This thesis/project/dissertation has been reviewed for 508 compliance.

To request enhancements,

please email [email protected].

l?z7 l?z7

r,; r,;

'1 '1 / / .f"t .f"t ,,.l ,,.l Date Date

Committee Committee ldvisory ldvisory

George W. Creel W. George

Baxter M. Geeting M. Baxter

Charles V. Hume, Chair Hume, V. Charles

Approved: Approved:

ES ES V CHI R A

JLLEGE JLLEGE C .r.: .r.: T STA

O O T N RA~IE SAC

COLLEGE COLLEGE STATE STATE SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO

THE THE A"T A"T

ARTS ARTS OF OF MASTER MASTER

of of degree degree the the for for requirements requirements the the

of of satisfaction satisfaction partial partial in in Submitted Submitted

1946 1946 Pacific, Pacific, the the of of College College A. A. B. B.

Deck Deck Lazell Lazell Jay Jay

by by

READING READING PLAY PLAY A A

BURNING BURNING ]!m ]!m LADY'S LADY'S . THE !fQ! !fQ! ------THE LADY 1S NOT FOR BURNING A PLAY READING

J. Project Presented to the Faculty or the Division ot Humanities and F.1..ne Arts Sacramento State College

In Partial Fulfillment or the Requirements tor the Degree Master or Arts

by Jay Lazell Deck June 195\1- TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PROJECT • • • • • • • • 1

II. A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR • • • • • • ,

III. A STAGE HISTORY OF TEE PLAY • • • • • • • • • • 12

IV. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ROLE •••• • • • • • 21 V. A BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF PLAY READING • • 26 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31

BIBLIOGRAPHY '. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32 CHAPTER I

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PROJECT

I. THE PROBLEM

Statement Q,!, ~ problem. The problem in this Master's project is to interpret the character of Thomas Mendip in a play reading of I.b!! Lady's !!g1 ,!:2!: Burning by Christopher Fry.

~ Project: A. The reading will be presented on the Sacramento State College Campus on May 22, 1954. B. The production methods for this project include an informal setting, minimum lighting effects, modern day costuming, and suggested movement.

Iw!_ Written Report: The written report of Ib!_ Lady's NQ1 .t:2!:, Burning is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts• ------.A: VALIDATION OF THE PROBLEM The personal educational objectives to be gained are five in number: . 1. To interpret a character capable of the thought and movement indicated by the playwright and the director. 2 2. To interpret a character in relation to the other members of the cast in a "give and takeff process. 3. To analyze and evaluate the character of Thomas Mendip and his relationship to the play as a whole. 4. To investigate the background of the author, the play, and the ensuing successes or failures ot the play. ;. To investigate the background and growth of this type of reading performance.

This project is directly in line with the work of the present writer. His concern is with all aspects ot the teaching of dramatic art at the Sacramento Junior College: History and Theory of Drama, Stage Design, Stage Lighting, Make-up, Beginning Acting, Play Production, Acting with Bodily Movement, and Oral Interpretation. Experience offered in this project gives the writer further training in inter­ pretation and voice control. Experience in this form ot dramatic art is of direct value in his profession• ------.A. PREVIEW OF THE ORGANIZA~ION The organization ot this project will consist of six chapters. The others are: II. A biographical sketch of Christopher 'Fry containing pertinent facts beginning with his childhood and ending with his develop­ ment as a successful writer. 3 llI. A stage history or the play, which is concerned with the first and New York presentations, the cast, and the evaluations of the play. IV. The interpretation or the role of Thomas Mendip as derived from the internal evidence. V. The background and development of play reading; its relation to the Chautauqua movement, and the productions or recent professional play reading companies. VI. Conclusion dealing with the problems encountered in presentation before an audience.

:!'1m __PRES___E__NT____ ST_,_A.._T __US__ Q! XJm ..PR...O.._B ..1..•EM...

To the best of the writer's knowledge there have been no other theses that have approached the problem of Christopher Fry's~ Lady's~ for Burning in the manner of this project. This is the first time a project of this type, a play reading, has been attempted at the Sacramento State College. Naturally, the field of play reading makes demands differing from those of standard acting projects. A. stage actor has additional means to help him along to a total presentation, whereas the play reader has only the book and himself. Mr. Fry is so new to the literary scene that critics have had little opportunity to analyze and compare his works. Therefore, the accumulation and presentation of 4 facts concerning his life, and the interpretation of his play make this project something of an innovation, and it is to be hoped, worthwhile.

SOURCES Ql ~

The principle sources of data on Fry have been current issues of theatrical organs, and the production script of the professional production of~ Lady's !Q!. £.sll: Burning. CHAPTER II

.A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AlJTHOR

Fry was born December 18, 1907, in , England. His father was an architect named Charles Harris; his mother was the former Emma Marguerite Fry Hammond. Mr. Harris was of a deeply religious bent and became a lay missionary in the Bristol slums; he died while Christopher was still quite young, but by taking in boarders, Mrs. Harris managed to send the boy to Bedford Modern School where he apparently gave no hint of future greatness as poet-playwright; however, he began writing early, producing a farce at eleven, some sort of poem at twelve, and a verse drama at fourteen. There was some musical training given to Fry, as he plays the piano and has appeared in musical comedy. Accomplishing very little at formal studies, he left school at eighteen to "drift" into the teaching pro­ fession. During this time, he paid tribute to his mother by adopting her religion, Quaker, and her maiden name, Fry (because of its euphony). Teaching was not sueeessful for Fry, and he joined the Bath Repertory Company. Later, he divided his time between teaching part time at a preparatory school in and repertory theatre. After eight years of reper­ tory groups, acting the usual rounds of Shakespeare, Shaw, 6 Wilde, and Coward, Fry finally arrived in London. There, working to keep himself in board and lodging, he tried his hand at various tasks: Editing a magazine, cartooning, working as a secretary to a novelist, and writing children's plays for radio. According to~ Magazine, . • • • for awhile he was secretary to a popular songwriter; he essayed some songs himself which however did not become popular. He is said to have moved into an abandone.d rectory to write a verse play, which he did not finish.l Early in 1934 Fry directed the Wells Repertory Players at Tunbridge Wells, until the enterprise failed. His next effort was to write words and music for an Andre Charlot revue, She Shall~ Music. Later, Dr. Barnardo 1s Homes, a charitable organization caring for orphaned and abandoned children, asked him to write a play on the life of its founder, John Barnardo. This he did, and apparently was the stage manager of the production, as he toured the provinces with it for two years. At the end of this venture, Christopher Fry found himself in love, and immediately_contracted a marriage with Phyllis Hart, a Journalist. Within two years, they were penniless until a distant cousin came to their rescue by promptly dying and leaving them a small legacy. With enough money to exist, Fry began to work on, In!, Boy~~ Q!!:1,

1 Analyst, .Im Magazine, 56:58-64, November 20, 1950. 7 a pageant marking the fiftieth anniversary of a village church. Later pageants were~ Tower and Thursday's Child. The latter was produced at Albert Hall, London, and one member of the audience was Queen Mary. Mr. Fry seemed to be on the first rungs of the ladder of success. In 1939, he became director of the Playhouse, where he met the young actress, , who was to become a popular and outstanding actress, and who was later to star in~ Lady's Not for Burning. About t~is time war broke out in Europe, and 'Fry, who · was a conscientious objector, was assigned to the Pioneer Corps. He worked with the demolition squads in London, and he helped in with the destruction of "buzz bombsn. Naturally, during this period of war, there was little time to devote to writing. After the war, he chose verse for his literary medium. One of his earlier plays in verse was A Phoenix !Q2. Frequent, which was not successful in New York. It opened there in April 26, 1950, and closed five days later. His next major work to follow was~ Lady's Not .!Q!: Burning, which is discussed in Chapter Three. After the success of

~ Lady's Not for Burning, Sir commissioned F.ry to write a play for him. This play was Venus Observed, • and, due to the hackneyed direction and misinterpretation 8 of Olivier, it too was shortlived. Mr. Fry did not mind, for he had achieved financial as well as literary success with his ventures. Mr. F'ry is about;, 8" in height and weighs around 140 pounds. According to I!!!!, Magazine, Fry is a squirrel-like, rumpled, reticent man with a gentle genius for making friends ••• (his) idea of a good evening is to sip whiskey and black rum with old theatrical cronies. F'ry likes to compose Tin Pan Alley-like tunes ••• writes an occasional parody of the classics such as his version of Macbeth in which the three witches are girl reporters.2 Most of his writing is done in a small cottage in an Oxfordshire village, where he lives with his wife and his son Tam. It is a known fact that his only concessions to his wealth are the installment of indoor plumbing in the cottage, and the purchase of a London town house. He dis­ likes travel, but when business trips are necessary he drives a second-hand Vauxhall. Mr. F.ry is a tireless worker in his country cottage which is without electricity, gas, or telephone. Working from ten p.m. to dawn, he has finished another play 'Which is now in production in the provinces .of England. Henry Hewes of Saturday Review Q! Literature ·reviews,

2 1!?!,g_., p. ;8-64. 9 If !he~!!, Light Enough _is going to have the suceessTts art and poetry entitle it to, it is going to have to find a means of making us care passionate­ ly about its characters. Now it is a beautiful but remote midwinter night's dream.3 To sum up a life that has just begun is difficult, but in the words of James Bridie, Fry's fellow playwright, "We are on the point of moving into the era of Christopher Fry".l+ After the New York opening of~ Lady's Not !.QI. Burning theatre-goers were divided as to whether Christopher Fry was a new Shakespeare or just a particularly brilliant writer to be rated somewhere between Noel Coward and T. S. Eliot. Like Eliot, to whom he acknowledges a great debt, Fry believes that verse in the theatre should sound like conversation and still rise to the dramatic occasion when needed. Fry states: Poetry is the language in which man explores his own amazement. It is the language in which he says heaven and earth in one word. It is the language in which he speaks of himself and his predicament as though for the first time. It has the virtue of being;able to say twice as much as prose in half the time.

3 Henry Hewes, 11Sleighride in Darkness," Saturday Review .Q! Literature, 36:14, April 3, 1952+. l+ Analyst, I!!!!. Magazine, ;6:63, November 20, 19;0. ; Christopher Fry, "Poetry in the Theatre," Saturday Review of Literature, 36:18, March 21, 19;3. 10 George Jean Nathan writing for the English Journal analyzes "Fry~s work: Fry's experiences as an actor, director, have given him an understanding of the relationship of dramatist, director, and actors. His printed plays are remark­ ably free of stage directions, that the dialogue alone usually conveys to the reader all requisite informa­ tion regarding stage business and the movements of character. This is a rare achievement.o A Comparison of Fry to Shakespeare and the Elizabethans is made by John Mason Brown in an article in the Saturday Review Q.! Literature: Mr. Fry is blessed with one of the most delightful talents now contributing to the theatre. He has a wit, nimble and original; an agile and unpredictable mind, as playful as it is probing; and a love of language which can only be described as lust. If no one else writes as he does, it is because he approaches life, death, the world around him, the theatre, the thesaurus, and the dictionary in a way which is very much his own. He is an anachronism, if you will; a fellow who has wandered from one Elizabethan age into another ••• something of the Elizabethan vigor is there, the old dash and exuber­ ance, the •tine.madness•, the worship of the metaphor, the lack of fear in beauty's presence, and the un­ rationed indulgence in words and phrases for the mere melodious sport to be had from them. Mr. Fry is not a dramatist to keep his feet on sober earth. His fancy is never still. It is sudden in its twists and arrow like in its flights. A play by hilll is not so much a play as it is what he calls "an act of poetry". The fun comes from his saying the usual thing in the usual way. It comes from the

6 George Jean Nathan, English Journal, 42:1-?, January, 1953. 11 unfailing lilt and often magical beauty of his verses. It is a product of a riot of images. It is a result of our awareness that Mr. Fry is not only writing but overwriting shamelessly, deliciously, ecstatically.Y Joseph Wood Krutch in his critical analysis in Nation says,: Part of his charm is a youthful exuberance and his own frank astonishment at his copiousness and fluency. His ostensibly dramatic speeches remain almost purely decorative. They do not exist in order to tell a story. On the contrary, the story exists only as an excuse for the speeches.8 Drama of the last fifty years has been austere. It has been concerned with ordinary drab people. That has been its great strength because it has made a connection with the basic dilemmas of the age. Romantic instincts have been starved, and Fry satisfies that hunger that has been un­ appeased for many years. His plays attract the uneducated as well as the educated theatre-goer.

7 John Mason Brown, Saturday Review 2! Literature, 35:20-2, March 1, 1952. 8 Joseph Wood Krutqh, Nation, 174:237, March 8, 1952. CHAPTER III

A ST.AGE HISTORY OF THE PLAY

In the heart of London, not far from Square, is a small club theatre called the Club. It has all requisites for the British Private Club: a dining room, a wining room, and, of course, an underground theatre. The theatre is intimate, seating 334 people, and it is efficiently managed by , a young actor who divided his time during World War II between producing plays at the Arts and doing heavy rescue work in the blitz. At the end of the war he decided to hire a resident dramatist at a salary of 700 pounds. He took on two resident dramatists, and one of them was Christopher Fry. · When Fry was asked how he enjoyed his year of work at the Arts, he replied, "The residing was all right, and the money. It was the dramatist part that was the trouble. It wasn't until the end of the year that I was able to write a line." Then he wrote several lines, 3000, in fact, and these comprised~ Lady's !!Qi !Q!: Burning.9 The play was first produced at the Arts in March, · 1948, where no one was allowed to see it excepting club members. Clunes played the chief part, Thomas Mendip.

9 Harold Hobson, "London·.Greets Mr. Fry, Playwright, 11 1!!!X XQ.tl& Times Magazine, March 12, 1950, p. 24. 13 The play ran for two weeks, and it was a decided success, carrying off the Shaw Prize for the best play of the year. However, its chances of survival before popular theatre­ going audiences were considered very slight. tells how he read this play by an unknown writer and was "immediately fascinated, though con­ siderably mystified by it.~ Harold Hobson, drama critic of the London Times, when asked by Gielgud, if he should pro­ duce Ih§. LadY 1s l!2!, for Burning. blushed and said, "No". So did other people to whom Mr. ·Gielgud spoke, and it is no secret that Tennent Productions, Ltd., who later produced it for Mr. Gielgud did so with great misgiving. At last, Mr. Gielgud persuaded his management to buy the play and was surprised to find that "a condition of the production was that Pamela Brown should play the lady of the title·~~ This condition pleased Mr. Gielgud, as he and Pamela Brown had just returned from America where they had played opposite one another in l'.h2, Importance 2.! Being Earnest.

~ Lady's Not for Burning toured the provinces before coming to London, and at each performance there was still more headshaking. There were only two persons who f'ully believed in the play. One was John Gielgud. The other was Christopher Fry.10

10 ills.·, p. 24. 14 Their faith was roundly justified. The play opened in May, 1949, at the Globe Theatre in London with the following cast:

Richard, an orphaned clerk ••••••• Thomas Mendip, a discharged soldier •• John Gielgud

Alizon Eliot •• • • • • • • • • • • •• Penelope Munday

Nicholas Devise • • • • • • • • • • • • David Evans Margaret Devise, mother of Nicholas •• Nora Nicholson Humphrey Devise, brother of Nicholas •• Richard Leech

Hebble Tyson ••• • • • • • • • •••• George Howe

Jennet Jourdemayne • • • • • •' • • • • • Pamela Brown

The Chaplain ••• • • • • • • • • • • • Eliot Makeham

Edward Tappercoom, a justice • • • • • • Peter Bull

Matthew Skipps • • • • • • • • • • . .. • Esme Percy

Mr. Fry was fortunate in having such a stellar cast to present his play. Mr. Gielgud (Thomas Mendip) achieved stardom in London at twenty-five. He had already acted in plays by Shakespeare and Shaw, but he achieved his first starring success when he played Richard II in Richard 21. . ., Bordeaux by Gordon Daviot in 1932. Visiting America became a habit with him. He attracted large and enthusiastic audiences as John Worthing in Wilde's The Importance 2! Being Earnest, as Jason in Medea, classic drama, notably 1; Shakespeare's and most recently in Christopher Fry's The Lady's~ !2!: Burning. His latest film achievement is Julius Caesar. Pamela. Brown (Jennet Jourdemayne) first came to America in 1946 still unknown to American audiences. But she was not regarded as unknown after her performance opposite John Gielgud in Iru!. Importance .Q! Being Earnest. She followed this role with the glamorous part of Angelica in !!Q!!. .!2!: :&2.!!, and was acclaimed for her bewitching speech as well as for her beauty. She has made several British films: I ~ Where 1-!.!!! Going, One 2! QB!: Aircraft !!, Missing, and Tales g_f Hoff"man. Richard Burton (Richard) also has achieved stardom since he appeared in!!!.! Lady's !iQ1 for Burning. Impressed by his great talent, Hollywood extended a contract. He was cast in Hz Cousin Rachel playing opposite Olivia deHavilland and was an overnight success. His latest triumph is in the motion picture, Is!~. After .its premiere, he returned to England where he is currently appearing on the London State with the .Q!g_ Vic Players. Ia§. Lady's 1fQ1 for Burning ran for over 300 consecu­ tive performances at the Globe Theatre before closing in January, 1950. It would have continued, had Gielgud not had a prior obligation to appear at Stratford for the Shakespeare 16

Festival. The Lady 1s ~ for Burning paid oft its produc­ tion expenses in seven weeks, and then ran for another thirty weeks at a profit. It pleased every type or play­ goer. Scrubwomen liked it; members of the peerage liked it; bank clerks and teachers liked it; elderly ladies and undergraduates liked it, and so did the intellectuals. After Mr. Gielgud's obligations at Stratford had been fulfilled, he was again ready to transport~ Lady's Not~ Burning to .America to see if New York's judgment matched that or London•s. The London cast was summarily brought to Broadway. The American premiere of the play was held in Boston in the late fall of 1950. There was no dissenting voice among the Boston critics. The play moved from Boston to New York to the Royale Theatre and opened November 8, 1950. It was produced by Atlantis Productions which consisted or The Theatre Guild, Tennent Productions, Ltd., and John c. Wilson. The enthusiasm in New York surpassed Boston's. The usually cautious appraisers united in loud hosannas. The following are excerpts from reviews following the opening Broadway performance. Howard Barnes of the New York Herald Tribune: A poetic fantasy of rare splendor and delight ••• a work of magical humor. An immaculate company fully realizes the richness of language, the like .of which 1? has not been heard in the modern theatre•••• The author has achieved a beautiful balance between scenes of sheerest nonsense and extremely moving passages.11 Brooks Atkinson of the New XQ!:k Times: Mr. Fry has restored the art of literature to the stage by writing a s~arkling verse that also is shot with w1 t and humor .12 · George Jean Nathan in the ID!! IQ.I!& _Jo_ur_n-a-1 American: Christopher Fry, the forty-three-year old English­ man, has come into a theatre mortally 111 of prosy speech and writing, injected into it a bolus of poetic imagination, and made it sit up again, look around, and pinch its erstwhile despairing nurse on the bottom• • • • In a theatre largely consecrated to serving the eye, Christopher Fry stands out as a playwright who serves that badly neglected organ, the ear • ••• He delights in the beautiful sounds of words and the smooth roll of §entences and the fireworks their name can set alight.lj Arthur Pollock of the Daily Compass: Matchless words. Every speech of the play can be a minor adventure for ttie actor, a 11ttle drama in itselt.11+ Gilbert Gabriel of Cue Magazine: Here is the theatre's proudest but most perilous commodity, a thing of beauty. Here also happens to be a joyful careerpiece for John Gielgud and Pamela Brown.

11 Theatre Review in the New York Herald Tribune, November 9, 1950. -- 12 Theatre Review in the~~ Times, November 9, 1950. 13· Theatre Review in the !!!U! Im Journal American, November 9, 1950. 14 Theatre Review in the~~ Daily Compass, November 9, 1950. 18 See it, hear it--and let it restore your faith in that most patrician sport the poetic theage. For its writing is truly music1 set to words.l~ The following are reviews from periodicals. The analyst from Newsweek: Broadway's second encounter with Christopher Fry whose admirers have linked his name with Shaw, Eliot, and even the Bard himself. But judging from this romantic comedy in blank verse, Fry is very much his own man, with his own claim to a corner of the geniuses mantle•••• F.ry 1 s vivid rush of words is a mint of beauty, wit, and fine, orotund figures of speech that make for fascinating listening.16 Woolcott Gibbs of the New Yorker: The author at this stage in his development is still, like Saroyan, the victim of his own uncontrollable fluency. He needs an editor, and I hope he gets a good one, because his talent, properly disciplined, could easily be one of the most engaging in the theatre.l.7 Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt or the Catholic World:

Like a comet over Parnassus, Christopher Fry has shot across the English speaking theater, marking his course with shining nashes of wit and poetic rancies.l8 The analyst of Commonweal: He has discovered a twentieth century verse form tor comedy. Mr. Fry ••• has round an imagery and a rhythm for comedy which increases the intellectual and

1_5. Theatre Review in £B!_ Magazine, November 9, 1950. 16 Analyst, Newsweek, 36:90, November 20, 1950. 17 Woolcott Gibbs, the New Yorker, 26:77, November 18, 1950. l8 Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt, Catholic World, 172:306, January, 1951. 19 emotional range of things to be laughed at--and his work comes as a stunning surprise.19 William H. Beyer of School !B9. Society: Obviously, Fry takes neither life nor himself seriously--only for his art•••• In the presence of such excellent artists as John Gielgud, Pamela Brown, and their supporting cast of superior players performing poetic drama with easy authority and style, one luxuriates in the great power and beauty of our language. Here are its music, its milk and honey, as well as the sinews, arteries, and even the rich heart itself animating a noble poetic body. Fry brings us up with a start, us whose ears are dulled by the fiat, brittle conversation that masks as dialogaein many of our colloquial prose plays, for he challenges our imagination, and the reward is stimulating indeed. Gielgud's style of presentation (director) is routine and is in the conventional, naturalistic manner of the pedestrian prose play. He is short on inventiveness, much too literal, and lacking completely in poetic imagination.20 John Mason Brown of Saturday Review g! Literature: Although Mr. Fry may be a Quaker by conviction, he is an Elizabethan at heart and in endowment. Every­ thing that is intellectual, disciplined, and arctic in T. s. Eliot is flowing, fiery, _and eruptive in him. The actors know how to read the lines.21 John Beaufort of the Christian Science Monitor: Mr. Fry has, among other things, incomparably dramatized April in~ Lady's~ 12!: Burning. Here is a fantastically rich and lovely play, full of

19 Analyst, Commonweal, 53:196, December 1, 1950. 20 William H. Beyer, "The State of the Theatre: Hits and Misses," School fil!9. Society, No. 1892, 73:180, March 24, 1951. - -- 21 John Mason Brown, Saturday Review g! Literature, 33:46, December 2, 1950. 20 lyric wit and eloquence, abounding in irony and paradox, crowded with metaphor, and bubbling over with the sheer joy of words. Mr. Fry summarizes the plot quite simply in the words of the heroine, There was a soldier Discharged and centerless, with a towering pride In his sensibility, and an endearing Disposition to be a hero, who wanted To make an example of himself to all Erring mankind, and falling in with a witch-hunt His good heart took the opportunity Of providing a diversion.22 The analyst of Nation: This simple story is led through a maze of amusing compl~cations, and characters and situations--to the accompaniment of a display of lyric wit and sustained verbal felicity that allows one to experience anew in a cliche-ridden world, the loveliness and viabiiity of the English language, and in his hands it comes alive even when he employs a cliche, as the most ingenious must•••• He gives scope to our impulses toward fantasy and eloquence, yet does no outrage to our sense of fact; and engenders laughter that is knowing yet quite innocent of guile or malice•••• Mr. Gielgud being interviewed for an .American public, said that the play, 'for all its dazzling word patterns and luxury of epigram, is basically a popular play. · It is, after .. all~ boy meets girl•. The production :from England was imported intact. The care and skill, the taste, the gusto with which every member of the cast plays his part is t joy to see. Too hard to single out performances.2j The presentation of The Lady•s Not for Burning!!.! hailed with surprise and superlatives on both sides of the Atlantic. It is a matter for rejoicing that in the last few years poetry has triumphantly returned to the stage.

22 John Beaufort, Christian Science Monitor, p. 4, November 18, 19,0. 23 Analyst, Nation, 171:466-67, November 18, 19,0. CHAPTER IV

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ROLE

The scene of The Lady 1s Not for Burning is the house ot Hebble Tyson, the Mayor of the little market town of Cool Clary. The time is loosely medieval. The soul of Thomas Mendip is suffering from the cruelty of man, the injustices of the world, and the deceits of nature. As a cynic, he longs to die; as a healthy cynic, he cannot quite bring it' off. Many of Thomas• early speeches convey his bitter thoughts ot the world. Some of the more important are: ••• I 1ve never seen a world So festering with damnation •

• • ~ Life, forbye, is the way we fatten for the Michaelmas of our own particular Gallows. A world unable to die sits on and on In spring sunshine, hatching egg after egg, Hoping against hope that out of one of them Will come the reason for it all; and always Out pops the arid chuckle and centuries of Cuckoo spit. What after all, Is a halo? It•s one more thing to keep clean. Thomas confronts the Mayor and begs to be hanged. The Mayor will not grant him his desire since Thomas Mendip has committed no crime, so Thomas confesses falsely to two murders. 22 I•m not a tool. I didn't suppose you would do me a favor for nothing. No crime; no hanging; I quite understand the rules. But I•ve made that all right. I managed to do-in A. rag-and-bone merchant at the bottom of Leapfrog Lane. I•ve killed two men, If you want to be exact. The other I though scarcely worth mentioning; A poor unprepossessing pimp with a birthmark. The Mayor tells him that he doesn't deserve to be listened to, he doesn't belong to that village, and that he doesn't belong there. A disillusioned war-weary Thomas replies: r•ve been unidentifiably Floundering in Flanders for the past seven years. Prising open ribs to let men go On the indefinite leave that needs no pass. And now all roads are uncommonly flat, and all hair Stands on end. He is interrupted in his quest for death by Jennet Jourdemayne, a genuine enchantress, a beautiful and beguil­ ing seductress who talks her way into men•s hearts. Jennet has escaped the howling mob that wants to burn her for practicing witchcraft. While the witch hunt goes on, the two principals, Jennet and Thomas, try to avoid their destinies--Jennet hopes to be saved from the stake, and Thomas struggles not to burn with love. He cries out, Mr. Mayor, hang me for pity•s sake, For God's sake hang me, before I love that womanl During the second act, which is a curious love scene, Thomas fights against his constantly growing love for 23 Jennet: and he tells her, Don•t entertain the mildest Interest in me Or you'll have me die screaming. And, Richard Make this woman llnderstand that I Am a figure of' vice and crime • • • Guilty Of' mankind. I have perpetrated human nature. My father and mother were accessories before the fact, But there'll be no accessories after the fact, By my virility there won•t1 Half' this grotesque life I spend in a state Of slow decomposition, using The name of unconsidered God as a pedestal On which I stand and bray that I am best Of' beasts, till under some patient Moon or other I fall to pieces, like A cake of' dung. Is there a slut would hold This in her arms and put her lips against it? Jennet does not deny her love for him, and Thomas eventually is forced to reveal his love to her. All right! You•ve done your worst. You force me to tell you The disastrous truth. I love you. A misadventure So intolerable, hell could do no more. Nothing in the world could touch me And you have to come and be the damnable Exception. I was nicely tucked up for the night· Of' eternity, and like a restless dream Of a fool's paradise, you, with a rainbow where Your face is, and an ignis fatuus Worn like a rose in your girdle, come pursued By fire, and presto1 The bedclothes are on the noor And I, the tomfool, love you. Don't say again That this doesn't concern me, or I shall say That you needn't concern yourself' with tomorrow's burning. The return of' their "supposed• victim releases them from their fate. Thomas and Jennet are allowed to escape and are "doomed" to live out their lives together. Love 24 gives Thomas new hope. He speaks of love, Oh, the unholy mantrap of lovel And I shall be loath to forgo one day of you, Even for the sake of my ultimate friendly death. And God have mercy on our soulsJ Thomas Mendip is the special spokesman for Christopher Fry, and Fry's· voice is heard in Thomas' meditation on the curious quality of beauty. I•ve been cast adrift on a raft of melancholy. The night wind passed me, like a sail across A blind man's eye. There it is, The interminable tumbling of the great grey Main of moonlight, washing over The little oyster-shell of this month of April: Among the raven-quills of the shadows And on the white pillows of men asleep; The night's a pale pasture land of peace, And something condones the world incorrigibly. But what, in fact, is the vaporous charm? We •re softened by a nice c·onglomeration Of the world's uneven surface, refraction of light, Obstruction of light, condensation, distance And that sappy upshot of self-centered vegetablism, The trees of the garden. How is it we come To see this as a heaven in the eye? Why should we hawk, and spit out ecstasy As though we were nightingales, and call these quite Casual degrees and differences Beauty? What guile recommends the world And gives our eyes a special sense to be Deluded above all animals? Through the voice of Thomas, Fry explains laughter, For the reason of laughter, since laughter is surely The surest touch of genius in creation. and his comments on life. ------

25 Why should these omnipotent bombinations Go on with the deadly human anecdote, which From the first was never more than remotely funny? No; the time has come for tombs to tip Their refuse: for the involving ivy, the briar, The convolutions of convolvulous, To disentangle and make way For the last great ascendance of dust, Sucked into judgment by a cosmic yawn Of boredom. Let the world Go, lady; it isn•t worth the candle• • • • (For what greater superstition Is there than the mumbo-jumbo of believing In reality? This, then, is the dilemma of Thomas Mendip. One hears also a contemporary ring to his sentiments. However, Fry has ended on a note of pure comedy when the protagon­ ists are thrown willingly together in anticipation of fulfilling their own and society's desire for a rounding out of the life cycle. Thus cynicism is documented into a progression toward positive affirmation. CHAPTER V

A BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF PLAY READING

When the first Drama Quartette opened in Stockton, California, on February 1, 19~1, the audience was genuinely surprised. What was the First Drama Quartette? What did they do? Actually, it was the idea of Charles Laughton, who had had a successful tour across country presenting a solo reading concert. Audiences had flocked to hear him read excerpts from the , Dickens's Novels and other popular works. He finally interested Paul Gregory, a pro­ ducer with vision, in backing the :First Drama Quartette in a presentation of Shaw•s Don ~ in llitll.• Together they secured the services of Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Charles Boyer, and Agnes Moorhead. The company traveled by private auto­ mobile from one city to another. The only properties they needed were four reading stands and four stools. The idea was an immediate success, and the Quartette read its way to New York, where they again were received with great enthusi- asm.

With the great success of 12Q!! ~ .!!! JI!11, Mr. Gregory was ready to begin another venture into the play reading field. Here was a vast unexplored dramatic region. Here was a way to make money without all the headaches 27 involved in transporting a company, scenery, lights, etc. This time, again with the help of Charles Laughton, they produced a dramatic reading of l2!m Brown's Body starring Raymond Massey, , and Judith Anderson, who was later replaced by Anne Baxter. To this threesome, Mr. Gregory added a chorus to chant certain passages of the narrative poem. This was again a successtul. venture, both artistically and from the standpoint of box-office, for Mr. Gregory. But play reading is not new to American audiences! Women's clubs have long been employing play readers and play reviewers for their afternoon social meetings. This is called derisively "The Tea Circuit•. However, the acknowledged ancestor of present day play reading was an institution called simply Chautauqua, whose name was derived from its location at Lake Chautauqua, New York. According to authors, Victoria and Robert Ormond Case, who have written a book on Chautauqua,~ Called It culture, "An estimated twenty million living Americans remember Chautauqua, mostly with nostalgic vividness.n24 Chautauqua was a seasonal venture which during the summer months gave three to seven

21+ Victoria Case and Robert Ormond ·Case, We Called ll, Culture, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1948) , 272 pp. 28 day programs in circus tents for residents or small towns and villages. They emphasized lectures, music, and dramatic entertainments, and were for a time enormously success:ru.1. With the coming of radio, mass productions of automobiles, and the movies, their popularity declined rapidly and finally ended. When tent Chautauquas first blossomed along the circuits, the word "theatre" had most or the connotations of sin itself. Theatre meant painted women and dissolute men. It meant cheap vaudeville and the can-can and chorine hussies who brazenly displayed not only ankles but their knees to the public gaze. It meant Flesh and the Devil. Church people and ministers railed against it. How, then, could Chautauqua, which stood for culture, uplift, and education on their highest moral planes, bring real theatre to the circuit and hope to win the approval of church people and its sponsors? It crept in slowly, and broke down the prejudice little by little, always emphasizing the difference between good drama and the brass and tinsel of the ."theatre". First came the impersonators and the dramatic readers. Then came lecturers reading extracts from great plays in resounding, lilting, frightening voices. Soon there were bits of opera and Shakespearean excerpts; and finally, without squirming, Chautauqua audiences were sitting 29 through a real play in which as many as a dozen actors appeared. The first of the important play readers was William Sterling Battis, who interpreted such iDDD.ortal characters as Sam Weller and Old Scrooge--always portrayed in appropri­ ate costumes. Benjamin Chapin came with a dramatic monologue f'rom his play Lincoln. Later, Chautauqua's specialty was the "one-man troupe", an astounding phenomenon to the audi­ ence and highly satisfactory to the circuit manager, since these one-man prodigies saved the eXpense of a full troupe of a dozen or more. Willis Watson Ginn could put on a complete four-act play, Tarkington's 11!!! .!!:gm !12!!!!, taking the part of each of the ten characters. His feat was matched, however, by Mrs. M. c. Hutchinson, who could stage not only the complete production of Barrie's !lhil Every Woman Knows, but also could offer~ Importance 2!, Being Earnest and Rebecca Q! Sunnybrook ~- Margaret Stahl played Madame Butterny and Enoch Arden. Mary B. Roberts came down the line with the piquant fil.Y2. ~ and Peter Pan.

Beryl Buckley brought in Shepherd .Q! ~ Hills, and Maude Willis g ! !2!!. King. First the impersonator, then the play reader, then the presenter of scenes from great plays, and finally the one-man or one~woman complete play--these were the successive steps whereby the theatre reached the corn belt. 30 Now we have come full circle. Play reading seems established as a .permanent facet of the theatrical scene. What was once considered a country cousin in the family of theatre has become a respected and well-fixed urbanite. Producers with the yision of Paul Gregory are willing and eager to supply sophisticated and imaginative audiences with play readings which stimulate not only the ear, but the eye as well through suggested action. CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

If one element of play production may be considered as basic it is, without doubt, interpretation. It is on such an assumption that this play reading project has been essayed. A total communication of Fry's work for the stage has been.attempted by employing the techniques of interpre­ tation. The precedents for such technique are the old Chautauqua and the recent successes or Paul Gregory•s pro­ ductions. For the teacher of vital theatre, no aspect of drama should be slighted--hence, the validity of such a project tor the present writer. The recentness of Christopher Fry•s arrival on the literary scene coupled with his own retiring nature has made research on his person and career difficult and tenuous. The material presented in this paper is an amalgam or the meager bits about Fry to drift into print; however it does represent the sum total. The play reading was presented at Sacramento State College on Mary 22, 1954. The problem uppermost throughout the rehearsal period was that of conveying a sense of action, time, and place, through movement only suggested, standard lighting, and modern dress--all this, while retaining the essence of poetry in letter and in spirit. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beaufort, Johnt Christian Science Monitor, p. 4, November 1~, 1950. Brown, John Mason, Saturday Review Q! Literature, 33:46 December 2, 1950. · ___, Saturday Review Q! Literature, 35:20-2, March 1, 19,2. Beyer, William H. , "The State of the Theatre: Hits and Misses," School and Society, No. 1892, 73:180, March 24, 195'1. Case, Victoria and Robert Ormond Case,~ Called ll CUlture. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1948, 272 pp. Commonweal, 53:196, December 1, 1950.

~ Magazine, "Theatre Review", November 9, 1950. Fry, Christopher, "Poetry in the Theatre," Saturday Review 2f Literature, 36:18, March 21, 1953. Gibbs, Woolcott, 1!2l! Yorker, 26:77, November 18, 1950. Hewes, Henry, "Sleighride in Darkness," Saturday Review 2£. Literature, 36:14, April 3, 1954. Hobson, Harold, "London Greets Mr. Fry, Playwright," New IQll Times Magazine, March 12, 19,0, p. 2. Krutch, Joseph Wood, Nation, 174:237, March 8, 1952. Nathan, George Jean, English Journal, 42:1-7, January, 1953. Nation, 171:466-67, November 18, 1950. Newsweek, 36:90, November 20, 1950. New~ Daily Compass, Theatre Review, November 9, 1950. 1!2J! ill!, Herald Tribune, Theatre Review, November 9, 1950.

~ York Journal .American, Theatre Review, November 9, 1950...... -- - ·· . -·------...

33 New~ Times, Theatre Review, November 9, 1950. ~, 56:58-64, November 20, 1950. Wyatt, Euphemia Van Rensselaer, Catholic World, 172:306, January, 1951-.