Lackawanna (New York) Civic Theatre, the Los Gatos (California) Community Theatre, and the Amny- Navy-Alr Force Players of Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The survey, then, covered groups ranging In age from four to 55 years (as of 1966). The average age of the 128 groups responding was 25.7 years, or of an organization date of 19^-0. At the time of the Work study in 1948, the 20 21 average age of community theatres was found to be 15.4 years, indicating an average organization date of 1933.1 The dis­ crepancy between these two surveys results from the many new groups established since the end of World War II. The establishment dates of organizations responding are shown in Table 1 grouped by five year periods. It should be noted that, although It bears out the contention that large numbers of theatre groups were founded after World War II, the location of the mode in the 1956-1960 bracket is far from conclusive. Actudlly, a more plausible conclusion from the data indicates that, aside from the late depression and wartime years (1936-1945), conditions were favorable for developing groups from 1921 through I960. Each five year period in that time saw the founding of fourteen to twenty groups. Although not included in the table, the survey showed no single year as being one in which more groups were established than any other year. Of that 53 year period, six theatre groups surveyed were founded in each of five years— 1925, 1946, 1952, 1959, and I960. Interestingly enough, 1940, the year which becomes the mathematical mean year of establishment of the average group, actually, like 1912, 1918, 1922, 1941, and 1944, was the initial year of activity of no group reporting.

-Mfork, op. clt.. p. 464, 22

TABLE 1 YEAR OP ESTABLISHMENT Year Groups 1910-1915 4 1916-1920 6 1921-1925 15 1926-1930 17 1931-1935 14 1936-1940 8 1941-1945 3 1946-1950 19 1951-1955 17 1956-1960 21 1961-1963 4

Committees Respondents to the survey went asked about two types of committees: executive boards and standing committees. Replies to the question on executive boards were re­ ceived from 126 groups and are summarized in Table 2. As the table shows, the large majority of groups (80 or 63.5 per cent) had executive committees of from six to fifteen members. The mode for the size of the executive committee is nine members, being the size of the exeoutive committee for sixteen groups or 12.7 per cent of the responding 126. The median is twelve, and the mean size of executive commit­ 23 tee Is 12.7 members. The range of committee members ran from two groups which have no committee to one group with an executive committee of 34. Three groups reported double boards: one, a production board of seven members and finan­ cial board of ten; another, a board of directors of nine and executive committee of seventeen; and the third, an executive committee of seven and board of eighteen. These three or­ ganizations were tabulated according to their totals of 17» 26, and 25•

TABLE 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES Members Croups None ...... 2 I-5 14 6-10 40 II-15 40 16-20 11 21-25 9 26-30 . . . 9 Over 3 0 ...... 1

There is a popular concept that little theatres are frequently dominated by women. It was believed impractical to request a breakdown by sex of t->tal membership, but It was felt that some Indioation of the validity of such a con­ cept would be reflected in the membership of the executive 24 committees. The 118 groups responding to this item indi­ cated decisively that "it's a man's world" in policy-making fot community theatres. Men outnumbered women on 81 of the executive committees (68.6 per cent). In 39 of those (33.5 per oent of the 118) men had a plurality of three or more members. On the other hand, women outnumbered men on the boards of only 23 groups (19.5 per cent) and had a plurality of three or more on a scant five boards (4.2 per cent). Fourteen groups (11.9 per cent) had boards which were equally divided between men and women. All told, there are 1,603 community theatre members on the executive committees of 126 groups. Of the 118 groups which provided a breakdown figure by sex of their

1,516 executive committee members, 874 were men and 642 were women. Unfortunately, statistically these figures average to the somewhat incompatible figures of 7.4 men and 5.4 wom­ en forming an average executive committee of 12.8 members. The latter figure is not significantly at variance with the 12.7 member mean derived from the previous computation which included the two groups reporting no executive committee and the six groups which did not subdivide their reports to indi­ cate sex. The manner of the division makes an accurate sta­ tistical rounding off to indicate sex division impossible on a thirteen member board. Although the most precise break­ down would state that the average executive committee of 25 thirteen members has at least seven men and five women on it, a rather arbitrary division of eight men and five women may be warranted. This would be a reflection of the fact that men outnumber women by three or more members on the ex­ ecutive committees of 33.5 per cent of the organizations re­ sponding to this item. The reports of the number of standing committees among the 113 groups who completed this item on the question­ naire are tabulated in Table 3.

TABLE 3 STANDING COMMITTEES Number Groups N o n e ...... 9 I-5 30 6 - 1 0 35 II-1 5 ...... 19 1 6 - 2 0 ...... 15 2 1 - 2 5 ...... 2 26-30 ...... 3

Although the range in number of standing committees, one to thirty, is roughly comparable to the range in number on executive committees, a greater degree of variation occurs among groups in the number of standing committees which they elect or appoint. The greater variation Is dis­ played by the fact that the mode is six standing committees (in ten organizations or 8.8 per cent of the respondents), the median is eight, and the mean is nine standing commit­ tees. This aspect of organizational structure appears to have changed little since the 1948 Work survey reported an average of 8.3 standing committees and range of none to 25, although at that time 9, 1°, and H were the numbers of regu­ lar committees most frequently indicated.2

Membership The working definition of community theatre used in this study, as was observed earlier, omitted consideration of participation being open to the public at large. There­ fore it is pertinent to examine various considerations en­ countered in the survey as to what constitutes membership in a community theatre organization. The survey disclosed three basic patterns for membership in the organizations. Of the 118 groups providing pertinent information, the ma­ jority {63 groups; 53.4 per cent) charged dues separately from admissions. Almost one-third of the groups, however (39 groups or 33.0 per cent), considered purchasers of sea­ son tickets as their membership, while sixteen groups (13.6 per cent) were private groups, giving performances exclu­ sively for their members. These are tabulated in Table 4, respectively, as Mseparate dues," "season buyers," and "pri­ vate." It should be noted here that while only 115 groups

2lbld.. p. 465 27

TABLE 4 MEMBERSHIP FIGURES

Separate Season Size Bues Buyers Private Total

Over 5,000 • * 2 2 4

4,501-5,000 « • • • • • « • 4,001-4,500 • » 1 • • 1 3,501-4,000 • • • • » « • • 3,001-3,500 • • 3 « * 3 2 ,501-3,000 • • 2 1 3 2,001-2,500 • * 4 • • 4 1 ,501-2,000 • m 4 1 5 1 ,001-1,500 1 10 4 15 501-1,000 2 8 1 11 251-500 11 2 3 16 100-250 15 3 1 19 51-99 21 • e • ♦ 21 i 1-50 13 . . * • • 13

Total S3 39 13 115 28 provided membership figures, all 136 responded to the ques­ tion asking whether performances were public or private. The sixteen private groups constituted a minority 11.7 per cent of the total. Statistical results will be presented by categories and totals since the nature of the categories leads to considerable variation. The 63 groups which charged membership dues indepen­ dently of admissions had a total membership of 13,182, or an average membership of 209.2. The range in size of groups reporting in this category was from 18 to 1,031 members. Although varying considerably from the mean, both the median and the mode (33.3 per cent) fall in the 51 to 99 member bracket. The average percentage of members active in pro­ ductions from this category of community theatre organiza­ tion is 34.3 per cent of the membership (Table 5). The 61 groups which reported totaled 4,382 members actively partic­ ipating, with a range from 14 to 250 members. The median and mode (19*7 per cent) again varied from the average but coincided in the 50 to 59 per cent range. In the category of community theatres which consider their season ticket purchasers to be members, the total for the 39 groups was 69,129 persons, ranging from a membership of 106 to 7,000, and averaging 1,772.5 members. The median and the mode (25.6 per cent) in this case also vary from the mean, being in the 1,001 to 1,500 member bracket. Prom the standpoint of participation, 36 of these groups reported a 29

TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE OF PARTI 01PATI OH

Separate Season Percentage Dues Buyers Private Total

100 8 • • ♦ • 8

90-99 1 • • • • 1

80-89 5 • • • • 5

70-79 4 • • • • 4

60-69 10 • ■ • • 10

50-59 12 • • • • 12

40-49 3 * • 1 4 30-39 8 4 1 13 20-29 4 6 2 12 10-19 2 14 3 19 0-9 2 12 5 19

Total 59 36 12 107 30 total of 7,4-00 participants, averaging 205,6 members per group or 11,6 per cent. The median and the mode (38,9 per cent} in this case agree with the mean, occurring In the ten to 19 per cent range. Individual reports showed members participating per group ranged from 25 to 810. The thirteen groups providing membership figures for this study which produced solely for their own members un­ derstandably have the largest average membership— 1,891*8 persons. The total membership in this category is 24,593, ranging from 250 to 8,000 members per group. Other statis­ tical functions also are similar to those groups which con­ sider season ticket purchasers as members: both the median and the mode (30.8 per cent) fall below the average, in the range of 1,001 to 1,500 members. As Table 5 indicates, there is also a kinship between these two categories in act­ ive production as well. Twelve private groups reported total active participation of 2,245 members, or a mean of 187*1 per group; 10.1 per cent of the membership. Statis­ tically the mean and the median fall in the same bracket in

this case, between ten and 19 per cent, although the mode (45.5 per cent) dips into the lowest percentage range; spe­ cifically, it is eight per cent. Nine community theatre groups, although failing to

provide membership figures, reported a total of 1,135 active participants, or an average of 126.1 per group. These fig­ ures were used in computing the statistics on total averages 31 utilizing 118 groups although percentages In Table 5 were computed on the basis of individual reports from the 107 theatres giving both membership and participation data. Considered from a statistical standpoint irrespec­ tive of membership category, 115 groups reported a total membership of 106,904, or an average membership of 929.6, with a range from 18 to 8,000 members. The median falls in the 251 to 500 membership size bracket, but the mode (of 21 groups or 18.3 P&r cent) is in the 51 to 99 member range, Identical with that for groups collecting dues separately from admissions. The validity of including private groups in this survey is supported by the distribution of member­ ship size which closely parallels that of groups which con­ sider their membership to be the purchasers of season tick­ ets. If those two categories are considered together, there is no significant difference In frequency {only eleven groups) between those who charge dues for membership with the resultant smaller membership figures (63 groups) and those who, in effect or actuality, consider their season audience constituency as their membership (52 groups). Turning to the statistics concerning the percentage of membership actually participating In play production, the similarity between the private groups and those consid­ ering season purchasers as members holds constant and again Is quite distinct from those who consider their producing body as their membership. With all categories considered 32 together, the survey showed a total of 15,162 active partic­ ipants In 118 groups; an average of 128.5 per group or 13.8 per cent of the membership. The range of participants per group was from 14 to 810. On a percentage basis, the low was an interesting 0.4 per cent which Indicated twenty par­ ticipants In a private group of 5,3°® subscribers. In this case, the low figure may have resulted from a mistaken In­ terpretation of the question, "Approximate number of members active in productions," as meaning in each production. How­ ever, even If this assumption were correct, the resulting percentage for that group would become 2.6 per cent, only slightly higher than the two groups reporting the next lowest percentage of 2.0. At the other end of the Boale, eight groups reported one hundred per cent participation by their memberships ranging In size from thirty to one hundred mem­ bers. For the,107 groups for which active participation per­ centages could be computed individually, the median was de­ cidedly skewed, falling in the 30 to 39 per cent range, while the mode covered both the zero to nine per cent and ten to 19 per cent ranges, with 19 groups or 17.8 per cent falling in each bracket. A comparison with the Work study would Indicate a slight decrease in participation since 1948. That report Indicated approximately thirty thousand persons actively engaged In community theatre work in the 198 groups surveyed, 33 averaging approximately 150 workers for each theatre.3 The necessary generality on this point, however, of both that survey and the present one would Indicate that the differ­ ence is not a significant one. In view of the enigma discussed earlier concerning the number of community theatre organizations in the country, a computation dividing the average number of participants per group (129) determined in this survey, by the figure of three million Americans whom the Gallup Poll reported as participating in leisure time theatrical productions^ yields a hypothetical conclusion that there are 23,256 producing community theatre organizations in the United States. The response from 104 groups to the question con­ cerning the number of general membership meetings per year also showed great disparity. Table 6 provides the tabula­ tion of this item. Since 104 groups reported, the figures as tabulated approximate the percentages. With a range from no meetings (five groups) to 52 meetings per year, the mode was a substantial 37^5 per cent having one general membership meeting per year (two groups indicating variables of one to two or one to five meetings were included in calculating that percentage). The median was at three meetings and the average was 5 *7 • *h this case the mode would seem to be

3Ibid. ^Above, p. 10. 3 4

TABLE 6 GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS HELD PER YEAR Number Groups N o n e ...... 5 1 37 1-2 1 1-5 1 2 6 2-3 1 3-4 1 3 4 4 4 5 2 5-6 1 6 8 7 1 8 4 9 6 10 4 1 0 - 2 0 ...... l 11 1 12 11 14 ...... 1 15 1 24 1 50 1 52 1 35 the statistical function having most significance. Another indicated preference was for twice-monthly meetings, held by eleven groups or 10,6 per cent of the total.

Majol* Productions The items of the survey dealing with major produc­ tions elicited unusually good response, being completed by 134 of the 136 organizations. Table 7 reflects the number of major productions presented by these groups, a total of 679 productions for the 1962-1963 season. Although the range is from one to twelve productions, the overwhelming majority of groups (75*4 per cent) present from three to six plays annually. There is a close statistical relationship here, for the mode of six productions exceeds only by one both the median of five and the number of groups giving five plays, and the mean is 5.1 productions per year. These fig­ ures, especially considering the mode, indicate a slight trend toward an increase in major productions when compared with the Dietrich and Work survey of 1950 which reported an average of 4.75 productions per group and a mode of three to four productions annually by 68 theatres as opposed to five to six productions by 63 theatres.5 Comparable figures from this study are 44 theatres with three to four annual produc­ tions and 57 with five to six. Another feature of community theatre operation which

^Dietrich and Work, op. clt.. p. 186. 36

TABLE 7

NUMBER CF MAJOR PRODUCTIONS

Number Groups Percentage

1 3 2.2 2 6 *.5 3 23 17.2 4 21 15.7 5 28 20.9 6 29 21.6 7 10 7.5 8 8 6.0 9 1 0.7 10 3 2.2

11 • • • » 12 2 1.5 37 varies considerably among organizations is the number of performances each major production receives (Table 8 ). The computation of definitive statistics on this item was com­ plicated primarily by the fact that 36 groups of the 13^ re­ porting (26*9 per cent) vary the number of performances of their major productions. Five of those groups reported that musicals received the longer runs (usually at least twice as long as the plays), while the other 31 merely Indicated the variations without describing their distinctions. Another statistical difficulty was presented by the wide range In the number of performances. One group reported eighty per­ formances per production on a year-round operation, while another presents 52 (one per week). Eliminating those two groups from the determination of the mean would have lowered the average figures by 0.9 performance. The mode and median for number of performances coin­ cide at six performances per production, while the mean is 9 .6 . Groups which gave all productions the same number of performances averaged 8.9 performances per production. A very clear trend toward longer runs is displayed in this study, for in 1950 Dietrich and Work found the average run to be 6.65 performances to a total audience of 1,89^ people.^ Although the questionnaire requested Information on the "average attendance per prodjjictlonj," the resulting fig-

6Ibld. 38

TABLE 8 HUMBER OP PERPORKAl!OES OP MAJOR PRODUCTIOHS

Performances Regular Variable3- Total

1 1 • • 1 2 11 1 12 3 8 4 12 4 12 3 15 5 7 6 13 6 14 3 17 7 5 1 6 8 7 1 8 9 8 3 11 10 4 • # 4 11 1 3 4 12 4 2 6 13 • • 1 1 14 4 2 6 15 • • 1 1 16 • • 1 1 17 1 # • 1 18 2 • • 2 19 • * 3 3 20 2 • e 2 21 1 • • 1 22 • • • • « • 23 * • • • * • 24 1 • e 1 25 or more 1 6 5 M ------i 2 . ------a Calculated according to the average number of performances. ures appear to be of questionable validity. In many cases the figures reported, when compared with the number of per­ formances and capacity of the auditorium, appeared more likely to be reported per performance rather than production. In cases where admission proceeds and membership figures clearly indicated this to be the case, adjusted figures were used In the tabulation. Consequently, these figures are re­ ported solely for consideration of their general implica­ tions and should not be regarded as conclusive. The total attendance for 125 reporting groups was 215,306, averaging 1,722.J+ audience members per production. The range here was from 5° to 23,200 persons per production, the latter figure being established by Theatre, Incorporated, of fftMafton, Which presents eighty performances each of five mu­ sicals in year-round production. From this rough estimate, however, there is an indication that there is no significant

change from the average total audience of 1950*

Musicals A clearly developing trend toward the more frequent production of musicals is evident from the replies of I33 groups. While Work found that "musical comedies . . . re­ ceive only occasional production"7 (reporting only two pro­ ductions in the 19^8 study), Dietrich and he found five per

7work, o p . clt.. p. ^6 7. k O cent of the productions In their 195° study to be musical,® and the study by Schoell Indicated that the percentage of musical productions was five per cent In 1910-1920, six from

1920 to 19^0 , but only 3.2 per cent between 19^0 and 1950* However, Schoell reported that In the same periods, respec­ tively, twelve, twenty-six, and fifty per cent of theatres surveyed were producing musicals.9 The current study determined that 66.9 per cent of community theatre organizations produce musicals (89 of I33 groups). These groups and their policies on the frequency of musical production are summarized in Table 9* There was only a slight difference in the mean number of major produc­ tions of those groups which produce musicals and those which do not: 5.3 and 5 .1 productions per year. However, a com­ parison of the modes shows 22 or 25*0 Per cent of the pro­ ducers who Include musicals among their major productions presenting five major productions per year with six major productions as a close second (twenty groups or 22.7 Per cent) to this mode, while the mode of the non-producers of musicals is only three major productions per year (ten groups or 22.7 per cent). This clearly indicates that groups doing fewer major productions are the ones least likely to include musicals among their play selections.

®Dletrich and Work, o p . clt.. p. 187*

^Schoell, o p . clt.. pp. 3^5-3^7. 41

TABLE 9

PRODUCTION OP MUSIOALS

Policy Groups Percentage

Produce musicals 89 66.9a Exclusively 3 3.4 5 per year 1 1.1 2 per year 12 13.5 1-2 per year 2 2.2 1 per year 39 43.8 Do no set number 31 34.8 Every other year 1 1.1 No musicals 44 33. la <

a Calculi ted on the "basis of 133 respondents. Other percentages are of the 89 groups reporting their frequencies of musical major productions. **2 The range of major productions per year in groups including musicals among their offerings was from one (only one group) to fifteen. The latter group has a policy of presenting five musicals per year. Three responding groups present musicals exclusively, offering three (all Gilbert and Sullivan), five, and six musical productions per season. Among the musical non-producers, the range was from one to thirty major productions. One of the two groups offering but one production per year qualified its response to the mu­ sical production question by responding "none so far." The type of accompaniment used in their musical pro­ ductions was described by 85 of the 89 groups which present them. This information is presented in Table 10. Nearly half of these groups reported that they used an orchestra ranging from three to twenty-five pieces, with a mode of five pieces, a median of nine, and a mean of nine and one- half. Percentage figures are based on 85 groups and do not total one hundred since many groups vary their accompaniment to suit the type of musical being presented or the availa­ bility of musicians. It is hoped that the manner of presen­ tation of this data is such that it may be interpreted most meaningfully•

Other Productions The questionnaire included several other items con­ cerning activities other than major productions carried on 43 TABLE 10 MU 31CAL AO COMPANIMEUT a

Incl. among sev­ Only type used eral types used Total Type

Groups % Groups % Grps. %

Orchestra 23 27.1 17 20.0 40 47.1 3-5 pieces^ 3 9 9 • • * 9 4 2 • • 1 9 9 3 5 3 ■ * 4 9 9 7

6 • • * * 1 9 9 1

6-10 1 • 9 • 9 9 9 1

6-17 • • 9 • 1 9 9 1

7-8 1 9 * • 9 9 9 1

8 1 9 9 1 9 9 2 8-9 1 • 9 • * 9 9 1 10 4 9 9 1 9 9 5 10-15 1 9 9 • • 9 9 1

11 1 9 9 • • 9 9 1

12 • • 1 9 9 1

12-14 1 9 9 9 9 1

15 2 9 9 £Z 9 9 4 o 16 1 9 9 3

16-18 1 • * 9 • 9 9 1 25 • • • • 1 9 9 1 Unspecified * « * 9 2 9 U d. 2 pianos-organ 14 16.5 10 11.8 24 28.2 Piano(s )-rhythm 11 12.9 10 11.8 21 24.7 Solo piano 7 8.2 3 3.5 10 11.8 Tapes * • • 9 1 1.2 1 1.2 Varied0 9 10.6 21 23.5 30 35.3

aOonsult pages 40 and 42 of the text for further explanation. Frequency of these subdivisions was considered to be the primary significant factor so percentages were not computed. cIn this category the next two columns report fig­ ures from groups not listing specific types and the follow­ ing two columns reflect information also tabulated above them. 4 4 by responding organizations. These are summarized in Table 11. It is noteworthy that none of these activities were en­ gaged in by a majority of respondents, proving that the major productions hold the concentration of interest of com­ munity theatre organizations today. The policies involved in the selection of plays for major productions, although relevant at this point, are of sufficient import to merit a separate analysis and will be discussed in Chapter V. The production of plays for children proved after major productions to be the most popular activity of the community theatre organizations surveyed. The survey dis­ closed that 62 groups or 45.6 per cent of the total offer children's productions. In five cases the respondents noted that they operate special children's or youth theatre groups. There was a total number of 14-0 productions report­ ed by 58 groups for an average of 2.4 productions per organ­ ization. The median also was two productions, but the mode established by twenty-five groups (18.4 per cent of I36 or 40*3 per cent of the 62 groups offering children's theatre) was one production per year. The groups which detailed their productions reported 235.5 total performances (the decimal resulted from averaging figures of groups giving varied numbers of performances), playing to total audiences of 4 3 ,631. Eesulting averages indicate means of 4.5 per­ formances per production and audiences of 890.4. 45

TABLE 11 ACTIVITIES OTHEB THAN MAJOR PRODUCTIONS

Activity Groups Percentage

Children's plays 62 45.6 One act plays 59 43.4 Full length plays 37 27.2 Other activitiesa 64 47.1 Classes, lectures & workshops 35 25.7 Dances & dinners 7 5.1 Variety programs 6 4.4 Concerts, dance programs 5 3.7 Festivals 5 3.7 Films 5 3.7 Sponsor professional performances 5 3.7 Play readings 4 2.9 Playwriting contests 2 1.5 Theatre parties to M*Y. or stock 2 1.5 Touring own shows 2 1.5 Others Q✓ 6.6

aAll Items in the subdivisions were supplied by the respondents' filling in the blank provided on the questionnaire. 46 Productions of plays for children represent an in­ creasing trend, for Schoell reported ten per cent of groups studied performing them in the 1910-1920 period, 33 P«r cent between 1920 and 1940, with a decrease to 28 per cent from 1940 to 1950.10 The 1950 decline is supported by Dietrich and Work who note "the small total of 48 children's plays reported on the survey,although Work had cited children^ theatre in his 1948 survey as one of the most popular close­ ly related activities. The increase in children's drama is noteworthy and commendable, for as long ago as 1926 Alex­ ander Dean observed, "The reasons why there should be a children's theatre are so manifold that no Little Theatre should pride itself on its accomplishments if it has ne­ glected the youngsters of the community."*3 He cites show­ ing them the beautiful, giving them joy, developing better ethical standards and good taste among the advantages to be derived from theatre for children. Bunniug a close second to children's drama is the production of one-act plays, historically a predominant activity of little theatres. The diminishing trend up to 1950 seems to have leveled off at that point, although now

10Ibid. ■^Dietrich and Work, op. clt.. p. 186.

^■2Work, o p . clt.. p. 468. ^Alexander Dean, Little Theatre Organization and Management (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1926), p. 7 1. one acts may more generally be workshop or class productions rather than major productions. In the 1910-1920 period, Schoell reported that one-act plays outnumbered three acts by 66 per cent and were produced by 95 Per cent of the thea­ tre groups studied.^ This percentage dropped to 83 per cent of theatres for 1920-1940, being a mere 8.3 per cent of the total productions of that period, further diminishing to production by only 42 per cent of groups in the 1940-195° period. Dietrich and Work report one-act plays were pre­ sented mostly by the larger groups, with several doing more than fifteen each.15 They noted that I85 groups performed 417 one acts, which averages to 2.25 productions per group. The 59 groups reporting current one-act productions constitute 43.4 per cent of the community theatre groups surveyed. This percentage is strikingly close to the 42 per cent reported by Schoell. Also, twenty-two groups or 17.1 per cent of 129 groups reporting and 37-3 per cent of the producers of one acts included them among their major pro­ ductions. There were a total of 213 one-act productions re­ ported by fifty groups, averaging 4.26 productions per group* a figure higher than that of the 195° studies, indicating an increased interest probably due to recent work in the com­ mercial theatre by playwrights such as Albee, Beckett,

lA*Schoell, op. clt.. pp. 69 and 345“347- 15Dietrich and Work, op. clt.. p. 186. Williams, and Killer. The median and mode reported are three productions per group. The mode was established by fifteen groups— 11.0 per cent of 136 groups or 25*^ per cent of the 59 groups which reported one-act productions. There was a total of IO7.5 performances per production with a mean of 2.^ performances, and the audience total per production came to 6,232 persons or a mere 159.8 people per production. Pour groups reported that their one-act productions were sold or traveled to clubs or civic organizations, five re­ ported these performances by classes or workshops, and two organizations noted their productions of original one-act festivals. Only 37 theatres or 27.2 per cent indicated that they presented full-length productions other than their major productions during the course of the year. Among these groups annotating their replies, this item included experimental plays, the summer productions of three groups, a revue, play readings done by two groups, an opera product tion in conjunction with a music club, and four shows for a supper club provided on a flat fee basis. The total number of productions reported was 111, ranging from one to "approx­ imately thirty" per group (although only that one group re­ ported more than eight), with a mean of exactly three. That total is substantially higher than the fifty-five full-length experimental and laboratory productions presented by the 185 1*9 groups surveyed by Dietrich and Work in 195° T*1© mode for the number of these productions is one, representing 11.8 per cent of all groups or 43.2 per cent of the 37 re­ porting them, although the median is two productions during the year. The organizations reported a total of 158.5 per­ formances per production before audiences totaling 16,855* resulting in means of 4.7 performances and 561.8 persons per production. As Table 11 shows, sixty-four groups Indicated par­ ticipation In eighty-seven other theatrical activities. Only one additional activity was listed by forty groups, while twenty-three others listed forty-seven activities— an average of two per organization. From any aspect, the most significant activity was conducting classes, lectures, or workshops, mentioned by thirty-five groups. This figure represents 25.7 per cent of all groups surveyed or 5^*7 Per cent of those organizations responding to this particular item. The percentage might have been greater had this ac­ tivity been listed as a check-off item on the questionnaire, for Schoell reported such activity by 49 per cent of groups in the 1920-1940 period and 36 per cent of them from 1940 to 1950.*7 Aside from the other activities tabulated, single entries were received indicating after theatre parties,

16Ibid. ^schoell, on. clt.. pp. 345-347. 50 closed circuit television, creative dfama programs, appear­ ing as extras In the motion picture The Cardinal, offering an international program for foreign groups, a magician's club, a summer season, and a "Theatre Wing." Consequently it is apparent that, although the number of major productions and performances may be on the increase, a gamut of varied activities are still available to the membership of many community theatre organizations.

Policies on Directing and Casting Payment of the director of the major productions is by now a well-established custom, with exactly two-thirds

(86 groups) of 129 organizations doing so. This percentage is identical with Schoell's 1950 figure of 67 per cent, and has been relatively constant since the 1920-1940 period when Schoell calculated it at 64 per cent, where it had risen from 17 per cent for the early period.Of 86 of these groups, 53*5 per cent (forty-six) have the same director for all major productions while the policy of 46*5 per cent (J+0 groups) is to have a variety of directors. This is at vari­ ance with directorial policy generally accepted, however. On the basis of 131 reporting groups, only a minority of 51 or 38.9 per cent reports that one director directs all major productions. In only one instance of this minority is the director unpaid, although two groups did not provide any in-

^Ibld.. pp. 64, 130, and 300. 5 1 formation about payment of their directors. The eighty-group majority— 61.1 per cent— which uses different directors is almost evenly divided on the matter of payment. The direc­ tors of thirty-eight of them, or ^7*5 per cent, receive pay­ ment for their services, while those for forty-two, or 52»5 per cent, are unpaid. Policies of community theatre organizations over­ whelmingly allow the director the responsibility for cast­ ing his production. In only one Instance of 133 reports (0.8 per cent) is casting done by a committee excluding the director. The director has sole casting authority in 88 or­ ganizations (66.2 per cent), casts subject to the final approval of the Board of Directors in one group (0.8 per cent), and is one member of the casting committee in forty- three theatres, or 32.3 per cent. CHAPTER III

FINANCES

Inevitably, as in any activity, financial matters are of special concern. This chapter will consider such financial matters as budgets, sources of income, admission charges, and membership dues, while the closely related matter of salaries will be discussed in the following chap­ ter on staff.

Budgets Replies to the item concerning the overall budget for the current season (1962-1963) were received from 110 of the community theatre organizations surveyed. Six of these groups indicated that they do not operate on the basis of an overall budget, leaving calculable reports from 10^ groups with individual annual budgets ranging from $200 to $256,830, and totaling $2,6?^,185.18 (Table 12). The low budget represents a group of eighteen members founded in i960 and supported by the entertainment fund of a military officers' club presenting three major productions to an average audience of ^50 persons per production. On the other hand, the Globe Playhouse Community Theatre of San 52 53 TABLE 12 OVERALL BUDGETS

Budget Groups Percentage Monetary Total

$100,000 or more 3 2.7 $496,830.00 70-100,000 4 3.6 337,423.00 60-70,000 3 2.7 190,000.00 50-60,000 3 2.7 171,884.83 45-50,000 3 2.7 142,000.00 40-45,000 4 3.6 164,265.00 35-40,000 7 6.4 252,650.00

30-35,000 i—i 4.5 152,000.00

25-30,000 6 5.3 155,550.00 20-25,000 10 9.1 209,235.50 15-20,000 9 8.2 143,250.00 10-15,000 10 9.1 109,500.00 7 ,500-10,000 3 2.7 24,600.00 5 ,000-7,500 10 9.1 59,345.00 2 ,500-5,000 13 11.8 48,721.85 1 ,000-2,500 7 6.4 10,250.00 Under 1,000 4 3.6 1,680.00 Bo Budget 6 5.5

Total 110 99.9 $2,674,185.18 5^ Diego, California, was established in 1935, now has a gen­ eral membership of 1 ,031, and presents nine major produc­ tions during its regular season to average audiences of 8,9^0 persons. Its operation includes a full-time staff of twelve assisted by four part-time employees. In a statistical analysis the skewed reports estab­ lish an average annual budget of 125,713*32, high in the distribution, with the median occurring in the $15-20,000 bracket. The mode of 13 groups (11.8 per cent) is lower still, at the range of $2,500 to $5,000 annually. Close behind in frequency, however, are three brackets: $20- 2 5 ,000; $10-1 5 ,000; and $5 ,000-7,500, with ten groups (9.9 per cent) reporting budgets within each range. This wide variation obviously makes valid generalizations about finan­ cial matters of community theatre groups impossible. It is obvious, however, that the budgets of these organizations involve impressive expenditures. Using the rough estimate of 5,000 theatre groups,^ on the basis of this survey's low- “ er mode figure ($2 ,500), total budgets amount tc 12.5 mil­ lion dollars, while calculated on the mean ($25,713*32) the sum is an impressive $128,566,600, approximately ten times greater. Notice was taken of the economic significance of amateur drama groups by no less impressive a source than the Wall Street Journal which noted in a front page article that

^Ab0?«, p. 9* 55 one lighting equipment manufacturer, Kliegl Brothers, gets more business each year from amateur theatres than from pro­ fessional theatres or television and that the Eaves Costume Company "credits amateur groups heavily for Its sales gains, which have averaged ten per cent annually in recent years," and then noted estimated payments of two million dollars In royalties annually,2 It must be noted, however, that much of this business is derived from the educational theatre, since the term amateur Includes both community and academic theatres. A comparison of current finances with those re­ ported by previous studies Is complicated, of course, by general Inflation. Work found in his 1948 study that the theatres' average total annual budget was approximately $5,000,3 a figure only 19.3 per cent of that found in this survey. In reverse terms, today's mean budget Is 520 per cent that of 1948! Earlier than that, although he reports no general or average figures, Houghton described the 1939-1940 season operation of one private theatre which also responded to this survey. The membership of 2,314 paid a ten dollar fee

2 Michael Creedman, "Amateur Theatricals Grow, Aid Equipment, Suppliers, Playwrights," Vail Street Journal, March 16, 1962, p, 1, ■^Work, or>. clt.. p. 466, 56 and the annual budget was about $25,000.** Now the member­ ship is 5,308, dues are $16.00 and the annual budget has increased to 50 to 65 thousand dollars. Macgowan cites examples from the 1928-1929 season with budgets ranging from $1,000 to $275,000, describing a total of $835,40? for fifty-five theatres, or an average of $15,189*20. "If they find therrselves popular in their community," he observes, "they can budget to the tune of $100,000 a year and feel pretty confident that the box office will bring In the cash. The great financial virtue of the local theatre is that it can cut its cloth into shoe­ strings if it wants to, and live royally on them."5 He lists only five theatres with budgets in six figures, however; the thirty-two others are $42,000 and below. Receipts from admissions by far constitute the greatest source of Income for community theatre groups. As Table 13 illustrates, all 136 groups surveyed reported their sources with 120 or 88.3 per cent reporting Income from admissions as one source. In the subsequent division by season or individual sales, the sale of individual tick­ ets was the single manner of revenue production indicated by the largest number of organizations, 113 or 83*1 per cent. Rather surprisingly, fifty-seven theatres or 47.5

111 1 * ■ ■ 1 . **Houghton, op. clt., p. 82. 5Macgowan, or>. clt.. pp. 232-239* 57 TABLE 13

SOURCES OP IPCOME

Any Income®- Primary Source^1 Source Groups Percentage0 Groups Percentage0

Admissions 120 88.3 41 71.9 Season sales 66 48.5 15 d 26.3 Individual sales 113 83.1 30^ 52.3 Membership dues 95 69.9 10 17.5 Private donations 38 27.9 • • • e Corporate donations 14 10.3 1 1.8 Municipal funds 10 7.4 2 3.5 United appeals 5 3.7 1 1.8 Endowments and Investments 4 2.9 • • • • Othere 54 39.7 5 8.8 Advertising sales 13 9.6 1 1.8 Refreshments 7 5.1 • • • • Group sales and Benefit perfs. 6 4.4 1 1.8 One-acts & Chil­ dren's theatre 5 3.7 1 1.8 Rental-bldg. or costumes 5 3.7 • • • • Fees for classes 5 3.7 • • • • Adult educ. prog. 2 1.5 • • • * Mil. ent. funds 2 1.5 2 3.5 Supper club 1 0.7 • • • • "Council of LTA" 1 0.7 • • • • Lance 1 0.7 • • • • Fund raising pro 3ects 1 0.7 • • • ♦ Unspecified 6 4.4 • # • »

aBasls of 134 reports ^Basls of 57 reports. cDue to some multiple indications, percentages do not total 100, ^Four circled Loth categories. eAll items in the subdivision were provided by the respondents1 filling in the blank provided. 58 per cent of the 120 groups, reported individual sales as the only form of admissions Income. Both season and in­ dividual ticket sales were reported by fifty-six theatres (^6.7 per cent), while only seven groups (5*8 per cent) re­ ported season sales exclusively. Some ambiguity must be present in this data, however, for there seemed to be some doubt in the cases of the private groups and those consid­ ering season ticket purchasers as their membership as to how the income source should be listed. The sixteen groups con­ stituting the difference between the 120 reporting admis­ sions as a factor in finances were not necessarily those sixteen clubs listing their performances as private; in fact, nine of them checked income from admissions, although seven of those indicated only individual ticket sales in this category. Charges for admissions will be discussed shortly. The only other relatively significant sources of income (those reported at least by approximately ten per cent of the groups surveyed) were membership dues, private and corporate donations, and the sale of advertising space in production programs. From the standpoint of other primary sources of revenue, next to admissions, the collection of membership dues is the only consideration of any significance. It was listed by a mere ten groups or 1?.5 per cent of theatres in­ dicating primary sources. 59 Although only ton groups listed municipal funds and five indicated their inclusion in United Appeals alloca­ tions, these undoubtedly will become increasingly important sources of funds for community theatres in the future. In the news item announcing grants totaling two million dollars of federal funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, it is pointed out that "nonprofit community drama and music groups are expected to be the chief beneficiaries of grants by the arts foundation."6 Ey 1965 a phenomenal growth had resulted in 250 community arts councils, forty state ones, and two territorial councils in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.? Such councils are likely to result in greater in­ clusion of theatrical organizations in Joint community-wide fund appeals. Historically there has been little change in in­ come sources in the last 35 years. In the three examples of budgets cited by Macgowam, memberships and ticket sales are sources common to all three and the only source for the smallest theatre, while theatre subrental, scenery rental, sale of used materials, "workshop," and "sundry," were all the other sources given. Work's study of 19*+6 provides some interesting con­ trasts with the results of this study. Statistics from the

^Lewiston (Maine) Dally Sun. July 5» 1966, p. 1. ?Emily Coleman, "The Councils Take Counsel," Satur­ day Review. XLIX (April 30, 1966), p . 59 60 current study will be enclosed in parentheses following those reported by Work. All admissions, reports Work, provided receipts for an average of 67.4 per cent of the organizations (88.3 per cent today); dues, 22.2 per cent (69•9 per cent); program advertising, 5*2 per cent (9*6 per cent); endowment and gifts, 1.9 per cent (2.9 per cent endowments and Investments, 27.9 per cent private donations, and 10.3 per cent corporate donations); and 1.5 per cent or three groups received income from sponsoring organizations such as the Board of Education or the city Recreation De­ partment (7*4 per cent and ten groups)*® The number of sources of income used by community theatres remains rather limited. Three sources were report­ ed by 36-4 per cent, two by 28.8 per cent, and four by 15*9 per cent— a total of 81.8 per cent of the groups reporting. This would indicate that groups are increasing the revenues from their traditional sources rather than searching for new methods of fund raising. With the continued expansion of activity in amateur theatricals, the need for increased Income seems destined to persist. It seems likely that the sale of season tickets, an aspect of admissions now utilized by only 4-8.5 per cent of the groups, may increase, as may the utilization of the new federal endowment and arts councils. The use of season subscriptions and membership

8Work, o p . clt.. p. 467. 61 dues provide the great advantage of establishing working capital at the beginning of the season so that production budgets may be adjusted accordingly. On the other hand, a pertinent observation was made by Theatre Arts critic Alan Pryce-Jones in 1961: The community theatres have worked out their own system of finance, depending on the good will and active help of small individual groups. But I suggest that the potentialities of the theatre will best be fulfilled when more of the weight is shifted from individuals to the community as a whole. . . . But too often help depends on the pub­ lic spirit of the few. Such a condition is not only defeating to good theatre; it is also the an­ tithesis of good economics, since it precludes any sort of long-term plan.9

Admission Charges Since income from individual and season ticket sales provides the primary source of operating funds for the ma­ jority of community theatre organizations, it may be helpful to examine these reports from the surveyed theatres in greater detail. Table 14 represents the number of groups, divided by their definition of membership and the costs of their season tickets. Twenty-eight groups do not sell season admissions, while two military community theatres make no admissions charges whatever. Fourteen theatres (three of them are among the private membership-only organizations) encourage

9Alan Pryce-Jones, "Theatre Across the Country," Theatre Arts. XLV (May, 1961), p. ?8. 62

TABLE 14 SEASON TICKET COSTS

Total Lues Dues Cost Separate Included Private Groups Percentage

a 2.50 1 a a a a 1 1.0 3.00 2 a • a a 2 1.9 3.75 3 a • a a 3 2.9 4.00 3 a • a a 3 2.9 4.50 1 a a a a 1 1.0 5.00 4 4 9 8.7 6.00 4 2 a a 6 5.8 6.25 a a 1 a a 1 1.0 6.50 1 a a a a 1 1.0 7.00 1 a a 1 2 1.9 7.50 5 6 2 13 12.5 7.88 • a 1 a a 1 1.0 8.00 2 2 2 6 5.8 8.50 * a 1 1 2 1.9 9.00 1 1 1 3 2.9 9.50 1 a a 1 2 1.9 9.75 • a 1 1 2 1.9 10.00 9 11 2 22 21.2 10.50 * a 1 a a 1 1.0 12.00 1 1 1 3 2.9 15.00 a a 2 1 3 2.9 16.00 a a a a 1 1 1.0 25.00 1 a a * a 1 1.0 Variable 10 4 1 15 14.4

Total 50 38 16 104 100.4 63 student attendance by offering them reduced rates. A few offer slight reductions (usually totaling one dollar) to purchasers of two season admissions. These variations have been disregarded In tabulating the statistics. There are 1$ groups which offer season admissions at several rates, some because of varying seat locations and others to distinguish among membership classes. Figures from these 15 theatres were not used In the computation of statistical functions. The group offering the least variance sold season admissions at $3*75 and $**.50, while the greatest range was $10 to $100* The range for the cost of flat-rate season tickets in all groups was from #2.50 (on a three-play basis) to $25*00 (for seven productions). Both these theatres are In the category which sells season tickets Independently of membership dues. The mean and median for that category were between $7*00 and $7.50 ($7 *32), while the mode (22.5 per cent) was $10.00* Among the groups including membership dues in their season admissions, the range was from $5*00 (three or four productions) to $15*00 (ten productions). Again the statis­ tical mean and median coincided, this time between $8.50 and $9.00 ($8.7 6 ). The mode of $10.00 (32.^ per cent) was the same as that of the category reported just above. As might be anticipated the season rates for member­ ship-only organizations were higher, although not so much as might be expected. In the one organization which reported a 64 variable rate it ranged from $2.50 to $10, but the range for which statistics were tabulated was from $5*00 (six shows) to $16.00 (seven productions). In this category, the median was $9.00 and the mean $9.52. There was no clear mode es­ tablished, as season prices were $7 .50, $8.00, and $10.00 in two groups each* These statistics appear clearer and more meaningful when studied collectively. There is a strong mode of $10.00 by 24.7 per cent of these groups (the groups with variable rates having been excluded from comparisons). The next most frequent rate, $7 .50, is displayed by ten per cent fewer or­ ganizations, or 14.6 per cent. The mean is $8.24 per season admission and the median falls at $8.00. Due to the wide range in the number of productions per season (three to fifteen) presented by groups selling season admissions, the cost information is presented in Table 15 with the cost-per-play replacing the season ticket price. Again, groups having multiple prices for season tickets were omitted from the computation. Totals are slightly different since two groups failed to give data on the number of productions included in the season. Computed in this manner the overall range is from 75 cents to $4.50 per production. In the separate dues category the range Is 75 cents to $3,57. The mean Is $1.59, median $1.50, and the mode Is

$1.67, encompassing 15.^ per cent of these organizations. 65

TABLE 15

SEASON TICKET COSTS FEB PLAY

Total Average ctost Dues Dues per play Separate Included Private Groups Percentage

$0.75-0.85 2 • • 1 3 3.4 0.95 1 • • • * 1 1.2 1.00 4 1 • ■ 5 5.7 1.07 ■ * 1 1 2 2.3 1.15-1.20 2 1 * * 3 3.** 1.21-1.25 5 6 • • 11 12.6 1.30-1.35 2 2 1 5 5.7 1.36-1.J*9 2 3 • • 5 5.7 1.50 5 6 1 12 13.8 1.55-1.65 2 • • 3 5 5.7 I .67 6 7 1 14 16.1 1.70-1.75 • • 2 1 3 3.^ 1.88 1 • • * ♦ 1 1.2 2.00 1 2 1 4 4.5 2.10 ■ * 1 » • 1 1.2 2.29 • • 1 1 1.2 2.40 1 • • • 9 1 1.2 2.50 2 2 * • 4 4.5 2.67 1 • • • • 1 1.2 3.00 1 • • 1 2 2.3 3.57 1 # • • 9 1 1.2 4.25 • » m • 1 1 1.2

4.50 • * » • 1 1 1.2

Total 39 3** 14 87 99.9 66 When dues are included in the season admissions the range is from $1,00 to $2.50. In this case the mean cost drops slightly to $1.55, 2nd. the median and mode agree with those of the previous category, $1.50 and $1.6?, respec­ tively. The mode here, however, represents 20.6 per cent of the groups. Among the private organizations the range extends from 75 cents to $4 .50. Consequently the mean At $2.07 is higher than the other two categories, although the mode (21.4 per cent) and median now coincide In the $1*55 to $1.65 bracket. Collectively, the mean price per production on a season ticket basis Is $1.65. The median fells at $1.50 and the mode of 16.1 per cent of these 87 groups Is $1.67* As was not true on the seasonal basis, however, costs of

$1.50 and $1.21 to $1.25 P®r production come close to the modal frequency, being representative of 13*8 per cent and 12.6 per cent of the organizations respectively. Reports were received from 111 groups concerning their individual ticket prices. Since eight of the private membership organizations reported they sell no individual admission tickets and the two military community theatre organizations offer free admissions, Table 16 Is based on 101 reports. Inasmuch as nearly any percentage computed on this total Is within 0.1 per cent of the whole number, percentages were not computed to the nearest tenth as In the 67

TABLE 16 INDIVIDUAL TICKET COSTS

Approx. Average Cost Single Scale Multiple Scale Private Total0,

t 0.75 * • 1 * • 1 1.00 9 • • • * 9 1.20 1 * • • ft 1 1.25 if 2 • • 6 1.37* • » 2 « • 2 1.50 12 2 • « 1* 1 .62* • • 1 • • 1 1.75 * if # ♦ 8 1.87* • ft 2 « • 2 1.90 1 * ft ft • 1 2.00 13 if 1 18 2 .12* e ♦ 3 1 if 2.25 1 10 1 12 2.37* * * ft « 1 1 2.50 9 2 2 13 2.60 1 • ft • • 1 2.75 • « 1 • ft 1 2.90 • • 1 • • 1 3.00 1 ft ft 2 3 3*75, ft • 1 • • 1 *.27* » • 1 • • 1

Total 56 37 8 101

&Also approximate percentage. 68 other tables. In Table 16 the single-scale and multiple- scale columns relate to the theatres which have open-admis- sions policy. Figures in the multiple-scale column are tab­ ulated according to the averages of the ticket prices. Since the question was not asked and only seven respondents so Indicated, It Is Impossible to state the manner in which the costs vary. In some cases It is related to the seat location, in others the prices are Increased for weekend performances or for musicals. Viewed statistically on an overall basis all func­ tions ere at or very near $2,00 per ticket. The median and the mode of 18 groups (17.8 per cent) coincide exactly with that price, while the mean is $1,91. In decreasing order of popularity, 14 groups charge $1.50 per ticket; 13, $2.50; and 12, $2.25. The range is from 5C cents per admission to $4,80. Among groups offering individual admissions at one price only, the range is from $1.00 to $3*00 per ticket. For these groups the mean and the median nearly coincide, being $1.76 and $1.75 respectively. The mode is $2.00, the price charged by 13 groups or 23.2 per cent, although the next most popular ^rice, $1 .50, Is charged by 12 groups. The actual range of ticket costs for groups with a multiple scale is from 50 cents to $4.80, with the lowest average price per group being 75 cents and ranging upward to an average of $4.27^. The mean average price for these or­ 69 ganizations Is $2,09 and the median $2 .12^; $2.25 Is the mode, being the average cost for 10 groups or 27*0 per cent, with no other average coming close to that in popu­ larity. Considering actual ticket cost, however, the most popular admission price among those in the scales is $2 .0 0 . Tickets at that price are sold by 16 groups (43.2 per cent), and 14 groups include i‘2.50 as a ticket price. Since only eight private groups are included, sta­ tistics for them may not be conclusive. Individual prices ranged from £2.00 to $3*00, with the mean being $2.46. The median also falls between $2.37a and $2.50. The mode was inconclusive, since two groups each (25 per cent) averaged ^2.50 and *3 .00. When compared with the prices of individual admis­ sions purchased on a season basis (Table 15), the mean cost of admission ranges from 19 to 52 cents higher. For compar­ ison, the average cost per play on a season basis from groups not restricting attendance to membership is $1 .57* The average cost of Individual tickets for these groups Is $1.76 on a single scale and $2.09 on a multiple scale, 19 and 52 cents higher, respectively. The average on a season basis for private groups is $2 .07, but is $2.46 if sold in­ dividually, a 36 cent increase. For all types, a season ad­ mission considered on a per-play basis is $1.65 while the mean for individual tickets is $1 .91, or 26 cents higher. Work reported that in 1948, as now, a majority of 70 theatres sold admissions both on a seasonal basis and to individual plays. "Twenty-five per cent," he stated, "have individual admissions only, while less than ten per cent sell only season subscriptions."10 Both these figures are comparable to the 1963 figures of 20.6 per cent and 7*2 per cent, respectively, although the 4. A per cent decrease in organizations not offering season tickets may be due to the desirability of the working capital such income provides. "Single admission prices (at the season subscription rate)," continues Work, "vary from less than $.50 to over $2.00, with the majority falling in the $-50 to $1.00 range."11 The comparable figures today are $.75 to $^.50, with the majority between $1.20 and $1 *75.

Membership Dues Earlier it was reported that 53 per cent of the com­ munity theatres reporting in this study collected membership dues independently of admissions, 33 per cent consider their dues as included in their season admissions, and 13 per cent present their performances exclusively for their membership, while 69*9 per cent reported membership dues as a source of income.12 Table 17 describes the annual dues structure of

10Work, on. pit,, p. ^66. 11Ibld. 12Above, p. 26 and Table 13* Disparity of percent­ ages results from the difference in numbers of groups re­ sponding to each item. 71

TABLE 1? MEMBERSHIP DUES

Dues Groups Percentage t .50 2 3.8 1.00 8 15.4 1.50 2 3.8 2.00 7 13.5 . 2.50 1 1.9 3.00 2 3.8 3.50 1 1.9 k.00 3 5.8 5.00 1^ 26.9 6.00 k 7.7 7.50 2 3.8 8.00 1 1.9 9.00 1 1.9 10.00 2 3.8

12.00 tf% 2 3.8 52 reporting groups other than those including dues in ad­ missions statistics. The 16 groups reporting "no dues" in this entry on the questionnaire (23*5 pen cent of the 68 groups completing this item) have not been included in this tabulation, since their inclusion would have disproportion­ ately skewed the calculations. The mode for annual dues is 15*00, reported by 26.9 per cent of the groups. The average is $*K23, and the med­ ian comes between 3M+.00 and $5*00, since 52 replies were tabulated. Considering the distribution of replies, the mode of $5*00 would seem to be the significant statistical function in this case. CHAPTER IV

STAFF

Kenneth Kacgowan termed the professionalism of the community theatre inevitable. "The history of the success­ ful little theatre," he noted, . . is a progress from

amateurism to professionalism by slow stages."1 The stages

of this development he described in 1929 remain prevalent in the survey of today's community theatre operation. From a rented auditorium, he observed, Increased prosperity led to a paid director, then the group's own theatre with a conse­ quent need for a Janitor, to a third paid staff member; a technical assistant, art director, or possibly a business manager.2

Summary of Positions The current study disclosed that only 33 groups (2*+.*+ per cent) have no paid staff members, while 102 groups (75.6 per cent) reported a total of 36*+ positions, the va­ riety of which is displayed in Table 18. These statistics indicate an average staff of between three and four people per group (mathematically It is 3.6). The total of 36*+

^Macgowan, o p . clt.. p . 9 1 . 2Ibid.. p. 9 7 . 73 74

TABLE 18 THEATRE STAFFS BY POSITIONS

Hiring Both Total Full Part Position Time Time Only Only Full Part Full Part Botha Time Time Time Time f Janitor*3 6 14 16 29 22 43 65 Play Director*3 11 23 12 12 23 35 58 Managing Dir. or Exec. Secy.*5 8 4 4o • « 48 4 52 Tech. Dir.-Des. 5 9 2? 10 32 19 51 Secretary-Clerkb 2 4 17 8 19 12 31 Technical Assts. • • • • 9 16 9 16 25 Tre&s.-Bus. Mgr.*5 1 1 15 2 16 3 19 Box Office Mgr. * * • » 2 9 2 9 11 Business Asst. • • ft ft 7 1 7 1 8 Children's Thea­ tre Director • * 1 3 3 3 4 7 Public i ty-P.R. • ft • • 3 4 3 4 7 Instructors • ft * * 1 1 5 6 Actors*5 • • 1 * • 4° • • 5 5 Musical Dir.-Orch. 1 # • ♦ • 3 1 3 4 Bookkeeper 1 ♦ • • • 2 1 2 3 Costumer * ■ • * 2 1 2 1 3 House Manager * * • ft * • 3 • ft 3 3 Carpenter 1 « • * • 1 1 l 2 Stage Manager * • * • 1 * • 1 • • 1 Other ft • • ft 3 • • 3 • • 3 ---- k ^Totals are also approximate percentages. ^These positions were provided on the question naire. Others were provided by the respondents. ^Includes two groups including only occasional guest artists. 75 Includes both full end part time employees. The variance between full and part time positions Is not too great, with 19^ full-time jobs (53-3 per cent) compared to 170 part-time ones (^6.7 per cent). The three basic staff positions which Nacgowan lists are, with the addition of the managing director or executive secretary, still the only ones appearing in predominant num­ bers of community theatres with paid staffs. In order of frequency, the positions are: janitor, play director, manag­ ing director, and technical director or designer. Lest it seem that the most advantageous professional specialization for community theatre work be janitorial, it must be noted that the frequency of that occupation Is due primarily to part-time employment. On a full-time basis, reports of 103 positions for theatrical professionals (^8 managing direc­ tors, 32 technical directors, and 23 play directors) occur in frequency above the 22 openings for Janitors, There is a simple explanation for the apparent dis­ crepancy between the staff figure in Table 18 which shows that 58 per cent of the groups hire a play director and the report in Chapter II that exactly two-thirds of the commun­ ity theatres surveyed report that they pay directors of major productions.3 The figure cited in Chapter II was derived by considering the group as paying its director If

3Above, p. 50. 76 either the block on the questionnaire for play director or managing director was checked. In the computation for size of staff, however, those blocks, of course, were tabulated independently, since some groups have either play directors or managing directors while the staffs of other organiza­ tions include both. In a consideration of the size of theatre staffs on an overall basis (Table 19), the average theatre group employs three full-time staff members plus two part-time ones. Statistically, there would likely be a managing di­ rector and a technical director in full-time employment and a part-time janitor, In addition there would be a play director and a secretary-clerk, one of whom would be a full­ time member of the staff with the other hired on a part-time basis. This working force closely resembles the staff con­ sisting of a director, technical director, business manager, and executive secretary recommended by the American Nation­ al Theatre and Academy pamphlet on community theatre struc­ ture.^ As was mentioned, the mean size of theatre staff Is 3*6 persons. Of the total number of groups reporting, however, the mode (27.5 P©** cent) is one employee, with three and two staff members close behind with percentages

^W. Edwin VerEtecke, "Community Theatre Structure" (Service Pamphlet, New York: American National Theatre and Academy, February, 1953), p. 2. (Mimeographed.) 77

TABLE 19 NUMBERS ON STAFFS

Number of Full Part Groups Positions Time Time Hiring Total Groups® Per Group Only Only Both

1 13 15 • * 28 2 5 9 6 20 3 1 8 12 21

if * ft ft # 6 6

5 2 • • 9 11

6 • ft * ft 2 2

7 # • • ft 4 4

8 « • 4 if

10 « • « • 1 1

11 • • • ft 1 1

12 ft • • ♦ 1 1

16 • • ft ft 2 2

17 • * • • 1 1

^Totals are also approximate percentages. 78 of 20#6 and 19-6, respectively. The range is from one to seventeen employees, and the median is a staff of three. Comparison of this study with the previous ones indicates that the increase in organisational staff is one of the greatest indications of the recent growth of commun­ ity theatres. A 1929 survey cited by Ilacgowan yields a mean employment of 2.4 persons per group.5 This survey is limited, however, since it reported on only 67 non-educa- tional little theatres, of which fifteen had no paid staff. Of the remaining 52 groups, 47 paid their directors; 27 paid their business managers, and 14 had paid janitors. Work's figures for 1948 show a mean of 1.2 positions per theatre. In this case, 135 groups had paid staff members. The only positions occurring with any frequency were the director (51.9 per cent), technical director (10.2 per cent), and janitor (9.6 per cent).6 Schoell reports the percentage of gfoups paying their directors from 1910-1920 as 17 per cent, from 1920-1940 as 64 per cent, and 1940-1950 as 67 per cent.7

5l£acgowan, op. clt.. p. 102. ^Work, op. clt.. p. 465. ^Schoell, op. clt.. pp. 64, 130, and 300. 79

No Paid Positions The percentage of little theatres with n6 paid positions In 1929 was 22.4;® in 1948 Work found it to be

31,5,9 and the current survey indicates that It Is 24.4 per cent. These 33 groups reported budgets ranging from noth­ ing to $40,000 per year, averaging $7,615*91. There were seven whose budgets were $10,000 or more, but only three under $1,000. The number of major productions ranges from two to eight with a mean of four and a mode of three. Not surprisingly, only three of them report that the same direc­ tor directs all major productions; three, six, and six or seven per group. All these groups are spread rather even­ ly among the metropolitan areas as well, there being no concentration among the smaller cities as one might sur­ mise. Considering the budgets and number of productions involtred, It would appear that these groups have an adequate supply of directors and other personnel who enjoy the activ­ ity enough to donate their services and thereby permit the theatres' revenues to be utilized for other needs.

Full Time Positions The characteristics of staffs of the 21 theatre or­ ganizations which have employees only on a full-time basis

®Macgowan, loc. clt. 9work, loc. clt. 80 are indicated in the columns headed "Full Time Only" in Tables 18 and 19. These organizations represent 15.6 per cent of 135 community theatres surveyed, or the smallest segment— 20.6 per cent— of the 102 community theatres hav­ ing some, paid staff members.. Table 18 shows that the person most likely to be employed by such a group is its play director or managing director/executive secretary. None of the 19 organizations whidh have one or the other of those positions employs both a play director and a managing director. These 21 theatres employ a total of 36 persons, or a mean of 1.7 persons per theatre. Both the mode (13 groups or 62 per cent) and the median, however, come in the one- employee bracket. In nine of those organizations the single position is that of play director; in three it is the managing direc­ tor or executive secretary, while one hires only a business manager-lreasurer. In one theatre with two full-time em­ ployees both of them are janltor-caretakers, but in the other four Instances one position Is that of managing di­ rector or play director. In two of those the second men are janitors, while the remaining two hire either a technical director or a musical director. Fifteen of these community theatres (71.4- per cent) report that the same director handles all the major produc­ tions, although one mentions that occasionally a guest 81 director Is used. The remaining six report the use of dif­ ferent directors. In groups having only one full-time employee the budgets reported ranged from $900 to $40,000 per year, the latter being a theatre producing twelve months per year. Two-position groups reported budgets from $3,000 to $25,000, while the groups having five full-time employees reported budgets of $25,000 and $78,000. It would appear that a few groups defined "full time" rather loosely, for it is im­ possible, for example, to produce three plays a year and pay the director a full-time salary on $900j

Part Time Positions The columns In Tables 18 and 19 headed "Part Time Only" report Information supplied by the 32 groups having paid positions on their staffs with no one receiving com­ pensation for full-time work. Nearly one-quarter of the organizations surveyed— 23.7 per cent of the total— come under this category. Computed relative only to the 102 theatres having some paid positions, these organizations compose 31.4 per cent of the total. Groups with only one or two employees In this pat­ tern of organization are the ones where the ratio of .jani­ tors to directors is closest. Of 15 groups hiring only one person, In eight Instances the remuneration goes to the play director. In the other seven, however, the janitor Is the 82 only man who receives monetary consideration for his ser­ vices. The play director is one of the two people receiv­ ing payment in seven of the eight groups which have two paid positions. The technical director and the janitor are paid by the eighth. The janitor is the second staff member in three groups, the technical director or designer in two, and either the managing director or secretary-clerk in the re­ maining two groups. With these theatres, as was tine with those whose employees all were paid on a full-time basis, the mode is one employee per group, in this case being true for 47 per cent of them. The mean is 1,8 positions per group, only 0.1 per cent higher than the preceding category. Since the median coincides with the sixteenth group, it falls barely into the two-femployee bracket. Although the range in num­ ber of employees is more limited (none hires more than three persons), there is little difference in frequency (nine to eight) between those with two and three employees. All but five of these 32 groups— 84.4 per cent— report the use of different directors for their major pro­ ductions . Those reporting in the one part-time employee group had budgets ranging from $3,300 to $15,000 per year. With two part-time paid staff members the range was from $5,345 to $32,000, and one organization hiring three persons part time reported the highest budget of these 32 groups— forty 83 to fifty thousand dollars. It is noteworthy that the dis­ tribution of annual budgets pf these groups which hire no full-time help clusters between five and fifteen thousand dollars annually (where twelve groups reported their income to be), while the distribution for groups whose employees are full time was general throughout its range.

Both Full and Part Time Positions The columns under the spanner heading "Hiring Both" in Table 18 and the heading"Groups Hiring Both" in Table 19 report statistics on employment from the largest category of community theatres, those 49 whose paid staff includes some full-time and some part-time workers. This accounts for 36.3 per cent-^more than one-third— of all theatre organiza­ tions, but nearly half (48.0 per cent) of those having paid staffs. In all but three cases of these 49 groups at least one of the full-time employees is employed as a managing director, executive secretary, or play director. In one of the exceptions, a secretary-clerk is employed full time with a play director, a technical director, and a janitor hired on a part-time basis. The second exception hires a treas- urer-business manager and technical director full time and hires part-time play directors. The third theatre has three full-time employees: business manager, secretary-clerk, and Janitor, completing its staff with both, play directors and 84 a technical director who are employed on a part-time basis. These are the only exceptions noted. Table 18, of course, tabulates the number of groups hiring employees by their positions and full or part time bases. It should be noted that the positions tabulated under the general listings of "Technical Assistants” and "Business Assistants" undoubtedly could have been charted under more specific categories had such information been supplied by persons completing the questionnaire. In other words, although the table shows only one position for a part- time costumer, it is highly probable that some of the six­ teen positions shown as technical assistants are actually on theatre staffs as costumers, et cetera. Although the column "Groups Hiring Eoth” in Table 19 is tabulated by total employees, both full and part time, of the responding groups, some development is needed of typical quantities of full and part time workers per group. Surprising as it may seem, nearly twice as many groups (27 to 14) have more full-time positions than part- time ones. Eight have the same number of positions on a full-time basis as they do part time. Of the 14 groups with larger part-time tetaffs than full-time ones, all but one of them have but one or two full-time positions, with part-time positions ranging from one to five. The lone exception is one group with four full-time positions and thirteen part- time ones. 85 Considering all the groups In this category, over half of them have either one or two full-time positions. Coincidentally the frequency is identical, fourteen (28.6 per cent) with each. Seven groups (14.3 per cent) have four full-time positions, four have three, three each have six or seven, two groups each hire ten persons full.time, while one group each employs five and twelve on a full-time basis. From the standpoint of part-time employment, one, two, or three positions per group are, in that order, by far most common, together comprising £5-5 per cent (42) of the number of part-time positions per group. Twenty-one groups (42.? per cent) offer one part-time job, eleven (22.4 per cent) have two, and ten (20.4 per cent) have three. Only four groups offer four part-time positions each, while one group each has five, six, or thirteen part- time staff members. These 158 full-time positions statistically result in a mean of 3 *2, median of two, and mode of one or two positions per group. The 113 part-time positions provide a mean of 2.3, median of two, and mode of one. Collective­ ly, the resulting 2?1 positions have a mean of 5 *5 ,median of five, and mode of three (24.5 per cent). Of the 45 of these groups providing information as to their directoral policies, 64.4 per cent of them (29) reported that the same director directs all major produc- 86

tions, although one group indicated the use of an occasion­ al guest director.

Only eight of these organizations reported budgets

of under $20,000. The lowest reported was $1,000 while the

highest was $256,830 for an organization whose twelve full­

time employees are a managing director, business manager,

production and promotion manager, and art director, each

with his full-time assistant, plus a secretary, electrician,

and two box office clerks. That same organization has four

part-time positions for a scenic artist, carpenter, janitor,

and hostess whose duties Include supervising the refresh­

ments. Fourteen of these groups have annual budgets of be­

tween thirty and fifty thousand dollars. CHAPTER V

PLAY SELECTION

The matter of play selection Is one of the most challenging problems encountered by the average community theatre organization. Alexander Dean pointed out that friends do not flock to the Little Theatre on its own recommendation of its charms and abil­ ities. They must be won through a recognition of merit and a realization of mutual benefit and pleasure. . . . A long stride towards this goal may be taken by a very simple thing, the proper selection of plays. . . . Accordingly the work of the play- choosing committee is as important, if not more so, than that of any other.i It was noted in the introduction to this study that the trend of purpose of the little theatre in general has been away from the production of cultural and experimental drama not likely to be staged professionally to that of em­ phasizing personal satisfactions and rewards for particl- paht»from the process of play production. The discussion of sources of income in Chapter IV showed how dependent the­ atre groups are upon revenue from admissions to provide the necessary financial support for their activities.

^-Alexander Dean, op. clt.. p. 107.

87 88 This shift In purpose was Indicated most succinctly by one respondent to the questionnaire Items designed to ascertain problems of play selection when he wrote, "Will it sell?"2 Another mentioned what he termed the "strong finan­ cial pressure that each script be good box office,"3 while a third stated the problem more comprehensively as "finding scripts of literary merit and box office appeal"**’ (under­ lining his). This chapter will report current attitudes toward the facets of play selection now prevalent among com­ munity theatres of the metropolitan areas of the United States.

The Selection Process In well over a third of the theatres (36.6 per cent or forty-eight of 131 groups reporting) the problem of se­ lecting plays for production is resolved by a special com­ mittee which includes the director as one of Its members. (Table 2 0 ). Almost as popular a method of selection is used by the organizations where the responsibility Is shared by a committee and the executive board, the system of 30.5 per cent or forty groups. In I3.7 per cent— 18 groups— the

^Roderick W. Foote, President, Rome (New York) Com­ munity Theatre. 3Peter M. Carnahan, Managing Director, Community Theatre of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Douglas P. Hatfield, President of the Board of Di­ rectors, Theater in the Round Players, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota. 89

TABLE 20

RESPONSIBILITY FCE PLAY SELECTION

Responsibility of Groups Percentage

Committee including director k8 3 6*6 Committee and executive board ko 30,5 Director alone 18 13.7 Committee excluding director 10 7.6 Director and executive board 9 6.9 Executive board 6 J+.6 90 director himself Is responsible for play selection. One- third of these eighteen groups also reports that the plays for production are chosen separately rather than as a season unit. The remaining groups, in diminishing frequency, re­ port that their plays are selected by a committee excluding the director, the director with the executive board, and the executive board by Itself. Nine reporting organizations in the second category (committee and executive board) noted that the director was included on the committee or the board, consequently he did have some volee in the choice of plays to be presented. In­ cluding those nine groups, the survey disclosed that the director had some direct influence in play selection of 8** theatres, or 6^.1 per cent of these 131 organizations. In actuality, the percentage is probably higher, since the di­ rector is quite likely to be a member of the executive board, a matter which was not ascertained from the questionnaire. The percentage could not, however, go above 92 per cent, since ten organizations reported selection by a committee which excluded the director. The policy of selecting all major productions as a season bill is thoroughly established, the survey shows, being the rule in over three-fourths (92 groups; 76.0 per cent) of 121 groups completing that item on the question­ naire. Plays are chosen separately by only twenty-six groups— 21.5 per cent— while three groups usdd both systems. 91

Preferences by Types One particular item on the questionnaire was de­ signed to secure information on philosophy of play selection in the types of plays which the community theatre of today prefers for major productions. That item appeared on the questionnaire in this fashion; Indicating only those types which you produce, please rank in order Jour organization’s prob­ able preferences in types of plays (1 being most desired); Recent comedies __ Classic drama (of past ten years) Standard comedies __ Avant-garde (c. 1900-1952) Classic comedies __ Mysteries Recent drama______19th century (of past ten years) melodrama Standard drama __ 0riglnals5 (c. 1900-1952) Because of this manner of construction, it was pos­ sible to extract data concerning the respondents' choices both on preferences and production. Respondents from 120 groups completed this item, although nine of them merely checked several types rather than indicating numerical rank. Table 21 shows the rank placement of types by number of groups. The rank order by which they were tabulated and the point totals used were obtained by assigning a point value diminishing from ten for each first place vote to one for each tenth place vote (one eleventh-place selection written

^Questionnalre mailed by the author. See above, page 15. 92

TABLE 21 TYPE PBSFERIiriCES REPORTED

Choice by Groups Total Rank Type 1st 2nd 3rd i*tL 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Grps* Points

ft* 1 Recent comedies*5 71 19 h 3 1 107 96U 2 fteceht drama*5 15 U5 20 16 2 107 829 3 Standard comedies® 6 17 23 12 7 6 1 1 ft ft • ft 65 560 h Mysteries • e» 7 2h 11 20 6 3 2 3 ft « 81 5o6 9 Standard drama® e • 8 12 23 11 8 3 1 • « • • 73 U68 6 Classic comedies 25 7 7 3 5 9 11 3 2 1 53 293 7 Classic drama 5 1 6 6 7 7 9 3 h 1 51 280 8 Originals • • • • h 5 9 7 7 U 3 6 Ii5 208 9 Avant- garde 2 3 1 h a 3 1 10 7 3 39 173 10 Musicals** 11 3 2 16 153 11 19th-cen. melodrama 1 1 ft • 2 1 6 3 h 5 11 35 11U

•Includes groups not providing numerical ranks#

^"Recent" indicates of the past ten years#

c,,Standard,, indicates between 1900 and 1952#

^This information was volunteered by those sixteen respondents# 93 in was also computed with the value of one point). Pinal rank was based on the point totals by category. The pre­ ponderance of musical productions in amateur theatre today prompted sixteen respondents to write musicals in as first, second, or third choices. The shift in emphasis from "artistic" to "commer­ cial" is clearly supported by the results. While the high ranking categories of recent comedies and recent drama re­ ceived no ranking lower than fifth place, the categories of originals and avant-garde— the types predominant in the early little theatre movement— received no ranking and two first place rankings, finishing in eighth and ninth places respectively. Table 22 reports the number of groups, regardless of ranking, producing each type of play. In this case, the per­ centage for production of musicals was interpolated from the earlier item on the questionnaire to reflect more accurately the significance of musicals in the overall picture. Note that over half the responding groups indicated they present neither plays written before 1900 (classics or melodrama) nor avant-garde and original productions. One such theatre’s secretary emphasized this point by inserting "never" by the categories of classic comedies, classic drama, and melo­ drama, "definitely never" by avant-garde, and "positively never" for originals. That group operates with a strong religious affiliation and presented Wonderful Town. Witness 9^

TABLE 22 PLAY TYPES PREFERRED FOR PRESENTATION

Groups of 120 Type Indicating Presentation Percentage

Recent comedies 107 89.2 Recent drama 10? 89.2 Mysteries 61 67.5 Musicals 89a 66.9 Standard drama 73 60.8 Standard comedies 65 5^.2 Classic comedies 53 ^ . 2 Classic drama 51 ^2.5 Originals ^5 37.5 Avant-garde 39 32.5 1 9th cen. melodrama 35 29.3

aOf 133 groups. See page 93.

TAELE 23 COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES

By 1st By Preference By Groups Choice Votes Point Totals Presenting

Recent comedies Recent comedies /Recent comedies Recent drama Recent drams (.Recent drama Musicals Standard comedies Mysteries Standard comedies Mysteries Musicals Classic drama Standard dram© Standard drama /Classic comedies Classic comedies Standard comedies ^Avant-garde Classic drama Classic comedies 1 9 th cen. melodrama Originals Classic drama /Mysteries Avant-garde Originals I Standard drama Musicals Avant-garde Originals 19th cen. melodrama 19th cen. melodrama 95 for the Prosecution. Little Hoon of Alban. Sabrina Fair, and Silk Stockings that season. When considered ifi this manner (solely on indication of production rather than ranking scale), mysteries gain strength at the expense of standard comedies. While no or­ ganization selected mysteries as its first choice for major productions, that type received significant numbers of third and fifth place votes. Table 23 is a comparative presentation showing order of preferences by three methods of tabulation. Aside from the aforementioned shift in mysteries, there is a notable degree of consistency of the types preferred regardless of the manner of indexing utilized. The extent of varied types of plays these 120 groups

reported they produce is illustrated in Table 2*K There is an interesting range of numbers concerning half the respond­ ents (sixty groups) depicted there. Twenty organizations— one-sixth of those reporting— each report that they do plays in three, five, or ten type categories. The indication is that a sizeable proportion of community theatres feels a desire to provide their audiences with varied theatrical fare. The extent to which the actual productions they re­ ported for the 1962-1963 season really do this will be dis­ cussed at a later point in this chapter. 96

TABLE 2 k NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES CF PLAYS PRESENTED

Number of Types Groups Percentage

1 2 1.7 2 8 6.7 3 20 16.7 i* 16 13.3 5 20 16.7 6 12 10.0 7 10 8.3 8 7 5.8 9 k 3.3 10 20 16.7 0.8 ... "... L _... .J _l ... 97

Problems Encountered Eight possible problems which might arise in the process of play selection were listed on the questionnaire, along with a blank for the inclusion of additional problems the respondent might wish to report. Every group surveyed completed this item. Fifteen groups added listings of eight additional troublesome problems. Seven of those groups cited the problem mentioned earlier of finding scripts with box office appeal. The only other duplication involved three groups concerned with arranging balanced seasons. Other concerns were with the knowledgeability of the commit­ tee itself and obtaining play scripts to review. Concerns rising specifically from the plays themselves cited were need for relatively small casts, obtaining generally good, well-written plays, locating experimental plays, and finding good religious one acts.^ This information is tabulated in varied ways in Ta­ bles 25 and 26. Values for Table 26 were obtained by sub­ tracting the number of groups indicating a problem least troublesome from those indicating it most troublesome. Neg­ ative values, of course, indicate a predominance of least troublesome citations over most troublesome ones. That sec-

^The problem of religious one acts was mentioned by W. S. Holland, Immediate Past President of the Faith Church Players of Springfield, Massachusetts, who commented, "We own the world's largest collection of lousy one-act religious plays." 98

TABLE 25 PLAY SELECTION PROBLEMS

Most Troublesome Least Troublesome Problems Rank Grps % Rank Grps %

Adapting desired scripts to technical problems 1 46 35.3 3 26 19.1 Avoiding undesirable subject cr plot 45 33.1 6 16 11.8 Adapting desired scripts to available talent 3 40 29.4 1 32 23-5 Obtaining releases on desired scripts 4 36 2 6.5 3 26 19.1 Obtaining agreement among committee 5 25 18.4 2 27 19.9 Avoiding undesirable language 6 19 14.0 4 25 18.4 High production costs required by desired scripts 7 18 13.2 7 5 3.7 High royalties on desired scripts 8 15 11.0 5 20 14.7 Other 9 15 11.0

TABLE 26 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOST AND LEAST TROUBLESOME SELECTION PROBLEMS

Rank Problem Diff.

1 Avoiding undesirable subject or plot +29 2 Adapting desired scripts to tech. prod, problems +22 3 High production costs required by desired scripts +13 4 Obtaining releases on desired scripts +10 5 Adapting desired scripts to available talent + 8 6 Obtaining agreement among committee - 2 7 High royalties on desired scripts - 5 8 Avoiding undesirable language - 6 ------1------i 99 tion of the table consequently reflects in descending order the problems of play selection Indicated by the theatres. This report supports very clearly the contention of John A. Walker that community theatres can no longer rely on Broadway as a source of plays. With production costs at >uch a high level, the Broadway production has become strictly a "hlt-or-bust" affair. The urge is for "the sure thing," the big musical, the star-studded review, the foreign success from Paris or London, the sex comedy, or sordid dramas of the beatnik, the per­ verted, the addict, and so on. Such shows as "Camelot," "The Unsinkable Molly Brown," and "Carnival" demand production budgets beyond the means of most community theatres; "The Miracle Worker" and "Rhinoceros" demand tour de force performances beyond the capabilities of most; and the beatnik-pervert-addict plays present characters and/or situations unacceptable to the audiences of most. The community theatre must look to other wells to draw from.7 The other sources Walker recommends are the Off- Broadway theatre, modern plays of ten to thirty years ago, the classics, and original scripts. This study indicates the awareness of these four sources by the community theatre. However, their clearly indicated preference remains with modern Broadway plays rather than the others. The placement of neither of the two problems appear­ ing at the extremes in Table 26 is very surprising. Certain­ ly it is understandable that undesirable language is a minor problem since it can usually be eliminated by skillful and

7 John A. Walker, "From Broadway to Mainstreet," Encore. II (August, 1963), pp. 7 and 8 . 100 judicious editing. Mr. Walker h e s touched upon the major problem of undesirable subject matter or plots in the above quotation, but it was pinpointed more succinctly by Edward L. Kamarck, assistant director of the Wisconsin Idea Theatre, who sees two unique problems of the community theatre as opposed to the professional theatre: 1. Moral standards on the home front are much stricter with respect to home town folk. Nobody cares much what one's neighbor does when he is visiting in New York or Chicago, but he'd better behave when he comes back to Oshkosh, where life is still rooted end hinged. 2. Most communities do not view their local theatre's offerings with complete aesthetic detach­ ment. The real life roles of the actors spill over the footlights into the consciousness of the audi­ ence. . . . The local community theatre must con­ stantly contend with the bonds of the too-familiar. The best solution is for community theatre to grow more catholic in its tastes, and to dip more frequently into our great heritage of classics and near classics for its choice of fare. Or perhaps better still develop its own new plays.® A letter writer to Life magazine reiterated the major problem in somewhat more vivid and graphic terms when she wrote: We do indeed, as Tom Prideaux says, need new playwrights, The plays of the last ten years ere getting increasingly difficult to do in community theaters. As an actress In one very active and well-established community theater I can categor­ ically state that I refuse to be raped, stripped naked (physically or mentally) or gone-to-bed- with in front of an audience comprised mainly of neighbors and friends. It is frightening to

®Edward L. Kamarck, "Sex, Censorship, and the Community theatre," Encore. I (January-February, 1961), pp. 18 and 19. 101 think that there are virtually no decent contem­ porary plays of any worth which we can do. We are not unusual, I am sure, in that we eagerly await both Mary. Mary, and Never Too late. ° Such an attitude supports Kamarck's contention and indicates that both actors and audiences in the community theatre may not be able completely to separate the real from the role. Unfortunately, also, perhaps the implication con­ tained in the letter that Never Too Late, for example, is included among "decent contemporary plays of (^ome| worth," is also too indicative of the types of plays many groups desire. In an attempt to ascertain some more specific re­ actions to certain modern playwrights, the questionnaire recipients were asked, in general, if they would hesitate to produce the work of Edward Albee, Samuel Beckett, William Inge, Eugene Ionesco, Arthur Miller, Eugene O'Neill, or Jean Paul Sartre. Responses, tabulated in Table 27, were received from 105 organizations. In the blank space for additions, four groups wrote-in Tennessee Williams, one said simply "Yes," and another indicated avant-garde is not pop­ ular with his audience, 80 per cent of whom are retired persons. This item on the questionnaire provoked more anno­ tated comments than any other Item. Remarks were added by

^Margaret C. Biggs, Letter to the editor, Life. (August 3°, 1963), p. 15* 102

TABLE 2? HESITATION TC PECDUCE CERTAIN PLAYWRIGHTS

Playwright Groups Percentage

No hesitation 51 *4-8.6 Jean Paul Sartre 38 36.2 Samuel Beckett 3? 35.2 Idward Albee 3 4 32.4 Eugene Ionesco 33 31.4 Eugene 0 1Ne111 18 17.1 William Inge 15 14.3 Arthur Fiiller 12 11.4 Others 7 6.7 All named above 4 3.8 103 22 respondents, closely divided pro and con. Among the twelve expressing reluctance to do these authors, several noted the hesitation was not their own but the membership's; others noted them suitable for workshop plays rather than major production; two cited the difficulty in locating actors capable of handling such roles, end one who checked only Albee termed him a powerful writer whose language offends. Of the ten noting no hesitation, a predominant comment was that these playwrights may be produced so long as the season is balanced. Two respondents who expressed no hesitation at performing works by these playwrights then noted that, in actuality, their groups had not yet performed one. As might be expected, the table indicates greater reluctance to produce works of avant-garde playwrights Sartre, Beckett, Albee, and Ionesco than the more familiar O'Neill, Inge, and Miller, In fact, the assurance that nearly half the groups ere willing to produce such poten­ tially controversial playwrights is very encouraging. One might speculate, however, that had the sampling included smaller cities and towns the consensus might possibly not have been so liberal. Aaron Slick from Punkln Crick, for example, did net appear in the production lists of any or­ ganization responding to this survey, yet that play is still reported as receiving a minimum of five hundred productions 10^ per y e a r . I® Although the source provided no such Indica­ tion, in all probability these occur among granges and rural high schools rather than in the community theatre.

Actual Productions Reported The material up to this point in the chapter has been founded on the respondents1 answers to items concern­ ing their attitudes and policies. From this point on the observations have been made by this writer based on the re­ ports of play titles produced in the 1962-1963 season by 129 responding organizations. Whenever useful, these reports will be compared with the generalizations obtained in the previous portion of this chapter. Almost thirty years ago when the Jamestown, New York, Little Theatre questioned its audiences about play titles and types they preferred, there was no relation between the plays checked and the type of drama the individual declared he preferred. Serious and classical drama received the most votes as types, while mystery and light comedy led in the selection of titles.H Such an occurrence seems unlikely in this case, in view of the reports of Tables 21 through 23 which show decided pref­ erences for recent plays, mysteries, and musicals. Table 25 is a compilation of data showing the pro­ ductions of the 1962-1963 season arranged by the play types.

3-0james Lincoln Collier, "Completely Off Broadway, " Holiday. XXXIX (March, 1966), p. 32. ■^Carter and Ogden, on. clt.r p. 5?* 105

TABLE 28 TYPES CF PLAYS ACTUALLY PRODUCED

Number of Plays Produced by Productions Rank Type One Several Total Group Groups Plays Number %

1 Recent comedies 41 33 74 190 29*3 2 Recent drama 35 24 59 125 19*3 3 Musicalsa 36 20 56 106 16.4 4 Standard drama 40 11 51 68 10.5 5 Standard comedies 23 14 37 62 9.6 6 Mysteries 15 6 21 42 6.5 7 One-act bills° 26 3 18 29 4.4 8 Originals^ 13 • a 13 13 2.0 9 Classic comedies 8 6 14 21 3*2 10 Classic drama 7 3 10 14 2.2 11 19th cen. melodrama 5 • » 5 5 0.8 12 Opera 2 1 3 4 0.6 13 Avant-garde • a 1 1 3 0.5 Unknown types 8 a a 8 8 1.2

Totald 220 119 339 648 100.1

a Includes three revues and six Gilbert and Sullivan. ^Due to the varied manner of one-act bills, these figures were not used in computing the totals below. The total in this line reflects the number of bills rather than plays. Percentage is based on 677 (648 used elsewhere aug­ mented by the number of one-act bills, 29)* cInBerted for reference purposes only. These plays were tabulated and computed under the other appropriate play types. dExcludlng one-act bills and originals (ranks seven and eight). 106 By way of explanation, in the tabulation under "several groups" those numbers represent play titles. The plays tabulated there would each have been presented by two or more groups, ranging to the maximum of seventeen groups which produced Critic's Choice that season. The column headed "Number of Productions" indicates the total number of productions given to plays of each category. From the table it is possible to see that ?4 re­ cent comedies received a total of 190 productions. Inas­ much as many theatres presented several plays of a partic­ ular category during the season, It was not deemed feasible to provide a tabulation of the number of groups actually presenting productions of each type. It Is an Interesting coincidence which supports the ranking of the tabulation that the rank orders coincide whether they are followed by plays or productions. This is an indication of a fact which will be observed later as specific play titles are considered. The fact is that even though It is a general practice of the community theatre to produce recent plays, there remains a great deal of vari­ ety in the actual plays selected for presentation. With a total of 339 plays reported among 648 productions, the re­ sulting mean indicates an average of but 1.9 productions per play. This report also validates a previously reported statistic, for the resulting average supports the mean of five major productions per group. 107 Comparisons with previous reports of dramatic activ­ ity by types are difficult due to the varied systems of cat­ egorizing utilized. The subsequent paragraphs will attempt to make such comparisons as can be done meaningfully. Schoell reports classical revivals amounting to 25, 12 , and 4. 6 per cent of the productions for the periods ending in 1920, 1940, and 1950 respectively (this order of reporting will be used throughout this paragraph). The 1963 figure from this study shows a slight increase to 5-^ P©r cent. New plays were 10, 18, and 4,8 per cent, compared with a current decrease to 2.0 per cent. Musicals, as might be anticipated, have risen to 16.4 per cent from previous percentages of 5, 6 , and 3*2. Assuming that "avant-garde" and "experimental" are comparable categories, the current percentage of 0.5 is an all-time low, the previous figures being 6 , 3, ©nd 1.2. Recent Eroadway plays were separated from miscellaneous by Schoell only for the 1940-1950 period, when he reported them to be 55*5 P©** cent of the produc­ tions. If the percentages from the categories of recent comedies, recent drama, and mysteries in this study are totaled, the sum is 55*1 per cent, remarkably close to Schoell1 The survey of 198 theatres made by Work In 1948 provides information for comparison on plays produced by

12Schoell, o p . cit.. p p . 305 and 349-351* 108 more than one theatre during the 1946-1947 seqson. At that time, the percentages by types were: comedy, 65*5i drama, 17.6; mystery-melodrama, 16.4; and musicals, 0.4.13 The comparable figures for 1962-1963 are: comedy, 46.2 per cent; drama 32.8; mystery-melodrama, 5*0; and musicals, 16.8* Be­ tween 1947 and 1963, then, the production of comedies by community theatres declined by 19*3 per cent (nearly one- fifth), and mystery and melodrama production was down 11.4 per cent. The increases in production of drama amd musicals were by 15*2 and 16.4 per cent respectively. It is, of course, impossible to state to what degree this trend may be 1 attributed merely to a reflection of the trend of Broadway productions. On the other hand more productions of drama rather than comedy may indicate a demonstration of increas­ ing sophistication of amateur theatre audiences themselves, while musicals tend to involve more people in production, as well as to attract increased revenue. The complete list of 339 plays produced by the 129 reporting theatres in their 1962-1963 seasons is included as Appendix IV of this study. Table 29 tabulates the 21 plays produced most frequently that season. Perhaps 20 or 25 might seem more likely figures upon which to base the tab­ ulation. The appendix, however, shows that the twentieth play would be one of three plays receiving five productions,

13work, on. clt.. p. 468. 109

TABLE 29 MOST FREQUENTLY PRODUCED PLAYS OF 1962-1963

# of Play Author Type Prods.

Critic’s Choice Levin Rec• Com. 1? Come Blow Your Horn Simon Rec. Com• 15 Everybody Loves Opal Patrick Rec. Com• 1** Write Me e Murder Knott Mystery 12 The Miracle Worker Gibson Rec. Drama 11 Little Mary Sunshine Besoyan Musical 10 The Fanfcasticks Jones Sc Schmidt Musical 9 The Best Man Vidal Rec• Drama 8 A Majority of One Spigelgass Rec. Com. 8 Send Me No Flowers Barasch & Moore Rec• Com. 8 All the Way Horae Mosel Rec. Drama 7 Auntie Marne Lawrence &. Lee Rec. Com. 6 Invitation to a March Laurents Rec. Com. 6 Mister Roberts Heggen & Logan Std. Com. 6 Picnic Inge Rec. Drama 6 The Pleasure of His Company Taylor & Skinner Rec. Com. 6 A Thurber Carnival Thurber & Elliott Musical 6 Under the Yum-Yum Tree Roman Rec. Com• 6 The Unexpected Guest Christie Mystery 5 The Diary of Anne Frank Hackett & Goodrich Rec. Drama 5 The Marriage-Go-Round Stevens Rec. Com. 5 110 and the twenty-fifth would be one of 1^ which had four pro­ ductions. Terminating the table after the plays receiving five productions seemed the best solution. From Table 29, then, some significant information may be derived. Many of the condemnations of community theatre play selection practices are supported by the data. These 21 plays were only 6.2 per cent of the total of 339 plays, yet they accounted for 1?6 productions, or 26.0 per cent of the 677 productions in the 1962-1963 season. All but three of these had originally been produced on Broadway. Of the three exceptions, two (Little Marv Sunshine and The Fan- tastlcks) were solid musical successes Off-Broadway, while only one, The Unexpected Guest, had received no New York production whatsoever. It was, however, an Agatha Christie mystery, and the description of the play in the publisher's catalog is supported with critical excerpts about its Lon­ don production. In an analysis by types, ten of these plays (nearly half) account for 91 productions (more than half of the pro­ ductions). Five plays are recent drama and were presented by a total of 37 groups. The three musicals received 25 productions, while the two mysteries were performed by 1? theatres. The most venerable of these plays named, Mister Roberts (which opened on Broadway February 18, 19^8), al­ though the only standard comedy, was produced by six groups. The dates of original professional production also Ill support the contention that amateur groups are anxious to present recent releases. Two productions, Everybody Loves Opal and Write Ne a Murder had their Broadway premieres the previous season. Thirty-five per cent of these plays ((Seven) had opened professionally in 1960-1961. Four were from 1959-1960 and three from the season prior to that, 1958- 1959. Of the remaining plays, one each represented the 1956-1957, 1955-1956, and 1952-1953 seasons. The other two plays were the previously mentioned Mister Roberts and The Unexpected Guest. Only three of these 21 plays had won either the Pulitzer Prize for drama or the New York Drama Critics Circle Award, and coincidentally, each had been awarded both. The most recent winner, for 1960-1961, was All The Wav Homer while The Dlarv of Anne Frank received these awards for 1955-1956, and Picnic won these prizes in 1952- 1953. The contention that the community theatre prefers to produce only Broadway hits is not wholly substantiated by this data. Of these twenty plays which received New York professional productions, seven of them were noted as failures in the annual tabulation of financial "hits and flops" compiled by Variety. 3-^ The New York runs of these failures ranged from 21 performances for Everybody Loves

^Published in the appropriate editions of The Burns Mantle Yearbook (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company). Opal and 40 for Send Me No Flowers to 333 for All the Wav Home. The other plays listed as failures had original productions which ran from 113 to 189 performances in New York. While Write Me a Murder was considered a financial hit of the 1961-1962 season with only 196 performances, three of the other hits had runs of from 431 to 477 per­ formances; two each in the 500's, 600's, and 700's. Klster Roberts was the only Broadway production of over one thou­ sand performances (1,15?), while Little Karv Sunshine closed Off-Broadway after 1,143. Although The Fantastlcks is now in its seventh year (and still running) at the Off-Broad- way Sullivan Street Playhouse, at the time it was being con­ sidered by play selection committees for the 1962-1963 sea­ son, it was chalking up, approximately, its nine hundredth performance. The performances of these twenty productions total 11,184, for an average run of 559 New York perform­ ances. A tabulation of the most popular playwrights and composers from the standpoint of the number of productions of their work is presented in Table 30* Again the compila­ tion is continued through the authors represented by five or more community theatre productions in the 1962-1963 sea­ son. Some fbrty-elght playwrights or composers and 137 plays are included from the season total of nearly three hundred authors and 358 plays. Expressed somewhat differ­ ently, approximately two-fifths of the season's productions 1 1»

TABLE 30

LOST POPULAR AUTHORS

# of 0 of Author Prods. Plays Title

John Patrick 18 4 Everybody loves C,«l (I*’ Teahouse of the ‘r *t Moon (2) The Curious Sa'ar* The Hasty Heart Ira Levin 18 2 Critic's Choice (IT) Ho Tine for Sergeants Tennessee Williams 16 9 Sumner and feoke (4) The Glasr: Menagerie (’ ) A Streetcar Rased Desire (2) Cat on a Hot Tir HeHamlet 113

TABLE 30 MOST POPULAR AUTHORS

# of # of Author Prods. Plays Titles

John Patrick 18 4 Everybody Loves Opal (14) Teahouse of the August Moon (2) The Curious Savage The Hasty Heart Ira Levin 18 2 Critic's Choice (17) Ho Time for Sergeants Tennessee Williams 16 9 Summer and Smoke (4) The Glass Menagerie (3) A Streetcar Named Desire (2) Oat on a Hot Tin Hoof (2) Garden District Oedipus Descending Period of Adjustment Sweet Bird of Youth This Property is Con­ demned George Bernard Shaw 12 10 Arms and the Man (2) Caesar and Cleopatra (2) Androcles and the Lion The Doctor's Dilemma Don Juan in Hell Major Barbara Misalliance Mrs. Warren's Profession Pygmalion Too True to Be Good William Gibson 11 1 The Miracle Worker William Inge 11 4 Picnic (6) The Dark at the Top of 0 the Stair* ■ . Bus Stop Come Back, Little Sheba (3) William Shakespeare 11 9 Antony and Cleopatra (2) Much Ado about Nothing (2} As You Like It Hamlet TABLE 30— Continued

rf O f § of Author Prods, Plays Titles

A Midsummer Night's Bream Othello Richard II Richard III A Winter's Tale Hick Besoyan 10 Little Mary Sunshine Samuel Taylor 10 The Pleasure of His Company8- (6 ) Sabrina Pair (2 ) The Happy Time (2) Gore Vidal 10 The Best Man (8 j Visit to a Small Planet (2) Agatha Christie 9 The Unexpected Guest (5) The Hollow The Mousetrap Ten Little Indians Witness for the Pros­ ecution Alec Coppell 9 3 The Captain's Paradise (4) The Gazebo (4) I Killed the Count Oscar HammersteIn II 9 4 Showboat8, (3) South Pacific8, (3) Oklahoma!8 (2 ) The Sound of Music8, Tom Jones & Harvey : .Schmidt 9 The Fantasticks Jerome Lawrence & Robert E. Lee 9 Auntie Maine (6 ) Inherit the Wind (3 ) Eugene O'Neill 9 8 Ah, Wilderness! (2 ) Anna Christie Before Breakfast Beyond the Horizon Desire Under the Elms The Hairy Ape Marco Millions A Touch of the Poet Jean Anouilh 8 Becket (3) Ring Round the Moon (2 } The Lark Thieves' Carnival Time Remembered 115 TABLE TO— Continued

§ of # of Author Pro ds. Plays Titles

Norman Barasch & Carroll Moore 8 1 Send Me No Flowers Jerome Fields 8 4 Anniversary Waltz0, (4) Gentlemen Prefer Blondes3, (2 ) Tunnel of Love8 Wonderful Towna Arthur Laurents 8 5 Invitation to a March (6 ) Time of the Cuokoo West Side Storya Frank Loesser 8 3 Guys and Dolls (3 ) The Most Happy Fella (3 ) Where's CharleyJ (2 ) L. Spiegelgass 8 1 A Majority of One George Abbott 7 3 Damn Yankees0, (4) Three Hen on a Horse8, (2 ) The Pajama Game8, Paddy Ch.ayefsky 7 2 Middle of the Night (4) The Tenth Man (3 ) George S. Kaufman 7 5 The Solid Gold Cadi­ llacs (2 ) You Can't Take It With You8 (2) The Late George Apley8 The Man Who Came to Dinner8 The Royal Family8, Richard Rodgers 7 4 South Pacific8 (3 ) Oklahoma!8 (2 ) The Sound of Music8 No Strings James Thurber 7 2 A Thurber Carnival8 (5) The Male Animal8 F. Duerrenmatt o 2 The Deadly Game8 (4) The Visit (2) Gilbert & Sullivan 6 6 H.M.S, Pinafore Iolanthe The Mikado Princess Ida The Sorcerer Trial by Jury Albert Hackett and 6 The Great Big Doorstep .Frances Goodrich 2 The Diary of Anne Frank (5) 116

TABLE 30— Continued

# of 0 of Author Prods. Plays Titles

Heggen and Logan 6 1 Mister Roberts Lillian Heilman 6 4 Toys in the Attic (3 ) Another Part of the Porest The Larka The Little Poxes Eugene Ionesco 6 3 Rhinoceros (3) The Bald Soprano (2) The Lesson Lawrence Roman 6 1 Under the Turn-Yum Tree Leslie Stevens 6 2 The Marriage-Go-Round (5 ) Champagne Complex Jerome Chodorov 5 2 Anniversary Waltza (4) Wonderful Towna Noel Coward 5 3 Blithe Spirit (3 ) Nude with Violin Present Laughter N, Richard Nash 5 2 The Rainmaker (4) Wild#ata Neil Simon 5 1 Come Blow Your Horn Samuel Sperwack 5 3 My Three Angelsa (3 ) Kiss Me Katea Under the Sycamore Tree Thornton Wilder 5 3 The Matchmaker (3 ) The Long Christmas Dinner Our Town Herman Wouk 5 2 The Caine Mutiny Court Martial (4) Nature's Way

aln collaboration or translation. 117 were the product of only one-sixth of the authors or com­ posers . The most popular playwrights of the season were John Fatrick and Ira Levin. Four of Patrick's plays re­ ceived a total of eighteen productions. The popularity of Levin's Critic's Choice,, the most produced play of the sea­ son with seventeen productions, was largely responsible for his sharing top honors, It is noteworthy how well Shaw and Shakespeare fared in the amateur productions of the season. With twelve pro­ ductions, Shaw ranked third (immediately behind Tennessee Williams) in frequency of production, while the eleven Shakespearean productions ranked Shakespeare among the fourth most popular authors, a rank he shared that season with William Gibson and William Inge. Table 27 earlier reported the attitude of theatre groups surveyed toward their production of certain contem­ porary playwrights. Hesitation was reported on the part of from 1 1 . l* per cent to 36.2 per cent of the theatres to pro­ ducing the works of Killer, Inge, O'Neill, Ionesco, Albee, Beckett, and Sartre, in that increasing order. At this point it may prove interesting to compare the actual pro­ ductions of the works of these playwrights with the atti­ tudes toward presenting their works reported by the thea­ tres. While Tennessee Williams was added to the list by 3.8 per cent of the groups reporting, he turned out to be 118 the most produced playwright of these eight authors during the 1962-1963 season. Community theatre groups presented 16 productions of nine of his plays. There were four pro­ ductions of Summer and Smoke, three of The Glass Managerie and two each of A Streetcar Named Desire and Cat on a Hot Tip Rggf. William Inge ranked second in the number of amateur productions reported with 11 productions of four of his plays. Picnic. with six productions, was the most-produced play by any of these authors. Come Eack. Little Sheba re­ ceived three, while The Dark at the Ton of the Stairs and Bus Stop each were performed by one group. Eight plays of Eugene O'Neill received nine produc­ tions. Ah. Wilderness! was the only O'Neill play produced by two groups that season. The only full-length play of the avant-garde to be produced as a major production was Ionesco's Rhinoceros. presented by three theatres. Two productions of "The Bald Soprano" and one of "The Lesson" total six productions of Ionesco. Although the indication from the survey was that there was less objection to Arthur Miller's plays than any other playwright's listed, his work received only three productions. "A Memory of Two Mondays," The Crucible, and Death of a Salesman each were presented by one group. Edward Albee and Samuel Beckett were each repre­ 119 sented in the season by presentations of one-act plays. Albee's "The American Dream" was presented as a major pro­ duction on two one-act bills, while "Krapp's Last Tape" was presented by one community theatre. Over one-third of the groups reported reluctance to produce a play by Sartre, and no production of any of his plays was reported for the season. Twenty-nine plays, Including seven one acts, by these eight authors received a total of only fifty produc­

tions. On e percentage basis they accounted for 8.6 per cent of the plays and 7.7 per cent of the productions of the 1962-1963 season. Considering the wide r^nge of drama available for presentation and the probability that works of these authors have been presented by these groups in other seasons, it would appear that audiences are not being deprived of an opportunity to see productions of the work of our stronger contemporary authors* Among other particularly significant playwrights reported in Table 30 are Jean Anouilh, Lillian Heilman, and Thornton Wilder. Although Wilder's American classic, Our Town. Is often reported as probably the most produced play in amateur production with four to five hundred productions per year,15 only one production of it was reported by these

^E. M. D. Watson, "Amateur Theatricals Are Big Business," Cosmopolitan. CIL (November, i960), p. 64; James A. Maxwell, "Stagestruck Americans." The SaturdAv Evening Post. CCXXXV (March 24, 1962), p. 45; and James Lincoln 120 theatres. Probably the majority of its current productions now occur In the educational theatre rather than In the com­ munity theatre. There also were productions of work of significant playwrights not numerous enough to be Included in the table.

Four productions each were presented of Bertolt Brecht, Christopher Fry, William Saroyan, and Maxwell Anderson. Works of Ibsen, Sean O'Casey, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oscar Wilde, plus Moliere's The Imaginary Invalid, and J. B. by Archibald Mac Leish each received three productions. The season had one production each of Aristophanes1 The Clouds. Euripides1 Medea. Goldsmith's She Stoons to Conquer, and Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author. Considered strictly by the number of their plays presented rather then productions, nine persons are repre­ sented by five or more plays. They are George Bernard Shaw (10), William Shakespeare and Tennessee Williams (9 each), Eugene O'Neill (8), Gilbert and Sullivan (6), and Jean Anouilh, Agatha Christie, and George S. Kaufmen (5 each). Occasionally the question of publishers of material for amateur production becomes a matter of concern, as in the production of a play selection recommendation by the American Educational Theatre Association which included a

Collier, on. clt.r pp. 3^-35, who excepts "only the some­ what anomalous Aaron Slick.11 121 list of approved publishers.!6 An analysis of 625 produc­ tions by publishers Indicates that, of this sample, Samuel French controls 41.4 per cent and Dramatists Flay Service, 37.4 per cent. Those two publishers together held the ama­ teur rights to ?8,8 per cent of the performances that season* Three publishers of musicals together controlled an addi­ tional ten per cent: Taros-Witmark, 4.0 per cent; Music Theatre Incorporated, 3*8 per cent; and Rodgers ar.d Hammer- stein Repertory, 1.9 per cent. There were 68 other produc­ tions comprising the remaining 11.4 per cent, of which four­ teen were productions of classics and nineteen were of the two leading musicals, Little Mary Sunshine and The Fantas- tioks.

In general it would appear that the caliber of plays selected for production by the community theatre is im­ proving from the nadir of Aaron Slick from Punkln Crick.

The concern of the organizations themselves is exemplified by the actions of the New England Theater Conference. At its 195^ annual convention, its bulletin reports: "the

Community Theater Division found itself in hot pursuit of some guiding principles for its member-groupsr choice of plays.''^? The discussion brought up the term "Ilfe-enhanc-

l^Amerlcan Educational Theatre Association, Inc., "Play Selection Recommendation" (East Lansing, Michigan: American Educational Theatre Association, March 19617. (Mimeographed).

l?Marston Balch, "The Right Flay in the Right Place: 122 lng" borrowed from the greet art scholar Bernard Berenson and resulted in a year-long study by a special committee with Dr. Marston Balch as its chairman. The committee's report is filled with e positive approach concerning mater­ ial community theatres should attempt to produce and is worthy of study in its entirety. One section, however, is especially relevant in concluding:

It should be clearly understood that the com­ mittee is concerned with good entertainment and also with good "box-office," and that kind or rather kinds of plays it would urge Community Theaters to seek out and produce have no mere to do with pollyannaism then with pessimism. If we accentuate the positive, it is not from ignor­ ance of the negative; it is because drama's great role is to illuminate life, not befog it; to exalt and not to depress the spirits of its beholders. This distinction has nothing whatever to do with categorical differences between tragedy, comedy, melodrama, farce, or even the modern ser­ ious drama. Plays ©tf every one of these kinds may enhance or may belittle life, aocording to the insights, outlook, and powers of the play­ wright. The deeper these insights, the broader the outlook, the stronger the artistic powers of the dramatist, the more likely are his plays to quicken and enlarge the lives of ell, players as well as public, who give their talents, time, and attention to his work. The Committee believes that too many plays being put on by Community Theaters are not worth their talents end efforts, net worth the time, money, or attention of their public. It believes this state of things is due not to any preference for life— bellttling plays, but to other causes. One of these is, of course, sheer laziness in play-selecting? taking the nearest thing to hand. Another is timidity, whether from box-office fright or hesitancv to try something different (or "new" or "old"), or from fear to face great-

An Idea for Community Theaters," Bulletin of the New England Theater Conference, (Summer, 1955), p. 1. (Spirit duplicatea) 123 ness in drama— as if the great play did not al­ ways bear u p the players and public rather than bear down on them. A third cause is ignorance; not knowing where t6 look for truly fine plays, or not knowing how to handle them, or perhaps not knowing with confidence the difference be­ tween plays that belittle and plays that enhance life. Whatever the cause— and there are others, less excusable— the effect is to "see smell" and to lose the splendor that theater exists to give.1°

^•8ibid.. pp. 5 a&d 6. CHAPTER VI

FACILITIES

Tales are legion of ingenious adaptation of exist­ ing structures by anxious and dedicated amateurs in search of e location to display their Thespian talents.^- The re­ ports include The Interplayers of San Francisco who began in an unused ch^nroagne factory and progressed to the quar­ ters of a rowing club, the Little Theatre of Dover, New

Jersey, whose members trod the boards in a converted morgue, the former burlesque theatre which now houses the Spring­ field (Massachusetts) Little Theatre, Memphis' abandoned swimming pool, and the Tudor-style former blacksmith shop now used as the Dobbs Ferry Playhouse in New York. Tne building used by the Drawing Room Theatre in Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania, had its origin as a speakeasy, then subse­ quently was a garage, plumbing supply storeroom, and a table tennis club before it was converted to a theatre. The Hill- barn Theatre in California, now Iocs ted in a shopping cen­ ter after losing its second home to a freeway, started on an open-air stage built against one side of a barn in a

■^■Alice Griffin, "Theatre U. S. A.: In the Pioneer Tradition," Theatre Arts. XXXVII (October, 1953)» PP. 81-83.

12** 125 horse corral, then tnoved to a tiny Victorian chapel build­ ing where its cest of Peer Gynt was larger than the seating capacity of the auditorium.

"The nonprofessional theatre, both academic and community, has advanced beyond the professional theatre in certain directions, " Howard Lindsay has proclaimed,2

If you are looking for a theatre of modern equipment or flexible design, you have to look outside New York City. . . . To find a struc­ ture consciously and deliberately designed to achieve a fresh relationship between the play­ wright and the audience, or to recreate an old and tested relationship, you must go to the university and grass-roots theatre. . . . The arena theatre . . f has also brought considerable fresh air into the field of unconventional production and, most impor­ tant, Into the design of theatre architecture.

Most scadenic and community theatres are small, end they should be. If those concerned with the acting end producing of plays are to profit by the collaboration and Instruction of the audience (the final authority and teacher), the plays should run before as many audiences as possible. . . . Only in the living theatre with the second and succeeding audiences does the ^uncertain foundation o:fJ guesswork yield to the sure knowledge gained from audience response. The more audiences, the more solid the t r a i n i n g . 3

This chapter is concerned with the facilities possessed by the community theatre organizations surveyed;

the theatres they own or rent, their meeting places, work­

shops, and building programs planned or recently completed.

O Howard Lindsay, "Drop Your Buckets Where You Are! 11 Theatre ArtsT XLII (November, 1956), P« 13-

3lbid. 126

Theatre Ownership

All of the 136 organizations surveyed responded to the item querying theatre ownership on the questionnaire.

Of these orgsnizatlons, 92 (67.6 per cent) reported that they owned or leased their own thestre plant. These groups all indicated the use of these facilities also as a meeting place, and all but seven of them reported h-ving their own workshops. This is quite a substantial increase from pre­ vious reports, for Schoell found 30 per cent of the theatres

in 1910-1920 owned their playhouses, by 19**0 the figure had reached 51 per cent, and remained st 52 per cent for the

19^0-1950 period.** In marked contrast, however, is Work's report from the 19**5 survey that "fewer than one community organization in six has a theatre of its own."5 Some dis­ parity in this case may be semantic. Although the current questionnaire contained a subsequent question asking non- owners what type auditorium was used, thereby clarifying

the status of groups which rent, some confusion might exist, both now end before by considering the word "own11 to indi­ cate simply regular usage as well as actual possession.

Of the groups reporting the lack of a theatre of their own, the majority (26 or 59.1 per cent) utilize a school or municipal auditorium for their productions.

^Schoell, on. cit.. pp. 6^, 120, and 300.

5Work, op. clt.. p. ^65. 127

Other facilities, each used by no mere then one or two groups, Include legitimate theatres, churches, university auditoriums, "Y" facilities, and lodge halls. Even though they do not have theatres, eighteen of these groups (^0.9 per cent) have their own meeting places and workshops.

Sight others reported places to meet but no workshop facil­ ities, three have workshops hut no meeting places, and the remaining groups have neither.

All 136 groups considered together, 86.7 per cent (118) re norted having some place to meet. A lower percent-

3€e > 77*9 per cent (106 groups) has workshop facilities available for its use.

Theatre Plants

The quotation from Howard Lindsay cited previously broaches the question of the type of facilities used by these organizations. His implication is clearly that in­ ventive stages and small seating capacities are to be pre­ ferred. Table 31 provides a tabulation of Information pertinent to this topic obtained from the respondents.

The table shows that proscenium staging Is still the preferred form, being used at times by 85.5 per cent of the theatres, and exclusively by over three-fourths of them. Arena staging is used by a respectable 18.5 per cent; but exclusively by on]y one-tenth of them. Platform or open staging, the most unorthodox of current styles, has so far 128

TABLE 31 THEATRE TYPES AND CAPACITIES

Type of Stage Owned Rented Total

Proscenium Groups 70 (?6.9#) 34 (77.3#) 104 (77.4#) Mean capacity 373 679 472 Arena Groups 11 (12.1#) 3 (6.8#) 14 (10.4#) Mean Capacity 183 175 182 Both proscenium & arena

Groups 5 (5.5*) 6 (13.6#) 11 (8.1#) Platform or open stage Groups 5 (5.5*) 1 (2.3#) 6 (4.4#) Mean capacity 332 400 343

Totals Groups 91 44 135 Capacities 31,855 24,702 56,557 129 been accepted by only six groups, or a minute per cent of the total. Apparently the extreme inventiveness of stage architecture extolled by Mr. Lindsay is not yet really very common in community theatre buildings. In actuality open staging has probably been utilized more commercially for new construction than it has in the community theatre. Such professional theatres as the Dalles Theatre Center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the Tyrone Guthrie Theatre in Minne­ apolis, and the Vivien Beaumont Theatre in the Lincoln

Center for the Performing Arts in iM'ew York City employ such platforms.

The likelihood that an organization constructing its own theatre would tend toward a smaller capacity then one utilizing rented facilities is supported by the statis­ tics. Of 7L ovmed proscenium theatres the mean capacity is derived from the total of 27,633 seats. The median for these theatres was 300, and the mode was divided since nine groups each reported capacities of 200 and 300. The range was from a mere 31 to 1 ,200.

When proscenium theatres were rented, the total capacity reported by 35 groups was . 23,777* The median in this case was at 50C, and the mode Is Inconclusive since three theatres each reported 250, 300, and 1,100 seats.

The range of seating for rented auditoriums with proscenium stages was from 100 to 1,819 seats.

There is s marked similarity of capacity among arena 130 thestres regardless of whether they are owne? or rented.

The range of capacity was from 67 to 350 and the median, owned or rented, was 150. Total seating In the fourteen owned arena houses accommodates 2,562, while the three rent­ ed theatres could accommodate 525 people.

Six platform stage theatres are too few for sig­ nificant statistical tabulation of capacities. The sizes of their auditoriums ranged from 180 to 512 seats, gener­ ally being a middle ground between the smaller arena the­ atres and the more traditional proscenium ones.

Statistics on total cacacitles not appearing in the

table indicate that the median for all proscenium theatres

is 350 seats, they car1 seat 51,^10 spectators all told, and

the mode— twelve groups— is 300. For arena houses, the med­

ian is 150, total capacity 3,08?, end the mode (at three groups each) is shared by 150 and 300 seats. When all'types of theatres are considered together, the mean capacity is

429, and both the median and the mdde (of fifteen groups)

is 300 seats.

Fifty-ni^e groups who own or lease their theatre plants gave information on the dimensions of their acting areas on proscenium stages, as did 25 organizations who use rented proscenium stages. For the owned stages, the dimen­

sions renged from 10 by 20 feet to 42 by 28 feet. The med­

ian of these acting areas is 28 by 20, while the mode (ten grouos) calls for a thirty-foot-wide proscenium. Rented 131 stages, predictably, run somewhat larger, from 15 by 20 feet to three with proscenium widths of fifty to sixty feet. The median of the twenty-five theatres reporting, however, also was a thirty-foot opening, and the mode was divided with three groups each having openings of twenty-five or thirty feet. Considering the acting area dimensions of owned and rented proscenium stages together changes the re­ sults only slightly. The mode remains at the thirty-foot width, while the median then is for an area 28 by 28 feet. Only fourteen groups using arena staging reported the dimensions of their acting areas. Two of those were theatres renting space while the remaining dozen own or lease their playhouses. The area dimensions ranged from 12 by 16 feet to a thirty-four foot circle. The only area size reported by more than one group was a twenty-foot square area reported by two organizations. The median also coinci­ ded with their report. Four groups using platform or open stages reported their dimensions, which were widely varied. The reported dimensions of 2*+ by 30, 30 by 2h t 35 by 25, and 50 by 50 feet were quite similar to most of the dimensions reported for standard proscenium stages. Work, in his survey, discovered that 75 per cent of the organizations he queried in 19*4-8 were not satisfied with their present facilities, and 61 per cent of those 1^2 groups at that time were planning or hoping to build within 132 five years (by 1953).^ Of 124 groups responding to a ques­ tion on this survey asking whether they had done any build­ ing or remodeling since 1950, 76 theatres, or 61.3 P©r cent, answered in the affirmative. Of those seventy-six, 66 groups, or 86.8 per oent, were organizations which owned their theatre plants. The building by the remaining ten had been of workshops, meeting rooms, et cetera. The forty-eight groups not having built in that period were nearly evenly divided, 25 to 23, between those owning and renting their respective theatres. An exact split was reported to the inquiry asking whether the organizations currently planned to build or re­ model. Of the sixty groups replying affirmatively, 46 (?6.? per cent of 60 or 36.3 per cent of all theatres answering this item) already own their theatre, while fourteen groups did not own their plants. Among the sixty groups having no plans for building, 37 theatres (61.7 per cent of 60 or 30•8 per cent of 120) were already theatre plant owners. Inter­ estingly enough, these figures may indicate that possession of a theatre plant itBelf is a stimulus for additional physi­ cal development, for 55 per cent of the groups which owned their plants had plans for building or remodeling, while only 38 per cent of groups performing in non-owned facili­ ties had any such plans.

6Ibld. CHAPTER VII

SUMKARY

The professional theatre is frequently referred to as "the fabulous invalid." Certainly there is little evi­ dence from the literature and survey with which this dis­ sertation is concerned that would indicate such a term to be appropriate for the community theatre. Fabulous it may well be, but an invalid? Just the reverse! James Lincoln Collier commented: When we look away from Broadway, we begin to discover that the theater, far from being a fab­ ulous invalid, is unquestionably the strongest of the arts in America.* The lack of precise reports on the extent of com­ munity theatre activity in the United States was observed in the introduction to this work. At this point the matter of importance is consolidation of the material reported from the current study. By taking appropriate statistical functions (most generally the mean, but occasionally the mode) from the data collected, It is possible to construct a composite of the characteristics of an average community theatre organization

1 James Lincoln Collier,' loc clt. 133 13^ operating in a metropolitan area of the United States during the 1962-1963 season. Such a representative theatre group would have a membership of 930, of whom approximately 320 participate actively in working on the productions. The policies of the organization would be formulated by an executive committee of thirteen members, eight of whom would be men and five would be women. Nine standing committees likely would be involved in the operation of the theatre. Judging from programs submit­ ted by groups with nine standing committees, these probably would be committees on membership, play selection (of which the managing director would be a member ex-officio), public relations, box office, and hospitality. Standing committees for backstage operations would be concerned with set con­ struction, lighting, properties, and costumes. The play se­ lection committee in its deliberations would feel that the ideal season would include a recent comedy and a recent drama, a standard comedy, a musical, and a mystery, but in practice it would be likely to select a standard drama rath­ er than a mystery. The committee would select the season as a unit in advance rather than on a "play as you go" basis. Their discussions would maintain an awareness of box office response, yet they would feel little need actually to avoid certain playwrights or plays due to possible unfavorable audience reactions. 135 This organization would have a production schedule calling for five major productions per year, one of which would be a musical presented with a nine piece orchestra to furnish the accompaniment. The typical season of major pro­ ductions for I962-I963 included two comedies and two dramas. The comedies would have been Critic's Choice by Ira Levin, which had lasted for only 189 performances on Broadway two seasons earlier, and Mister Roberts by Thomas Heggen and Joshua Logan, a long run Broadway veteran of 1,157 perform­ ances opening in 19^7-19^8. The dramas probably would have been William Gibson's The Miracle Worker which had opened on Broadway three seasons back and a "standard" play by Ten­ nessee Williams, Summer and Smok^. which had its New York premiere during the 19^8-19^9 season. The musical produc­ tion favored for community theatre presentation that season would be Little Mary Sunshine, an Gff-Broadway favorite which had Just closed after 1,1^3 performances. The typical little theatre would have some minor productions and other activities, yet the survey did not disclose any particular types of such activities common to a majority of organizations reporting. The minor produc­

tions would b o b * likely be children's theatre or Qne-act plays, possibly experimental in nature, than full-length productions, although 27*2 per cent of responding groups do present the latter. Classes, lectures, and workshops are 136 another type of activity reported by one-fourth of the re­ spondents, with such classes or workshops frequently having the responsibility for minor productions. The annual budget for this representative theatre would run in the neighborhood of $25*700* The revenue would be derived primarily from admissions, dues, and donations. Calculating season ticket sales as providing 20.3 per cent of the receipts, the theatre would sell 525 season tickets at ten dollars each, to account for $5,250 income per season. The largest percentage of revenue (34.4 per cent) would come from receipts for 4,475 individual admissions

(895 per production) at two dollars per ticket, totaling $8,840. Membership dues of eight dollars per year would provide 29 Per cent of the income, in the amount of $7,440. The remaining 16.2 per cent of the annual income would be derived, statistically, from donations (both private and corporate) of $4,165* The work of such a composite community theatre or­ ganization would be directed by a theatre professional in the full-time position of managing director. His staff also would include a technical director and secretary-clerk full time. A janitor would be employed by the organization on a part-time basis, as would one more person who might be either a box office manager or another play director. This group would own its theatre plant which would 137 Include workshop facilities. The auditorium with a seating capacity of three hundred generally would be nearly filled for the major productions. The stage of the theatre would have a proscenium width of thirty feet and a depth of twen­ ty-eight. This one stage, in the average group, is utilized for all productions— major, children's, or experimental. The facility has either been built or remodeled since 195^, and it is likely that plans have been formulated for addi­ tional improvements. This portrait from the means or modes of general characteristics revealed by the survey indicates clearly that the community theatre movement is one of considerable strength. It is such indications as these that probably lead Collier to his contention that the theatre is currently the strongest of the arts in America. Many of the statements and generalizations made about amateur drama in the United States are supported by the results of this survey of community theatres in the met­ ropolitan areas of the country. The study also indicates certain trends in the community theatre. Much of the mater­ ial concerning medians, means, and modes which customarily would be summarized at this point will be found in the im­ mediately preceding section which described a composite group. The survey reflected the venerability of the commu­ 138 nity theatre movement, since the average year of establish­ ment for groups responding was 19^0. Two groups reporting were among the pioneers in little theatre, having been founded in 1911, yet the continuing appeal and vigor of this activity was underlined by the responses from five groups founded since i960. There has been little change in the operational or­ ganization of the community theatre movement over the past fifteen years, for the typical theatre continues to have from six to nine standing committees. Another facet of organizational structure is the manner in which membership is defined. Slightly over half the organizations reported that they charge membership dues in addition to admission costs. Another third indicated that they considered purchasers of season tickets to be mem­ bers, while the remaining I3.6 per cent were private organi­ zations presenting their productions exclusively for their membership. The theatre groups having separate membership dues understandably reported a higher percentage of active par­ ticipation in their productions by their memberships. Their percentages most frequently were between fifty and seventy per cent, while the percentage of active participation among the membership of the other two types generally was under twenty per cent. This represents a slight decrease in per- 139 centage of participation since 19*^8, although the decrease is not significant. For the 1962-I963 season, 13^ groups reported 677 major productions, an average of 5*1 productions per group. Slightly more than three-fourths of the respondents report­ ed presenting three to six major productions. Compared with previous studies, this indicates a trend toward more major productions per group per year. The number of performances gfcven the major produc­ tions also demonstrates a decided increase from previous studies. This survey found 9*6 performances to be the mean figure, while the median and mode were six performances per production. The survey corroborated the trend of community the­ atres to include a musical as at least one of their major productions each year. Such was the case for two-thirds of the organizations reporting and was a pronounced increase from past reports. Musicals are produced most often by groups which offer at least five or six major productions per season. No other production activities were reported by a majority of the respondents, yet good percentages indicated their additional production of one-act plays and plays for children's audiences. Fully two-thirds of the responding organizations re­ ported that they pay their directors for their services. Of l*+0 those theatres, slightly more than half (53*5 Per cent) have the same director for all major productions. Among all the reporting groups, however, 61.1 per cent utilize different directors for their productions. In most of the theatres, the director has sole responsibility for casting the produc­ tions . Three-fourths of the community theatres reported having paid staffs. The average number of positions was per group while the median was three. The mode (approxi­ mately twenty-eight per cent of the groups), however, was for only one employee per theatre. Of the positions avail­ able, 53*3 Per cent were for full-time work while *+6.7 per cent were for part-time Jobs. Eoth full and part time posi­ tions were reported by 36.3 per cent of the theatres respond­ ing. This increase in staff positions of community theatre organizations was one of the most significant contrasts from reports of previous studies, as well as an Indication of the current interest in and stability of the local theatre move­ ment . One of the concerns of major importance to any study of community theatre, that of play selection, generally was handled by the theatres' appointing a special committee of which the director was one member to select the plays for the season as a unit. The two greatest problems encountered by the committees, respondents to the questionnaire reported, were avoiding undesirable subject matter or plot situations 11+1 and adapting desired scripts to problems of technical pro­ duction. The commercial professional theatre still served as the source of most of the plays selected for production in the community theatre, with the groups showing a marked preference for recent plays. In response to a question con­ cerning their preferences of types of plays for major pro­ ductions, the theatres indicated that they prefer recent comedies, recent dramas, standard comedies, mysteries, and musicals. Fewer than half of the responding groups even in­ dicated any consideration of classic plays, originals, nine­ teenth century melodrama, or avant-garde plays for produc­ tion. Assuming that the term "avant-garde" is the equiva­ lent today of the term "experimental" used in the past, pro­ ductions of such plays by amateur groups are at a record low. The trend of current Broadway plays away from the light comedy toward heavier drama affected the community theatre in two ways. First, the proportion of recent come­ dies presented on little theatre stages was lower by one- fifth than it had been formerly, and, second, the proportion of standard comedies being produced increased. The increase in production of standard comedies was not great enough, however, to offset the decline of recent comedies. As a consequence, the proportion of recent drama rose over pre­ vious decades. 142 The most popular playwrights among community theatres during the 1962-1963 season from the standpoint of the num­ ber of productions of their works were John Patrick, Ira Levin (whose Critic’s Choice was the most-produced play with seventeen productions), George Bernard Shaw, Tennessee Willi­ ams, William Shakespeare, William Inge, and William Gibson. Of the 339 plays receiving a total of 648 produc­ tions by the groups surveyed, each of 220 titles was pro­ duced by only one theatre group. Greatest duplication of plays was reported, understandably enough, among the ?4 re­ cent comedies, of which thirty-three received multiple pro­ ductions that season. The maximum of seventeen different productions accorded one comedy, however, was significantly lower than multiple productions reported in previous studies* Stability of the community theatre movement also is indicated by the fact that two-thirds of the organizations own or lease their own theatres. Of the remaining groups, well over half (59*1 per cent) utilize a school or munici­ pal auditorium for their productions. The proscenium stage was strongly favored by the reporting groups, being used by 85.$ per cent of them. Seating capacity of three hundred was favored for their auditoriums. The seating capacity of theatres of the 18.5 per cent of groups using arena staging averaged 182. Both arena and proscenium stages were employed by 8.1 per cent of the 143 groups reporting. Only six groups reported the use of plat- fetnn or open steges. Exactly half of the responding groups reported hav­ ing plans for building or remodeling In the near future. Among those theatres with building plans were fifty-five per cent of the organizations owning their theatre plants. The preceding summarizes the information gleaned from the survey of community theatres of the one hundred largest metropolitan areas of the country. It is obvious, however, that in addition to matters which can be trans­ formed into statistical data, the community theatre move­ ment also is concerned with personal satisfactions of its participants and audiences. Community theatres are usually organized not for the purpose of making money, but to satisfy the creative desires of their members, to occupy leisure time, and to bring together persons of the same artistic interests in a community o t group. The community theatre, interested as it is In the artistic success of Its productions and in balancing its budget, exists also as a creative and social organization for the benefit of its members and its audience.2 A spirit of pride in their progress permeated the enclosures which many busy directors or officers returned with their questionnaires to provide additional information. Letters, programs, and brochures all were infused with sin­ cerity and enthusiasm.

2£dward A. Wright, A Primer for Playgoers (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958), p. 179. 1^ - The community theatre, which began in the United States as a manner of providing theatrical fare not produced by professional theatrical stock or road companies, has grown tremendously throughout the past half century. As with any growth process, extensive changes have occurred. Now, rather than providing an alternative to professional theatre, the community theatre (along with educational thea­ tre) is often the only theatre accessible to much of the populace of the United States for most of the year. This has precipitated a general change of direction of community theatre objectives throughout the years. The shift has been away from an "artistic" orientation toward one which often is termed "commercial." Its design is to provide worthwhile recreation for the participants and entertainment for the audiences. One of the results is that Broadway and Off- Broadway have been utilized as virtually the only sources of plays for community theatre production. Although the pro­ duction of musicals by community theatre organizations has increased in recent years, the ratio of drama to comedy has also increased. The community theatre generally has been subject to neglect in academic research; consequently, the study which this dissertation reports is an attempt toward rectifying that situation. It would be desirable to have comparative studies of the movement as a whole be made on a regular basis. 1^5 While reports on the future of the theatre tend to be on the gloomy side (and for good cause), accounts and ob­ servations of the community theatre-— including this survey— Indicate that it is strong and thriving and characterized by diversity. Unfortunately, the play selection practices of the community theatre closely reflect Broadway, and conse­ quently indicate abdication of the responsibility to present productions of cultural value not likely to receive commer­ cial presentation, a responsibility which was felt so strongly by the early little theatres. The rapid development of local professional repertory companies which include a larger proportion of classics and more profound works in their offerings may have some effect on the play selection practices of the community theatre; hopefully encouraging it to increase its percentage of productions of significant drama. Whatever this effect may be, the personal satisfac­ tion received by participants in community theatre for their efforts is not likely to diminish. APPENDIXES

11:6 APPENDIX I

COMPLETE HAILING LIST

In this list the geographical areas are arranged alphabetically. The numerical rank by size of the metropol­ itan area is enclosed in parentheses after the name of the city. The disposition of the questionnaire is indicated after the name of the theatre.

Akron (49) Akron Center Players No response Bath Community Players No response Coach House Theatre No response Community Theatre, Y. W. C. A. Extinct Palls Masquers No response The Free Lance Players Perform by request only Hudson Footlighters No response The Lamplighters No response Peninsula Players No response Stow Players, Inc. Responded and used “Wadsworth Footlighters No response Weathervane Community Playhouse Responded and used Wingfoot Players No response Albany (38} The Ilium Players Extinct The Masque Undelivered Jewish Center Players No response Little Theatre Dramatics Association No response R. P. I. Players College theatre only Schenectady Civic Players, Inc. Responded and used Albuquerque (97) Albuquerque Community Players Undelivered Albuquerque Little Theatre Responded and used Army-Navy-Air Force Players Responded and used 147 I 148

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (54) Allentown, little Theatre Undelivered. Civic little Theatre of Allentown Responded and used Easton little Theatre Undelivered Lafayette College little Theatre No response Ehillipsburg little Theatre Undelivered Plays and Players of Bethlehem Undelivered Atlanta (24) Atlanta Civic Theatre Undelivered Community Playhouse No response Theatre Atlanta, Inc. Responded and used Toombs:* Amlsano, and Wells No response Bakersfield (83) Bakersfield little Theatre Undelivered Baltimore (12) Actors' Colony No response Baltimore Actors Theatre, Inc. Responded and used Club Road Playhouse Undelivered Colonial Players No response The Curtain Callers Undelivered Fellowship Theatre No response Govans Players Undelivered Hilltop Theatre Undelivered Little Theatre No response Playhous e No response Ramsay Street Players Undelivered Saint James Players Undelivered Spotlighters Theatre No response The Stagecrafters Extinct Vagabond Theatre Incomplete return The Valley Players Undelivered WItson Players Undelivered Y. M.-Y. W. H. A. Community Playhouse No response Beaumont-Port Arthur (81) Beaumont Community Players, Inc. Responded and used Port Arthur Little Theatre Responded and used Birmingham (40) Actors Theatre No response Birmingham little Theatre Undelivered Center Players Responded and used 1*4-9 Town and Grown Civic Theatre No response Valley Theatre Undelivered Bolton (7) The Amateurs (Brookline) Undelivered Arlington Friends of the Drama, Inc. Responded and used Belmont Dramatic Club No response Boston Catholic Theatre Extinct Boston Community Theatre No response Boston Repertory Theatre No response Brainwey Players (Weymouth) Undelivered The Charles Playhouse Professional Clarendon Players No response Community Players of Quincy Responded and used Field and Forest Club of Boston Undelivered Footlight Club Undelivered Hovey Players (Waltham) Responded and used Lantern Players (Little Theatre Wkshp. )Adult education classes The Milton Players No response M. I. T. Community Players Responded and used Parish Players (Winchester) No response The Players (West Newton) Undelivered Quannapowitt Players (Reading) Responded and used Rotary Players (Arlington) No response Sidewalk Theatre Players (Roxbury) No response Tavern Players, Inc. (Lynn) No response Bridgeport (72) Bridgeport Little Theatre League Undelivered Community Theatre (Fairfield) Motion picture house Off Broadway Talent Workshop of Bridgeport, Inc. No response Polka Dot Playhouse, Inc. Responded and used Buffalo (15) Buffalo Opera Comique No response Studio Theatre School Players No response Lackawanna Civic Theatre Responded and used Niagara Falls Little Theatre, Inc. No response Off-Broadway Theatre No response Cant on (71) The Drama Guild Responded and used Players Guild Responded and used 150 Charleston (100) Kanawha Players, Inc. Responded and used Charlotte (92) little Theatre of Charlotte, Inc. Responded and used Town Park Players No response Chattanooga (8 5 ) Chattanooga Little Theatre, Inc. Responded and used

Chicago (3 ) Chicago Community Theatre, Inc. No response Chicago Heights Drama Group No response Chicago Park District Responded and used Chicago Stage Guild, Inc. No response Community Theatre of Evanston No response Company of the Pour No response Douglas Smith Players Undelivered Elgin Community Theatre No response Encore Theatre Responded and used Globe Players Children's theatre Hull House Players No response Institute Players Children's theatre The Last Stage Responded and used Metropolitan Players Extinct Mummers Theatre Undelivered North Shore Theatre Guild Undelivered Oak Park Theatre Guild Responded and used Palos Village Players No response Riverside Players Undelivered Studio Players Responded and used Theatre First, Inc. Responded and used Theatre of Western Springs Undelivered Threshold Theatre No response Uptown Circuit Players, Inc. Undelivered Cincinnat i (21) Actors Guild Undelivered Catholic Theatre Guild of Northern Kentucky, Inc. Responded and used Cincinnati Music-Drama Guild No response Cincinnati Valley Players Undelivered Northern Hills Little Theatre No response Stage, Inc. Extinct 151 Columbia (98) Columbia Stage Society No response Columbus (36) Gallery Players Responded and used Little Theatre Off Broadway Responded and used Players Club Responded and used Prairie Players Responded and used Stadium Theatre Responded and used Village Little Theatre Responded and used Cleveland (11) Cain Park Theatre Children's theatre Candlelight Players Undelivered Chagrin Valley Little Theatre Responded and used Cleveland Playhouse Professional Eldred Players No response Euclid Little Theatre Responded and used Jewish Community Centers Responded and used Karamu House No response Lakewood Little Theatre Responded and used Mldtown Theatre Undelivered Shaker Players No Response Dallas (20) Dallas Theatre Center Resident repertory Dallas Theatre League No response Margo Jones Theatre '63 Undelivered-extinct Tower Theatre No response Davenport-Rock Island-Moline (93)

Attic Players (Rock Island) Rndhllv&sed Davenport Friendly House Children's theatre League Players (Moline) No response Playcrafters, Inc. (Rock Island) Responded and used The Players (Davenport) Extinct Dayton (3 4 ) Dayton Community Theatre Responded and used The Dayton Theatre Guild Responded and used Experimental Theatre No response Wright-Patterson Little Theatre Group No response Purple Masque No response Trottwood Circle Theatre Professional "Y" Players Theatre Group No response 152 Denver (26) Denver Civic Theatre Responded and used Denver Players Guild No response Lakewood Players No response Religious Drama Workshop No response Des Moines (95) Des Moines Community Playhouse Responded and used Drama Workshop of Des Moines Responded and used Kendall Playhouse Merged with D.M.C.P. Detroit (5) Ann Arbor Civic Theatre No response Arts and Crafts Theatre Undelivered Grosse Pointe Community Theatre No response Master Players, Inc. (Pontiac) Undelivered Players Guild of Dearborn No response Stagecrafters (Royal Oak) Responded and used Theatre Arts Dept., Detroit Inst. Arts Responded and used Duluth-Superior (9 0 ) Drama League of Duluth Undelivered Duluth Playhouse Responded and used Superior Community Players Undelivered EL Paso (79) El Paso Playhouse, Inc. No response Little Theatre of El Paso Undelivered Flint (63) Flint Community Players, Inc. No response The Footlighters (Davison) No response Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood (73) Hollywood Little Theatre Responded and used Fort Lauderdale Little Theatre No response Fort Worth (46) B'nai B'rith Little Theatre No response Fort Worth Little Theatre Undelivered Greater Fort Worth Community Theatre No response Wing and Masque Players Responded and used 153 Fresno (66) Fresno Community Theatre No response The Players No response Gary-Hammond-East Chicago (45) Civic Theatre (Gary) Undelivered Gary Players, Inc. No response Theatre Studio (Gary) No response Grand Rapids (67) Grand Rapids Civic Theatre Responded and used Harrisburg (6 9 ) Harrisburg Community Theatre Responded and used Hartford (48) Community Players (Manchester) No response little Theatre Guild (New Britain) No response Manchester Center Thespians Extinct Mark Twain Masquers Responded and used Wethersfield Community Players, Inc. No response Honolulu (53) Port Shafter Theatre Guild Undelivered Honolulu Community Theatre Responded and used Pearl Harbor Little Theatre No response Houston (16) Alley Theatre Professional Community Players Undelivered Little Theatre No response Theatre, Inc. Responded and used Huntlngton-Ashland (99) Ashland Dramatic Club Undelivered Community Players, Inc. (Huntington) Responded and used Indianapolis (33) Athenaeum Turner Theatre No response Catholic Theatre Guild No response Circle Players, Inc. Undelivered Civic Theatre of Indianapolis No response 154

Jacksonville (5 8) Arlington Players Ho response Jacksonville little Theatre Ho response Johnstown (87) Penn Wood Players Responded and used Jersey City (42) Emory Drama Guild Ho response Kansas City (22) Kansas City Lyric Theatre Ho response Kansas City Resident Theatre Ho response University Playhouse College only Knoxville (64) (Ho contact located)

Lancaster (8 8 ) Lancaster Theatre Arts Association Responded and used The M. Harriet Walker Players Ho response Lansing (82) Lansing Civic Players Responded and used Los Angeles-Long Beach (2) Beverly Hills Community Players Undelivered Callboard Theatre (Los Angeles) Ho response Civic Playhouse (Los Angeles) Ho response Glendale Community Players Undelivered Hollywood Community Players Undelivered Long Beach Community Players Responded and used Los Angeles Players Ring Undelivered Hine O'clock Players (Hollywood) Ho response South Pasadena Little Theatre Undelivered Stage Society Theatre (Los Angeles) Ho response Pasadena Playhouse Professional Louisville (32) Catholic Theatre Guild of Louisville Responded and used Clasksvllle Little Theatre Responded and used Iroquois Ampitheatre Ho response 155 Little Theatre of Louisville No response The Playhouse No response Memphis (^1) Memphis Little Theatre Responded and used Miami (25) Acorns Civic Theatre, Inc. Responded and used The Civic Theatre of Greater Miami Undelivered Theatre Group, Country Club of Coral Gables No response Little Theatre of Miami No response Studio M Playhouse (Coral Gables) No response Milwaukee (17) Ad Libs Unlimited, Y Playhouse No response Bay Players of Whltefish Bay Responded and used Center Players No response Community Theatre, Recreation Dept. No response Fred^Miller Theatre Professional Milwaukee Players No response Perhlft Players No response Sunset Playhouse (Elm Grove) Responded and used Wisconsin Players Undelivered "Y" Playhouse Responded and used Minneapolis-Salnt Paul (1^) Community Theatre of St. Louis Park Responded and used Edyth Bush Little Theatre No response Saint Paul Players Undelivered Theatre in the Round Players, Inc. Responded and used Theatre Saint Paul Responded and used Tyrone Guthrie Theatre Foundation No reply-professional Mobile (78) Community Theatre Undelivered Joe Jefferson Players, Inc. Responded and used Little Theatre of Mobile Undelivered Mobile Theatre Guild Undelivered Nashville (61) Circle Players, Inc. No response Suitcase Theatre Undelivered Theatre Nashville (orig. Community Responded and used Playhouse) 156 Newark (13) Chatham Community Players Responded and used Civic Theatre of West Orange Undelivered The Community Players (Westfield) Responded and used Cranford Dramatics Club No response Foothill Playhouse, Inc. (Bound Brook) Responded and used The Footlighters (Bloomfield) Extinct Glen Ridge Players No response Linden Community Theatre No response Little Theatre, City of East Orange Responded and used Music Unlimited No response Playcrafters of Caldwell No response The Parish Players (Plainfield) No response The Revelers of Union, Inc. Undelivered Sayre Hall, Y. W. C. A. No response The Strollers of Maplewood No response Temple Players of Plainfield No response Theatre Guild of the Roselles No response Y-Center Players, Y. M.-Y. W. H. A. Responded and used New Haven (80) Elm City Players Undelivered Nutmeg Community Theatre No response New Orleans (2?) Gallery Circle Theatre Responded and used Le Petit Theatre du Vieux Carre (New Orleans Little Theatre) Responded and used New Group Theatre Undelivered New Orleans Community Theatre Undelivered Nord Delgado Bara Theatre No response WDSU-TV Playhouse No response New York (1) Bay Shore Players Undelivered Blackfriars of New York, Inc. No response Brooklyn Masque Players Undelivered Chesterfield Players (Yonkers) No response Choreographer's Workshop Undelivered Civic Theatre of Dobbs Ferry Undelivered Comedy Club No response Community Players (Community Church) No response Community Players of Mount Vernon Undelivered Community Theatre (Yonkers) No response Croton Players Responded and used The Curtain Callers (Freeport) Undelivered Dobbs Ferry Woman1s Drama Group No response 157 Drama Club, Y. M. C. A. Undelivered Dramatic Guild (White Plains) Undelivered East Rockaway Little Theatre No: response Everyman's Theatre No response Fenimore Players, Inc. (Mamaroneck) Responded and used Fox Oak Players Undelivered Great Neck Community Theatre Undelivered Great Neck Players No response Guild Hall Players (East Hampton) No response Heights Players (Brooklyn) Undelivered larchmont Temple Players No response Lenox Hill Players No response The Lighthouse Little Theatre No response Little Theatre Workshop (Hempstead) Extinct Masque Players (White Plains) Extinct Neighborhood Players Guild (Glen Cove) ExtInct North Shore Players, Inc. (Port Jefferson) No response Oval Players No response The Playhouse, Y. M. and Y. W. H. A. No response Plays and Players, Inc. (Jericho) Responded and used Port Hill Players (Staten Island) No response Rye Players Undelivered Salon Players (Jackson Heights) Undelivered Shoestring Players (larchmont) No response The 63rd Street Players (Y. M. C. A.) No response South Shore Drama Group, Inc. (Hewlett) Responded and used Spotlight Players (White Plains) Undelivered Studio Players (Yonkers) Undelivered Top Hatters (Brooklyn) Undelivered Township Theatre Group, Inc. (Huntington) Responded and used The Village Green Players (Levittown) Undelivered Norfolk-Portsmouth (44) Community Theatre of the Virginia Peninsula, Inc. (Newport News) Responded and used Little Theatre of Norfolk Responded and used Norfolk Players Guild Responded and used Virginia Eeach Little Theatre No response Oklahoma City (50) Mummers Theatre Responded and used

Omaha (5 6 ) Omaha Playhouse Responded and used 156 Orlanao (77) Orange Blossom Playhouse Responded and used Orlando Players Little Theatre Responded and used Paterson-Cllfton-Passaic (18) Bergen County Players (Oradell) Responded and used Playmakers of Essex County (Montclair) Undelivered Red Rook Dramatic Group (Pair lawn) Unc*: livered Studio Players of Essex County Rerjp; rded and used Peoria (84) Peoria Players Responded and used Philadelphia (4) Actors Stock of Philadelphia Non-existent Alden Park Players, Inc. No response Dramatic Arts Workshop No response Haddonfield Plays and Players Responded and used Hedgerow Theatre (Moylan) No response Neighborhood Players No response New Negro Theatre Undelivered Philadelphia New Theatre Undelivered Plays and Players No response Society Hill Playhouse No response The Stagecrafters Responded and used Theatre League of Philadelphia Undelivered Phoenix (37) Phoenix Little Theatre Responded and used Pittsburgh (8) The Curtaineers Extinct Catholic Theatre Guild of Pittsburgh Undelivered New Kensington Civic Theatre No response P. C. W . Little Theatre No response Pittsburgh Playhouse Members do not act South Hills Community Players Undelivered Y-IKE Playhouse (Y. M.-Y. W. H. A.) Responded and used "Y" Triangle Players No response Portland (29) Bureau of Parks and Recreation Responded and used Portland Civic Theatre Responded and used 159 Portland Players No response Providence-Pawtucket (30) Pawtucket Community Play

San Antonio (35) San Antonio Little Theatre Responded and used San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontarlo (28) The Playmakers (San Bernardino) Undelivered Riverside Community Players No response San Diego (23) B a m Players Undelivered Coronado Playhouse No response Footlights Theatre Undelivered The Old Globe Theatre Responded and used Pastime Players Playbox Undelivered San Francisco-Oakland (6 ) Actors Workshop No response Alameda Little Theatre No response Berkeley Opera Theatre Grand opera only Berkeley Players Undelivered Civic Light Opera Association No response Company of the Golden Hind (Berkeley) Undelivered The Good Hope Company (Berkeley) Undelivered Hlllbarn Theatre (formerly Peninsula Little Theatre) (Belmont) Responded and used International Repertory Theatre No response The Interplayers Responded and used The Lamplighters Responded and used London Circle Players (Oakland) Responded and used Recreation Department (Oakland) No adult program Oakland Theatre Guild Undelivered Palo Alto Community Theatre Responded and used Playhouse Repertory Theatre Responded and used San Carlos Players No response San Francisco Community Theatre Undelivered San Francisco Encore Theatre No response San Francisco Marine's Memorial Theatre No response San Franclsoo Reereation Department Children's theatre The Shadow Players Responded and used Theatre Arts Colony No response Wayfarers Civic Repertory Undelivered San Jose (39) Los Gatos Community Theatre Responded and used 161

Seattle (19) Civic Theatre No response Playhouse, Seattle Center Professional Seattle Park Department No theatre program Tryout Theatre No response Shreveport (86) Little Theatre of Shreveport Responded and used The Spotllghters Drama Club Responded and used Spokane (89) Spokane Civic Theatre Responded and used Sprlngflald-Chicopee-Holyoke (55) Faith Church Players Responded and used Players Guild (Springfield) Undelivered Springfield Little Theatre Undelivered Syracuse (^7) Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta Guild Undelivered Syracuse Musical Drama Company No response Tacoma (76) Tacoma Little Theatre Responded and used Tacoma Theatre Guild No response Tampa-StwPetersburg (31) Little Theatre of Clearwater Responded and used Saint Petersburg Little Theatre Responded and used Tampa Community Theatre Responded and used Toledo (57) Repertoire Little Theatre Responded and used Toledo Center Players Extlnct Toledo Dance Theatre No response Toledo First Nighters Workshop No response Toledo Unitarian Theatre Extinct Trenton (9^) Bordentown Community Players No response Players Club Undelivered 162

Princeton Playhouse Ho response Spring Street Playhouse Undelivered Trenton Group Players Ho response Tulsa (59) Tulsa Little Theatre, Inc. Responded and used Tulsa Spotlighters, Inc. Responded and used Tucson (9 6 ) Arizona Corral Theatre No response Playbox Theatre No response Tucson Little Theatre Undelivered Utica-Rome (7*0 Mount Carmel Players Guild (Utica) No response The Players (Utica) No response Rome Community Theatre, Inc. Responded and used Theatre Workshop, Inc. (Utica) Undelivered Washington (10) Adventure Theatre (Chevy Chase) Children’s theatre Arena Stage No reply-professional Arlington County (Va.) Recreation Dept. "Not applicable" Arts Club No response Calvary Guild Hall Players No response Community Theatre of Washington, D.C. Undelivered Employee Activities Program, U. S. Department of Agriculture No response Foundry Players Responded and used Little Theatre of Alexandria Responded and used Mount Vernon Players No response Theatre Lobby, Inc. Responded and used The Thespian Study Club Extinct Unitarian Players No response Washington Civic Theatre Undelivered Wichita (70) Little Theatre of Wichita Undelivered Wichita Community Theatre Responded and used Wilkes-Barre-Hazletcn (68) The King's Players College only Little Theatre Guild (Scranton) Undelivered Little Theatre of Wilkes-Barre No response 163

Wilmington (65) Delaware Dramatic Association No response Wilmington Drama League No response Y Players (Y. M. C. A.) Extinct Worcester (75) First Baptist Church Players No response Players Club Eesponded and used Youngstown-Warren (51) New Castle Playhouse Responded and used Trumbull New Theatre, Inc. (Warren) Eesponded and used Youngstown Little Theatre No response Youngstown Players, Inc. No response Youngstown Playhouse No response APPENDIX II

RESPONDING THEATRES

This list consists of the 136 theatres returning questionnaires useable in this study. The arrangement of metropolitan areas is by size. The person named is the per­ son who completed the questionnaire. New York City Groton Players 65 Maple Street Croton-on-Hudson, New York Robert M. Brown, President Fenimore Players, Inc. 520 Jefferson Avenue Mamarone ck, New York Mrs. S. Charles Hanna, Director Plays and Players, Inc. 5 Hazlewood Drive Jericho, New York John F. Havens, Producer-Director South Shore Drama Group, Inc. 1592 Union Avenue Hewlett, New York Mrs. Daniel Spiegel, Foimer President Township Theatre Group, Inc. 42 Creek Road Huntington, New York Clint Marantz, Executive Producer

164 165 Los Angeles-Long Beach Long Beach Community Players 5021 E. Anaheim Street Long Beach, California Mrs. Walter Case, Administrative Business Manager Chicago Chicago Parle District and Theatre on the Lake 4-25 E. Fourteenth Boulevard Chicago, Illinois Miss Olive Zanetabos, Assistant Drama Supervisor Encore Theatre, Inc. 1419 N. Wells Street Chicago, Illinois Charles E. Largent, Executive Director The Last Stage 1509 E. Hyde Park Boulevard Chicago, Illinois William Bezdek, President Oak Park Theatre Guild Recreation Department Oak Park, Illinois S. E. Coates, President Studio Players 105 S. Central Avenue Chicago, Illinois Lucille Chemey, Direct or-Producer Theatre First, Inc. Post Office Box 354-5 Merchandise Mart Chicago, Illinois Anthony Fernandez, General Manager Philadelphia Haddonfield Plays and Players 111 Peyton Avenue Haddonfield, New Jersey John G. Hubbard, Treasurer The Stagecrafters 8130 Germantown Avenue Philadelphia, Pennsylvania William Gallagher, President 166

Detroit Stagecrafters (formerly The Clawson Players) 403 Woodsboro Royal Oak, Michigan Betty Ann Smith, Treasurer Theatre Arts Department Detroit Institute of Arts 3424 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan Audley M, Grossman, Jr., Curator San Francisco-Oakland Hillbam Theatre (formerly Peninsula Little Theatre) Post Office Box 143 Carlmont Shopping Center Belmont, California Robert Brauns, Director The Interplayers 747 Beach Street San Francisco, California Leon Farber, Managing Director The Lamplighters 616 Divisadero San Francisco, California Ann Pool, Director London Circle Players 1520 Oak Street Oakland, California Ted Smallery, Managing Director Palo Alto Community Theatre 1305 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California Ralph L. Schrom, Supervising Director Playhouse Repertory Theatre 2796 Hyde Street San Francisco, California K. Sheets, Business Manager The Shadow Players 745 Buchanan Street San Francisco, California S. Siegel (Lighthouse for the Blind) 16? Boston Arlington Friends of the Drama, Inc. 22 Academy Street Arlington, Massachusetts Myrtle 1. Hoag, Corresponding Secretary Community Players of Quincy 51 Edwards Street Quincy, Massachusetts Ashley P. Westcott, President Hovey Players, Inc. Unity Hall 740 Main Street Waltham, Massachusetts Alden Abbott M. I. T. Community Players Kresge Memorial Auditorium Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts Miss Marie L. Phillips, President Quannapowitt Players 51 Edwards Street Reading, Massachusetts David J. Mauriello, President Pittsburgh Y-IKE Playhouse Y. M.-Y. W. H. A. 315 S. Bellefield Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Richard F. Stenens, Managing Director Saint Louis Kirkwood Theatre Guild Post Office Box 3754 Kirkwood, Missouri Mrs. Jerome R. Cox, Jr., Corresponding Secretary The Players Downtown Y. M. 0. A. 1528 Locust Street Saint Louis, Missouri W. A. Clark, President 168

Theatre Guild of Webster Groves 517 Theatre Lane Saint Louis, Missouri Jack Scatcherd, President Washington, D. 0. Foundry Players 1500 Sixteenth Street, U. W. Washington, D. 0. Robert J. Fabik, Director Little Theatre of Alexandria Box 1016 Alexandria, Virginia Merrill Beede, President Theatre Lobby, Inc. 17 Saint Matthew's Oourt, IT. W. Washington, D. C. L. Gleason, Artistic Advisor Cleveland Chagrin Valley Little Theatre Cleveland, Ohio Rollin R. DeVore, Secretary Euclid Little Theatre 1008 Pembrook Road Cleveland Heights, Ohio Robert B. McKnight, President Jewish Community Centers 3505 Mayfield Road Cleveland, Ohio Lillian Starum, Secretary to the Director Lakewood Little Theatre 17823 Detroit Avenue Cleveland, Ohio Karl A. Mackey, Managing Director Baltimore Baltimore Actors Theatre, Inc. 3 W. Lake Avenue Baltimore, Maryland Helen M. Grigal, Artistic Director 169 Newark Chatham Community Players Chatham, New Jersey John B. Friday, President Sft% Community Players 530 N. Chestnut Street Westfield, New Jersey Mrs. M. E. Newcomb, Vice President Foothill Playhouse, Inc. Bound Brook, New Jersey Stanley F. Klein, Executive Director little Theatre of the City of East Orange City Hall East Orange, New Jersey Margaret S. Mooney, Assistant Superintendent of Recreation Y-Center Players Y. M.-Y. W. H. A. 652 High Street Newark, New Jersey George Kahn, Social Director Minneapolis-Saint Paul Community Theatre of Saint Louis Park Post Office Box 8358 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota A. M. Audergon, President Theatre in the Round Players, Inc. Post Office Box 5512 Lake Street Station Minneapolis, Minnesota Douglas P. Hatfield, President, Board of Directors Theatre Saint Paul 675 Holly Street Saint Paul, Minnesota Rex Henriot, Managing Director Buffalo Lackawanna Civic Theatre 550 Martin Road Lackawanna, New York Peter Klalch, Board President 170 Houston Theatre, Inc. 707 Chelsea , Houston, Texas Boh William, Business and Production Manager Milwaukee Bay Players of Whitefish Bay Milwaukee, Wisconsin Haney Eichsteadt, Director Sunset Playhouse Box 936 Elm Grove, Wisconsin Alan Fulain, Managing Director "Y" Playhouse Hew Central Y. M. C. A. 915 W. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin Cheri Knudson, Tice President Paterson-Cllfton-Passale Bergen County Players 29@ Kinderkamack Hoad Oradell, Hew Jersey Mrs. Rosemary S. Schulman, Tice President Studio Players of Essex County 14 Alvin Place Upper Montclair, Hew Jersey Pfcfrticla L, Cone, Publicity Chairman Cincinnati Catholic Theatre Guild Bush and Washington Streets Covington, Kentucky Carol Luken, Secretary San Diego The Old Globe Theatre Post Office Box 2171 San Diego, California R. E. Gustavson, Administrative Intern, The Ford Foundation 171 Atlanta Theatre Atlanta, Inc. 270 Fifteenth Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia Lillian Wilson, Business Manager Miami Acorns Civic Theatre, Inc. 775 Dade Boulevard Miami Beach, Florida Bill K. Mayer, President Denver Denver Civic Theatre Denver, Colorado Dorothy Anderson, Administrative Secretary New Orleans Gallery Circle Theatre 525 Madison Street New Orleans, Louisiana John MacEachron, Director Le Petit Theatre du Vieux Carre (New Orleans Little Theatre) 616 Saint Peter Street New Orleans, Louisiana Stocker Fontelleu, Executive Director Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation Young Adult Players Portland, Oregon Dorothea Fens 11, , Director of Recreation Portland Civic Theatre 1530 S. W. Yamhill Street Portland, Oregon James C. Cameron, Executive Director Tampa-Saint Petersburg Little Theatre of Clearwater 302 Seminole Street Clearwater, Florida Harvey T. Warren, Director Saint Petersburg Little Theatre Post Office Bor 2808 Saint Petersburg, Florida Prances Toyner, Secretary Tampa Community Theatre Post Office Box 124 Tampa, Florida Anita Grannie, Resident Professional Director Louisville Catholic Theatre Guild of Louisville 816 E. Broadway Louisville, Kentucky Margaret Llndauer, Secretary Clarksville Little Theatre Clarksville, Indiana Tom Weatherston, Director Dayton Dayton Community Theatre Bureau of Recreation 101 West Third Street Dayton, Ohio Diana Dunn, Supervising Director The Dayton Theatre Guild 607 Belmont Park North Dayton, Ohio Jean Barger, Director and Treasurer San Antonio San Antonio Little Theatre Theatre Drive San Antonio, Texas Joe Salek, Director Columbus Gallery Players 1125 S. College Avenue Columbus, Ohio Harold Eisensteln, Managing Director Little Theatre Off Broadway Box 52 Grove City, Ohio Clarence Schneider, President 173 Players Club 549 Franklin Avenue Columbus, Ohio Robert D, Richey, Managing Director Prairie Players 4650 Musket Way Columbus, Ohio Mrs. J. J. Lane, President Stadium Theatre Department of Speech The Ohio State University 154 North Oval Drive Columbus, Ohio Joseph F. Scharrer, Publicity and House Supervisor Village Little Theatre First Community Church 1320 Cambridge Boulevard Columbus, Ohio Barton A. Loomis, Jr., President Phoenix Phoenix Little Theatre Civic Center Phoenix, Arizona Vivienn Gardner, Theatre Manager Albany-Schenectady-Troy Schenectady Civic Players, Inc. 12 S. Church Street Schenectady, New York B. S. Havens, Chairman, Executive Committee San Jose Los Gatos Community Theatre Box 704 Los Gatos, California Clifford M. Johnson, President Birmingham Center Players Jewish Community Center 3960 Montclair Road Birmingham, Alabama Irving Stern, Director 1?4 Memphis Memphis Little Theatre Memphis, Tennessee B. F. Freedman, President Rochester Rochester Community Players 820 Clinton Avenue South Rochester, New York George E. Warren and James 0. Bradley, Exec. Dir. & Bus. Secy. N o r f o 11c— Port smouth Community Theatre of the Virginia Peninsula, Inc. 113 Shoe Lane Newport News, Virginia E. L, Wilson, Vice President Little Theatre of Norfolk 3580 N. Ingleside Drive Norfolk, Virginia Roy E. Ivy, House Manager Norfolk Players Guild Box 925 Norfolk, Virginia A. Dinkins, Director Fort Worth Wing and Masque Players General Dynamics/Fort Worth Recreation Association Playhouse 2966 Park Hill Drive Fort Worth, Texas Pieter Vander Ohet, Director Hartford Mark Twain Masquers Post Office Box 787 Hartford, Connecticut John K, Sinclair, President Akron Stow Players, Ino. 34-75 Edgewood Avenue Stow, Ohio Robert E. Vogel, President 175 Weathervane Community Playhouse 1474 Copley Road Akron, Ohio Boh Belfance, Director Oklahoma City Hummers Theatre 1108 W. Main Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma John Orr, Business Manager T oung s t own-Wa rren Hew Castle Playhouse Box 241 New Castle, Pennsylvania Roger Jones, President Trumbull Hew Theatre, Inc. Box 374 Warren, Ohio Joel T. Tost, Treasurer Sacramento Sacramento Civic Theatre 1419 H Street Sacramento, California Anthony Reid, Director-Manager Honolulu Honolulu Community Theatre Port Rnger Honolulu, Hawaii L. Newell Tarrant & Miss Jane Campbell, Managing Dir. & Secy. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Civic Little Theatre of Allentown 519 N. Nineteenth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania Marshall Ackerman, President Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke Faith Church Players Springfield, Massachusetts W. 3. Holland, Immediate Past President, Membership Director 176

Omaha Omaha Playhouse 6915 Cass Street Omaha, Nebraska Kendrick Wilson, Executive Director Toledo Repertoire Little Theatre 16 Tenth Street Toledo, Ohio Harry G. Fenneberg, Executive Secretary Tulsa Tulsa Little Theatre, Inc. 1511 S. Delaware Tulsa, Oklahoma Howard R. Orras, Director Tulsa Spotlighters, Inc. I38I Riverside Drive Tulsa, Oklahoma Robert L. Kaufman, President Richmond Virginia Museum Theatre Boulevard and Grove Avenue Richmond, Virginia Robert S. Telford, Producer-Director Nashville Theatre Nashville (originally Community Playhouse) Nashville, Tennessee Miss Dellanne Avantaggio, Secretary, 3oard of Directors Grand Rapids Grand Rapids Civic Theatre 24 Ransom Avenue, N. E. Grand Rapids, Michigan Paul Dreher, Managing Director Harrisburg Harrisburg Community Theatre 513 Hurlock Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Peter Carnahan, Managing Director 177 Wichita Wichita Community Theatre 110 S. Battin Wichita, Kansas Mrs. Robert Teall, Managing Director Canton The Drama Guild Saint Paul's Episcopal Church Canton, Ohio Albert 3. Gill, Chairman Players Guild 1717 Market Avenue ITorth Canton, Ohio Conrad Wolfe, Managing Director Bridgeport Polka Dot Playhouse, Inc. 412 Welch's Point Road Milford, Connecticut David D. Reed, President Port Lauderdale-Hollywood Hollywood little Theatre Box 1561 Hollywood, Florida Howard Greenfield, President Utica-Rome Rome Community Theatre, Inc. (merger of Rome Theater Guild and Rome Civic Theater) 209 Wager Drive Rome, Hew York Roderick W. Foote, President Worcester Players Club 31 Beechmont Street Worcester, Massachusetts Miss Geraldine Persons, Secretary 178 Tacoma Tacoma Little Theatre Scandanavian Hall Tacoma, Washington Helen Weed, Executive Secretary-Mamager Orlando Orange Blossom Playhouse 4321 H. Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida Virginia Cortez, Secretary Orlando Players Little Theatre Post Office Box 2429 Orlando, Florida Evelyn Cole Duelos, President Motile Joe Jefferson Players, Inc. Post Office Box 772 Mobile, Alabama Mrs. Anne Evans, President Beaumont-Port Arthur Beaumont Community Players, Inc. Post Office Box II36 Beaumont, Texas Leo E. Hey, President Port Arthur Little Theatre Port Arthur, Texas Joe M. Pavalho, President Lansing Lansing Civic Players Post Office Box 1257 Lansing, Michigan Mel Herr, Business Manager Peoria Peoria Players 43OO H. University Avenue Peoria, Illinois (Mrs.) Margaret B. Smith, Secretary Chattanooga Chattanooga Little Theatre, Inc. Eighth Street and Park Avenue Chattanooga, Tennessee Alfred E. Smith, President Shreveport Little Theatre of Shreveport 812 Margaret Place Shreveport, Louisiana John Wray '.'oung, Director The Spotlighters Drama Club 1300 Mark Avenue Bossier City, Louisiana Joan Lamb, Director Johnstown Penn Wood Players Chamber of Commerce Johnstown, Pennsylvania Howard A. Hill, Member of the Board of Directors Lancaster Lancaster Theater Arts Association 2747 Brookfield Eoad Lancaster, Pennsylvania Jeanne Clemson Spokane Spokane Civic Theatre Post Office Bor 692 Spokane, Washington Mrs. M. D. Tomlinson, Executive Secretary

Duluth-Sup e r10 r Duluth Playhouse 12 East Avenue and Superior Street Superior, Wisconsin Corlnne Lauterbach, Member of the Board of Directors 180

Charlotte Little Theatre of Charlotte, Inc. 501 Queen's Road Charlotte, North Carolina Thomas B. Hernoble, Managing Director Davenport-Rock Island-Moline Playcrafters, Inc. (Moline, Illinois) 38th Street at Blackhawk Road Rock Island, Illinois Betty Stevens, President Des Moines Des Moines Community Playhouse 831 Porty-second Street Des Moines, Iowa Ted Kehoe, Managing Director Drama Workshop of Des Moines Pirst Unitarian Church Des Moines, Iowa Curtis C. Page, Vice President Albuquerque Albuquerque Little Theatre 224 San Pasquale Avenue S. W. Albuquerque, New Mexico Bernard B. Thomas, Director Army-Navy-Air Porce Players Sandla Base Albuquerque, New Mexico Bryan Hull, Entertainment Director Huntington Community Players, Inc. Box 1713 Huntington, West Virginia R. G. Schroeder, President Charleston Kanawha Players, Inc. Box 971 Charleston, Nest Virginia Chris Rlngham, Director APPENDIX III

COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

181 182

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Speech. 154 North Oval Drive Columbus 10, Ohio March 15, 1963 Dear Sir: I'm sure you will agree that there have been many changes In the world since 1950. This Is probably equally true of community theatre practices, although that is the year that a comprehensive survey of them last was made. As part of my doctoral program at Ohio State University, I am undertaking a survey to determine the current status of comT munity theatres ahd the plays they are producing in the coun­ try' s one hundred largest metropolitan areas. The enclosed questionnaire is designed to permit you to answer with as little interruption to your busy schedule as possible; probably it can be completed in less than half an hour. In most cases a check mark or one-word answer Is all that is necessary, but please feel free to add any com­ ments which you might like to make. Should your theatre be composed entirely of members of a particular church, club, educational Institution, etc., please make a note to that effect on the first page of the questionnaire. Uhere specif­ ic figures are requested, if the 1962-1963 season figures are not yet complete enough to give a representative Indication, the 1961-1962 season figures will suffice. If you have a printed season brochure for your the­ atre, historical data, or news of any unusual activities, their inclusion would be greatly appreciated. A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed for the return of the ques­ tionnaire. Upon tabulation of the survey, you will be mail­ ed a report of the results. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, fu 'dnAnul p. Richard J. Warye»^ 183 COMMUNITY THEATRES QUESTIONNAIRE Name of organization...... Year established . . . Total number of members ...... Approx. number of members active in productions ...... Are production audiences private or open to the public? ( ) Private / ( ) Public Number of members on executive board:..(Men: . . Women: . . ) Number of standing committees: ...... Number of full-time p ?.ld positions: . Please check titles: ( ) Managing Director ( ) Secretary-01 eric ) Play Director ( ) Actors ) Treasurer-Business Mgr.( ) Janitor ) Tech. Dir.-Designer ...... Number of part-time paid positions: . . Please check titles: ( ) Managing Director ( ) Secretary-Clerk ( ) Play Director ( ) Actors ( ) Treasurer-Business Mgr.( ) Janitor ( ) Tech. Dir.-Designer ...... Does the same director direct all major productions? Yes No FINANCING: Overall budget for the current season: $ . , ...... Sources of income (Please check all sources and circle the ?rimary source): ) Membership dues (Cost per membership: $ ...... ) ( ) Season ticket sales (Price of season ticket: $ . . . Number sold: . . . . ) { ) Individual admissions (Price per ticket: $ ...... Number sold: . . . . ) ) Municipal funds ) United Appeals allocations ) Endowments ) Private donations ( ) Corporate donations ( ) Other PRODUCTION STATISTICS: Number of club (general membership) meetings per year, If applicable: ...... Number of major productions per year: ...... Number of performances per production: ...... Average attendance per production ...... Number of full-length productions, other than major, per y e a r : ...... Number of performances per prod.: .... Average attendance per prod.: ...... Number of one-act plays produced per y e a r : ...... Number of per­ formances per prod.: ...... Average attendance per prod.:. . . . » . Number of cMMrente plays produced per y e a r : ...... 1 8 4

Number of performances per production: ...... Average attendance per production: ...... Are there any other regularly sponsored theatrical activi­ ties? ( ) Yes; ( ) No. If yes, please list: ^ . Does your organization produce musicals? ( ) Yes; ( ) No; If yes, is there a set policy about their frequency? ( ) Yes, ___ per year; ( ) No. If yes, what type accompaniment is used? ( ) Orchestra of ___ pieces ( ) Two pianos (or piano and organ) ( ) Piano and rhythm ( ) Solo piano PLAY SELECTION:

By whom are the plays selected? ( ) Director ( ) Committee excl. director ( ) Executive board ( ) Comm, and exec. board ( ) Committee incl. director ( ) Other How are the plays selected? ( ) Separately; ( ) As a season bill. Please indicate with a check mark the two most troublesome problems encountered in play selection, and with an "X" the two least troublesome: Adapting desired scripts to technical production problems Adapting desired scripts to available talent Avoiding undesirable subject matter or plot situations Avoiding undesirable language Obtaining releases on desired scripts. Obtaining agreement among committee High royalties on desired scripts High production costs required by desired scripts Other: ...... Indicating only those types which you produce, please rank in order your organization's probable preferences in types of plays (1 being most desired): Recent comedies Classic drama (of past ten years) Standard comedies _Avant-garde (c. 1900-1952) Classic comedies Hjrsterles Recent drama 19th century (of past ten years) melodfoaa Standard drama Originals (c. 1900-1952) Would you, in general, hesitate to produce the work of any of the following playwrights? ( ) Edward Albee ) Arthur Miller ( ) Samuel Beckett ) Eugene O'Neill ( ) William Inge ( ) Jean Paul Sartre ( ) Eugene Ionesco ( ) 185 CASTING: By whom are the plays cast? ( ) Committee Including director ( ) Director ( ) Committee excluding director ( ) Other PRODUCTION FACILITIES: Does your organization have its own theatre? ( ) Yes; ( ) No Does your org. have its own meeting place? ( ) Yes; ( ) No Does your organization have its own workshops for scenery, costumes, etc.? ( ) Yes; ( ) No If you do not have your own theatre, where are productions given? ( ) Church auditorium ( ) Municipal auditorium ( ) School auditorium ( ) YKCA or YWCA auditorium ( ) Lodge hall ( ) Other: ...... What type stage is used for major productions? ( ) Proscenium; ( ) Arena; ( ) Both What are the dimensions of the acting a r e a ? ...... Capacity of the auditorium...... Are you planning to build or remodel? ( ) Yes; ( ) No Have you done any building or remodeling since 1950? Yes; No GENERAL: Is any professional theatre available in your area? Yes; No If yes, what type? ( ) Broadway ( ) Summer stock ( ) Road companies ( ) Winter stock/repertory Please list the major productions scheduled for your 1962-1963 season: Production: Performance dates:

Person completing questionnaire: ...... Position: ...... If available without too much inconvenience, please attach a list of plays produced by your organization from the 1950-lfjJl season to the present. APPENDIX IV TABLE 32 LIST OP 1962-1963 MAJOR PRODUCTIONS

JA Of Play Author Type prods.

Critic's Choice Levin Re c. Com. 17 Come Blow Your Horn Simon Rec. Com. 15 Everybody Loves Opal Patrick Rec. Com. 14 Write Me a Murder Knott Mystery 12 The Miracle Worker Gibson Rec. Drama 11 Little Mary Sunshine Besoyan Musical 10 The Pantasticks Jones & Sohmldt Musical 9 The Best Man Vidal Rec. Drama 8 A Majority of One Spigelgass Rec. Com. 8 Send Me No Plowers Barasch & Moore Rec. Com. 8 All the Way Home Mosel Rec. Drama 7 Auntie Marne Lawrence & Lee Rec. Com. 6 Invitation to a March Laurents Re c. Com. 6 Mister Roberts Heggen & Logan Std. Com. 6 Picnic Inge Rec. Drama 6 The Pleasure of His Company Taylor & Skinner Re c. Com. 6 A Thurber Carnival Thurber & Elliott Musical 6 Under the Yum-Yum Tree Roman Rec. Com. 6 The Diary of Anne Prank Hackett & Goodrich Re c. Drama 5 The Marriage-Go-Round Stevens Rec. Com. 5 The Unexpected Guest Christie Mystery 5 Anniversary Waltz Chodorov & Fields Rec. Com. 4 Bye, Bye, Birdie Stewart et al. Musical 4 The Caine Mutiny Court Martial Wouk Rec. Drama 4 The Captain's Paradise Coppel Re c. Com. 4 Damn Yankees Abbott et al. Musical 4 The Deadly Game Duerrenmatt Mystery 4 Death of a Salesman Miller Std. Drama 4 The Gazebo Coppell R. Com.-Mys. 4 Golden Pleeclng Semple Rec. Com. 4 Middle of the Night Chayefsky Rec. Drama 4 186 187 TABLE 32— Continued

Jl Play Author Type Prods,

The Music Man WHIs on Musical 4 The Rainmaker Nash Rec. Drama 4 The Silver Whistle McEnroe Std• Com• Summer and Smoke Williams Std. Drama Becket Anouilh/Hi11 Rec* Drama 3 Blithe Spirit Coward Std. Com. 3 Born Yesterday Kanin Std. Com. 3 Come Back. Little Sheba Inge Std. Drama 3 The Devlin Advocate Schary Rec. Drama 3 The Fourposter deHartog St d * Com. 3 The Glass Menagerie Williams Std. Drama 3 Guys and Dolls Loesser Musical 3 Hamlet Shakespeare Classic Dr. 3 Harvey Chase Std. Com. 3 The Imaginary Invalid Kollere Classic Com. 3 Inherit the Wind Lawrence & Lee Rec. Drama 3 J. B. MacLelsh Rec. Drama 3 Look Homeward Angel Frlngs Rec. Drama 3 The Matchmaker Wilder Rec. Com. 3 The Most Happy Fella Loesser Musical 3 My Three Angels Spewack & Spewack Rec. Com. 3 Once Upon a Mattress Thompson et al. IWislcal 3 Rhinoceros Ionesco Avanb-garde 3 See How They Run King Std. Com. 3 The Seven Year Itch Axelrod Rec. Com. 3 Showboat Kern et al. Musical 3 South Pacific Rodgers & Hmrstn. Musical 3 Silent Night, Lonely Night R. Anderson Rec. Drama 3 The Tender Trap Shulman & Smith Re c. Com. 3 The Tenth Man Chayefsky Rec. Drama 3 Toys In the Attic Heilman Rec. Drama 3 Who’ll Save the Plowboy? Gilroy Rec. Drama 3 Ahmal and the Night Visitors Carlo-Menotti Musical/Op. 2 Ah, Wilderness! O'Neill Classic Com. 2 The American Dream Albee One act 2 Angel Street Hamilton Mystery 2 Annie Get Your Gun Berlin Musical 2 Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare Cl. Drama 2 Arms and the Man Shaw Std. Drama 2 The Bald Soprano Ionesco One act 2 188 TABLE 32— Continued

^ of Play Author Type Prods.

Blood, Sweat, and Stanley Poole J. & W. Goldman Rec. Com. 2 Breath of Spring Coke Rec. Com. 2 Brlgadoon Lerner & Loewe Musical 2 Carnival Merrill & Stewart Musical 2 Cat on a Hot Tin Boof Williams B6d. Drama 2 Caesar and Cleopatra Shaw Std. Drama 2 The Chalk Garden Bagnold Rec. Drama 2 Charley's Aunt Thoma s Cl. Com. 2 The Country Girl Odets Std. Drama 2 Darkness at Noon Kingsley Std. Drama 2 A Far Country Denker Rec. Drama 2 Fiorello! Weidman et al. Musical 2 Five Finger Exercise Shaffer Rec. Drama 2 The 49th Cousin Lowe & Franeke Rec. Com. 2 Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Fields et al. Musical 2 The Happy Time Taylor Std. Com. 2 Hedda Gabler Ibsen Cl. Drama 2 A Hole in the Head Schulman Rec. Com. 2 The Hostage Eehan Rec. Com. 2 The Importance of BeSag Earnest Wilde Cl. Com. 2 An Inspector Calls Priestly Std. Drama 2 Kismet Wrieht et al. Musical 2 Krapp's Last Tape Beckett One act 2 Life With Father Lindsay & Crouse Std. Com. 2 The Man in the Dog Suit Belch & Wright Rec. Com. 2 Monique D.& M. Blankfort Mystery 2 Much Ado About Sfothlng Shakespeare Cl. Com. 2 Oklahomat Rodgers & Hmrstn. Musical 2 Purlle Victorious Davis c. Com. 2 A Baisln in the Sun Hansberry Rec. Drama 2 Reclining Figure Kurnitz Rec. Com. 2 Ring Round the Moon Anouilh/Fry Std. Com. 2 Roar Like a Dove Storm Rec. Com. 2 Roman Candle Sheldon Rec. Com. 2 Romanoff and Juliet Ustinov Rec. Com. 2 Sabrina Fair Taylor Rec. Com. 2 The School for Scandal Sheridan Cl. Com. 2 The Solid Gold Cadillac T e i chmann/Kauftaa n Rec. Com. 2 The Sound of Murder Fairchild Hystery 2 189 TABLE *32— Continued

21 q£* Play Author Type FrodB.

A Streetcar Mamed Desire Williams Std. Drama 2 Teahouse of the August Moon Patrick Std. Com. 2 The Time of Your Life Saroyan Std. Drama 2 Three Men on a Horse Holm & Abbott Std. Com. 2 The Threepenny Opera Brecht & Weill Musical 2 The Visit Duerrenroa t t^alency Bee. Drama 2 Visit to a Small Planet Vidal Rec. Com. 2 Where's Charley? Loesser Musical 2 The Wizard of Oz Goodspeed Std. Com. 2 The Women Luce Std. Com. 2 You Can't Take It With You Kaufman & Hart Std. Com. 2 Affairs of State Verneuil Std. Com. 1 All the King's Men Warren Std. Drama 1 Androcles & the Lion Shaw Std. Drama 1 An Ideal Husband Wilde Cl. Comedy 1 Anna Christie O'Neill Std. Drama 1 Anne of the Thousand Days i'j. Anderson Std. Drama 1 Another Part of the Forefcfc Heilman Std. Drama 1 The Anvil (unknown) Original 1 The Apollo of Bellac Giradoux One act 1 April Showers (unknown) Original 1 Archy and Mehltabel Marauis et al. Musical 1 Arsenic and Old lace Kesselring Std. Com. 1 As You Like It Shakespeare Cl. Comedy 1 The Bad Seed M. Anderson Bee. Drama 1 Barefoot in Athens M. Anderson Std. Drama 1 Bedtime Story O'Casey One act 1 Before Breakfast O'Neill One act 1 Bells Are Binging Comden et al. Musical 1 Bell, Book, & Candle Van Druten Rec. Com. 1 Beyond the Horizon O'Neill Std. Drama 1 The Boy Friend Wilson Musical 1 Bus Stop Inge Rec. Com. 1 Cakewalk Gottschalt One act 1 Call Him Louder (unknown) Original 1 Call Me Madam Berlin et al. Musical 1 Can Can Porter/Burrows Musical 1 190 TABLE 32 — Continued

# of Play Author Type Prods.

The Caretaker Pinter Rec. Drama 1 Carmen Bizet Mus./Opera 1 Caught In the Villain’s Web Swayne Melodrama 1 The Cave Dwellers Saroyan Re c. Drama 1 Champagne Complex Stevens Rec. Com. 1 A Chekhov Sketchbook Kalison/Waren ad. Std. Drama 1 Chicken Soup with Earley Wesker Rec. Drama 1 A Child Is Born Btnet One act 1 Children of Darkness Mayer Std. Drama 1 Christ In the Concrete City Turner One act 1 A Christmas Carol Dickens One act 1 Clerambard Ayme Std. Com. 1 The Clouds Aristophanes Cl. Comedy 1 Clutterbuck Levy Std. Com. 1 Compulsion Levin Rec. Drama 1 A Cook for Mr. General Gellers Rec. Com. 1 The Cradle Song MartInez-Sierra Std. Drama 1 Crosswords Kent Original 1 The Crucible Miller Rec. Drama 1 Cue for Passion Rice Rec. Drama 1 The Curious Savage Patrick Std • Com. 1 Curse You, Jack Dalton Braun Melodrama 1 The Dark at the Top of £he Stairs Inge Rec. Drama 1 Dark of the Moon Richardson/Berney Std. Drama 1 Dear Charles Melville Rec* Com. 1 Desire Under the Elms O'Neill Std. Drama 1 The Desperate Hours Hayes Rec. Drama 1 Destry Hides Again Gershe-Rome Musical 1 The Disenchanted Schulberg-Breit Rec. Drama 1 The Doctor's Dilemma Shaw Std. Drama 1 Don Juan in Hell Shaw Std. Dragia 1 The Dover Road Milne std. Com. 1 Dracula Deane Balderston Mystery 1 The Drunkard Smith Melodrama 1 Duet for Two Hands Bell Mystery 1 The Exception & the Rule Erecht One act 1 Fanny Rome et al. Musical 1 A Faraway Place Hirschbein Std. Drama 1 Festival of Drama (unknown) Orlg. lacts 1 191 TABLE 32— Continued

# of Play Author Type Prods.

The Fifth Season Reagan Rec. Com. 1 Flnian's Rainbow Harburs: et al. Musical 1 Finnegan's Wake Joyce Rec. Drama 1 Gallows Humor Richardson One act 1 Garden District Williams One acts 1 The Glaconda Smile Huxley Mystery 1 Glgl Loos Re c• Com. 1 The Girls In 5°9 Te1chmann Rec. Com. 1 Golden Boy Odets Std. Drama 1 The Good Woman of Setzuan Brecht Rec. Drama 1 The Golden Apple Latouche &Moross Musical 1 The Grass Is Greener H. & M. Williams Rec. Com. 1 The Great Big Doorstep Goodrich & Hackett Std. Drama 1 Guest in the House Wilde & Eunson Rec. Com. 1 The Hairy Ape O'Neill Std. Drama 1 Hamlet of Stepney Greas Kops Unknown 1 The Happiest Million­ aire Crichton Rec. Com. 1 Happy Birthday Loos Std. Com. 1 The Hasty Heart Patrick Std. Com. 1 The Heiress R. & A. Goetz Std. Drama 1 He Who Gets Slapped Atidreyev Std. Drama 1 High Ground Hastings Bee. Draipa 1 H.M.S. Pinafore Gilbert/Sullivan Musical 1 The Hollow Christie Mystery 1 Homecoming Festival (unknown) Originals 1 The Hungerers Saroyan One act 1 I Am a Camera Van Druten Std. Drama 1 I Killed the Count Coppel Mystery 1 I*m Telling About Jerusalem Wesker Rec. Drama 1 The Innocents A.rchibald & James Rec. Drama 1 Iolsnthe G1lbert/Sul1Ivan Musical 1 Irma la Douce Monnot et al. Musical 1 Jason Raphaelson Std. Com. 1 Johnny Belinda Hmrrigrrx.r Bee. Drama 1 Juno and the Paycock 0' Casey Std. Drama 1 King of Hearts Kerr and Brooke Rec. Com. 1 Kiss Me, Kate Spewacks & Porter Musical 1 The Knack Jellicoe Rec. Com. 1 Krapp's Last Tape Beckett One act 1 192 TABLE 32— Continued

# of Play Author Type Prods,

The Lady * s Not for Burning Pry Std. Drama The Late Geo. Apley Ka rqua n d/Ka u fman Std. Drama Late Love CSasey Rec. Com. Larger than Life (unknown) Unknown The Lark Anouilh/Keliman Std. Drama Laura Caspary & Sklar Mystery The Lesson Ionesco One act Light ifp the Sky Hart Std. Com. L l 11 Abner Mercer & DePaul Musical The Little Poxes Heilman Std. Drama Live Like Pigs Arden Rec. Drama The Long Christmas Dinner Wilder One act The Loud Red Patrick Boroff Rec. Com. Love Rides the Rails Cary Melodrama The Lower Depths Gorky Std. Drama Lullaby Appell Rfee• Com. Macbeth Shakespeare Cl. Drama Madame Butterfly Puccini Mus./Opera The Madwoman of Chaillot Giradoux Std. Drama Major Barbara Shaw Std. Drama The Male Animal Thurber & Nugent Std. Com. A Man for All Seasons Bolt Rec. Drama The Man Who Came to Dinner Kaufman & Hart Std. Com. Marco Millions O'Neill Std. Drama Mary, Mary Kerr Rec. Com. Maybe Tuesday Tolken & Kallen Rec. Com. Medea Euripides Cl. Drama Memory of Two Mondays Miller One acts A Midsummer Night's Dream Shakespeare Cl. Comedy The Mikado Gilbert/Sullivan Musical Milk and Honey Appell & Herman Musical Misalliance Shaw Std. Com. Mrs. Warren's Bxfesslon Shaw Std. Drama Mister and Mistress (unknown) New Comedy Mister Angel Segall Rec. Com. The Moon Is Blue Herbert Std. Com. The Mousetrap Christie Mystery Murder in the Cathedral Eliot Std. Drama 193 TABLE 32—-Continued

# of Play Author Type Prods.

(Musical revue) (unknown) Musical 1 Nature * s Way Wouk Rec. Com. 1 No Strings Rodgers Musical 1 No Time for Sergeants Levin ^ec. Com. 1 Not In the Book Watkyn Mystery 1 Nude with Violin Coward Rec. Com. 1 October Festival Dace Orig. Dr. 1 Oh, Dad, Poor Dad, etc. Koplt Rec• Com. 1 0 Mistress Mine Ratigan Rec. Com. 1 Once More with Feeling Kuraitz Rec. Com. 1 One Bright Day Miller Rec. Drama 1 On the Hocks (unknown) Musical 1 On Trial Rice SfeA. Drama 1 Operation Mad Ball Carter Rec. Com. 1 ^Original Contest) (unknown) Original 1 (Original Musical) Davenport Orig. Mus. 1 Oroheus Descending Williams Rec. Drama 1 Othello Shakespeare Cl. Drama 1 Our American Cousin Taylor Melodrama 1 Our Town Wilder Std. Drama 1 The Pajama Game Bissell et al. Musical 1 Period of Adjustment Williams Rec. Com. 1 Peter Pan Barrie Std. Drama 1 Patterns Serling Rec. Drama 1 The Perfect Alibi Milne Mystery 1 The Pillars of Society Ibsen Cl. Drama 1 A Phoenix Too Frequent Fry One act 1 Pool's Paradise Lynch Rec. Com. 1 Portrait in Black Goff & Roberts Mystery 1 Present Leughter Coward Std. Com. 1 Princess Ida Gilbert/Sullivan Musical 1 Purple Dust O' Casey Comedy 1 Pygmalion Shaw Std. Drama 1 Rashomon P*c4 Mr Kanin Rec. Drama 1 Headings fm. L. Carroll Carroll ad. One act 1 A Besounding Tinkle Simpson Rec. Com. 1 Richard II Shakespeare Cl. Drama 1 Richard III Shakespeare Cl. Drama 1 The Rivals Sheridan Cl. Comedy 1 Riverwind Jennings Musical 1 Room Service Murray & Boretz Std. Com. 1 Roots Wesker Rec. Drama 1 The Royal Family Kaufman & Ferber Std. Com. 1 TABLE S2— ‘Continued

Play Author Type p^ods.

Royal Gambit Gressieker Rec. Drama Sailor Beware! King & Gary Rec* Com. A Scrap of Paper Sardou CIS. Com. The Sea Gull Chekhov Cl. Drama Separate Rooms Gottlieb et al. Std. Com. Shadow and Substance Garroll Std. Drama She Stoops to Conquer Goldsmith Cl. Comedy A Shot In the Dark Achard/Kurnitz Mystery The Shy Girl (unknown) Orig. muB. Six Characters in Search of an Author Pirandello Std. Drama The Sleeping Prince Rattigan Rec. Com. Someone Waiting Williams Mystery The Sorcerer Gilbert/Sullivan Musical The Sound of Music Rodgers & Hmrstn. Musical Speaking of Murder A. & W. Boos Mystery (A Special Easter Play) (unknown) Unknown Stalag 17 Bevan Trzcinski Std. Com. Stardust Kerr Std. Com. The Stations of the Cross (unknown) Rec. Drama Strange Bedfellows Ryerson & Clements Std. Com. Sunday in New York Krasna Rec. Com. Sweet Bird of Youth Williams Rec. Drama Take a Giant Step Peterson Rec. Drama Take Her, She's Mine P. & H. Ephron Rec. Com. Take Me Along Merrill et al. Musical Ten Little Indians Christie Mystery Time of the Cuckoo Laurents Rec. Drama Thieved* Carnival Anouilh Rec. Com. This Property Is Condemned Williams One act (Three One Acts) (unknown) Orig. 1 act Time Remembered Anouilh Rec. Drama Tom Jones (unknown) Orig. mus. A Touch of Marble (unknown) One act A Touch of the Poet O'Neill Std. Drama Train to Santiago (unknown) One act Too True to Be Good Shaw Std. Drama Trial By Jury Gilbert/Sullivan Musical The Tunnel of Love Fields & DeVries Rec. Com. Twelve Angry Men Rose Rec. Drama Under the Gaslight (unknown) Unknown Under the Sycamore Tree Spewack Rec. Com. 195 TABLE 32— Continued

# of Play Author Type Prods.

The Unsinkable Molly Brown Willson & Morris Musical 1 Variety Evening on Eroadway (unknown) Musical 1 Wake Up, Darling Gottlieb He c. Com. 1 The Wall Lampell Rec. Drama 1 Way Down East (unknown) Orig, mus. 1 West Side Story Robbins et al. Musical 1 White Butterfly (unknown) One act 1 The Whole Darned Shooting Match Perry Rec. Com. 1 The Wild Duck Ibsen Std. Drama 1 Wildcat -ash et. al. Musical 1 The Wind at Your Back Wolf Orig. Dr. 1 Winterset M. Anderson Std. Drama 1 The Winter's Tale Shakespeare Cl. Comedy 1 Witness for the Prosecution Christie Mystery 1 The Woman from Colchis Seniers Orig. Dr. 1 The World of Suzie Wong Osborn Rec. Drama 1 Wonderful Town Bernstein et al. Musical 1 A Worm In Horse­ radish E. Kaufman Rec. Com. 1 Y Bits of Hits (unknown) Mus. revue 1 Years Ago Gordon Std. Com • 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 9 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Auer, -J. Jeffery. An Introduction to Research In Speech. New York: Harper and. Brothers, 1959. Bailey, Howard. The ABO's of Play Producing. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1955. Carter, Jean» and Jess Ogden. Everyman's Drama: A Study of the Non-Commercial Theatre in the Uniteft States. New York: American Association for AdulF Education, 1938. Dean, Alexand er. Little Theatre Organization and Manage­ ment. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1926. Dow, Clyde W., (ed.). An Introduction to Graduate Study in Speech and Theatre. East Lansingf Michigan: Michi­ gan State University Press, 1951. Freedley, George, and John A. Reeves. A History of the The­ atre . (Revised edition) New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1955. Gard, Robert E., and Gertrude S. Burley. Community Theatre: Idea and Achievement. New York: Duell, Sloan, and fearce, 1959. Hansen, Harry, (ed.). The World Almanac and Book of Pacts. (1963 edition) New York: The New York World-Tele- gram and The Sun, 1963. Houghton, Norris. Advance from Broadway. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 19^-1. ~ Macgowan, Kenneth. Footlights Across America. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1929. Macgowan, Kenneth, and William Melnitz. The Living Stage. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. 197 198 Mackaye, Percy. The Civic Theatre. New York and London: Mitchell Eennerley, 1912. Mantle, Burns, et al. The Bums Mantle Yearbooks (The Best Plays of — J. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Oo. Mason, Jerry, (ed.). Creative America. New York: The Eidge Press, Inc., 19^2.

McCleery, Albert, and Carl Glick. Curtains Going U p . New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1939. Perry, Clarence Arthur. The Work of the Little Theatres. New York: Bussell Sage Foundation, 1933. Bockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. The Performing ArtB: Prob­ lems and Prospects. Bockefeller Panel Beport on the future of theatre, dance, music In America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. United States Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1965. (86th edition) Washington, D. C.t U.^S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Weinberg, George H., and John A. Schumaker. Statistics: An Intuitive Approach. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1962. Wright, Edward A. A Primer for Playgoers. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Young, John Wray. The Community Theatre. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Periodicals Biggs, Margaret C. "Letter to the Editor," Life, (August 30, 1963), 15. Blake, Christopher. "The Tried and the Tired," Theatre Arts. XXXVII (June, 1953), 26-27. "Brightness in the Air," Time, (December 18, 1964), 46-58. Boswell, Charles, and Lewis Thompson. "By Special Arrange­ ment with Samuel French, Coronet. XIL (May, I960), 172-179. Brown, Gilmor. "A Director's Comment on Community Theatres." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. XXXVI (April, 1950J, 233-234. 199 Call, Harold L. "Two on the Aisle," Portland (Maine) Sunday Telegram, October 7, 1962. Cloonan, Richard T. "Theatre TJ. S. A,: Detroit," Theatre Arts, XLIV (October, I960), 62-65, 78. Ooleman, Sally. "The Councils Take Counsel," Saturday Review. XLIX (April 30, 1966), 59-60. Collier, James Lincoln. "Completely Off Broadway," Holiday. XXXIX (March, 1966), 32-41. "Community Drama Marches On," Recreation, XLVI (March, 1953)»~ 604-605. Congressional Quarterly. XXIII (October 1, 1965, and October 15, 1965), 1969, 2108. Creedman, Michael. "Amateur Theatricals Grow, Aid Equipment Suppliers, Playwrights," Wall Street Journal. CLIX (March 16, 1962), 1.

"Culture Over Athletics," Parade. Sunday, March 3, 1963* Dietrich, John TJ., and William 7Jork. "Dramatic Activity in American Community Theatres: 1949-1950," The Quarter­ ly Journal of Speech. XXXVII (April, 1951), 185-190.” "Everybody Gets in the Acting," Life. XLI (July 23, 1956), 105-112. "First Little Theatre," Recreation. XLVIII (May, 1955), 242. Gard, Robert E. "Grassroots Theatre: A Search for Regional Arts in America," Theatre Arts. XXXIX (September, 1955), 62-64, 95-9^7 Gard, Robert E. "Wisconsin Idea and Ideal," Theatre Arts. XLIII (August, 1959), 16-19. Kerr, Walter. "The Jump to Broadway," Theatre Arts, XXXIV (May, 1950), 57-59. Lewiston (Maine) Daily Sun. Tuesday, July 5, 1966. Glackin, W. 0. "Civic Theatre with Civic Purpose," Theatre Arts. XXXVIII (September, 1954), 69-70. Griffin, Alice. "Big JobB for Little Theatres," Theatre Arts. XXXVIII (April, 1954), 9 0. 200

Griffin, Alice. "Theatre U. S. A." Theatre Arts, XXXVIII (September, 1954), 82-84. Griffin, Alice. "Theatre U. S. A.: Community Theatre Comes of Age,” Theatre Arts. XL (June, 1956), 56-60. Griffin, Alice. "Theatre U. S. A.: In the Pioneer Tradition," Theatre Arts, XXXVII (October, 1953), 81-85. Griffin, Alice. "Theatre U. S. A.: Production Problems of Town and Gown," Theatre Arts, XXXVIII (October, 1954), 81-87. Hayes, Helen. "Start a Little Theatre," The Rotarlan, LXXXVIII (January, 1956), 6-8 . Heinsheimer, H. W. "Grass-Roots Theatre— U. S. A." Hecrea­ tion. XLIX (February, 1956), 59-61. Hewes, Henry. "Hew Hat Circuit," Saturday Review, XLII (May 16, 1959), 59. Hewes, Henry. "Theatre Experimentation in Texas," Saturday Review. XLIII (June 4, I960), 30. Hilliard, Robert L. "Play Selection for the Community Thea­ tre," Encore. I (November-December, I960), 7, 20-21. Howard, Edwin. "Theatre Memphis," Theatre Arts. XLVI (Aug­ ust, 1962), 62-64. Hunt, Morton M. "Broadway on Main Street," Nation's Business. XL (March, 1952), 50, 55, 70-71. Kamarck, Edward L. "Sex, Censorship, and the Community The­ atre," Encore. I (January-February, 1961), 18-19. "'The Kids' and a Debut," Newsweek. LIII (*»J A, 1959), 57. "Leisure! How Now, Brown Cow?" Time. (March 1, 1963), 66. Lindsay, Howard. "Drop Tour Buckets Where You AreI" Theatre Arts. XLII (November, 1958), 11-13, 77. Maxwell, James A. "Stagestruck Americans," The Saturday Eve- nlng Post. CCXXXV (March 24, 1962), ^ 2 ^ 6 ^ ' Morehouse, Ward. '*Ten Thousand Miles of American Theatre," Theatre Arts. XLV (August, 1961), 57-59. 201

Murray, William. "The Culture Boom," Holiday. XXXIX (March, 1966), 70-75, 120-130. Musselman, Virginia, and Siebolt H. Frieswyk. "Drama Is Rec­ reations A Report on Drama in Public Recreation," Recreation. LV (February, 1962), 75-90. The Hew York TlmeB. Sunday, October 27, 1963, Sec. 1, p. 37. "Off Broadways An Indictment and a Hope," Theatre Arts. XXXVII (June, 1953), 16-17. Pryce-Jones, Alan. "Theatre Across the Country," Theatre Arts. LV (May, 1961), 25-26, 78. "Regional Theatre, 1950— Sjqnposlum," Theatre Arts. XXXIV (August, 1950), 24-66. "Regional Theatres U. S. A." Theatre Arts. XXXIII (August, 1949), 17-56. Ribicoff, Abraham. "The Theater As Teacher," Recreation. LIV (December, 1961), 516-517. Rosenfeld, John. "Ten Gallon Theatre— Little Theatre in the Southwest," Theatre Arts. XXXVII (June, 1953), 22-24. Smith, Alec. "A Citizen's Theatre— By and For the People," Recreation. LI (January, 1958;, 18-20. "Stage-Struck Texas," Life, XLV (December 22, 1958), 122-132. Stocker, Joseph. "Somewhere West of Broadway," The Survey, LXXXVII (November, 1951), 466-468. "Theater Groups," Life. LII (January 5, 1962), 12. Valency, Maurice. "Little Theatre, Come Blow Your Horn," Theatre Arts. XXXVII (June, 1953), 68-69 , 92. Walker, John A. "From Broadway to Malnstreet," Encore. II (August, 1963), 6-9. Watson, E. M. D. "Amateur Theatricals Are Big Business," Cosmopolitan, CXLIX (November, i960), 62-65.

Wolcott, Jean. "A Community Theatre," Recreation. XLIX (November, 1956), 434-435. Work, William. "Current Trends in Community Theatre Opera­ tion." The Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXV (December, 1949 ), 464-469. 202

Young, John Wray. \ Community Theatre Quiz," Theatre Arts. XLIV (August, I960), 16-20. Other Materials American Educational Theatre Association, Inc. "Hay Selec­ tion Recommendation." East Lansing, Michigan: American Educational Theatre Association, March, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Balch, Marston, (Executive Secretary, National Theatre Con­ ference; Co-Chairman, National Theatre Appraisal Committee). Interview, August 6 , 1966. Balch, Marston. Letters of May 9, 1963, and August 8 , 1966. Balch, Marston. "The Right flay in the Right Place: An Idea for Community Theatres, Bulletin of the New England Theatre Conference. Summer, 1955, 1-7. (Spirit du­ plicated. ) Bruno, Thaddeus B., (Chairman, Building Fund Campaign). "Portland Civic Theatre Fulfils a Dream, Portland (Oregon) Civic Theatre: A Community Workshop Designed for the Enhancement of the Living Stage, 1955, (Print ed bro chure.') Carnahan, Peter M., (Managing Director, Community Theatre of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), Reply to questionnaire. Duthie, Mary Eva. "A Directory of Nonprofessional Community Theatres in the United States, 1952." Compiled by t the Project on Theatre and Adult Education of The American Educational Theatre Association. Reprinted from the May, 1953, issue of the Educational Theatre Journal. Foote, Roderick W. , (President, Rome, New York, Community Theatre), Reply to questionnaire. Gustavson, Robert E., (Administrative laiem, The Ford Foun­ dation, The Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, CalifornlaX Letter of March 25, 1963. Hatfield, Douglas P., (President of the Board of Directors, Theater in the Round Players, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota), Reply to questionnaire. Havens, John P., (Editor, American Educational Theatre Associ­ ation Directory of Community Theatres, in prepara­ tion), Postal card of July, 1966. 203 Henriot, Rex, (Managing Director). "Community Theatre," Hamlet. Saint Paul: Theatre Saint Paul, March, 1963, 7 - 5 . (Print ed pro gram.) Holland, W. S., (Immediate Past President, Faith Church Players, Springfield, Massachusetts), Reply to ques­ tionnaire. The National Broadcasting Company. "The National Cultural Center," Network television program, November 11, 1962. "Le Petit Theatre du Vieux Carre Approaching a Half Century of Theatre," New Orleans: Le Petit Theatre du Vieux Carre, 1962. (Printed brochure.) Rowland, George A. "The Story of Encore," Kismet. Chicago: Encore Theatre, Inc., 1961. (Printed program.) Schoell, Edwin Robert. A Quantitative Analysis of the Con­ tributions of the Community Theatre to the Develop­ ment of the Drama" (Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. Grad­ uate College, University of Denver, 1951). Schuman, William Howard. (President, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts). Commencement Address, One Hundredth Commencement, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, April 25, 1966. Seism, Mack, (Managing Director). "Order of the Day: Strai^it Ahead with the Mummers," Oklahoma City: The Mummers Theatre, 1962-1963. (Printed brochure.) Swire, Willard. "Au Revoir," The APIA Newsletter. New York: The American National Theatre and Academy, June, 1962. Theater In the Round Players, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1962, (Printed season brochure.) VerBecke, W. Edwin. "Community Theatre Structure." Service Pamphlet. New York: The American National Theatre and Academy, February, 1953. (Mimeographed.) Warren, Harvey T. "Notes from the Director's Desk," Little Theatre of Clearwater, Florida. (Printed program.) Weston, Harold. 1962 NCAG Annual Report on Current Legis­ lation for the Arts. Prepared by the National Coun­ cil on the Arts' "and Government, Inc. New York, 1962.