The Group Theatre: an evaluation

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors James, Barry Lee, 1945-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 02/10/2021 02:29:25

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554486 THE GROUP THEATRE:. AN EVALUATION Barry Lee James

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7 3 STATEMENT BY.AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.

SIGNED:

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: niL WILLIAM A. LAN( Assistant Professor <£f Drama COPYRIGHTED

BY

BARRY LEE JAMES

1973

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Gratitude is expressed to Professor Peter R e Marroney, Head of

the Department of Drama, for his inspiration in the writing of this thesis. Special appreciation is extended to Rosemary P, Gipson, Assist­ ant Professor of Drama, for her patience, kindness, and devotion to

scholarship. Thanks are also given to William A, Lang, Assistant Pro­ fessor of Drama, for his editing and proofreading. TABLE OF CONTENTS

' Page

TR.ACT o e o e o o o o o o o o o-o o o o o o o o o o, o o o o o "VI

CHAPTER

1 FORMATION OF THE GROUP THEATRE ...... 1

2 ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE GROUP THEATRE ...... 20

An Adaptation of the Stanislavsky Acting System ...... 20 A Directorial Method Based on Stanislavsky .... 25 An Approach to Scene Design ...... 32 A Design for the Playwright ...... 36 A Mode of Living ...... 40

3 PROBLEMS OF THE GROUP THEATRE ...... 45

Misinterpretation of the Stanislavsky System Of Acting - o o o-o o.o e o o 6 o o o e e o o o 45 Lack of a Financial Base . . . . e » . . » . » » . 48 - Infiltration by the Communist Party . . . 0 « . . » 54 Dissatisfaction and Reorganization . . . » » « « o . 57

4 ANALYSIS OF THE TERMINATION AND INFLUENCE OF THE GROUP THEATRE . . . . .oo© © © © © © © © © © © © © © 64

Reasons for Dissolution of the Group Theatre . „ © 64 Influence of the Group Theatre ... © ....©© © 68

APPENDIX A: ACTORS WHO WERE GROUP THEATRE MEMBERS ©.©...© 75

APPENDIX B: SCENE DESIGNERS WHO WORKED WITH THE GROUP THEATRE . 76

APPENDIX O: GROUP THEATRE PRODUCTIONS ....©„....©. © 77

APPENDIX D: LETTER FROM PAUL MORRISON TO THE WRITER .©..©. 82

APPENDIX E: LETTER FROM ELIA KAZAN TO THE WRITER d ...... 85

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . © . © © © © © © » © © © © © © © © © © © 87 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this thesis is to study the achievements and the problems of the Group Theatre which appeared on the American scene dur­ ing the years 1931 to 19410 The Group Theatre was a splinter organiza­ tion of the Theatre Guild and grew to become one of the best known theatre companies of the 19301 s.

Although the contributions of the Group Theatre have been rec­ ognized by theatre historians, little has been done to evaluate their role in American theatre. Therefore, this study will investigate the formation, achievements, failure, and influences of the Group Theatre. CHAPTER 1

FORMATION OF THE GROUP THEATRE

The story of the Group Theatre begins in the decade of the

Roaring Twenties during an era of pleasure, good time jazz, and the

Charlestone The American theatre was coming into its own with the­ atrical activity flourishing as it never had before. The Theatre Guild, a professional New York art theatre dedicated to the production of plays of artistic merit not ordinarily produced by commercial managers, ex­ perimented with a variety of new plays and with new methods of produc­ tion (Hewitt 1959:327). The Provincetown Players, a group dedicated to the production of plays by Americans, headed by playwright Eugene

O ’Neill, scene designer Robert Edmond Jones, and critic Kenneth Maegowen, worked with new playwrights (Hewitt 1959:331). Actress Eva LeGallienne revived repertory in New York with the formation of the Civic Repertory

Theatre in 1926 (Hewitt 1959:365), and playwright Eugene O ’Neill achieved international stature with his work (Brockett 1968:638). Producer and director Arthur Hopkins experimented with new production techniques, and designers Lee Simonson, Robert Edmond Jones, and Norman Bel Geddes used new methods of scene design (Brockett 1968:633).

The nature of the American theatre underwent a change as the

Twenties neared a close. Historian Ben Blake (1935:6-7), in speaking of the American theatre during the 1920’s, stated: 2

They [the American theatre] did not really understand the basic forces, political, economic, or cultural, at work in the contemporary world. And not understanding, they could : . offer no satisfactory, no true hope for the ultimate solu­ tion of the problems afflicting mankind. So that already in 1928, with prosperity at its height, the American theatre had no serious comment to make beyond what had been made in the previous decade on the world it was supposed to reflect. By 1928 the audience of the American theatre had begun to fall away, and the laments for a dying theatre were beginning to fill the air.

The American theatre seemed not to relate to its time, to its life, to

its audience, or to its society.

The Group Theatre arose out of a desire to provide a theatre

that would make a serious comment on the social, cultural, and moral

problems of the times in which the theatre existed. Harold Clurman

(1945:6), one of the founders of the Group Theatre, echoed Ben Blake*s

indictment of the theatre:

In the books I read, in the paintings I see, in the music I hear, in all conversations, I am aware of the presence of the world it­ self, I detect a feeling for the large issues of human concern. In the theatre these are either absent or diluted, frequently cheapened. The composers and the painters are searching for new words, so to speak, new forms, shapes, meanings. Aaron Copland tells me he wants to find the musical equivalent for our contem­ porary tempo and activity. Where is the parallel to all this in the theatre? There are little avant-garde performances here and there; Copeau speaks seriously about the theatre. Of course, the greatest poets of the past wrote for the theatre. Yet, despite all this, what I actually see on the boards lacks the feel of either significant contemporaneity that I get from even the lesser concerts of new music— not to mention the novel of Gide, Proust, D.H. Lawrence— or the sense of a permanent contribution to my inner experience that I get from some things at the Louvre from the finale of Beethoven *s Ninth, or even from the simple reading of certain classic dramatists. Where is the best thought of our time in the theatre, the feeling of some true personal significance in any of the works? Either there is something in­ ferior in the theatre per se or.there is something wrong with the practical theatre of today that escapes me. I can * t live with it. The theatre gives itself lofty graces, claims a noble lineage, but has no more dimension than a bordello* 3

The germ of an idea which was later to become the Group Theatre

was born in Harold Clurman1s mind while he was a student at the Sorbonne

in Paris. In addition to study at the Sorbonne, Clurman attended lec­

tures delivered by French director Jacques Copeau at the Theatre du

Vieux Colombier in Paris. Clurman had long watched from afar the triv­

ialities and commercialism of the New York theatre with contempt, "a

contempt matched only by the vitriolic diatribes he frequently posted

to the New York newspapersM (Strauss 1939b:1). While in France, Clur­ man began to conceive of a solution to the problem posed by the Ameri­

can theatre in the 1920*s. Clurman dreamed of the greatness that a re­ vitalized American dramatic art could achieve, envisioning a theatre

"capable of treating ideas less trivial than the boudoir farces with which the dilettantes aided the digestion of heavy dinners" (Strauss

1939b:1).

In 1924 Clurman returned from the Left Bank of Paris for a brief visit to America (Strauss 1939b:1). The Theatre Guild at that

time had inaugurated a new kind of experimental studio proving ground

for future Guild productions. The younger Guild actors, the super­ numeraries, and a few outside recruits made up this laboratory. Fresh

from Paris, Clurman walked into a studio rehearsal of Luigi Pirandello* s

Right You Are If You Think You Are and noticed a peculiarly intense young actor, Lee Strasberg, playing the role of Ponza. Strasberg was

later to join with Clurman in the formation of the Group Theatre. De­

spite his extreme interest in the Theatre Guild experimental studio,

Clurman returned to Paris for further study. A year later* early in 19259 Glurman returned from the Sorbonne with a degree in letters

(Strauss 1939b:1)0 Phillip Loeb, then casting director for the Theatre

Guild, was making arrangements for the first Garrick Gaieties by Rich­ ard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart and chose Clurman as stage manager and Lee

Strasberg as an actor in skits ("The Group Comes of Age" 1934:2)„ It was during the Garrick Gaieties rehearsals that Clurman and Strasberg became close friends— "they were kindred spirits. They had ideas"

(Paxton 1938:22),

When Clurman confided to Strasberg that he was an ardent disci­ ple of Jacques Copeau, Strasberg in turn revealed that he was enthusi­ astic over the principles of the Russian actor and director Constantin

Stanislavsky, Strasberg and Clurman had studied at the American Labor­ atory Theatre in New York under Richard Boleslavsky, noted pupil of

Stanislavsky (Paxton 1938:22), Nourished by foreign ideas, both men began to envision a theatre that would combine all of their ideals for a truly American drama. Unfortunately, neither Clurman nor Strasberg had the faintest notion how to go about starting a theatre at that time

("The Group Comes of Age11 1934:2),

When the Theatre Guild presented Bernard Shaw's Caesar and

Cleopatra on April 13, 1925, Clurman appeared in a bit part as one of the four market porters (Eaton 1929:279), Strasberg and Clurman ap­ peared together in small roles in Franz Werfel1s Goat Song in January

1926 and Nikoai Yevreinov's The Chief Thing in March 1926, Clurman then returned to Paris for study and writing, and Strasberg became 5 stage manager for the second Garrick Gaieties by Richard Rodgers and

Lorenz Hart ("The Group Comes of Age" 1934:2)e

In the fall of 1926 Clurman returned from Paris and got a job doubling in two minor roles in the Theatre Guild production of Franz

Werfel?s Juarez and Maximilian^ Strasberg was then directing plays at the Christie Street Settlement in New York Citye Cheryl Crawford, another bit player in Juarez and Maximilian, caught Clurman*s enthusi­ asm for a new theatre project. Miss Crawford joined with Clurman and

Strasberg to form a triumvirate and the three discussed and planned for the future ("The Group Comes of Age" 1934:2),

Cheryl Crawford was from Akron, Ohio, and became interested in the theatre when, at the age of fifteen, she played Lady Macbeth in an amateur production of Shakespeare * s Macbeth, After graduation from

Smith College in 1925, Miss Crawford attended the acting school run by the Theatre Guild and met one of the Guild's founders, Theresa Helburn ■0 (Rothe 1945:6)„ The circumstances of the meeting were recalled by Miss

Helburn (1960:178):

Cheryl came into my office— a slim boyish figure, looking ex­ tremely smart in a very attractive dress— and informed me that she needed a job. At that time we were losing a casting director, who was really just a keeper of records. It was a small, part- time job and I offered it to her. Cheryl said she couldn't af­ ford it. So we added to the part-time job a tiny part in the current play, which doubled her salary.

It was some time later that I learned just how terribly Cheryl had needed that job. The smart dress had been given to her. Both the electricity and gas had been turned off in her apartment and she was practically penniless.

Not long after the alliance was formed between Clurman, Craw­ ford, and Strasberg, their common dream was given new impetus by the Theatre Guild sponsored visit of Jacques Copeau to America0 Clurman, a

former student of the Frenchman, was regularly called to help Copeau explain his concepts, "In return Clurman asked Copeau whether he would not come downtown to watch a performance of The House Into Which We Are

Born, a play of Copeau*s own authorship, which had been directed by a friend. The friend, of course, was Strasberg" ("The Group Comes of

Age" 1934:2), Copeau reportedly commented (Paxton 1938:22): "They were on the right track," Copeau* s admiration made Clurman and Stras- berg more restless than ever for the realization of their plans, Clur­ man (1945:17) wrote: ' "We were on the road to learning a sounder technique for the actor, , , , But, besides a fascination with the technique of acting, a more fundamental feeling was growing in me, a feeling related to but not born of the theatre. It was a sense of the theatre in relation to society,"

The small band of enthusiasts started to hold late Friday night meetings in Cheryl Crawford*s apartment with the group usually breaking up about five in the morning at New York * s Child* s Restaurant (Paxton

1938:22), As more actors became attracted by the fire and vision of

Clurman, Strasberg, and Crawford, they found larger free quarters at

New York City * s Steinway Hall, Often from 100 to 200 actors would come and listen mostly to Clurman, "one of the world *s most indefatigable .

speakers. While he was talking he would grab the back of a chair,

twist it, turn it, and give it a terrible beating. It is impossible to understand the importance of those early meetings without understanding

Clurman the orator" (Paxton 1938:22), Clurman, often forgetting to go ; > v : ' : : 7 ■ home for dinner, talked for hours on end with a blinding, graceful flow

of rhetoric0 Glurman (1945:34) commented on his concept of theatre:

"The whole bent of our theatre e «, « would be to combine a study of the­

atre craft with a creative content which that craft was to express0 To

put it another way, our interest in the life of our times must lead us

to the discovery of those methods that would most truly convey this

life through the theatre0I! What was needed was a permanent acting com­

pany that would stick together, live together, play together, and love

one another0

Playwright Maxwell Anderson attended some of the early meetings

and reportedly liked the concept of a permanent, integrated theatre

that would have the ability to train actors and playwrights (Paxton

1938:22)o Actress Katherine Hepburn also visited one of the meetings

and was quoted as saying, "What you people are doing is fine, but I

want to be a star" (Paxton 1938:22)0

In;February 1928, Clurman, Strasberg, and Crawford set to work

in earnesto They called together a collection of actors interested in

forming a permanent theatre company, and actor Morris Carnovsky, at age

twenty-nine, was the oldest person present (Clurman 1945:22)„ This

unnamed collection of actors are referred to as "the group" which

should not be confused with the later organization formally named the

Group Theatre* Clurman, Strasberg, and Crawford declared that young

actors had no opportunity at the Theatre Guild, or elsewhere, to train

while rehearsing* Producers took for granted that each actor was ready

to.perform as required and neglected the individual actor!s problem as a growing craftsmano In; the group envisioned by Clurman, Strasberg, and Crawford, however, careful attention would be given to the actor * s development and rehearsals would constitute a schooling (Clurman 1945:

23).

The group's plan was to rehearse experimentally, apart from the members' regular jobs, and they succeeded in enlisting the aid of two authors who offered them newly written, noncommercial scripts for un­ official tryout ("As to the Group Theatre" 1931:4). Waldo Frank's New

Year's Eve and Padraic Colum's Balloon were intended not to be shown to the public, but simply to be rehearsed and developed. Harold Clurman

(1945;22) described New Year's Eve as "a morality play about contempor­ ary America, the purport of which was that man had to face living real­ ities rather than be guided by the nomenclature of institutions and dogmas. It wasn't a good play, but it bore the distinction of a liter­ ary man who was in great earnest."

The group located an old loft on Riverside Drive at 86th Street in New York and began rehearsals (Paxton 1938:22). The actors and di­ rectors worked on New Year's Eve and Balloon for 17 weeks during the early months of 1928 and, although the actors were enthusiastic, the directors did not feel that they were yet equipped with the proper tal­ ents in personnel to establish their hew theatre project. The group gave, nevertheless, one private performance of each play ("The Group

Comes of Age" 1934:2).

Cheryl Crawford, meanwhile, had replaced Phillip Loeb as cast­ ing director for the Theatre Guild and Harold Clurman had become the Guild’s play reader ("The Group Comes.of Age" 1934:2). Thus Clurman

and Crawford were in a better position to hold their group together and

the company continued to meet during the next year„ One theatre histo­

rian believed the consequence of this series of meetings "was a resolve

to establish a true ’group theatref which would embrace a great deal more than the idea of simply acting together" (Gassner 1940:729)e

The next step in the establishment of the Group Theatre came in

1929 through the aid of the Theatre Guild and its executive director,

Theresa He1burn0 Miss Helburn (i960:219) said, "I was sympathetic

toward the young, particularly those making their way in the theatre,

and I was eager to help in any practical way I could0" The Theatre

Guild wanted to produce certain exceptional plays at special Sunday performances for Guild subscribers. The show chosen for the first of

these performances was Vladimir Kirchon and Alexey Ouspensky’s Red Rust,

and Miss Helburn (1960:219) recalled, "I called Harold Clurman into my

office and told him that w e ’d like to do it as a special Sunday night

performance and suggested that e 0 „ the youngsters see what they could

do with it."

Miss Helburn saw that Herbert Biberman, a young director with

the Theatre Guild, became the project’s stage manager; Cheryl Crawford,

casting director; and Harold Clurman as play reader.* The subsidiary

organization became known as the Theatre Guild Studio and Clurman was

sure to arrange that Strasberg and some of the others from the earlier

project were cast in the show (Clurman 1945:26-27). 10

Red Rust opened at the Martin Beck Theatre in New York on

December 17, 1929, and ran for 65 performances (Mantle 1930:462).

There was no organic connection between this production and the later

Group Theatre, except that some of the latter*s members gained exper­ ience working together. However, the Red Rust episode was valuable to

Clurman for it gave him his first managerial training, kept him in con­ tact with actors he hoped to cultivate, and helped him become well ac­ quainted with Cheryl Crawford. Clurman (1945:27-28) said of Miss

Crawford:

Cheryl Crawford was a practical person, I thought, a person shrewder, more tactful in many ways, than either Strasberg or I. She had had executive experience at the Guild, and seemed, to know how to deal with such people as the Guild Board. With all this, she was capable of being roused to fine action when she was confronted with a sound idea or a noble motive. She had determination, moral perception, a desire to learn and grow. She was immediately caught by my analysis of the theatre situation, struck by my passion, intrigued by my praise of Strasberg1s ability as a stage director.

Thus, Cheryl Crawford provided the practical business sense for Clurman and Strasberg.

Interest in the idea of establishing a theatre gained momentum.

Clurman, Strasberg, Crawford, and their group of interested theatre personnel continued to hold meetings through the winter of 1930-31, and the trio of directors set about selecting a group of actors for their own permanent company (Strauss 1939b:1). The triumvirate took time to think over whom they wanted in the company, choosing with care, so that all of the actors would share their ideals and not feel that they were giving up better offers. Clurman (1931:2) noted that an actor was 11 chosen for his "personal qualities of sensibility, imagination, spirit­ ual capacitye M

Until this time, the Theatre Guild had no idea of the insurrec­ tion fomenting in their ranks. Theresa Helburn discovered Clurman,

Crawford, Strasberg, and their group were about to splinter from the

Theatre Guild when she read an article in a current theatre periodical.

Miss Helburn (1960:219) reported her experience:

The young group then decided to branch out on their own, but it was not until I saw notices in Variety that revolt was brewing in the Guild that I knew anything about it* I talked to Harold Clurman. It was true, he said, that they were working out some ideas of their own; something rather more far-reaching and pro­ found than the Theatre Guild had attempted. A technique of the theatre, he explained loftily, had to be founded on life values. However, when they had selected their actors and completed their plans, they would be glad to tell the Guild Board of Managers what we could do for them.

Clurman, although expecting aid from the Theatre Guild, did not divulge his plans to the Guild Board of Managers.

By the spring of 1931 the triumvirate had selected 27 actors who in turn selected to cast their lot with the group ("As to the Group

Theatre" 1931:4). In addition, Harold Clurman submitted a general statement titled "Plans for a First Studio,V which would have given the company permanent status as a satellite organization of the Theatre

Guild. ClurmanTs plan asserted (Gassner 1940:731):

The theatre . . . must have . » ^ singleness of meaning and direction. It must create from the chaos which is the common experience of its members an expression that will have . . . an identity and a significance with which people, sharing the com­ mon experience, may sense their kinship and to which they can attach themselves. ~ 12

Its artists must be confident all the time that the thing that binds them together must be a reflection of a sentiment that animates many people in the world about them* The genera­ tions before us seemed to have been strenuously individualistic without believing very steadily in any particular good for their individuals. . . . We believe that the individual can achieve his fullest stature only through identification of his own good with the good of his group, a group which he himself must help to create.

The theatre was to be a collective way of life and art, and individuals banding together would help each other and thus mutually profit.

Although the Theatre Guild never commented on'ClurmanT s report, they were not unsympathetic. Lawrence Langner (1952:250), a member of the Theatre Guild Board of Managers, said that Clurman and his group

"laid down some artistic principles with which most of us were in ,sym­ pathy , and their plea for the revival of an Acting Company was espe­ cially dear to my heart." In spite of the Guild's feelings for their objectives, Clurman and Crawford made things difficult for themselves by maintaining a negative attitude toward the Guild. Theresa Helburn

(1960:221) wrote.that "in moving away from the Guild activities, Harold and Cheryl opposed us as the older generation. . . . We were a group of old fogies who had manifestly outlived our usefulness, and our only surviving purpose, apparently was to support them while they showed us the error of our ways." Langner (1952:250) further commented, "It was apparent . . . that our, offspring regarded us as old-fashioned fogies running around the theatre in circles."

Harold Clurman presented the group's plans at a meeting of the

Theatre Guild Board of Managers. Theresa Helburn (i960:221-222) re­ called the incident: I still remember the high blood pressure registered at the board meeting.when Harold told us what they wanted to so, what they expected us to do, and made clear that we belonged artis­ tically among the dinosaurs. The board, for once, was quiet. In fact, it was speechless.

Their actors, Harold said, were prepared to do new types of plays and ours could not. Men like John Howard Lawson, for in­ stance, were not as interested in seeking playwrighting tech­ nique as in !ideological clarity.1

?We want to establish a theatre,r he told us, fnot merely a production organization.f

fA theatre,? Harold explained, * is a homogeneous body of craftsmen who give voice to a certain point of view which they share with the dramatist, whose works might be described as the most clearly articulated and eloquent expression of the con­ science. *

Lawrence [Langner], who had been following all of this in. kind of a daze, listened to Harold1s account of how the Group could influence dramatists.

*Do you think,? Lawrence then asked almost gently, !you would have anything to tell Eugene O'Neill?*

* Certainly,* Harold replied with magnificent confidence.

Things went from bad to worse, and when I tried to get money for them, the members of the board began to fight back.

'Why the hell should we do anything for them? They are kicking us in the pants.*

* I know,' I admitted. 'But they are young. They should be helped.'

By maintaining a superior attitude, Clurman managed to alienate almost

every member of the Theatre Guild Board of Managers.

Clurman asked the Theatre Guild to sponsor the group by provid­

ing both economic support and plays to be produced. The Guild Board of

Managers, despite their violent reaction to Clurman's behavior, ulti­ mately voted to help the new organization. The Guild released to the group actors Franchot Tone and Morris Carnovsky, who. were under con­

tract to the Guild; the Theatre Guild turned over to the group two

plays, Paul Green's The House of Connelly and Claire and Paul Sifton's

1931-; and the Guild provided $7,500 to help with production costs

(Helbiirn 1960:222).

The group decided that a summer in the country was needed to weld the members into a unified acting company. The plan was to go

away with a company of actors and rehearse two plays until ready for

production in New York. The actors would be paid no salaries, but

would be provided meals, living quarters, and laundry expense. The di­

rectors calculated that $5,000 was needed in order to accomplish this

project, and part of the money was raised by individual contributions

(Clurman 1945:36-37).

A symposium on the subject "What Chance Has the Theatre?" was

organized for the benefit of the embryo company and took place at the

Guild Theatre in New York on May 25, 1931. The New York press ("Real

Drama Secure, Miss Helburn Says" 1931:32) reported, "The proceeds of

the symposium will go to a new theatre group which will work on plays

this summer to be presented in the fall." Theresa Helburn spoke to the

gathering, commenting to the effect that the more quality that poured

into the theatre, the better off all theatres would be. Scene designer

Robert Edmund Jones said that the theatre was a noble institution and

would not die. Playwright Waldo Frank spoke, saying that their age was

a chaotic one both in and out of the theatre, but that well directed

energy would find order. Theatre critics John Mason Brown and Heywood Broun also spoke* The symposium yielded around $800 toward the group's summer ("Some Actors Take a Script to the Country and Come Home as the

Group Theatre" 1931:3)*

Eventually the group raised the required amount of money and concrete plans for the summer were made* Cheryl Crawford selected a site for the summer's work at Brookfield Center, Connecticut. The ac­ commodations consisted of a number of small houses, a main dining room, and a large barn which had been cleaned and refloored so that it might be used as a rehearsal hall ("As to the Group Theatre" 1931:4).

A company of 30 people (27 actors and three directors), with an average age of 27 years, left for Brookfield Center on June 8, 1931

(Clurman 1945:38). The New York press published a list of the actors enrolled in the company ("As to the Group Theatre" 1931:4):

Stella Adler Virginia Farmer Clifford Odets

Margaret Baker Gerrit Kraber Dorothy Patten

Phoebe Brand Robert Lewis Herbert Ratner

J. Edward Bromberg Lewis Leverett Phillip Robinson

Morris Carnovsky Gertrude Maynard Arthur Smith

William Challee Sanford Meisner Eunice Stoddard

Walter Coy Paula Miller Franchot Tone

Sylvia Feningston Mary Morris Alice Walker

Friendly Ford Ruth Nelson Clement Wilenchick

The list of actors was to grow in size as the Group increased with age; a complete list of Group Theatre actors can be found in Appendix A. - . - 16

The Group Theatre was not formed by stage struck amateurs, or

even noviceSo All were experienced professional actors, and, as

pointed out by theatre critic Brooks Atkinson (1931:1), several were well known and much in demand by commercial managers0 Among the best known was Morris Carnovsky, familiar as a player in Theatre Guild pro­

ductions 0 Carnovsky made his first appearance in a Guild cast in

Henri-Rene LeNormand1s The Failures on November 19, 1923e In the 1923 production of Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan Carnovsky played the dual roles of Brother Martin Ladvenu and Captain La Hire* Carnovsky also appeared

in Jacques Copeau and Jean Croue’s The Brothers Karamazov in 1927,

Luigi Pirandello’s Right You Are If You Think You Are in 1927, Bernard

Shaw’s The Doctor’s Dilemma in 1927, and the 1929 production of Eugene

O ’Neill’s Marco Millions (Eaton 1929:appendix)0

Another professional was Franchot Tone, son of a wealthy family, who had been seen in Edward Sheldon’s The Age of Innocence and Lennox

Robinson’s Cross Roads (Sisk 1930:60)0 Tone had received enthusiastic

praise for his portrayal of the hero in Lynn Rigg’s Green Grow the

Lilacs (Hutchens 1931:273)o

Sanford Meisne.r had been an early recruit; he acted along with

Harold Clurman and Cheryl Crawford in Juarez and Maximilian and was

seen in Marco Millions (Eaton 1929:231), Phoebe Brand’s experience had

also been with the Theatre Guild; she appeared in Stefan Zweig’s Vol-

pone, Marco Millions, and played Ellen in Elizabeth the Queen by Max­ well Anderson (Rigdon 1966:316), Eunice Stoddard had been seen in the

Guild’s 1930 production of Ivan Turgenev’s A Month In the Country ■' . 17 (Mantle 1930:511)0 Clifford Odets rounded out the contingent from the

Theatre Guild0 Odets had toured in several Guild productions and played in the New York production of Paul Sifton’s Midnight (Mantle

1940:115)„

Along with the Theatre Guild actors came an assemblage from the

Province town Playhouse <, Mary Morris had acted with Province town in the

1924 production of The Spook Sonata by August Strindberg, Anna Cora

Mowatt’s Fashion in 1924, Edmund Wilson’s The Crime in the Whistler Room in 1924, and in the 1924 production of Eugene O ’Neill’s Desire Under the

Elms (Deutsch and Hanau 1931:115). William Challee had appeared in Lajos

Egri.’s Rapid Transit in 1927, Emil Bernhard’s The Prisoner in 1927,

Michael Swift’s Hot Pan in 1928, and Virgil Geddes’ The Earth Between in 1929 (Deutsch and Hanau 1931:116). One actor, J. Edward Bromberg, brought to the Group Theatre his experiences with two of the leading institutional theatres in America. He appeared in Carlo Gozzi’s Prin­ cess Turandot in 1926 at the Provincetown Playhouse and also acted in

several plays for Eva LeGalliene at the Civic Repertory Theatre includ­ ing: Anton Chekhov’s The Three Sisters, Henrik Ibsen’s The Master

Builder, Moliere’s The Would-Be-Gentleman, and Shakespeare’s Romeo and

Juliet (Parker 1936:329).

Ruth Nelson had acted with Boleslavsky and played ingenue leads in summer stock (Sisk 1930:60). Art Smith was an alumnus of the Good­ man Theatre in Chicago. Stella Adler, daughter of the actor, Jacob P.

Adler, had been the leading lady for the Yiddish Art Theatre in New

York. Margaret Baker, of a wealthy Baltimore family, left a role in Rudolf Besier1s The Barretts of Wimpole Street to join the new acting

company headed by Clurman, Strasberg, and Crawford ("Some Actors Take a

Script to the Country and Come Home as the Group Theatre" 1931:3)6 The

group thus represented.a fusion of many backgrounds, styles, and vari­

eties of experience6

Paul Green*s The House of Connelly rehearsed for twelve weeks

and members of the Theatre Guild were present at a run through of the

production in August 1931. Harold Clurman (1945:53-54) described the performance:

There was, of course, no scenery, no costumes, not even a stage. Rarely has a company of players been so captured by its own mood of sincerity and dedication. More even than the play * s . lines or situations demanded, the actors poured forth a concen­ trated stream of fervor, that was like the pent-up rivers of all their young life * s experience and aspirations awakened and released through the summer*s efforts. The company was exalted by its own transformation.

The run through was highly successful despite the lack of such things

as a stage and scenery.

The Theatre Guild Board of Managers stated they would back the

play only if certain conditions were met. Mary Morris and Morris

Carnovsky were to be removed from the cast and the original tragic

ending was to be restored. If this was not done, the Guild would raise

only half of the sum required for production and The House of Connelly would not be offered as a regular Guild subscription performance. The

group opted for the second plan (Clurman 1945:55). Theresa He1burn

(1960:224) said the group’s attitude "was that of the child toward its

parent: *That may have been all right in your day.* We ended up giv­

ing them half of the money for production and they had to raise the 19 rest of it themselvese If they had been disgusted with us before, they were bitter now*"

Although the group had spent an entire summer rehearsing to­ gether, they did not have a name until they returned to New York on

August 17, 1931 * Among themselves, the directors decided that since the company had always been referred to as "our group," they might as well accept the inevitable and name their company the Group Theatre

(Clurman 1945:55)*

The House of Connelly, first production of the Group Theatre, opened on September 28, 1931, at the Martin Beck Theatre in New York

City* The first program read, "Produced by the Group Theatre, Inc*, under the auspices of the Theatre Guild" (Mantle 1934:398)* The offi­ cial announcement that preceded the opening merely stated, "This the­ atre is an organization of actors and directors formed with the ulti­ mate aim of creating a permanent acting company to maintain regular New

York seasons" (Clurman 1945:58)*

With the 1931 production of The House of Connelly the plans of the young organization to form a new and vital American theatre were one step closer to fulfillment* CHAPTER 2

ACHIEVEMENTS. OF THE GROUP THEATRE

The Group Theatre existed from 1931 to 1941 and during this period it made significant contributions to the American theatre in the fields of acting, directing, playwriting, scene designing, and commun­ ity living.

An Adaptation of the Stanislavsky Acting System

The primary purpose of the Group’s acting system was to enable the actor to use himself more consciously as an instrument for the at­ tainment of truth on the stage. The method employed was an adaptation of the system of acting devised by the Russian actor and director Con­ stantin Stanislavsky, The Stanislavsky method required the actor to dp special exercises and improvisations in order to stimulate sense and emotion memories and to achieve relaxation and concentration. The

Stanislavsky system aimed at arousing in the actor those emotions he felt in past specific situations which could be grafted on to the scene and character he was presently portraying. The actor was to work for absolute relaxation while on stage and concentrate deeply in order to attain complete identification with the character he was embodying

(Goodman 1961:283), Lee Strasberg (Edwards 1965:261) explained the

Group Theatre’s use of Stanislavsky’s concepts: ’’While it would be true to say that we try to make use of the basic ideas of the

.' : . - .20 21

Stanislavsky System, we do not find it necessary to be limited just to those ideas or procedures that Stanislavsky himself used, nor would he necessarily agree with whatever is done in his name, The Group took the Stanislavsky system of acting and adjusted it to suit American needso

The concept of inner or psychological justification lay at the heart of the Group? s acting system. The actor1s inner reason or inner necessity for performing every action in a play was called his justifi­ cation. Group scene designer Mordecai Gorelik (1940:137) noted the - use of inner justification in acting:

It is not sufficient for an actor playing an old man to mimic the behavior of an old man; the actor must look within himself for an emotional or imaginative sensation which approximates the state of mind of an old man. An actor who plays the role of.a murderer may find an inner justification for the quality of his role by recalling a time when he killed a fly or committed some more atrocious act.

The point was'to avoid a synthetic approach to acting. Rather than its actors registering emotion by a variety of artificial external manner­ isms, the Group sought to find the equivalent of the desired emotion in the actor1s personal experience and show him how to adapt it to the role.

The Group stressed the necessity of actor concentration and re­ laxation. On stage the actor was to select certain objects for the focus of his attention, lest his concentration wander to the audience.

The actor was expected to place himself in a "circle" of concentration which kept him real to himself, and at the same time made sure he was responding to other characters on stage instead of merely addressing 22 their ears (Gassner 1940:731)e The Group also recognized that one of the actor's greatest enemies was physical or muscular tension and that without relaxation the actor could not be free to.create his role*

Simple physical exercises were used to combat tension in Group actors6

One such exercise involved the actor standing with feet about twelve inches apart, arms raised high over the head, chest carried high, and head backo The actor then stretched as high as possible, rising up on the toes, and extending the arms as far as possible0 When the highest point was reached, the individual then relaxed slowly until normal pos-

' ■ ■ . ture was reached (Lewis 1936a:39)e

The Group's training of the individual actor was concerned with physical and emotional aspects. The primary aim of the physical train­ ing program was to develop an expressive body and, in order to achieve this objective, exercises in dance and movement were related directly to acting (Tamiris 1935:20), An exercise called "body contact" was used by the Group and was aimed at development of the actors' sense of truth in their physical connection with and adjustment to each other.

Group dance instructor Helen Tamiris (1935:21-22) described the "body contact" exercise: '

First we work with the hands. Two actors, seated, place their hands in contact. They have no characterization,- no emotion. One takes the initiative by making a movement; the other adjusts to it, the hands remaining constantly related, A series of new movements develop, throughout which there are constant adjust­ ments of each to the other. The thing.that is stressed is that there is no arbitrary breaking up of a movement, and so each movement is fulfilled, building up an organic whole. The same principles are applied in contact between the heads and finally between the entire bodies, . The object of "body contact" was a real relationship between the play­ ers, a feeling in each actor of his physical position, movement, timing of activities and speech as conditioned by those of his partner.

The second phase of the actor’s training dealt with emotions.

Exercises in "sense memory" were used which had to do with the recrea­ tion of a sensory experience without the presence of the object which stimulated the original experience. For example, a Group actor might take a bottle of toilet water or perfume and smell it. The toilet water was then removed and the actor had to experience once more in sense memory the sensation previously felt when the perfume was actually present. The Group used "sense memory" exercises for each of the five senses in the belief that use of sense memory on stage in a given scene might sometimes give the actor the necessary feeling to act that scene

(Lewis 1936b:31).

Another aspect of the emotional training program dealt with

"affective memory" or "emotion memory" exercises which were directed at helping the actor recapture the emotions called for in a particular scene. In this exercise the actor was asked to recall the details of an event from his own past. The recollection of these details would move the actor with some feeling involved in the original experience, thus producing a mood. When the actor was in the grip, of this feeling, he was better prepared to do the scene calling for the particular mood that the exercise had evoked (Clurman 1945:44).

Improvisations constituted an important element of the actor’s training. The Group believed that most actors relied too heavily on 24 dialogue until their goal was to memorize lines and say them with some indication of an appropriate emotion. Dialogue was only part of a character and the actor's job was to put the whole being on stage

(Thatcher 1935:14)0 Lee Strasberg (1953:154) described the following improvisation:

The actor is given a word which he must embody without words0 He is given a minute to think of something and perform his scene e e „ an actor was given the word 'America' to enact0 After a moment's thought, the actor began. He went to sleep. He awoke suddenly, looked at the alarm clock (imaginary) and then began frantically to dress* He then rushed into an imag­ inary subway into which he crowdede He next entered an office, hastily took off his hat and coat, sat down at his desk, lit a cigar, and then leaned back in his chair, put his feet on the desk, and placidly smoked on with nothing to do. Perhaps this was an early playwriting effort of the actor— who happened to be Clifford Odets,

Improvisations functioned to vitalize the actor's imagination and pro­ vide the actor with opportunity to act out rather than merely describe an emotion or action.

The Group's approach to acting emphasized the necessity for en­ semble playing with the common aim of projecting the author's meaning rather than actor personal glorification, Harold Clurman (1945:35) commented on the Group's attitude toward the aggrandizement of indi­ viduals in the company: "There were to be no stars in our theatre, not for the negative purpose of avoiding distinction, but because all dis­ tinction— and we would strive to attain the highest— was to be embodied in the production as a whole," The Group Theatre was opposed to the

"star" system.

The Group felt it must possess a permanent company in order to permit actors to develop as theatre artists and to preserve the organic unity of its work (Clurman 1931:2)0 Stella Adler (1970:539) noted the effect of the collective approach on the Group: "From the collective effort, from the entire Group? s sincerity, from the fervor and enthusi~ asm and dedication to an aim, each play was filled with a spirit that gave the;play a greater artistic meaning than any individual*s contri­ bution *" The Group Theatre offered actors something which they could not find in the commercial theatre: a permanent base where they could learn their craft together, performing side by side over a long period of time, and working in a creative constructive way with other theatre artisanSo

A Directorial Method Based on Stanislavsky

The directorial approach of the Group Theatre was, like its acting system, inspired by the work of Stanislavsky« The major func­ tion of the director in the Group was to act as leader and guide his fellow artists to their fullest possible development0 The director was not someone apart from the Group?s main body but was instead the cen­ ter, the core of the creative effort for the entire organization. The director1s tasks were not merely to stage plays, but to aid in the de­ velopment of a theatre, to further and intensify the beliefs that fos­ tered the Group (Clurman 1953:280).

Harold Clurman?s directorial approach can be taken as typical of the Group1s method of directing a company trained in an adaptation of the Stanislavsky system of acting. Clurman1s procedure involved a planning stage and an acting stage. The former consisted of coming to 26 a basic understanding of the script, deciding how the meaning of the play could best be communicated to an audience, breaking the play into

its component parts, and ascertaining how each part fit into the pro­ duction pattern* The. acting stage meant the director placing the pro­ duction plans into operation by informing the production artists of

their relationship to the show and working creatively with them*

The initial step in ClurmanT s planning stage was to read the

script several times, during which time written notes were made to be certain that thoughts were clear* Next, Clurman put the script aside and came to some conclusion about the general sense of the play. He tried to make a statement of the feeling the play produced in h i m .

(Clurman 1953:283)* For example, Clifford Odetf s Paradise Lost gave

Clurman the impression of a crystal ball which revolved in space with various refracted lights and shadows revolving about it (Eustis 1936:

278).

Clurman then analyzed this feeling intellectually. Clurman asked himself what features induced this sense of the play, what it meant, and why it was important* For example, Clurman concluded that the reason Paradise Lost evoked the image noted above was because the play’s basic activity was one of unrest and shifting qualities of vagueness* Clurman decided this activity was caused by each of the play’s characters seeking reality, something to depend upon, without being sure what that reality was* Clurman concluded that each, person . portrayed in Paradise Lost was, in fact, slightly crazy (Eustis 1936:

278). 27

Clurman next decided the basic action or "spine" of the play through the principal conflict of its characters* The play's spine, the fundamental desire which gave it direction, was the root which in­ spired the scenic design, stage effects, and characterization* For example, Clurman (1936:21) believed the spine of Paradise Lost was the

"search for reality*"

After finding the spine of the play, Clurman searched for the spine or main action of each of the characters* Since the spine of each character had to be related to that of the play, it was necessary to discover the active center of the play and the exact position of each character in relation to it* As an example, the spine of Paradise

Lost was the search for reality and this had to be related to the main action of the characters* Clurman saw the people of the play looking for a reality in a world where nothing is altogether real, where there is something insubstantial and dreamlike in the most ordinary behavior*

Clurman (1936:21) analyzed the spine of Leo Gordon, a character in

Paradise Lost:

He would like to make war on injustice but does not know what weapon to use and any weapon more concrete than ideas frightens him* Hpw do we portray such a character in the theatre? We seek his kindness not only in the actions given him by the author but in such a detail as his instinctive caress of the girl worker whom he wants to reassure* We visualize his con­ fusion before simple objects and his inadequacy even in triv­ ial situations* * * * He traces imaginary figures in the air as he listens to memories of the past; he rarely completes any , movement *

The spine for Leo Gordon was to remedy the suffering he saw about him, but he did not know how to do it* -- 28

ClurmarVs next step was to make a detailed analysis of the form of each scene and act. A play was constructed not on line of dialogue, but on a series of progressive actions which move the story forward and reveal the play?s total meaning. These large spheres of action were called major cycles. Each major dramatic action or cycle was composed of a number of minor dramatic actions or minor cycles, the progression and culmination of which revealed the meaning of the major cycle. Within each of the minor cycles were a group of actions called ,fbeats,n which revealed the sense of the minor cycles (Clurman 1953:294). Thus, each scene had its own main point, rising action, climax, and recapitulation.

The scenes taken together shaped the action of the play and moved the story forward.

Clurman then made an analysis of the characters' relation to the cycles and beats. Each character had a specific purpose in a scene which was related to that character's spine. Clurman believed that an actor had to understand what his character wanted and what his charac­ ter intended to do to get it. This objective was called the "beat" of the character. As each action was achieved or transformed into a new action, the beat for the actor changed. The logic and movement of beats gave shape to the actor's role.

After completing the analysis of the script, Clurman decided on a style for the entire production, the manner in which he would convey the meaning and feeling of the play to an audience. Clurman (1945:251) arrived at a decision on the production style by "forming a conception of the material at hand and so presenting it that it would appear 29 consistent with the quality of reality mirrored in the play? s text„n

In Paradise Lost, for example, Clurman related his feeling for the play

(uncertainty,, unreality, crazy world and characters) to the production quality6 Clurman (Eustis 1936:278) felt the production of Paradise

Lost should have "a slightly circular movement, meandering, no straight motione The setting for Paradise Lost, according to Clurman (Eustis

1936:278), should have been "realistic and yet abstract, 0 e e the line of the ceiling not straight, the shape of the room not completely real­ istic and yet giving the impression of realism, the color of the walls of varying degrees of light and shade." Clurman felt the stage light­ ing should reveal the same quasi-realistic impression to accent the poetic, symbolic, and social aspects of Paradise Lost (Eustis 1936:

278)o Once the production style had been decided upon, Clurman*s plan­ ning stage was completeo

The first step of the acting stage consisted of informing the designers of the stage settings, costumes, and lighting. Clurman helped the designer become acquainted with the play * s meaning, theme, style, and quality. With the designers, Clurman discussed in detail the general visual mood of the play and the style of treatment (Eustis

1936:278). In short, Clurman presented his designers with both techni­ cal and artistic aims for which to strive, and Clurman * s interpretation served as a springboard for the designers* creative work.

Casting the play was Clurman * s next concern. Since the Group had a permanent company of actors, Clurman visualized almost immedi­ ately certain actors in certain parts. Clurman did not usually 30 subscribe to casting for physical type but felt that for short parts where an actor had to make a quick impression the practice was sounde

Generally, Clurman cast for acting ability and capacity to get the quality demanded in play and character (Eustis 1936:279).

After casting was completed, Clurman was ready to begin re­ hearsals* The length of Group Theatre rehearsal periods differed greatly from those of the commercial theatre* Theresa Helburn (i960:

223) recalled that "the Group Theatre, needless to say, was radically different from the.Guild* According to Equity rules, we have four or five weeks in which to produce a play * The Group Theatre, for the most part , * * took as many months*" The Group’s concept of rehearsals was to take all the time required to rehearse a show without the constraint of a fixed schedule* Morris Carnovsky (Hughes 1942:2) commented on the

Group approach to rehearsals versus that of commercial theatre: "You have a sense Of strain that is very inartistic when you are asked to deliver within a certain period and the time hangs over you like the sword of Damocles* In the Group method you can rehearse for half a year or for one week, according to what you feel like doing, and there is no artificial pressure*" The Group believed in rehearsing a play until it was felt the production was ready for public performance*

Clurman? s first rehearsal consisted of a reading of the play by the entire cast* The actors were told not to give performances or com­ plete characterizations, but to talk through the parts to themselves with no emotion or effects* The purpose of this reading was to allow the actors to gradually acquaint themselves with the script* In early rehearsals, CInman talked to the cast about the play, informing them of his interpretation and the cast's part in the play's total meaning*

Clurman felt that it was imperative each actor understand all other parts in addition to his own, and each of the characters was individu­ al ly analyzed in a discussion with the whole cast* Clurman analyzed the spine of each character and the relationship of that spine to the main action of the play, then discussed the beats of the play and broke each act into a sequence of essential dramatic activities (Eustis 1936:

279).

A portion of Clurman's rehearsals were devoted to improvisa­ tions designed to make the actor face each situation of the play.spon­ taneously* One type of improvisation involved situations based on scenes in the play, but not actually part of the play's text* For example, to show the lack of understanding between mother and daughter in a scene, the actors might improvise a scene involving a student hav­ ing difficulty with a teacher* A second type of improvisation dealt with scenes from the play but without using the play's text* In this exercise, the actors read through a scene, then dropped their scripts and ad-libbed the dialogue (Clurman 1945:43)*

Days upon days of rehearsal were devoted to perfecting details*

Clurman worked along with the actors, helping them achieve a sense of sureness and confidence in their work* As the director, Clurman did not insist that the actors perform exactly in his command but believed in allowing actors to develop their own natural flow* Clurman (1953:

299) insisted that the correct pace for a scene came out of playing the ' 32 scene correctly: "Look to the heart of the matter, not to the clock."

As a director, Clurman was careful to avoid mechanical staging and me­ chanical efforts but endeavored to let the performance arise out of the reality of the play. Once rehearsals were completed, the acting stage of

Clurman?s directorial procedure was completed and the play was ready for presentation to an audience.

An Approach to Scene Design

The Group Theatre made the scene designer an intimate part of its structure, and in so doing the Group helped make two significant contributions to the designer as artist arid to the art of scene design.

The Group,gave the scene designer a working base for his creative ef­ fort in the theatre and an opportunity_to use the stage setting as an organic element of the production.

The Group scene designer felt a close relationship to the play and its point of view. The designer participated freely in matters of organization and policy and was part of the production from inception to close. Scene designers, associated with the Group company, took part in Group meetings, taught classes in scene design, and learned from other members (for a complete list of Group Theatre scene design­ ers, see Appendix B). For example, Mordecai Gorelik (1939:186), a scene designer both inside and outside the Group Theatre, was very in­ terested in Group rehearsals held on an empty stage and stated: "In some ways I learn more about scenery by watching the actors than I do in studying color, light, and construction." From close contact, the actors in turn understood.more and more the importance of a relevant 33

stage settingo The work of the Group scene designer evolved out of the

same environment, influences* and contact which affected the work of

the other Group artists0

In conferences with the scene designer, the director outlined his scenic requirements for a production, stated the scenic problem of

the play, and gave the scene designer an artistic as well as a techni­

cal objective* According to Harold Clurman (1953:288), the scene de­

signer did not take the director's words as a blueprint but instead made "the director's interpretation of his needs a creative springboard

for himself, adding something to what the director has called for,that

only he, with his special gifts, can supply," It was then the design­

er's turn to ask questions of the director, Mordecai Gorelik (1939:

183) recounted the types of questions a scene designer might ask the

director:

What kind* of movement does he look for in his actors? Is the stage picture to be important, as in Men in White and Casey Jones? Or the actor, as in Golden Boy and Rocket to the Moon? Are we to feel the texture of materials, as in the iron ware­ house door of 1931-,? the sleek plywood and formica wall of Success Story? Is the acting area to be concentrated or made ample? Shall the figure of the actor detach itself sharply from the surroundings in one part of the design, melt into them in another part of the same design, as in Success Story? In Rocket to the Moon how essential is the factor of dentistry? Is it.important to the total idea that the hero is a dentist, or rather that he is a middle class figure?

The scene designer in the Group asked any number of detailed questions

concerning the director's interpretation of the play so that the de­

signer would have a firm foundation from which to work, Gorelik (1953:

313) recalled that Group directors often told him, "Go ahead and ask your irritating questions. We always get stuck on some of them but in 34

figuring out the answers we help our work as well." Both director and

scene designer profited from discussions held during conferences.

The Group held that a setting should be an organic element of

the production, more than something just added to the play. The set­

ting grew out of the play and was linked to the director1s interpreta­

tion, the production idea, the acting, lighting, costumes, and makeup.

The setting was not "merely an amplification of the script or the trans­

ference of the script to the stage . . . but must consist of the script plus all the other elements of the theatre" (Houghton 1936:975). Morde-

cai Gorelik (1953:313-314) wrote the following about the design for

Clifford Odets* Golden Boy:

The scene is the home of an Italian fruit peddler in New York City. The home is not just a box in which the characters knock around. No matter how poor and shabby, it is divided into dis­ tinct areas on stage: the cozy corner where the older folks sit and philosophize in armchairs, near a window filled with plants and a canary in a cage. On the other side of the room is the .. dinner table, where the younger people always seem to gather to carry on their more lively affairs. The steam radiator is the small boy * s favorite perch in summer, and sister is always at the family bureau, which she prettifies with imitation flowers from Woolworth* s. All these are distinct playing areas, each with its own pathos.

The Group, felt the stage setting should be expressive of the ideas,

characters, and conflicts of the play.

The Group believed stage settings should be utilitarian, which meant that the settings could be used effectively and efficiently by

the actors. The sets should be designed to provide the necessary lev­

els, planes, and furniture for the most effective dramatic employment

of the performers. Moreover, the Group felt the settings should be

designed and constructed so that they could be used comfortably by the 35 actors: "The Group is primarily an acting company; as a rule it is

less interested in stage pictures than in a setting which is geared to the actors" (Gorelik 1939:184)»

There was a marked difference between the approach of the Group and that of commercial theatre to scene design. According to Gorelik

(1939:180), the commercial theatre manager who assembled his company for the first time four weeks before the play?s opening was in for trouble:

From the moment the Script appears at the manager’s office, . ’hunches’ tend to take the place of thought„ There seems to be a Broadway tradition that a work of art in the theatre must be unconscious. That is, no approach to production is artistic un­ less it defies comprehension. During pre-rehearsal interviews the producer is inclined to look with worried suspicion upon the actor, director, or designer who is conscious enough to ask what the production is going to say to its audience. This mysticism is really due to pressure of time upon a producing organization which has no real unity, a personnel suddenly brought together under the most casual, even accidental, circumstances. Rarely is a basic viewpoint agreed upon. Creative consultation is re­ duced to a minimum. All decisions have a tendency to become stereotyped or hysterical.

In commercial theatre the scene designer faced hurried conditions which often resulted in a compromise of artistic integrity. At about the time the actors were beginning to sense the ultimate quality of the play and the designer was starting to understand what was needed in the way of settings, the sketches, models, and blueprints had to be ready for the builders. Often the blueprints had to be ready long before the dramatist had written the final version of the script. The result was a standardized setting with little organic quality to the play, acting, or directing (Gorelik 1939:180). 36

The Group gave the scene designer an impetus for his creative development and a close relationship to other artists of the theatree

In its own way, the scene design was regarded as a part of the play- writing; that is, it created an expressive and meaningful environment for the characters. Above all, the designers related the stage set- . tings to the other elements of the production.

A Design for the Playwright

The Group made the playwright an organic element of the theatre, absorbed in its ideals and methods. The playwright was not one who merely contributed a script for a production but was a member of a theatre interested primarily in the life of the Group instead of the success or failure of his individual contribution. The Group felt that it "must of necessity not only welcome the playwright but seek him out, stimu­ late him, give him the assurance of a basic and continued interest.

Their interest is basic because what the playwright has to say is in and for itself of importance to them, not only as theatre workers but as people" (Clurman 1931:2).

There were great differences in the treatment of the playwright by the Group and by the commercial theatre. Playwright.Robert Ardrey ,

(1939:3) noted the standard procedure used by the commercial theatre:

Supposing you sell a play to a regular producer. Your contact will be almost entirely with him. Before production starts, the two of you will have put in many hours, hundreds of hours, per­ haps, going over the script, cutting, rewriting, arguing, clari­ fying. By the time rehearsals start, you’ve settled everything . with him. The job is in his hands. You have only to sit back, watch, make suggestions, have an occasional emotional discussion with him in the back of the empty theatre— it’s a simple life. 37

Ardrey then described how the author became a part of the Group's life:

But give a play to the Groupe What happens? They give you what amounts to temporary membership in the Group Theatre. You have all the innocence of a bystander on the Maginot Line. If somebody in the company gets a divorce, you discover yourself on the witness stand. If a switchboard girl has a baby, you find yourself with labor pains.

The light man has a brainstorm. He floods the stage with evil red light. You run shrieking to the director. Go talk with the light man, says he. So you wring the light man's neck, personally. An actor discovers a bad line in his part. Do you find out about it in nicely tempered tones from the director? No. In the midst of rehearsal the actor speaks the line, comes to a halt, looks about, 'Where's the author? Ardrey, this line stinks.'

You find yourself with the business manager, worrying about the budget. You find yourself with the publicity man, worrying about a press release. You share Gorelik's headaches, while he works over the model of the set, trying to find room in the base of a lighthouse for half a dozen vital Group actors to express their vitality. And while you're biting your fingernails— will the sound man make a noise like an airplane, or will it resemble a horse neighing— -you're confronted by Morris Carnovsky. 'For ten minutes,'.says Morris, 'I sit over there at the left without anything to say. What am I supposed to be thinking about?' So you go to bed that night— if you go to bed at all— worrying not . about Carnovsky's lines, but about his thoughts.

Does this sound like chaos? It's not. Everyone knows pre­ cisely what he's doing. All it comes down to is this. A regu- lar Broadway production finds the author on the outside, looking in. A Group Theatre production finds the author on the inside, looking cross-eyed.

. Where the commercial theatre isolated the playwright from most elements

of production, the Group integrated the author into its structure and

the playwright was intimately related to the production of his script.

The Group encouraged authors, both experienced and inexperi­

enced, to write plays for them. Established authors like Paul Green,

Maxwell Anderson, and John Howard Lawson came to the Group Theatre

(Clurman 1945:36, 76, 129). The Group produced the first play of 38

Sidney Kingsley, a Pulitzer Price winner titled Men in White (Strasberg

1947:1-2)o The Group introduced William Saroyan as a dramatist with a production of My Heart*s in the Highlands (Gassner 1954:299) and gave.

Irwin Shaw his start as a playwright with Bury the Dead (Taubman 1965:

226)e Although it did not introduce Robert Ardrey, the Group presented two of his plays, Casey Jones and Thunder Rock (Taubman 1965:227). (For a complete listing of Group Theatre Productions, see Appendix C0)

One of the most notable achievements of the Group was the es­ tablishment of a playwright from its own ranks, Clifford Odets. Harold

Clurman (1945:145) recalled the reaction of the Group company to the announcement that the Group would produce one of Odets* plays: f,0n the closing night of Gold Eagle Guy, after the final curtain, I announced that our next production was to be the work of our own Clifford Odets.

The actors gave forth a shout of joy and threw their costumes in the air. It was as if we had been working and waiting for this for four years. ** Odets became well established as an American dramatist with such plays as Awake and Sing, Waiting for Lefty, Paradise Lost, and

Golden Boy. Critic John Gassner (1940:732) called Odets "the most im­ portant new playwright of the * thirties* ** and Mordecai Gorelik (1940:

137) referred to Odets as "perhaps the most gifted of American lyrical dramatists." Playwright Elmer Rice (1959:141-142) wrote the following concerning Clifford Odets: "It cannot be doubted that he is an impor­ tant contributor to the new American drama, and that the Group* in pro­ ducing his plays, performed a valuable service." - 39

The Group Theatre offered training for the playwright. In an­ nouncing the Group1s aims in 1931, Harold Clurman (1931:2) said the playwright was "approached not merely with the thought of immediate practical availability of each of his separate scripts, but with the idea of helping him to the most mature theatric incarnation of his particular nature and artistic direction." The Group's training pro­ gram not only included actual instruction, but also practical experi­ ence. During the summer months the playwrights lived together, apart from the main body of the Group for purposes of quiet and seclusion.

New York Times reporter Theodore Strauss (l939a:l) wrote the following description of Group facilities for playwrights:

The Group's current band of six playwrights is segregated on the second floor in a row of private rooms otherwise known as the 'zoo!' Under the personal supervision of Molly Day That­ cher (playreader for the Group) the animals are well fed, pre­ sented with reams, of paper and protected from visitors. On her occasional rounds, Miss Thatcher may sometimes be caught listen­ ing at doors for promising clickety-clack of typewriters.

The playwright also had at his disposal numerous actors with whom he could try a scene and directors with whom the playwright could discuss his play. At times the playwright gave the actors a finished scene and at other times merely a scenario on which the actors improvised the dialogue. If the result of the scene or scenario was dialogue or an actual dramatic construction of any dimension, an immediate record was made, and the writer continued his effort to produce a full play along the same lines as the scene or scenario ("Pastoral 44th Street"

1934:2). 4 0 The Group encouraged the writing of social drama, plays dealing with the moral and social preoccupations of the times in which the

Group existed. The Group believed that the playwright, in order to be an artist, had to be vitally concerned with the problems and life of his day. They also felt that their plays should deal with social and moral problems which had significance contemporary to the 1930* s even if the subject matter dealt with another era (Clurman 1932:507-508).

The objective of integrating theatre and society, of voicing the sig­ nificant social and moral problems of the day, became crystallized through Group Theatre productions. For example, the theme of Clifford

Odets’ Awake and Sing was that the lives of American middle class fami­ lies are cluttered with problems caused largely by their environment and the economic system (Clurman 1963:422). The theme of Robert Ard- rey’s Casey Jones was "the enslavement of the individual by his job in a society in which the job for the individual is unconnected with a creative purpose" (Clurman 1945:218).

A Mode of Living

Community living was a vital part of the Group Theatre. To better accomplish its aim of an integrated company, the Group lived together during summer rehearsal periods, and if finances dictated, during the winter months as well. For example, the Group spent its first summer at Brookfield Center, Connecticut. The actors rehearsed morning, noon, and night but still found time to go swimming, play, and fall in love. After evening rehearsals the company usually re­ mained together and activities ranged from debates over fine points 41

of the day’s rehearsals to playing cards for small stakes* Authors

Paul Green and Maxwell Anderson were also present at the encampment,

and Mordecai Gorelik dropped in to observe the Group (Clurman 1945:45-

48)* Magazine reporter John Paxton (1938:24) painted the following

picture of the Group’s summer at Brookfield Center:

The gentle and generous Morris Carnovsky liked to sit on the front porch and play Mozart concertos* Franchot Tone liked to throw firecrackers under the porch and scare the hell out of Mr* Carnovsky * Bobby Lewis had a fine cello which he never played* They went swimming by the light of the moon, in the raw* There was plenty of applejack; the state troopers descended on Maxwell Anderson’s adjacent farm late one night, trying to find out where all the noise was coming from* When Clifford Odets wasn’t driving everyone crazy with endless rolling chords on the piano he was off taking long walks, collecting milkweed pods and birds’ nests* Fannie DeKnight had a beautiful letter of introduction to David Belasco which she loved to show people. Mary Morris took care of her baby*

The Group lived together during the summer like a family* ’’Here was

companionship, security, work, and dreams” (Clurman 1945:46)*

In 1932 the Group summered in a communal atmosphere at Dover

Furnace, New York* The Group’s site was formerly a camp and consisted

of a cluster of ten houses with the attendant tennis courts, swimming pool, billiard room, baseball diamond, and croquet grounds that made

for comfort (’’Summer Season” 1932:1)* The following is a schedule of a

typical day for the Group at Dover Furnace:

1* Rising bell at 8:30* Breakfast* 2* Two hours of free time for study, tennis, or lying about on the grass* 3* Rehearsal* For those not in the plays being rehearsed at this time there are classes in various types of advanced training* 4* Lunch* 5* Classes in dancing under Tamiris* 6 * : Swimming, etc* 42

70 A period in which the directors work with individuals in the plays they are directing or with actors in the company who need help in specific problems. 80 Dinner. 9. About two hours of free time for study, etc. 10. At 8:30 a complete,run-through of the plays in rehearsal. For those not in plays, classes in improvisation, etc. 11. After rehearsal, a late supper in the dining hall, which usually turns into a free-for-all argument over the merits of the plays in rehearsal, the superiority of tea over coffee, the theories of Jacques Copeau and Stanislavsky, the best way to get a good sunburn, events in the current Broadway theatre or the discovery of a good beer within four miles of the Group headquarters ("Summer Season” 1932:

' I)-

A typical schedule for a summer's day kept the Group busy from morning

to night with rehearsals, classes in dance, improvisetional work, and

work on individual acting problems.

Due to a strained financial situation, about nine members of

the Group moved into a ten-room flat on West 57th Street in New York

City during the winter of 1932. The rent was fifty dollars a month,

there was no steam heat, and Group actor Art Smith talked the gas com­

pany out of the customary deposit (Paxton 1938:24). Meals were pro­

vided for through a common fund, marketing was done by two girls, and

cooking was done by four or five of the men who had a knack for it.

Clifford Odets? culinary skills were limited to potato pancakes and hot •

chocolate. Each of the occupants took care of his own room, and on

special occasions a friend or more fortunate Group member sent a chicken

or meat for a pot roast (Clurman 1945:103-104). Taking the prefix

"Group" and the suffix "stroy," a Russian word meaning "collection,"

the Group members named themselves "Groupstroy" (Paxton 1938:24).

1 Cheryl Crawford became den mother for the Groupstroy and for relaxation 43 she hummed old ballads (Crichton 1942:56)0 Clifford Odets assigned himself a small room adjoining the kitchen and began to write. When­ ever Odets had completed four or five pages of script, he would summon the other occupants of the flat into the kitchen, the only warm room in the apartment, and there they would stage impromptu performances of portions of Odets1 script. The script turned out to be Awake and Sing, the first full length Odets1 play performed by the Group (Shuman 1962:

24-25), Living in the Groupstroy "proved the Group1s mettle. It was one for all and all for one" (Paxton 1938:24), with the Group working, living, arid playing together in a collective pattern that was both deeply satisfying and richly productive.

Generally, the Group Theatre developed an acting system and a directorial approach based upon the work of Stanislavsky, and Lee Stras- berg's interpretation of the Stanislavsky acting system continues to be taught in some of today's acting schools. The Group director1s prime function was to act as leader and guide his fellow artists to their fullest development, and the director?s procedure utilized a planning stage and an acting stage. The director strived for an ensemble per­ formance, coordinated and integrated through his interpretation. The

Group made the scene designer and the playwright integral parts of the theatre organization. Stage settings were related to all other ele­ ments of production and were considered a means of creating a meaning­ ful and expressive environment for a play1s characters. The Group provided instruction and practical experience for playwrights and en­ couraged the writing of social drama. Community living was used during 44 the Group1s summer rehearsal periods to better accomplish the goal of a thoroughly integrated company0 CHAPTER 3

PROBLEMS OF THE GROUP THEATRE

The Group Theatre encountered a variety of problems during its

ten-year life, including misinterpretation of the Stanislavsky system

of acting, lack of a financial.base, infiltration by the Communist

Party, and dissatisfaction leading to eventual reorganization,of the

Group o

Misinterpretation of the Stanislavsky System of Acting

The Group's adaptation of the Stanislavsky system of acting produced some negative reactions within the companye A number of ac­

tors saw the acting system as therapy for their own personal problems,,

These actors, searching for a solution to inner problems, thought they had found a key to their salvation in the Group's emphasis on true emo-

tiono As a result, the actors ignored the Group's fundamental pre­

requisite of relaxation when acting and threw themselves into acting with great abandon« The outcome was amateurish overacting (Clurman

1945:61-62).

Stella Adler (1970:605) explained how the Group's acting system was better adapted to those actors with prior experience on the stage:

The Stanislavsky technique has an over-all aim relation to the actor. It teaches him what to do consciously so that he can be free and spontaneous emotionally. From the beginning, therefore, the system benefited chiefly the more experienced actors. They knew they could act— had already done it— had fulfilled the re­ quirements needed in the professional theatre. They were able

45 - - v - ' 46

to bring an independence, therefore, which they had achieved through experiencee They had the confidence which comes with performance, no matter how ■ self-critical one is. They used . the method in this contexte They added new acting elements and were therefore able to feel themselves more alive, more emotionally fluent than before. They became aware of this growth and could now recreate a part with each performance.

Independence and confidence brought by experience on the stage was needed before an actor could use the Group's acting system to fullest

advantage. Actors with little stage experience accepted the acting

system literally and became confused. Many failed in their develop­ ment as actors because they lost confidence in their old techniques.

Despite this, individual performances were often excellent due to the

Group's solid rehearsal techniques (Adler 1970:605),

After a trip to the Soviet Union in 1934, Harold Clurman and

Stella Adler stopped in Paris where they visited Stanislavsky who was

recuperating from an illness. Miss Adler told the. Russian that she had been worried for three years over certain aspects of his acting system,

Stanislavsky (Clurman 1945:138) reportedly stated: " I f the system does not help you, forget it. But perhaps you do not use it properly,11

Stanislavsky offered to work with Miss Adler on a scene she had found

difficult, and for five weeks Miss Adler worked daily with Stanislavsky

on a scene from John Howard Lawson's Gentlewoman (Clurman 1945:138),

Later in 1934 Miss Adler returned to the Group, which was sum­ mering in the Catskills, and informed the company that they had been misusing the:emotional memory exercises by overemphasizing personal

circumstances in preparation (Gray 1964:34), Miss Adler said that

Stanislavsky had recommended use of given circumstances of the play 47 and the magic "as if" as the key to charactere The play1s given cir­ cumstances consisted of the play ? s environment (plot, time and place of the action, conditions of life, etc.), and the magic "as if" caused the actor to answer the question, "What would I do if I were this charac­ ter?" Emotion memory was only to be used when nothing else worked.

Strasberg became defensive and intimated to the Group that there was no reason to imitate. Stanislavsky slavishly and that his own version of the system was preferable to that of Stanislavsky because of the differ­ ences between Russian and American actors. Strasberg later decided to take advantage of the suggestions furnished in Miss Adler? s report and to use what he could of the "innovations" in Stanislavsky1s method

(Clurman 1945:139).

Miss Adler began to give classes in acting during the summer of

1934 and the approach to the actorfs craft was changed radically. The emphasis which had been placed on the conscious manipulation of the ac­ tor’s exact emotion was abandoned by most of the Group’s actors. Em­ phasis was put on the circumstances of the play and a stronger use of the actor’s need to find greater justification in the use of these cir­ cumstances (Adler 1970:605).

Until the time of Miss Adler’s report, the Group had always worked from emotion memory but never from given circumstances^ Actor

Robert Lewis (Gray 1964:35) recounted his reaction to the change in ap­ proach to acting: "Stella’s report was a breath of fresh air. It was right from the horse’s mouth. Until that time Strasberg was considered a disciple of Stanislavsky0 To the Group, he was now excommunicated. 48

All that we had been doing was digging, probing, fkvetehinge? We were

all very excited— -for this was more the theatre*"

The Group discovered that frequently the experienced actors in • - the company profited by their adaptation of the Stanislavsky system of

acting, while the inexperienced in their ranks tended to lose confi­

dence in themselves as actors or threw themselves into the new acting

system with such a will that the result was amateurish overacting0 In

1934 the Group reinterpreted their adaptation of the Stanislavsky system

of acting due to the work of Stella Adler, and from that time on the

Group emphasized the play * s given circumstances rather than emotion

memory as the key to creating character0 -

Lack of a Financial Base

The Group Theatre never established the firm financial base

necessary for a permanent theatre organization. The Group had neither

a sponsor nor an audience large enough to support them and consequently

was plagued with the necessity of scraping for each penny needed to

cover production costs. The Group received backing from the Theatre

Guild for its first production. The House of Connelly. After this

show, Clurman again approached the Guild to ask for its support but

gave no evidence that the Group needed the Guild in any of the Group's

work. The Theatre Guild refused to be the Group's patron but contrib­

uted $5000 toward the Group's next production, Claire and Paul Sifton's

1931- (Clurman 1945:68-69). The balance of the money needed to produce

/ 1931- was raised primarily through the efforts of Cheryl Crawford (Crichton 1942:56) and came from individual contributors including ac­ tor Franchot Tone and producer Herman Shumlin (Clurman 1945:69).

The Theatre Guild showed no interest in financing the Group's third production, Maxwell Anderson's Night Over Taos. Harold Clurman and Cheryl Crawford had resigned their posts at the Theatre Guild

("Group Theatre Now Independent" 1932:14). Clurman (1945:79) recog­ nized the Group's tenuous situation and was not very happy: "I real­ ized with a shock that we were now financially on the same competitive status as any commercial management. This was precisely what I had not wanted. We were not a commercial theatre."

The Group Theatre was now forced to pursue a new course of ac­ tion to secure financial backing. Clurman (1931:2) published an arti­ cle in the New York Times asking for an endowment of $100,000. The endowment was not forthcoming and the Group employed a new strategy in­ volving a campaign for an audience. Cheryl Crawford was put in charge of the project which had the aim of creating a membership in a Group

Theatre audience. The concept was not precisely a subscription idea since the Group thought regular subscribers to be something of an ar­ tistic handicap. With regular subscribers, however, the Group would have been committed to produce a fixed number of plays regardless of whether or not the Group had plays it wanted to do, and the Group did not want to be obligated to produce any given number of plays in a season (Clurman 1945:77-78).

The Group's plan called for a payment of $2.00 from each Group

Theatre audience member. In return, the audience member would receive - ' ' , - 50

a 20 per cent reduction from box office prices, one invitation seat

during the season, and the privilege of submitting criticism and com­ ment on the various Group productions ("Adopts Subscription Plan" 1932:

32)o Provision was also made for special meetings where the Group dis­

cussed problems directly with the audience0 During special Sunday

evening meetings the Group production unit met with Group Theatre audi­

ence members0 The program consisted chiefly of questions from the " ■ . • audience which were relegated to and answered by representatives of the various departments of playmaking ("Agitating the Sabbath Calm" 1932:

2)o For all practical purposes, the Group’s campaign for an audience was a failure. According to Harold Clurman (1945:79), the Group had

little time and insufficient money to conduct such a campaign, and the

Group was an amateur in the field of good public relations*

At the end of the 1931-32 season the Group made a final attempt

to secure a patron. Harold Clurman and Cheryl Crawford visited the wealthy New York financier Otto Kahn. Unfortunately Clurman and Craw­

ford found Kahn unwilling to back the Group since at the time the fin­ ancier, was more interested in what Congress was doing than what was happening in the theatre world. The stock market crash had taken a great deal out of Kahn; "he was tired, at a loss, unable to interest himself in many things— such as the Group— that a few years before would readily have won his support" (Clurman 1945:81-82).

Failing to establish a subscription audience and find a patron,

the Group found itself on equal footing with the commercial New York

theatre. "Like every other producer, the Group Theatre has had to find ' ; 51 individual backing for each of its plays; it has had to depend on the immediate reaction of the first night audience and the reviewers* no­ tices; it has had to compete with other managements in securing scripts** (Clurman 1933:3)0

Cheryl Crawford became the Group * s chief money raiser, "It was

Cheryl Crawford’s lot to go scurrying around digging up backers. She has dug up all sorts, » , o She has raised.money when there were bread lines on Forty-second Street , , „ she had cornered something like a half a million dollars" (Paxton 1938:24),

The Group was never able to set aside at one time a substantial amount of money for a carefully planned program on a long term or sea­ sonal basis. Any investments the Group received were on a short term basis only, Clurman (1945:64) commented on Group investments: "The money we raised was given to us, in effect, as gambler investments, never as money to support an institution of some permanent value,"

Producer Lee Shubert backed the Group production of John Howard

Lawson’s Success Story, but the money he provided was insufficient to pay all Group members. The three directors forfeited their own sala­ ries for a five week period to help ease the financial strain, but still there was not enough money. Those Group actors not involved in the production were granted the right to seek outside employment and still be considered part of the Group, During the season of 1932-33 only about eighteen of the Group’s thirty people were paid (Clurman

1945:96-97). 52

The 1933 production of Dawn Powellf s-Big Night serves as a

prime example of the inept business practices which hindered the Group„

Clurman borrowed $500 from his brother to raise the first night curtain0

None of the directors was paid his fee for the production. The actors1

bond, guaranteeing two weeks1 salary, was to have been put up by a

Broadway manager who had seen a rehearsal of the show and thought it

very funny. The Group’s secretary mailed the promissory statement for

the manager’s signature a day late, and by the time the manager received

the papers for signature, the notices had appeared in the newspapers.

The manager knew the play was a flop and he refused to live up to his

commitment. After working on the play for months, the actors received no pay at all and the only people who received any money were the scene

designer, the builder, and the stagehands (Clurman 1945:108).

The Group was left with no money for its summer rehearsal period

in 1933o Towards defraying the expenses of the summer, a benefit enter­

tainment was held at New York City’s Shubert Theatre on May 21, 1933.

The benefit was arranged by Robert Lewis and an assembly of stage and radio personalities gathered to aid the Group Theatre. Parts of the program were broadcast and gross receipts of more than $2000 were real­

ized (’’Group Theatre Aided” 1933:18). This $2000 was just enough to

take care of the most needy cases in the Group and still left the com­ pany without funds for the summer. Through an arrangement with an adult camp located at Green Mansions, Warrenshurg, New York, the Group agreed to provide four nights of entertainment a week in a small thea­

tre on the camp’s premises. In return for the entertainment, the camp 5 3 ' management provided free room and board for the entire Group membership as well as a scene designer, dance director, speech teacher, and all their assistants. For their camp performances the Group used Anton

Chekhov’s The Bear, original revue sketches, acts from Big Night, Suc­ cess Story, and Eugene O ’Neill’s Emperor Jones (Clurman 1945:125-127).

Although the 1933 production of Sidney Kingsley’s Men In White was a commercial success with 311 performances, the Group made little money because profits were split with co-producer Sidney Harmon (Crich­ ton 1942:56). In 1935 Harold Clurman was unable to find anyone willing to produce Clifford Odets’ Awake and Sing. Clurman appealed to Franchot

Tone, then residing in Hollywood, and Tone sent $5000. without even read­ ing the script. Due to the unforeseen expense of removing scenery of

Melvin Levy’s Gold Eagle Guy from New York’s Morosco Theatre stage,

Cheryl Crawford had to raise another $1500 for Awake and Sing. There was also difficulty finding backers for Clifford Odets’ Golden Boy in

1937. When funds were finally secured, the list of investors included

Clifford Odets, Jack Moss (Gary Cooper’s manager), director Henry Hath­ away, and William Milpiker of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer foreign office.

Unfortunately, the profits realized by the Group from Awake and Sing and Golden Boy were insufficient to finance a long term production pro­ gram (Clurman 1945:146-147, 210).

In 1938 the Group decided to try once more to raise sufficient money to maintain a permanent theatre. The plan offered by the Group was a generous one. For the sum of $100,000 the Group offered to guar­ antee the production of four plays, from which the investors would ■■■ -V ■■ \ ^ receive 50 per cent of the profit on the plays financed and on all pro- ductions for a year to follow. The Group was unable to find any buyers or patronso The play to play basis was still preferred to the long term scheme as an investment (Clurman 1945:230).

The Group, hampered by inept business practices and unable to find a patron or secure a subscription audience, was unable to establish the financial base necessary for a permanent theatre.

Infiltration by the Communist Party

The Communist Party infiltrated the Group Theatre with the aim of controlling the theatre organization and using it as an instrument of propaganda. Although the attempt was abortive, Communist agitation caused strain within the company.

In 1932 when the Group Theatre departed for Dover Furnace, New

\ ■ v •••.,. .. , . . , . ■ York, to prepare for a new season, Harold Clurman (1945:89) noted a marked difference in the attitude of the company. Clurman had seen no evidence of "radicalism^ in the Group during the first summer, but sud­ denly there was an interest in social, political, and economic ques­ tions during the second summer encampment. People who were unfamiliar to the Group were shunned and the preoccupation with political, social, and economic matters ran like a fever through the camp. "Without real­ izing or wishing it, the Group was turning in on itself" (Clurman 1945:

89). Communist agitation was eroding the cohesive fiber of the Group.

Professor Morgan Himelstein (1968:159) of Rutgers University theorizes that Communist agitators and sympathizers had been attracted ' V: : ■ : 55 to the Group not only by the proletarian content of 1931- but also by the skill with which the ensemble had presented the plays of the Groupf s first season. The Marxist agitation during the second summer indicated that the Communists had started a campaign to convert the Group Theatre into a revolutionary theatre and were aided in their mission by the deepening of the Depression.

Details of the Communist plan to gain control of the Group were not fully revealed until 1952 when Elia Kazan testified before the

House Committee on Un-American Activities, Washington, D.C. According to the official testimony (U.S. Congress 1952:2407-2414), Kazan joined the Group Theatre in the summer of 1932. Kazan stated that before he was recruited.into the Party during the summer of 1934 a Communist cell had already been established in the Group Theatre to further Marxian studies, infiltrate Actors * Equity, to support such Party fronts as the

League of Workersf Theatres and the New Theatre League, and to seize control of the Group in order to transform it into a Communist propa­ ganda mouthpiece.

Since the Group was controlled by its three non-Communist di­ rectors from 1931 to 1937 and by Clurman alone from 1937 to 1941, the

Communists agitated for a more ^democratic" directorate in which the actors, especially the Communist actors, would be represented. Kazan

(U.S. Congress 1952:2410) testified the Communists "were not interested in democracy; they wanted control. They had no chance of controlling the directors, but they thought that if authority went to the actors, they would have a chance to dominate through the usual tricks of behind-the-scenes caucuses, block voting, and confusion of issues*"

Although an Actors? Committee was established in 1933, its function was

strictly advisory while the directors retained complete authority over the Group organization (Clurman 1945:124)*

Eight other actors were named as members of the Group Communist cell during 1934-1936: Lewis Leverett and J* Edward Bromberg (the two leaders), Phoebe Brand (later Mrs* Morris Carnovsky), Morris Carnovsky,

Tony Kraber, Paula Miller (later Mrs* Lee Strasberg), Clifford Odets, and Art Smith (U*S* Congress 1952:2409)* Kazan testified that Party orders were transmitted to the cell by one V* J* Jerome, who was "some sort of fcultural? commissar," and by Andrew Overgaard, head of the

Trade Union Unity League* Kazan, stating he joined the Communist Party to fight fascism and poverty, refused to work for "democratic" control of the Groupf s advisory committee and quit in 1936 when a Party organ­ izer urged Kazan to repent this refusal (U*S* Congress 1952:2409-2411)*

Himelstein (1963:160) believed the Communists failure to con­ trol the Group Theatre was evident in the large amount of work that

some individual actors did for the Communist Party1s theatrical fronts; for example, the New Theatre League was able to use the Group’s pres­ tige and actors such as J* Edward Bromberg, but not the Group itself*

Continual agitation in the Party press for change in the Group’s poli­ cies also indicated that the Communists had failed in their objective*

Himelstein (1963:160-181) noted that the Communist attempt to control the Group was doomed to failure because the Party misjudged the temper- tnents of the Group members: 57

The Group was a collective, but primarily onstage^— not off; the Communists did not understand that an artistic collective was not necessarily a political one. The Group could agree on the interpretation of a particular play, but the ever-bickering mem­ bership could agree on little else. The politically disciplined Communists in the company could set forth their Party? s rigid line, but their theatrically disciplined brothers could not con­ form because their temperments were too individualistic.

The Communist Partyv s attempt to gain control of the Group failed partly because nearly all the actors and directors in the Group were noncon­ formists and as such were unsuited, for Party activities which demanded conformity. The Group was a theatre, not a Communist Party spokesman.

Dissatisfaction and Reorganization

During its ten year history, the Group Theatre/underwent two major reorganizations which were direct outgrowths of dissatisfaction within the organization. These changes ultimately left the Group with only one director and a method of operation similar to that of the com­ mercial theatre.

In 1936 Harold Clurman (1945:183) proposed a method for reorgan­ ization of the Group under the strong central leadership of a single managing director. On account of loose leadership or the fear on the part of the individual directors to assume responsibility for the course of the Group, Clurman felt the Group was adrift. Clurman ( - . ■ ' . drafted his plan, presented it to Strasberg and Crawford, and nominated himself for the job of managing director.

The Group spent days discussing Clurman? s plan for centraliza­ tion of authority and finally agreed that Clurman was the right choice for managing director. On August 2, 1936, it was announced that Clurman 58

had assumed the position of Group Theatre managing director ("Company

Pastorale" (1936:lX A new Actors1 Committee was elected by the Group as

a whole and its members were: Stella Adler, Roman Bohnen, Morris Car-

novsky, and Elia Kazan (Clurman 1945:185)0

The Group's second reorganization followed the 1936 production

of Paul Greents Johnny Johnson, referred to by one magazine writer as

the Group Theatre?s most expensive and spectacular commercial failure

(Paxton 1938:77)0 This lavish production left the Group in severe fi­

nancial difficulty and, with no alternatives, the Group collapsed and

announced in the press that it had disbanded for the season ("News of

the Stage" 1937a:20)0

Following this collapse, dissatisfaction and resentment ran

through the Group’s ranks. The Actors’ Committee drew up a document

called by Harold Clurman (1945:193) "an entirely lucid, frank analysis

. of the Group’s quandary," The Actors’ Committee paper first tore apart

the production of Johnny Johnson, and then went on to state why the

paper was written:

We are writing this paper so that the Group will go on. , , , We are sure that today the Group is no longer the three direc­ tors* * * o The Group Theatre is thirty members (including the individual directors)e Whatever superior talent and wisdom they might have today is no longer the important factor in holding the theatre together. . . It is inescapable that the directors have not solved the Group problem. . . . The actors simply do not get any money out of the organization. . . . If any generalization should be made it is much more true to say that the actors by their dogged faith and belief in the idea of the theatre (which was planted six years ago by the directors) are keeping each other and the directors together. At certain points it has been determination— -seemingly unreasonable— that • the Group must go on. . . . There will be a Group Theatre no matter which of the directors resigns. 59

The paper was written in hopes that constructive criticism would help the Group continue0 The Actors1 Committee felt the only thing holding the Group together was the sheer determination of the actors and that the basic problem of the Group was that the actors were not getting enough pay6 There followed in the paper an analysis of the three di­ rectors (Clurman 1945:193-196):

Lee Strasberg: There is no doubt that it was Lee who gave the first artistic shape to the Group Theatree For example, the thing that most of the actors of the Group still call the Method is in reality Lee's own (method of work0 «, „ » In this respect, we believe that in actual influence exerted, Lee has been the greatest artistic force in the American theatre during the last five years. Six: years ago with the inception of the Group, the revolutionary task was his to do. He had to break down a whole tradition in thirty different individuals and really necessi­ tated (as it tended to further harden and bring out) Lee's great courage, his doggedness, his cold scorn of artistic com­ promise, his clannishness, his removal from life, his hysteri­ cal force (used as a threat) and above all the brute domineer­ ing of his will. . . o Lee filled the need of that time. . . . But today the same qualities that once were necessary seem un­ healthy. We believe that Lee under the new organization should be relieved for some time of all but purely artistic tasks.

Harold Clurman: To our mind, despite the fact that his re­ gime as a managing director is a failure, he is the logical man for the position at the head of the theatre. It was he, single handed, who brought the Group alive into the world. He is still the clearest and most whole of the three directors, and in him the Group Idea still flourishes the most. . . . But Harold has the gravest faults, which he is far from recognizing 'himself. This is evidenced by the fact that during his term as managing director he did not create the theatre organization that was his first and most important task. Harold really works only under the spell of inspiration, crumbling just before rising to the heights. He must have an iron-clad and completely worked out plan.

Cheryl Crawford: She's had six years of dirty jobs. We ap­ preciate this, but she strikes us as a disappointed artist. She always feels she is wasting her life, that she is a 'martyr' to the Group, that without her the Group would fold in a minute, and worst of all that no one appreciates her. She never stops trying to impress people with her own importance, the work : ■■ ■ . • •• \ - ■ 60

she is doing, how what other people receive credit for doing is really her work0 „ ® « We should get a business manager whom we really trust to take over these tasks® Cheryl's job lies in the creation of scripts like Johnny Johnson, tasks of general finance and promotion*

The actors felt that of the three directors, only Clurman was the logi­

cal choice to head the Group Theatre* The Actors' Committee paper con­

cluded:

First we must assure the Group actors a regular, predictable sustaining income* At least one half of the Group receive what for them is not even a subsistence wage® Another third live on a debasing wage level * The rest.have outside jobs or outside sources of income* Year after year debts pile up* As it is to­ day the Group's continuance is impossible®

Second, the basic personal need for all of us, actor and di­ rector alike, is sufficient artistic exercise. * * * Often a whole year of one's life adds up to only one good part if one is lucky *

We believe we must take immediate steps now, to institution­ alize ourselves as a Theatre* Next year, sweeping aside other desiderata, we must have our own theatre* With it, forty weeks of active and full production and performance. * * *

We have one tattered bond left between us all— a passionate concern for the Group idea* We have a choice:

Immediate action— thus serving the Group through the present personnel and present organization— following a plan such as we have suggested, or an alternate possibility we have not dis­ cussed— Dissolution, to allow a new and more fit Group to rise from the ashes, to start on a clean slate— recognize fully, bear­ ing in mind our mistakes (Clurman 1945:193-196)„

As a result of the Actors' Committee report, the Group's three

directors resigned with the idea of reconstituting the Group along with

the actors. When the directors announced their resignations, the ac­

tors called for a committee composed of the three former directors and

a new Actors' Committee to draft future plans. The few meetings held

by the joint committee had no positive results* Dissolution threatened 61

the Group, and the members dispersed for the spring. Before Harold

Clurman (1937:1) left for Hollywood, he published an article in the New

York Times to dispel rumors that the Group was folding, Clurman wrote

that the Group would resume production in the fall of 1937,

The resignation of Cheryl Crawford and Lee Strasberg from the

Group Theatre was announced in the New York press on April 13, 1937

("News of the Stage" 1937b:31), Cheryl Crawford claimed in her letter

of resignation that she was not getting any collaboration from the

Group, Lee Strasberg said that his resignation was prompted by the

feeling that the members of the Group had destroyed its leadership,

Clurman accepted the two resignations "with a kind of friendly fatal­

ism and no argument" (Clurman 1945:204),

Harold Clurman was in Hollywood when the announcement of Stras­

berg 1 s and Crawfordf s resignations was made. Early in May 1937, Elia

Kazan wrote to Clurman saying that there were two alternatives: Clur­ man could return to New York and risk setting up the Group that summer,

or he could wait a year or two, accumulate some money, and start fresh

with whatever material was available at the time, Clurman read Kazan’s

letter and quickly decided to begin work again with the Group, Clurman

informed Kazan that he would return to New York in August (Clurman 1945:

206)..,

Meetings were held, when Clurman returned to New York in August

1937 and a policy was set forth for the next season, Clurman would not

guarantee a salary to anyone not employed in actual production work with the Group, There would be only one director, Clurman, and an . 62

appointed council made up of Group actors Luther Adler, Roman Bohnen,

and Elia Kazan was to aid the director0. - Clurman could not promise to keep some of the old Group company on the active list, but he would do

everything possible to maintain the bulk of the company employed since

Clurman believed in the fundamental principle.of the Group organization

— the permanent company (Clurman 1945:206-207)„

For all practical purposes, Harold. Clurman became an individual

producer with a company of well trained actors. Clurman.imported ac­

tors and actresses in attempts to bolster the Group's sagging box of­

fice record, and in the process violated his own concept of the

permanent company„ For example, Sylvia Sidney and Sam Jaffe (two ac­

tors who were not Group members) were engaged by Clurman to play in

Irwin Shaw's The Gentle People, and a Hollywood actress named Eleanor

Lynn was brought in to play the lead in Clifford Odets' Rocket to the

Moon (Clurman 1945:234, 238)e The Group also had a contract with Para­ mount Pictures in Hollywood which allowed actors Leif Erickson and

Frances Farmer to spend three months out of the year making films in

Hollywood and the remaining nine months on Broadway with the Group

Theatre (Paxton 1938:78)e

In 1940, just prior to the Group's production of Clifford Odets

Night Music, Clurman issued a statement telling the actors that from

that point on he would run the Group alone, with the advice of whomever

inside or outside the Group he saw fit to consult. In reaction to this

the actors elected a committee to draw up a Group constitution that

would establish a method of operation for the organization as well as a 63 program that conformed to the actorsf collective view of the theatre as they wished to have it. When the actors showed Clurman the paper they had drawn up requesting an institutional theatre, Clurman told them that these were the same goals they had had since 1928 and the paper offered a blueprint without provision for materials in time and money to realize its design (Clurman 1945:273).

In general, misinterpretation of the Stanislavsky system of acting led to amateurish overacting or loss of confidence among the more inexperienced Group actors. In 1934 the Group's emphasis in cre­ ating character shifted from use of emotion memory to the magic "as if" and given circumstances. Due to the use of poor business practices and the inability to gain a patron or subscription audience, the Group was unable to create the financial base necessary for a permanent theatre organization and was forced to find individual backing for each of its plays. The Communist Party attempted to make the Group a propaganda instrument for Communist aims and the Group Theatre underwent two major reorganizations, the last of which left the Group with a single director who operated like a commercial producer with a company of well trained actors. Clurman, in total control of the Group, desperately attempted to keep the theatre organization functioning. The Group Theatre was falling apart, and each person's actions, although full of good inten­ tions, served only to aggravate the situation and hasten the disinte­ gration of the theatre. CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF THE TERMINATION AND INFLUENCE OF THE GROUP THEATRE

In 1941 a variety of factors brought about the end of the Group

Theatreo Although the Group organization dissolved after a ten year

life, its influence is still felt in American theatre.

Reasons for Dissolution of the Group Theatre

One of the Group Theatre?s basic mistakes was the attempt to operate a noncommercial theatre on Broadway. The Group could not af­

ford failures any more than a commercial manager and had no way of

guaranteeing an audience for its works since the Broadway playgoers at­

tended the Group productions that were hits and ignored the others.

f,For those who want to establish an institutional theatre, to conduct

their work with the same skimpy resources as the one-show-atr-a-time management, is to compromise in a way that in the end will betray their

aims and bring them little gain. Exactly thi's compromise was forced on

the Group for ten years" (Clurman 1941:2). While the Group attempted

to maintain a true theatre policy artistically, the theatre proceeded

economically on a show business basis. The Group's means and ends were .

in fundamental contradiction.

The Group Theatre!s inability to secure patronage contributed

to the Group* s death. Clurman (1941: 2) preferred that there be no

64 65 :

Group Theatre without some form of subsidy, be it public, private, in­ dividual, or collective: MUntil a method of raising such a subsidy for our kind of theatre can be evolved, until a real working basis can be created, I would rather our offices remain closed* There can be no in­ stitutional product without an institutional foundatione ,f

The constant necessity for good plays was another factor in the

Groupf s dissolution. In order to survive, the Group had to have a con­ stant supply of new works which promised success according to the usual commercial standards of Broadway. "Unlike the commercial managers, the

Group could not afford to remain idle when no good scripts were avail­ able. Time and time again, the directors produced plays that nobody was especially enthusiastic about, simply to have something to keep them going" (Poggi 1968:154). Lee Strasberg (1947:1) believed the Group was compelled to terminate its existence for want of suitable scripts,

"There was never a play which the Group Theatre was unable to finance; its company was intact and eager to continue; its position as the first ensemble in America was securely established; but— it simply did not have enough scripts in its drawer to go on living.”

Although one of the Group Theatre's objectives was production of socially relevant drama, theatre critic and historian John Gassner

(1954:551) believed the Group limited itself too severely with produc­ tions of social drama. Gassner felt the Group Theatre developed a style of performance primarily in the limited field of colloquial New

York social drama and that the Group exhibited little aptitude for high comedy and poetic drama. Gassner (1940:733) also felt that the Group 66 might have been in a sounder financial position if it had given suffi­ cient scope to the imagination in its productions* It seemed as though the Group was often confined by its realistic approach to production,

"The realism that has dominated the Group's approach to acting appears to have inhibited inventiveness or freedom of treatment" (Gassner 1940:

733)- Harold Clurman (1945:281-284) argued that isolation hindered the

Group's ability to survive:

The Group Theatre was a failure because, as no individual can exist alone, no group can exist alone* For a group to live a. healthy life and mature to a full consummation of its potential­ ity, it must be sustained by other groups— not only of moneyed men or civic support, but by equally conscious groups in the press, in the audience, and generally in large and comparatively stable segments of society* When this fails to happen, regard­ less of its spirit or capacities, it will wither just as. an organ that is not nourished by the blood's circulation through the body.

Social groups failed to.support the Group and without such support the existence of the Group Theatre was cut short*

Some members of the Group's company began to crave the riches found in Hollywood and the resulting attrition contributed to the

Group's extinction* Prime examples of the movement to California were actors Franchot Tone and John Garfield who left the Group for careers in motion pictures (Clurman 1945:107, 220). "The disease of each-man- for-himself has always been the major threat to any cooperative thea­ tre enterprise" (Lewis 1969:287).

The change in societal milieu tended to promote the disinte­ gration of the Group Theatre. The Group grew up during a period of economic depression and came to an end as the United States approached ■ ■ 6 7 •

World War II. During this time, society and its values changed radi­ cally and directly affected the Group. Clurman (1945:283) recalled that during the 1930? s there developed an intense hunger for an art which was humanly meaningful and relevant, and the Group Theatre be­ came one of the outstanding voices of this movement. The American economy, stimulated by the production needs of World War II, relieved the depression, hunger and unemployment decreased, and the public lost interest in social reform. The Group lost its social relevance and collapsed along with the movement of which it was a part. John Gassner

(1940:733) also noted that the Group's immersion in social signifi­ cances left that organization vulnerable when the social picture no longer held any hope of change for the better.

The lack of a school for young actors was a factor in the Group's death. Although the Group Theatre included actor training a part of each summer's'work, the only formal Group school lasted one season. The

Group Theatre School was established by Robert Lewis in 1937, offered ten free scholarships, a few half scholarships and was supported by some twenty paying pupils whose tuition was $100 for a ten-week semes­ ter. Some of the Group actors taught at the school and special instruc­ tors in fencing, movement, and speech were utilized (Clurman 1945:212-

213). Once. The Group Theatre School folded, there was nothing to replace it and provide a basis of continuity so badly needed for per­ petuation of the Group. Without a formal school, the Group was not able to assure the continuance of its methods through the teaching of 68 those outside the immediate Group Theatre structure and the infusion of new talent into the Group company» .

Thus, a number of factors contributed to the Group Theatre*s end in 1941 and included: the attempt to operate a noncommercial the­ atre on Broadway, the lack of a constant supply of good plays, the re­ strictions the Group placed upon itself by the development of a colloquial New York style of performance, social isolation, the change in the mood of American society as the United States moved from depres­ sion to war, and the lack of a school for young Group actors.

Influence of the Group Theatre

The ideas and concepts promoted by the Group Theatre did not vanish along with the Group in 1941. What was lost was the Group as an organization in which professional theatre artists could work together.

Through its membership, however, the Group Theatre influenced the Amer­ ican theatre long after the Group closed its doors. New York Times theatre critic Brooks Atkinson (1970:291) wrote of the Group: ,T0f the several theatre organizations formed during the depression, the most effective, the most genuine, and the one that left a permanent mark was the Group Theatre.n

The Group Theatre influence in p 1 aywriting can be seen in the area of social realism. Theatre critic and scholar Eric Bentley (1953:

131) stated the following concerning the Group4 s contributions: "Out­ side of musicals, the American theatre today offers only one highly developed form of work: the social realism that the Group Theatre did more than any other unit to promote." According to Eric Bentley 69

(1953:34), Tennessee Williamsf A Streetcar Named Desire "is a Group

Theatre play; by which I mean « e 0 that it is a well composed play of

American life, rather realistic, and seemingly more realistic than it is, in which the actors are handled in the 1 Stanislavskyf mannere u

John Gassner (1960:38) stated the following about the Group influence:

"One recalls the vigorous efforts to create a socially minded theatre during the Thirties and the high artistry of the Group Theatre, which continues to influence the American stage*"

A great amount of Group influence is evident in the training of

American actors* Eric Bentley (1967:65) felt the acting of the Group

Theatre tradition was "the best kind of American theatre work," and

John Gassner (1954:77) believed the most successful performance style of modern times has been Stanislavsky1s inner realism, the acting system adhered to by the Group* The Group popularized an adaptation of the

Stanislavsky system of acting, later to be called "The Method," and ac­ cording to Harold Clurman (1958:65-66) The Method had its first real trial and success on Broadway through the Group Theatre’s work* The

Group proved the value of The Method as a practical instrument in pro­ duction, and by 1937 this approach to acting was no longer considered a peculiarity of a few offbeat actors*

On October 5, 1947, Cheryl Crawford, Elia Kazan, and Robert

Lewis founded the Actors’ Studio in New York City (Peck 1958:26)* The studio was established as a training ground for young professional ac­ tors and was a direct outgrowth of the Group Theatre* Elia Kazan

(Hethmon 1968:21) commented on the Group influence in the formation of 70 the Actors? Studio: "The Actors? Studio is obviously a continuation of the acting tradition that was in the Group Theatre, and one of the pur­ poses I had in starting this whole thing was that I didn’t want that tradition to disappear„"

Many of the Actors’ Studio pupils, trained in the Group Theatre tradition, became well established in American theatre as actors and directors* Among the first students at the Actors’ Studio were actors

Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, David Wayne, Tom Ewell, Eli Wallach,

Karl Malden, Mildred Dunnock, Maureen Stapleton, and director Herbert

Berghof* Robert Lewis (1958:15) noted that Actors’ Studio students carried on Group Theatre traditions through teaching: ’’Today Herbert

Berghof, and.others of that group teach, and I understand that some of their pupils are now teaching also* And so it goes on*”

The Actors’ Studio was not the only school which taught the

Group approach to acting* Stella Adler, for example, virtually retired from the stage in order to teach* and Sanford Meisner took charge of teaching acting at New York’s Neighborhood Playhouse School of the The­ atre (Gray 1964:41)* Thus, the influence of the Group was spread by its members through established acting schools, and ’’many young actors to this day are indirectly Group trained” (Clurman 1945:41)*

Eric Bentley (1967:29-30) believed the Group was responsible for the evolution of a new kind of American actor:

Because we have no national theatre and no network of repertory theatres, we offer our young actors far too little either of variety or continuity* Still, certain remedial measures have been taken* The creation of the Group Theatre was one such measure* *. * * It was followed by the creation of the Actors’ Studio in the Forties* In these organizations, a new 71

generation of American actors have been trained, and a new type of American actor has evolved0 The easiest way of telling the layman about the new acting is to inform him that he has seen it in Death of A Salesman or A Streetcar Named Desire. It is a de­ liberate American alternative to the elocutionary "style acting" that we import from England. It seizes on the nervous excitement of American life— healthy or unhealthy— and communicates it. It makes older-fashioned acting seem stilted, slow and emptily declamatory.

The new acting, promoted by the Group Theatre, embodied an exciting realism which made older acting styles appear mechanical and declama-

to,- ; ..

The Group Theatref s influence was also exerted through the di­ rectorial efforts of some of its ex-members. The work of Harold Clur- man, Elia Kazan, and Robert Lewis was instrumental in spreading Group influence since the directing methods of all three reveal the use of . the Group’s adaptation of Stanislavsky principles (Edwards 1965:247).

John Gassner (1968:379) discussed the inherent qualities of Group The­ atre productions and of subsequent productions directed by ex-members of the Group:

We have often splendidly exemplified the potency of ’engagement,1 empathy, and sympathy. Here I would cite Harold Clurman’s Group Theatre productions of Awake and Sing. Paradise Lost, and Golden Boy. They Cut nearer the bone than many a British or continental production, however polished and provocative, that I have seen. . o o This talent for humanization did not end with the humanitar­ ian idealism of the 19301 s. Clurman, for example, was just as effective with A Member of the Wedding and Bus Stop. Kazan with Death of A Salesman and A Streetcar Named Desire. . . .

Productions directed by ex-Group Theatre members were marked by the same realistic human qualities which were found in Group plays.

Group influence is found in the formation of New York’s Lincoln

Center Repertory Theatre. A number of the key figures in the Lincoln 72

Center Repertory Theatre were ex-Group members and carried with them

the Group approach to theatre* Elia Kazan was selected as Lincoln Cen­ ter Repertory Theatre's first director and along with producer Robert

Whitehead (who had no affiliation with the Group) was provided with

$500,000 to select and train an acting troupe0. Harold Clurman joined the Lincoln Center Repertory Theatre in 1963 as an executive consultant and another ex-Group member, Robert Lewis, was given charge of the ac­ tor training program (Martin 1971:90)0 . After one year, however, Lewis was replaced by Paul Mann (Gray 1964:27). Mann was also a product of the Group as he had studied at the Group Theatre School in 1937 and had played an orderly and a German priest in the 1936 Group production of

Johnny Johnson (Rigdon 1966:647). Kazan’s words echoed the Group’s past when he stated Lincoln Center.Repertory Theatre’s objectives: "We want a theatre of themes, of relevance to the experience of living today. At Lincoln Center, we expect, on occasion, to say, ’We ’re going to show you this play, whether you like it or not, simply because we believe it deserves your attention’" (Martin 1971:90).

The Group Theatre has influenced American theatre in the fields of playwriting, acting, and directing. The Group’s influence has been

spread by ex-Group members who have continued to work in the theatre long after the death of the Group organization. John Gassner (1968:

252) commented on Group influence when he said: "The Group Theatre of the 1930’s, the best ensemble company of its time, whose influence on

American piaywriting and acting has continued to be a force in our theatre . . . ." Generally, the Group Theatre was an artistic success. The

Group may have been a commercial disaster, but the theatre never pur­

ported to be a commercial organization. Competition with the commer­

cial Broadway theatre was a compromise unwillingly forced upon the

Group by the reality of the times.

The basic objectives of the Group Theatre are expressed by Paul

Morrison in a letter to the writer (see Appendix D). Morrison, closely

allied with the Group as a scene designer, stage manager, and actor, ' . , stated the Group's first objective as being the creation of a theatre

which would present indigenous and pertinent American themes, as well

as universal ones as they might apply to changing American social

trends. The Group’s second objective was to enlist a permanent company

of actors which would develop a playing style that would reveal those ' * . • " - themes in a manner which was not possible under conditions imposed upon

purely commercial practice. In light of these two major objectives,

the Group was a success. The Group Theatre produced contemporary social

dramas which were relevant to the times and did so through the use of a

permanent company of actors utilizing a single production method.

The primary cause of the Group Theatre’s disintegration was the

times in which the Group existed. Elia Kazan, in a letter to the writer

(see Appendix E), stated the Group was a success because it caught the

spirit of the times in which it existed. In the writer’s opinion, it

was for this very reason that the Group ceased to function. Very few

people were untouched by the depression that struck this country in

' 1929. For all people in America the depression meant sacrifice and 74

readjustment. Discontent and desire for reform was wide spread in so­

ciety. The Group Theatre produced drama which was relevant to this

time in history, but times changed and depression gave way to war as

the social dissatisfaction of the 1930*s yielded to a desire for unity

and patriotism. The type of work the Group Theatre had been doing in

the 1930* s became irrelevant in the early 1940* s. Most people were no

longer interested in social reform; the economic depression ended and with it unemployment and hunger, and the nation* s attention was di­

rected toward Europe and the beginning of World War II. The Group was

a product of its time, and when the decade of the thirties ended, so

did the Group Theatre. - 1 APPENDIX A

ACTORS WHO WERE GROUP THEATRE MEMBERS

Luther Adler Gerrit Kraber Stella Adler: Katherine Laugh1in Katherine Allen Will Lee Margaret Barker .Lewi s Leverett Alan Baxter Robert Lewis Harry Bellaver Joan Madison Roman Bohnen Karl Malden Phoebe Brand Gertrude Maynard Harry Bratsbury Sanford Meisner J0 Edward Bromberg Paula Miller Phil Brown Paul Morrison Grover Burgess Mary Morris Morris Carnovsky Ruth Nelson William Challee Clifford Odets Lee Jo Cobb John O'Malley Russell Collins Dorothy Patten Curt Conway Wendell Keith Phillips Clancy Cooper Herbert Ratner Walter Coy Martin Ritt Howard Da Silva Philip Robinson Virginia Farmer Art Smith Sylvia Fenihgston . Virginia Stevens Friendly Ford Fred Steward John Garfield Eunice Stoddard William Hansen Charles Thompson Elia Kazan Franchot Tone Alexander Kirkland Clement Wilenchick David Kortchmar Frances Williams

75 APPENDIX B

SCENE DESIGNERS WHO WORKED WITH THE GROUP THEATRE

Name Plays

Mordecai Gorelik 1931- Success Story The Big Night Men In White Gentlewoman Golden Boy Casey Jones Rocket to the Moon Thunder Rock Night Music

Boris Aronson Awake and Sing Weep for the Virgins Paradise Lost Gentle People

Donald Oenslager Gold Eagle Guy Johnny Johnson Retreat to Pleasure

Cleon Throckmorton The House of Connelly

Robert Edmond Jones Night Over Taos

Watson Barratt Case of Clyde Griffiths

Alexander Chertoff Waiting for Lefty

Paul Morrison Till the Day I Die

Herbert Andrews My Heart*s in the Highlands

76 APPENDIX C

GROUP THEATRE PRODUCTIONS lo The House of Connelly by Paul Green Directed by Cheryl Crawford and Lee Strasherg Settings by Cleon Throckmorton Martin Beck Theatre, New York City September 28, 1931 91 performances

2e 1931- by Claire and Paul Sifton Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Mansfield Theatre, New York City December 109 1931 12 performances

30 Night Over Taos by Maxwell Anderson Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Robert Edimnd Jones Forty-eighth Street Theatre, New York City March 9, 1937 13 performances

4<> Success Story by John Howard Lawson Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Maxine Elliot Theatre, New York City September 26, 1932 121 performances

50 Big Night by Dawn Powell Directed by Cheryl Crawford Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Maxine Elliot Theatre, New York City January 17, 1933 7 performances

77 78

60 Men In White b,y Sidney Kingsley Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Broadhurst Theatre, New York City September 26, 1933 311 performances

70 Gentlewoman by John Howard Lawson Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Cort Theatre, New York City March 22, 1934 12 performances

So Gold Eagle Guy by Melvin Levy- Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Donald Oenslager. Morosco Theatre, New York City November 28, 1934 65 performances

90 Awake and Sing by Clifford Odets Directed by Harold Clurman Settings by Boris Aronson Belasco Theatre, New York City February 19, 1935 209 performances

10o Waiting for Lefty by Clifford Odets Directed by Sanford Meisner and Clifford Odets Settings by Alexander Chertoff Longacre Theatre Belasco Theatre, New York City March 26, 1935 September 9, 1935 135 performances' 24 performances

11o Till the Day I Die by Clifford Odets Directed by Cheryl Crawford Settings by Paul Morrison Longacre Theatre, New York City March 26, 1935 135 performances 79

120 Weep for the Virgins by Nellisse Child Directed by Cheryl Crawford Settings by Boris Aronson Forty-sixth Street Theatre, New York City November 30, 1935 9 performances

13, Paradise Lost by Clifford Odets Directed by Harold Clurman Settings by Boris Aronson Longaere Theatre, New York City December 9, 1935 73 performances

14, The Case of Clyde Griffiths by Erwin Piseator and Lena Goldschmidt Directed by Lee Strasberg Settings by Watson Barratt Ethel Barrymore Theatre, New York City March 13, 1936 19 performances

15, Johnny Johnson by Paul Green Directed by Lee Strasberg Music by Kurt Weill Settings by Donald Oenslager Forty-fourth Street Theatre, New York City November 19, 1936 68 performances

16, Golden Boy by Clifford Odets Directed by Harold Clurman Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Belasco Theatre, New York City November 4, 1937 __ 250 performances

17, Casey Jones by Robert Ardrey Directed by Elia Kazan . Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Fulton Theatre, New York City February 19, 1938 25 performances 180 Rocket to the Moon by Clifford Odets Directed by Harold Clurman Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Belasco Theatre, New York City November 24, 1938 131 performances

19e The Gentle People by Irwin Shaw Directed by Harold Clurman Settings by Boris Aronson Belasco Theatre, New York City January 5, 1939 141 performances

20o Awake and Sing (revival) by Clifford Odets Directed by Harold Clurman Settings by Boris Aronson Windsor Theatre, New York City March 7, 1939 45 performances

21o My Heart*s in the Highlands by William Saroyan Directed by Robert Lewis Music by Paul Bowles Settings by Herbert Andrews Guild Theatre, New York City April 13, 1939 44 performances

22o Thunder Rock by Robert Ardrey Directed by Elia Kazan Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Mansfield Theatre, New York City November 14, 1939 23 performances

23,'-.Night Music by Clifford Odets Directed by Harold Clurman Music by Hans Eisler Settings by Mordecai Gorelik Broadhurst Theatre, New York City February 22, 1940 20 performances Retreat to Pleasure by Irwin Shaw Directed by Harold Clurman. Settings by Donald Oenslager Belasco Theatre, New York City December 17, 1940 23 performances ■ APPENDIX D

LETTER FROM PAUL MORRISON TO THE WRITER

82 83

The Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre 3 4 0 E A ST 5 -4tH ST R E E T NEW YORK. N. Y. 1 0 0 2 2 MURRAY Hill e-3770

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYHOUSE. INC. ADMINISTRATION OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS

BOBERT WHITEHEAD PAUL "MORRISON d i r e c t o r PRBHIDSST OLETA CARNS D’AMBRY TONY RANDALL ADMISISTRATIVK DIRECTOR ■ VICB-PRKSlDRiirr LYDIA 8. SAUNDERS FREDERICK H. ROHLFS .QKcnzrTAnr TBKAH V r a i n OLETA CARNS D'AMBRY SECRETARY MARTHA GRAHAM DIRECTOR ELI WALLACH August 1, 1972 DIRECTOR

CORPORATION MEMBERS

SIRS. WILLIAM BIJUR Kre Barry L. James . , KATHARINE CORNELL LOUIS W. GOODKIND 36u1l Mufer Place DO RIS BLT7M GORELICK . • Tucson, Azazona: 85705 MRS. ROBERT B. JUDELL ALINE M acMAHON . MRS. JOSEPH MARTIN. JR. Bear Hr, Jarssr PAUL MORRISON MRS. GUIDO PANTALEONI. JR. GREGORY PECK Kr. Meisner> being out of the city and at an IRVING I. SCHACHTEL address uhich is inaccessible except throufb long delay, has MARIAN SELDES MRS. LOUIS SMADBECK authorized me to monitor his rail, MANTA STARR . Tour letter of July 2Uth would seem to require SPONSORS an urgent answer. Since I will be joining him on August 2nd, I ALICE LEWISOHN CROWLEY will deliver it personally and he will undoubtedly answer it, FLORENCE STRAUSS DAY ANIA DORFMANN but it is quite possible his letter would not reach you before HORTON FOOTE early in September. SIR JQHN GIELGUD MARGALO GILLMORE HELEN HAYES Meanwhile, as a proxy, and one who was closely DOROTHY SANDS HONORABLE CAROLINE K. SIMON associated with the Group Theatre throughout its existence as DAME SYBIL THORNDIKE designer, " stage manager and actor, I " would venture my answers MRS. MARTIN VOGEL MARGARET WEBSTER . . to your two questions for what .they may be worth.

• ir/Jas the Group Theatre a success and why?!l In the li^it of its salient objectives? (1) To create a Theatre which would present indigenous and pertinent American themes, as well as universal ones as they nay apply to changing American social trends. (2) To enlist a permanent company of actors which, through practice and experience, within a framework of modest financial security, would- develoo a claying style which, becoming increasingly homogenous, could reveal those themes in a manner which is not possible under conditions imposed upon purely commercial'or :,show business

• A revierj of tie titles 2nd authors of Group Theatre productions would serve as testimony to the success of • the Group’s ethical our pose; all substantial p3ays whose merit was not to be found only in their social (or"‘message'') content, ' but nore .importantly in their artistic dimension.. The fact that their (Tie Group Theatre’s) aesthetic aspiration was fulfilled in terms of their, conviction that tie best theatre is a result 84

The Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre

Mr, James (2) August. 1, 1912

of a permanent company, may easily be determined by reviews received" from theatre critics who greeted even the Group’s first production "The House of Connelly" by Paul Green with unanimous praise for the quality of its ensemble performance, a distinction which became increasingly evident as their work progressed through out the thirties,

I would say that even relatively short lived (approximately ten years) as was the Group Theatre’s existence, it was, as related to its objectives, most, successful because, despite many pressures from playwrights and patrons, it remained adamant with respect to play selection as well as in' maintaining a permanent company.

Your second question, "Does a need exist for a theatre like the Grouo in this country today?" is easily answered by an emphatic yes, Times, and consequently pressures,, change but if theatre is to remain as an important cultural expression of the life from which it springs and reflects, as all good theatre has from the Greeks onward, its most successful mani­ festation has been through established permanent companies; viz., the Comedie Francaise, the Commedia del Arte, the Moscow Art Theatre and many subsidized, theatres throughout-Europe including The .Royal Shakespeare Company as well as The National Company in England.

I realize this is a summary answer, but X assure you that as time permits I, as well as Mr. Meisner, would happily supply additional details. " .

. Best of luck.

■ . Sincerely,

Paul Morrison Director

P.S. Mr, Meisner will be back at this address by September 11th, APPENDIX E

LETTER FROM. ELIA KAZAN TO THE WRITER

85 E l-ia K a z a n

July 25, 1972

Mr. Barry L. James 3644 Nufer Place Tucson, A izona 85705

Dear. Mr. James:

The answer to your first question is yes. The reason it was a success is that the organization came at the right time. It caught the spirit of that time. And it was also the best form a-theatre can take that is one of a strongly controlled artistic collective.

The answer to your second question is yes.

Best wishes.

c ,v». vcraQiRSSsroiW LIST OF REFERENCES

Adler, Stella. "The Actor in the Group Theatre," Actors on Actin%0 Eds. Helen Krich Chinoy and Toby Cole. New York: Crown Pub­ lishers, 1970.

"Adopts Subscription Plan," New York Times, March 14, 1932. p. 32.

"Agitating the Sabbath Calm," New York Times. October 23, 1932, sec. 9, p. 2.

Ardrey, Roberte "Writing for the Group," New York Times, November 19, 1939, sec. 10, p. 3.

"As to the Group Theatre," New York Times, September 27, 1931, sec. 8, p. 4... .

Atkinson, Brooks. "Acting the Drama," New York Times, October 4,'1931, sec. 8, p. 1.

- Broadway. New York: Macmillan Company, 1970.

Bentley, Eric. In Search of Theatre. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, . . 1953:, . ' . - , -

. The Theatre of Commitment. New York: A then eum,, 196 7.

Blake, Ben. The Awakening of the American Theatre. New York: Tomorrow Publishers, 1935.

Brockett, Oscar G. History of the Theatre. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968.

Clurman, Harold. "The Group Theatre Speaks for Itself," New York Times, December 13, 1931, sec. 8, p. 2.

. "An Answer from the Group Theatre," Theatre Arts Monthly, XVI (June 1932), 507-508.

. "The Group Theatre Explains," New York Times, January 29, 1933, sec. 9, p. 3.

______"Interpretation and Characterization," New Theatre, III (January 1936), 21-24.

_____ . "The Group Halts, But Only to Think It Over," New York Times, January 17, 1937, sec. 10, p. 1.

87- 88

Clurman, Harold0 "Group Theatre’s Future," New York Times, May 18, 1941, sece 9, pp. 1-2.

• o The Fervent Years. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945.

______o "The Principles of Interpretation," Producing the Play. Ed. John Gassner. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953.

. Lies Like Truth. New York: Macmillan Company, 1958.

"Introduction," to Awake and Sing, in Six Plays of Clifford Odets. New York: The Modern Library, 1963.

"Company Pastorale," New York Times. August 2, 1936, sec. 10, pp. 1-2.

Crichton, Kyle. ’’No Illusions," Colliers, CX (July 4, 1942), 48 & 56.

Deutsch, Helen and Hanau, Stella. The Provincetown. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., 1931.

Eaton, Walter Prichard. The Theatre Guild, The First Ten Years. New York: Brentanof s, 1929.

Edwards, Christine. The Stanislavsky Heritage. New York: New York University Press, 1965.

Eustis, Morton. "The Director Takes Command, III," Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (April 1936), 277-280.

Gassner, John. "The Group Theatre In Its Tenth Year: A Critical Esti­ mate, " % e a t % ^ (October 1940), 729-735. .

'• . The Theatre In Our Times. New York: Crown Publishers, 1954e

Theatre at the Crossroads. New York: Holt,. Rinehart, and Winston, 1960.

. Dramatic Soundings. New York: Crown Publishers, 1968.

Goodman, Randolph. Drama On Stage. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Win­ ston, 1961.

Gorelik, Mordecai. "I Design for the Group Theatre," Theatre Arts Monthly, XXIII (March 1939), 180-186.

____ ' , . New Theatre for Old. New York: Samuel French, 1940.

. "Designing the Play," Producing the Play. Ed. John Gassner. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953. 89

Gray, Paule "Stanislavski and America: A Critical Chronology,tf Tulane Drama Review, IX (Winter 1964), 21-60*

■ "The Group Comes of Age," New York Times, January 28, 1934, sec, 9, p O 2 o

VGroup Theatre Aided," New York Times, May 22, 1933, p, 18,

"Group Theatre Now Independent," New York Times, February 19, 1932, p, 14.

Helburn, Theresa, A Wayward Quest, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1960,

Hethmon, Robert H,, ed, Strasberg At The Actors' Studio, New York: Viking Press, 1968.,

Hewitt, Barnard, Theatre U,S,A0 1665 to 1957, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959,

Himelstein, Morgan Y, Drama Was A Weapon, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1963,

Houghton, Norris, "The Designer Sets the Stage," Theatre Arts Monthly, XX (December 1936), 966-975,

Hughes, Charlotte, "Of Morris Carnovsky," New York Times, February 22, 1942, sec, 8, p, 2,

Hutchens, John, "The Actor’s Month," Theatre Arts Monthly, XV (April 1931), 272-273.

Langner, Lawrence, The Magic Curtain, London: George G, Harrap and Coo, Ltd,, 1952,

Lewis, Emory, Stages: The Fifty-Year Childhood of the American The­ atre, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc,, 1969,

Lewis, Robert, "Five Finger Exercises for the Actor, I," New Theatre, III (March 1936a), 30-39,

"Five Finger Exercises for the Actor, III," New Theatre, III (June 1936b), 30-33,

______Method or Madness? New York: Samuel Franch, 1958,

Mantle, Burns, ed. The Best Plays of 1929-30, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co,, 1930, 90

Mantle9 Burns, ed6 The Best Plays of 1931-32c New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1934.

. Contemporary American Playwrights* New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1940. /

Martin, Ralph G. Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. Englewood : Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.

"News of the Stage," New York Times. January 9, 1937a, p. 20.

"News of the Stage," New York Times, April 13, 1937b, p. 31.

Parker, John, ed. Who's Who In The Theatre. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1936.

"Pastoral 44th Street," New York Times, May 20, 1934, sec6 9, p. 2.

Paxton, John. *?The Fabulous Fanatics," Stage, XVI (December 1938), 22- 24, 77-78.

Peck, Seymour. "The Temple of 'The Method,'" New York Times Magazine. May 6, 1958, 26-27, 42, 44, 47, 48.

Poggi, Jack. Theatre In America— The Impact of Economic Forces 1870- 1967. New York: Cornell University Press, 1968.

"Real Drama Secure, Miss Helbxim Says," New York Times. May 26, 1931, Po 32. ■

Rice, Elmer. The Living Theatre. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

Rigdon, Walter, ed. The Biographical Encyclopedia and Who's Who of the American Theatre. New York: James H. Heineman, Inc., 1966.

Rothe, Anna, ed. "Cheryl Crawford," Current Biography, VI (December 1945), 6-7.

Shuman, R. Baird. Clifford Odets. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1962.

Sisk, Robert F. "The Guild Builds for Its Future," Theatre Magazine, V (February 1930), 43, 60.

"Some Actors Take a Script to the Country and Come Home as the Group Theatre," New York Times, October 25, 1931, sec. 8, p. 3. / 91

Strasberg, Lee0 "An Answer to the Riddle of the Theatre, " New York Times, August 31, 1947, sec. 2, pp. 1-2.

______. "Acting and the Training of the Actor," Producing the Play. Ed. John Gassner. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953.

Strauss, Theodore. "Group Goes to School," New York Times, August 13, 1939a, sec. 9, p. 1.

. "Group Theatre," New York Times, April 9, 1939b, sec. 10, Po lo

"Summer Season," New. York Times, August 14, 1932, sec. 9, p. 1.

Tamiris, Helen. "The Dance and Acting," New Theatre, II (March 1935), 20-24.

Taubman, Howard. The Making of the American Theatre. New York: Coward- McCann, Inc., 1965.

Thatcher, Molly Day. "Why Improvise?" New Theatre, II (March 1935), 14-16.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities. Communist Infiltration of Hollywood Motion-Picture Industry. Hearings be­ fore the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representa­ tives, 82d Congress, 2d session, April 1952.