Eric Bentley

Eric Bentley On Hero Worship and Degradation an interview by N. Graham Nesmith Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/dram/article-pdf/46/1 (173)/93/1820986/105420402753555877.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 Eric Bentley, who was born in England, educated at Oxford, and received his Ph.D. in drama from Yale in 1941, is arguably the foremost Euro-American com- mentator on 20th-century drama. Among his many books are A Century of Hero Worship: A Study of the Idea of Heroism in Carlyle and Nietzche (1944); Bernard Shaw: A Reconsideration (1947); In Search of Theatre (1953); The Dramatic Event (1954); What Is Theatre? (1956); The Life of the Drama (1964); The Theatre of Commitment and Other Essays on Drama in Our Society (1967); Theatre of War: Comments on 32 Occasions (1972); and What Is Theatre? 1944–1967, a collection of his theatre criticism reissued in 2000 by Hill and Wang. Many of his books are required reading in theatre programs around the country. Bentley wrote theatre reviews and criticism for Harper’s magazine in the 1940s, and was the drama critic for the New Republic from 1952 to 1956. He has been a professor of dramatic literature at various universities, including Columbia, where he was the Brander Matthews Professor of Dramatic Literature from 1954 to 1969. Bentley has been a guest director at theatres around the world; and his translations of plays by Brecht and Pirandello, among others, have been produced internationally.He also has written his own plays, including Are You Now or Have You Ever Been: The Investigation of a Show (1972), Lord Alfred’s Lover (1980), and Round 2 (1990). In 1998 he was inducted into the Theatre Hall of Fame. Bentley, who turned 85 in 2001, has been a controversial figure in the literary world since the publication in 1946 of his book The Playwright As Thinker. I sat down with Mr. Bentley at his Manhattan apartment several times during June 2000 and again in July 2001. He offered these off-the-cuff responses: NESMITH: As theatre critic for the New Republic, you were very displeased with other critics. You left your job and wrote an essay stating that all the other critics should leave with you. Do you still think critics are superfluous? BENTLEY: Yes. I don’t think what we call theatre criticism, namely what the newspapers say the day after a show opens, is of any particular value. It does have some practical use. It is an entertainment guide. It tells the readers of the newspapers whether to see the show or not. In other words, if it is worth their money The Drama Review 46, 1 (T173), Spring 2002. Copyright ᭧ 2002 New York University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 93 94 N. Graham Nesmith or not. Since the money is considerable, the consumer welcomes such a guide. Even if it is not particularly intelligent, it’s better than nothing. Of course, what I have in mind in discussing a subject like this is “real criticism.” “Real criticism” is the intelligent and illuminating discussion of works of art, in this case plays. In newspapers things happen, for the most part, too quickly. I think that the kind of criticism that I was permitted to do was more valid because it was for a weekly publication. I had more time to think about it. If you ask me what kind of contribution this type of criticism makes, I would say: not the kind the public expects. Not that these critics make the right judgments all the time. But they keep a civilized discussion going—a discussion with the public. I think of the critic, as a member of the public, only different from fellow members by being more of an expert on drama and all that goes along with theatrical production. Like the other spectators, the critic uses his eyes and his ears. If he is a good critic, he has unusually good eyesight and hearing. He is an unusually well- Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/dram/article-pdf/46/1 (173)/93/1820986/105420402753555877.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 informed and bright member of the audience—awake and not asleep. Thus, there is no such thing as a good drunken critic because a drunken critic is half asleep or in an altered state of consciousness. There is a place for the civilized discussion of works—operas, symphonies, concerts, or plays. In other words, I have divided the critics into two: those that are simply entertainment guides, giving thumbs up or thumbs down on shows; and those who take part in a discussion with other members of the public. Any- thing that is pertinent can be discussed—pertinent to the particular production. The discussion need not be confined to artistic forms; the subject matter of the material will of course enter in. Thus, when you review, let’s say, Arthur Miller, you will be talking about American society and even politics. And perhaps you will end up arguing with him. Not just passing judgment. NESMITH: You have not only been against critics, you also have been against the Broadway system. Have you changed your view since the 1940s? BENTLEY: The Playwright As Thinker starts out with a quote from George Jean Nathan, who said that criticism should be criticism, even if negative criticism bankrupts every theatre in the country. Such was George’s opposition to the money system. However, there are people who stand for that system. When Stanley Kauffmann was drama critic of the New York Times (for a very short time in 1966), his reviews were so strict and analytical that David Merrick went to the top people at the Times to say that Mr. Kauffmann was ruining the New York theatre. He was carrying out George Jean Nathan’s threat to bankrupt the theatre! Merrick demanded that the Times get rid of Mr. Kauffmann, which they did not immediately do, though they did do it not long thereafter. The theatre, as it now is, with the best seats costing up to a hundred dollars, is a theatre for the affluent only. That is not the kind of theatre I have ever wanted to support. A friend of mine went to interview for a job. The employers had come to New York from Detroit. When my friend was interviewed, they pro- vided him with a call girl and two of the hottest theatre tickets on Broadway. It was their gift to him for coming into town for the interview. Isn’t that typical of the Broadway theatre, which is connected with prostitution, not just nominally, but, in that instance, literally? I am not saying anything terribly radical. NESMITH: Speaking of something radical, this brings to my mind the Wilson/ Brustein debate. [The debate on “Cultural Power” between August Wilson and Robert Brustein at New York City’s Town Hall on 27 January 1997.] What is your assessment of that? BENTLEY: The way it went for me, I would have been 90 percent in agreement with Brustein and 90 percent disagreement with Wilson. But the way Brustein Eric Bentley 95 handled it made me lose sympathy. What a terrible mess America is in with this race issue! It just can’t get handled properly, rationally! These terrible attitudes that people have! When it came to the point that Brustein said Wilson was a teddy bear and Wilson said he wasn’t, that he was a lion—oh dear! Neither of those remarks should have been made. They both come from the terrible racial situation behind them. Brustein had to be patronizing, had to say, “I don’t dread you, I am not afraid of you as the fearless black. You are really quite sweet.” Of course Wilson had to reply, “No, I am not sweet, I am fierce,” which is equally hollow. On the issues, I was upset in advance by Wilson calling himself a “race” man. He has made himself that with the curious paradox that he is only half- black. I happen to think that intermarriage will end this whole mess, if anything does. When the Thomas Jeffersons have to marry the girl, not just get her preg- nant! Coming down on black actors—Wilson thinks they should not act white parts—he knows that nontraditional casting has been accepted. Even when I did not expect it to be. In the beginning, I was one of those who wondered. But Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/dram/article-pdf/46/1 (173)/93/1820986/105420402753555877.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 when I saw James Earl Jones in the lead part of O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh some years ago, I was amazed. If you are an actor, you are an actor. White actors can play Othello. Black actors can play Iago. And so on. I am not a “race man.” NESMITH: Since we have entered the race arena, I know you knew Paul Green. Although he is out of fashion now, he was a white writer who wrote about black issues. Do you remember Paul Green? BENTLEY: I came to this country in 1939, and one of the first shows I saw was Native Son, which Paul Green had adapted from Wright’s novel. It’s 60 years later but I can remember it, a very strong Orson Welles production with Canada Lee in the role of Bigger Thomas. Later I learned that they had changed Green’s adaptation—Orson Welles and John Houseman, the producers—because Green’s rewrite softened the novel to make it more acceptable to white audiences.

Load more