Bigsby 1978

Drama as Cultural Sign: American Dramatic Criticism, 1945-1978
Author(s): C. W. E. Bigsby
Source: American Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1978), pp. 331-357
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712505
Accessed: 28-12-2015 13:29 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:29:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DRAMA AS CULTURAL SIGN:
AMERICAN DRAMATIC CRITICISM,
1945-1978
C. W. E. BIGSBY
of East Anglia,England
University
DRAMA HAS ALWAYS HAD THE POWER TO ENGAGE THE PRESENT IN A

way thatis less trueof othergenres.Unlikethenovelit speaksin thepresent
tense,and thesenseof sharedexperiencewhichderivesfromthismakesit a
sensitiveinstrument forplottingchangesin culturalpressure,forresponding
to changingideological,social, and aestheticmoods. It is thischaracteristic
whichmakesit so valuablefortheculturalcritic,as it quite literallydrama-
tizes the tensionsand displaysthe public and privateface of society.That
it has failed to engage the attentionit deserves,not only fromdramatic
criticsbut fromthose committedto analysisof the Americantemper,is
thusthemore surprising. But of thatneglecttherecan be no doubt.
In compilingbibliographicalessays for the annual American Literary
Scholarship,WalterMeservefoundhimselfrepeatedlylamentingthe stand-
ard of thematerialhe was reviewing.In 1966 he observedthatfewof the
books or essayswhichhe had read would "have any lastingvalue" because
"fewpeople take Americandrama seriously."The followingyearhe found
criticalmaterialon Americandrama to be "extremelyslight-poorlywrit-
ten,ineffectively substantiated. . . and makingconfusedand commonplace
observations."
In facttheseriousacademicstudyof Americandramais a comparatively
recentphenomenonand did not starton any scale untilthe 1950s. This is
reflectedin the late emergenceof the principaldrama periodicals:Educa-
tionalTheatreJournal,1949; Tulane Drama Review,1955; ModernDrama,
1958; TheatreSurvey,1960; Drama Survey,1961; ComparativeDrama,
1967; Yale Theatre,1968; Performance, 1971.
332 American Quarterly
It is unfortunatelytruethatthefailureof theAmericantheatreto rise to

a levelof sustainedseriousnesshas been matchedby a corresponding failure
of criticismto identifythe nature of that theatre'sactual achievements.
Though thispresentessay identifies a large numberof books and articles,
a disproportionate numberof theseare monographs, collectionsof reviews,
and simpledescriptionsof theatregroups.The novel demandsand receives
a criticalscrupulousness, an imaginative energyof response,whichis lacking
in muchdrama criticism.It is not simplythatthe generallevel of theatre
criticismis so low but thatdramais relativelyignoredby the seriouscritic,
Europeansoftenperceivingits significance withgreateralacrityand percep-
tion thanAmericans.The firstmonographon ArthurMiller was actually
publishedin Englandand thefirston EdwardAlbee in Belgium.
In The Culture Watch:Essays on Theatreand Society 1969-74 (New
York: Knopf,1975), RobertBrusteindeploresa similarweaknessin review-
ing.' This failureis more menacingthanwould be a corresponding insuffi-
ciencywithrespectto the novel,in thata play's verysurvival,its abilityto
be preservedin performance or print,is frequentlydependenton theopinion
of a veryfew journalistswhose backgroundhas littleto do eitherwith
theatreor dramaticliterature. Indeed a disproportionate numberof thegen-
eral studiesof the Americantheatreare writtenby journalistsdrawingon
theirreviewingexperience-the dividingline betweenreviewingand criti-
cism being more blurredin this area than in most. The Drama Review's
special issue on criticism(Vol. 13, Sept. 1974) consistedin large part of
a discussionbetweenfournewspaperreviewers,Clive Barnes, JohnLahr,
JohnSimon,and Michael Smith.(Much the same point could be made in
England whereAn Experienceof Critics,ed. Kaye Webb [London: Per-
petua, 1952] turnedout to be a similarsymposiumof journalists.)
Perhaps it is simplythatdrama is a performing art which,the logistics
of theatrebeing what theyare, would seem to demand a special breed of
metropolitan critic.But thisof course missesthe point. Criticismis not re-
viewing.It is the potentialand not the specificperformance which should
be theconcernof thecritic.He mustnecessarilybe a directormanquie,just
as thedirector,in myexperience,mustbe and usuallyis a criticof genuine
perception.Harold Clurman,a director/critic, carefullymakes this dis-
tinctionbetween reviewerand criticin the introductionto The Naked
Image: Observationson the Modern Theatre (New York: Macmillan,
1966), thoughhe is hardlyso scrupulousin maintainingthat distinction
throughout thebook. Indeed suchdistinctions are an obsessivetopicamong
those who discuss theatrein weeklyor monthlyjournals and who are at
'James M. Calem, A Guide to Critical Reviews Part I, American Drama 1909-69,

2ndEd. (Metuchen,N.J.: ScarecrowPress,1973).
AmericanDramaticCriticism,1945-1978 333
pains to createa criticalspace betweenthemselvesand thosewho workfor

daily newspapers. Richard Gilman makes precisely this distinctionin
"Being a Critic,"Common and UncommonMasks. Writingson Theatre
1961-1970 (New York: Random House, 1971) as does RobertBrusteinin
"WhyI Write,"Seasons of Discontent.Dramatic Opinions 1959-65 (New
York: Simon and Schuster,1965). To an extenttheirintelligent workfor
such publicationsas The New Republic and The New York Review of
Books would seem to go some way towards such
justifying a distinction.
On the otherhand, JohnSimon's definitionof a reviewer,in "A Critical
Need or Two," Singularities(New York: Random, 1975), as "someone
who has no expertise,standardsor visionbeyond those of his readers" is
clearly specious.
Whatwe are witnessing is a clearunease aboutthenatureand purposeof
a public responseto the theatrewhichis not entirelyremotefromthe de-
mands of the marketplace.Weeklyjournalism,afterall, has its own im-
perativesand limitations,as is immediatelyapparentfromthe numerous
volumes of collected reviewswhichconstitutesuch a high proportionof
books surveyingthe achievementof the post-warAmerican stage. Dis-
tinctionsbetweencriticismand reviewingare important. MartinGottfried's
A TheatreDivided. The PostwarAmericanStage (Boston: Little,Brown,
1969) receivedthe George Jean Nathan Award for Dramatic Criticism,
thoughit containsscarcelya word of genuine criticism,unless it be his
casual dismissalof Robert Lowell's My Kinsman,Major Molyneuxas an
"artsycraftsyexercisein graduateschool neo-Genet."StanleyKaufman,in
Personsof theDrama (New York: Harper and Row, 1976) triesto avoid
theproblemby seekingto distinguish theatrecriticsfromdrama critics,the
latterbeing concernedonly withtextualanalysis.But thisis preciselythe
kindofdistinction whichhas bedevilledAmericandramaticcriticism. Simple
collectionsof reviews,oftenrepublishedwithoutamendmentor reconsider-
ation,occupy a positionin Americathattheywould not, for example,in
Europe. As a recordof particularproductions,as an initialreactionto new
works,theyclearlyhave theirvalue. Perhaps this recordis most valuable
in a period such as we have just passed through,in whichperformance
becomesthesubjectas well as the object of dramaticactivity.On thissub-
ject, see Mary McCarthy,Sightsand Spectacles 1937-1956 (New York:
Farrar,Straus and Gudarly,1956); Eric Bentley,What is Theatre?,in-
corporatingThe Dramatic Event and Other Reviews, 1944-1967 (New
York: Atheneum,1968); RobertBrustein,Seasons ofDiscontent:Dramatic
Opinions1959-65 (New York: Simon and Schuster,1966); RobertBru-
stein,The ThirdTheatre(London: JonathanCape, 1969); Brooks Atkin-
son, BriefChronicles(New York: Coward,McCann, 1966); RichardGil-
man, Common and UncommonMasks: Writingson Theatre,1961-1970

(New York: Random House, 1971); Martin Gottfried,Opening Nights:
TheatreCriticismof theSixties (New York: Putnams,1969); JohnLahr,
AstonishMe: Adventuresin Contemporary Theatre (New York: Viking,
1973), thoughthisalso containssome thoughtful extendedessays; Stanley
Kaufman,Persons of the Drama: TheatreCriticismand Comment(New
York: Harperand Row, 1976). They shouldnot, however,be seen as an
adequate substitute forconsideredcriticismany more than academic ped-
antryshouldreplacea perceptionof dramaas a performing art.
Harold Clurman'sbasic position,outlinedin "Reflexionson theTheatre,"
The Nation (May 16, 1966), had been that"a play is not a document,it is
an address;thefirstconsiderationmustbe therelevanceto the audiencefor
whichit is performed."And thoughthisbegs a numberof questionsit is
clear thatthe dramaticcriticmustin some mannercombinethe skillsof a
literarycriticwiththeperceptionsof a theatrepractitioner. This may in it-
selfexplainthereticenceof somecritics.In TyroneGuthrieon Acting(New
York: Viking, 1971) for example,Guthriedenounceswhat he calls "the
complacenthypocrisy whichpretendsthatdramacan be adequatelystudied
as literature,adequatelytaughtby literaryprofessors."
Whateverthe cause, however,the factremainsthatthe theatrehas con-
sistentlyfallenbelowthethreshold ofthoseconcernedwiththecriticalanaly-
sis of Americanwriting.It may be that the traditionalhostilitybetween
drama and theatrespecialists,uneasilyinstitutionalized in Americain the
locationof theone in departments of Englishand the otherin departments
of theatre,has played its part in this; if so, it is a continuingweak-
ness and academicnonsense.For a discussionof thisissue see D. G. Jones,
ed., The Universities and the Theatre(London: Allen and Unwin,1952),
and, in a different context,RobertBrustein,"The Idea of Theatreat Yale:
The Rationale of Theatre Studies in a RevolutionarySituation,"Theatre
Quarterly,(Apr.-June,1971), 71-77.
It is true, of course, that the Americantheatrehas produced so few
genuinelyoriginaltalentsthatthe academiccriticperhapsfeelslittletempta-
tionto takeit seriously.In theAmericancontextplaywriting seemstoo often
to have resolvedinto an art whichchooses to deny itselfthe formalcom-
plexitiesand intellectualdensitywhich have provided somethingof the
attractionsof modernistpoetryand the post-modernnovel. Robert Bru-
steinmakes a similarpointin "WhyAmericanPlays Are Not Literature,"
AmericanDrama and its Critics,ed. Alan S. Downer (Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1965). I take this view to be at least partiallymistaken,
however,and manystudiesof contemporary literaturelack finalconviction
because of their unwillingness confront, even to show awarenessof,
to or
developments the theatrewhichshouldhave proved of centralinterest.
in
Thus, in his perceptivestudyof compositionsand decompositionsin the

languagesof contemporary life,The Performing Self (New York: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1971), RichardPoirierdraws on a theatricalimage,via the
social sciences,withoutexaminingthe area in whichthat image and the
wholequestionof thedecomposition of languagewas beingdebatedthrough-
outthesixties-namely,thetheatre.Somethingof thesame pointcould per-
haps be made of Ihab Hassan's Paracriticism (Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois
Press, 1975), sinceit was preciselyin thetheatrethattheadequacy of con-
temporarycriticismwas being most directlychallenged.Hassan's equally
interestingThe Dismemberment of Orpheus:Toward a PostmodernLitera-
ture (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1971) omitsall referenceto drama.
Tri-Quarterly, thevoice ofpost-modernism in thearts,has foundlittlespace
over the last fifteenyears to presentor analyze the post-modernimpulse
in theAmericantheatre.The same is trueof Under30: Fiction,Poetryand
Criticismof theNew AmericanWriters(Bloomington,Ind.: Indiana Univ.
Press, 1969), editedby Charles Neman and WilliamA. Hankin, Jr.,the
editorsof Tri-Quarterly. Theodore Solotaroff'sThe Red Hot Vacuum and
OtherPieces on the Writingsof theSixties (New York: Atheneum,1970)
similarlycontainsno references to drama,whileRichardKostelanetz'sOn
Contemporary Literature,expanded version (New York: Avon, 1969),
includesin its 58 chaptersonly a seven page articleon Albee and a John
Gassneressayon ArthurMillerand TennesseeWilliamswhichhad originally
appearedin 1954. PhilipRahv's On ModernOccasion (New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1966) has a single brief descriptivearticle on the
Americantheatre.This, however,is matchedby the failureof drama criti-
cismto generatea concernwiththeory,a sophisticatedengagementwitha
changingformof the kindwhichhas recentlydistinguished novel criticism.
Lionel Abel's Metatheatre(New York: Hill and Wang, 1963) pointedin
a directionwhichfew criticshave chosen to follow.The so-called "Post-
modernDance" issue of The Drama Review, 19 (Mar. 1975), has nothing
to do withpost-modernism as the termis usuallyemployed.Where,more-
over,are the semiologicalor structural analysesof Americanplays? Susan
Wittig's"Toward a SemioticTheoryof the Drama," Educational Theatre
Journal,26 (Dec. 1974), 441-54 draws her examplesfromthe European
theatre,while Michael Kirby's "StructuralAnalysis/Structural Theory,"
Drama Review,20 (Dec. 1976), 51-68 has moreto do withstructure than
structuralism. For the most part the studentof drama has to turn to
European sourcesfor a discussionof thissubject-Ladislav Matejka and
Irwin R. Titunik,eds., Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions
(Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1976).
Of course,the contraryimpulseis also apparent.Faced withthe uneven
productsof the Americantheatre,criticshave at timessoughtto establish
thesignificance of theirfieldby exaggerating theimportance of minortalents,

elevatingthe vapid sententiousness of MacLeish's JB into tragicart and
Barbara Garson's undergraduate MacBird into satiricseriousness.These,
then,are the complementary dangers: to isolate the achievementsof the
Americantheatrefroma broaderdramaticcontextand thus to exaggerate
its importance;or to ignoreits genuineaccomplishments, througha failure
to recognizeits potentialor to see it in thecontextof widermovementsin
Americanwriting.
The fact remainsthat academic criticismof Americandrama contents
itselftoo readilywithcrossingand recrossingfamiliarand hence safe ter-
ritory.Of 154 articleson twentieth-century Americandrama to appear in
ModernDrama between1958 and 1978, 112 wereon the workof O'Neill
(53), Miller (20), Williams (21), and Albee (18). Indeed, O'Neill and
Millerbetweenthemaccountedfor nearlyhalfof all articleson twentieth-
centuryAmericandrama. The only otherAmericanauthorsto meritmore
thana singlearticlewereMaxwellAnderson(5), ArchibaldMacLeish (3),
ThorntonWilder(3), JackGelber(2), AmiriBaraka (3), and ElmerRice
(2, including1 bibliography).Interestingly, duringthe latterpart of this
same period,the most-producedauthorson university campusesincluded,
besides thebig four,Israel Horowitz,LanfordWilson,Megan Terry,Paul
Zindell,MurraySchisgal,JohnGuare, and, of course,Neil Simon-none of
whomcommandeda singlearticlein ModernDrama. Nor, forthatmatter,
did one of themostinteresting of the new writersof the '70s, David Rabe.
The theatricalfermentof the '60s wentlargelyunremarked.The situation
was scarcelydifferent in Educational TheatreJournal,Drama Survey,or
ComparativeDrama, whileAmericanQuarterly,AmericanLiterature,the
BritishJournalof AmericanStudies,Contemporary Literature,and Twen-
tiethCenturyLiteratureshowedlittleif any interestin the theatre.And all
this neglectoccurredat a time when the reputationof Americantheatre
stood higherthanat any othertime.
The post-wartheatredid indeedstarton a highnote,withO'Neill's flawed
masterpiecesand the emergenceof ArthurMiller and TennesseeWilliams.
See RobertBrustein,The Theatreof Revolt (Boston: Little,Brown, 1964-
1965), and Harold Clurman,On Directing(London: Collier,1974), which
offersvaluable insightsinto Long Day's JourneyintoNightand A Touch
of thePoet. For a decade and a halftheAmericantheatrewas thefocusof
internationalattention, as, forratherdifferentreasons,it was once again for
a periodin themid-sixties. Millerand Williamsexpressedaccuratelyenough
theliberalanguishand romanticalienationwhichformanywriterscame to
typifythe post-warworld.Both had been forgedas writersin the thirties
(a facttoo oftenforgotten)and a sense of social oppressioninformsboth
theirwork. Both see societyas reachingout to crushthe individual,the

city threatening his very existence.The stage sets for both The Glass
Menagerie and Death of a Salesman (Jo Mielziner,Designing for the
Theatre[New York: BramhallHouse, 1965])2 depictthecitylandscape as
invadingthe area of privatedreamsas, indeed,theycontinueto do in Wil-
lams' workfromA StreetcarNamed Desire (JordanMiller,ed., Twentieth
CenturyInterpretations of A StreetcarNamed Desire [EnglewoodCliffs,
N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1971]) to Red Devil BatterySign. But as writersthey
appeared to go in very different directions.While Williams retainedhis
centralthemeof the romanticin an unromanticworld,a themederivedin
partfromD. H. Lawrencewhom he greatlyadmired(Norman J. Fedder,
The Influenceof D. H. Lawrence on Tennessee Williams[The Hague:
Mouton and Co., 1966]), forthe mostpart he turnedaway froma direct
concernwithsocial structures, seeingthemsimplyas imagesof the ineluct-
able facticitywhichthreatenedthe necessaryfictionsof his characters.In-
creasinglyhe describedthose desperateattemptsto hold the worldat bay
with alcohol, illusion,and fragilesexualitywhich,as he indicatesin his
Memoirs(New York: Doubleday,1975), came to characterizehis own life.
Miller,afterwritingtwoplayswhichseemedto admitof no whollysatis-
factoryresponseto public and privatebetrayals-All My Sons and Death
of a Salesman (Gerald Weales, Text and Criticism:ArthurMiller,Death
of a Salesman [New York: Viking, 1964])-was stunginto a defenseof
liberalvalues by the politicalpersecutionwhichhe suffered at the hands of
theHouse Un-AmericanActivitiesCommittee(see Miller'spublicresponse
in Eric Bentley'sThirtyYears of Treason[New York: Viking,1971]). And
if Williams'largelyapoliticalreactionto the fiftiesreflectedthe position
adoptedby many,Miller'sconfrontation withthe politicalmachinerepre-
sented a political engagementthrustupon many intellectuals.Both The
Crucible(Gerald Weales, ed., The Crucible:TextualCriticism[New York:
Viking,1971]) and A View fromtheBridgewereresponsesto whatMiller
saw as thecollapse of individualintegrity and lifeunderthe assaultsof the
social system;theywere assertionsof the need to play sociallyresponsible
roles.It is thissocial dimensionof Miller'swork,implicitin his adaptation
of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People (David Bronson,"An Enemy of the
People: A Key to ArthurMiller'sArt and Ethics,"ComparativeDrama, 2
[1968-69], 229-47), which provides the main focus for Leonard Moss'
ArthurMiller (Boston: Twayne,1967) and WolfgangRossle's Die soziale
2Fora studyof stagedesign,see ElizabethBurdick,PeggyHansen,BrendaZanger,

StageDesign USA (Middletown:WesleyanUniv. Press,1974).
eds., Contemporary
Wirklichkeit in ArthurMiller'sDeath of a Salesman (Fribourg: Universi-

tatsverlag,1970).
As RobertW. Corriganpointsout ("The Achievement of ArthurMiller,"
The Theatrein Need of a Fix [New York: Delacorte Press, 1973]), in
virtuallyall of Miller'splays therecomes a momentwhenthe hero shouts
outhis name."I'm nota dimea dozen. I'm WillyLoman"; "Eddie Carbone.
Eddie Carbone.I wantmyname.How mayI live withoutmyname?" Thus,
whenMillerwas called beforethe Un-AmericanActivitiesCommitteeand
asked to "name names," that veryformulation was a challengeof an in-
tenselypersonaland public kindsimultaneously. And out of thischallenge
came a moreclearlystructured sense of the selfand of thatself'srelation-
ship to the social world.WillyLoman neverknewwho he was or whatthe
connectionbetweenhimselfand his societycould be. JohnProctor,in The
Crucible,takes on total responsibility for himselfand for his society.
At the heartof Miller's work,partlyconcealed and only inadequately
expressedin the earlyplaysbut fullyarticulatedin thelater ones, is a con-
cernwithguilt,a guiltdirectlyrelatedto his experienceas a Jewwho had
survivedthe Holocaust and as an individualwho had discoveredhis own
potentialfor betrayal.The apparentclarityof the clash betweenthe free
individualand a politicallymalevolentsystemhad merelyservedto conceal
thesubtletyof a problemwhichhad become increasingly centralto his work
and whichhe perceivedas havingmetaphysicalratherthan social origins.
Particularly relevantto thisobservationis Tom Driver'sessay on "Strength
and Weakness in ArthurMiller," in WalterMeserve, ed., Discussions of
AmericanDrama (Lexington,Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1966).
Milleris, in fact,unavoidablyAmerica'spoet of guilt.On thistheme,see
FranklinBascom Ashley,The Themeof Guiltand Responsibility in thePlays
of ArthurMiller (Diss. Univ. of South Carolina, 1970).3 Sheila Huftel
givesconsiderableattentionto theguiltthemein ArthurMiller: The Burn-
ing Glass (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel, 1965), as, more specifically,does
Richard Evans in the not-too-informative Psychologyand ArthurMiller
(New York: Dutton,1968), based on interviews withthe playwright. The
assumptionthat America's playwrights could benefitfrom psychological
studyis, however,valid enough.Not onlydo all the major figuresseem to
draw deeplyon theirown experiences,producingworkslike Long Day's
JourneyintoNight,AftertheFall, The Glass Menagerieand The American
Dream,but the Freudianinfluenceon Americandramahas been extensive,
if frequently ill-absorbedand misunderstood.David Sievers attemptsan
3For dissertationssee Frederic M. Litto, American Dissertations on the Drama and

(Kent, Ohio: KentStateUniv. Press, 1969).
the Theatre:A Bibliography
analysis in Freud on Broadway (Jacksonville:Heritage House, 1955),

while in Creativityin the Theatre.A PsychoanalyticStudy (New York:
Basic Books, 1965), Philip Weissmanoffersa wide-ranging psychological
account of all aspects of theatre,togetherwithspecificstudiesof O'Neill
and Williams.See also RichardHenrySpero, The JungianWorldof Ten-
nessee Williams(Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin,1970) and AlbertRothenberg
and Eugene D. Shapiro, "The Defence of Psychoanalysisin Literature:
Long Day's JourneyintoNightand A View fromtheBridge,"Comparative
Drama, 7 (1973), 51-67.
Miller'sconcernwithguiltconcedesthepowerofthepast overthepresent
in a way whichrelateshis workat timesto Ibsen, whomhe greatlyadmired
and whose workhe both adapted and utilized.This relationshipis com-
menteduponbyDennisWellandin his generalstudy,ArthurMiller (Willits,
Cal.: Oliverand Boyd, 1961), whichis presently beingrevisedforpublica-
tionby MethuenBooks. Edward Murray'sArthurMiller: Dramatist(New
York: FrederickUngar, 1967) is moreconcernedwithdramaticstructure,
at thecost,at times,of sensitiveanalysis.BenjaminNelson's ArthurMiller:
Portraitof a Playwright(New York: David McKay, 1970) offersan in-
telligentifunfocusedanalysisof individualplays.
Miller'scareerbegan withan engagementwithhis identityas a Jew; in
a senseit seemsfatedto end witha similarcommitment. Like those other
Jewish-American writers,Mailer, Malamud, and Bellow, he seems to have
set himselfthetask of confronting a flawedhumannaturewiththe kind of
resiliencewhich can translateself-hatredand despair into moral force.
Arguably,however,he has becomeless convincingas a playwright as he has
becomemoreconvincingas a moralist.The sentimentalities of AftertheFall
are,admittedly, of a different
kindfromthosewhichtypify so muchAmeri-
can drama,butat timestheydo threatenwhathe offersas thebrutalrealism
and hencetruthof his vision.Clearly,Louis Broussard'sassertionthatboth
Miller and Williams"are in the traditionof despair," AmericanDrama:
Contemporary AllegoryfromEugene O'Neill to TennesseeWilliams(Nor-
man: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1962) is unhelpfulin the extreme.
Sentimentalityhas indeed been a constanttemptationfor the American
theatre,fromthecomediesof Kaufmanand Saroyanto thecivicpastoralsof
ThorntonWilderand WilliamInge. For a considerationof the former,see
Donald Haberman,The Plays of ThorntonWilder(Middletown:Wesleyan
Univ. Press, 1967), and for a useful approach to the latter,JordanY.
Miller, "William Inge: The Last of the Realists," Kansas Quarterly,2
(1970), 17-26. Jean Gould offersa fewbiographicaldetails in her some-
what insubstantialvolume, Modern American Playwrights(New York:
Dodd, Mead, 1966).
340 A merican Quarterly
For ThorntonWilder, William Inge, Carson McCullers, and Robert

Anderson,the small Americantown offeredits own image of alienation,
its culturalariditiesprovidinga correlativefor a bleak public world,its
sentimentalities the only relieffromthe naturalpains of domestictedium.
As writerstheytend to examine the plightof the solitaryindividualleft
behindby thetideof Americanprogressto strugglewiththeintrusive factof
his or herown insignificance, or thedistorting realitiesof theirsexual being.
It is a theatrewhichtakesas itssubjectthebaffled, thelonely,theadolescent,
the failed.It providesa psychopathology of the Americanindividualbut
does so, for the most part,withoutquestioningthe natureof that society
or themetaphysicsof moral responsibility. Withthe exceptionof Wilder's
experimentalism, it is conservativein formand attitude.Life tendsto be
picturedas theslow unfoldingof a determined pattern.A sentimental con-
solationis foundin thesheermutationof youthintoage, theflaringof love,
and the phantomsof nostalgia-the kind of process,in otherwords,with
whichMillerflirtsin Death of a Salesmanbut to whichhe finallyrefusesto
succumb.It is a theatre,moreover,whichcould have been writtenat any
timein thepreviousthirtyyears.Yet theaffecting imagesof quiet despera-
tionfoundin Our Town, Come Back, LittleSheba, All SummerLong, and
A Memberof the Weddingcreateda kindof domesticpathoswhichproved
popularon Broadwayand, subsequently, withprovincialaudiences.
LillianHellman'smoraltheatre,Chekhovianin mood,southernin setting,
conventionalin form,exploressomethingof the same territory but witha
sharpnessevidentalso in the impressiveand underratedmusical,Candide.
See Lorena Ross Holmin,The Dramatic Worksof Lillian Hellman (Stock-
holm: Almquistand Wiksell, 1973); Richard Moody, Lillian Hellman:
Playwright(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1972), and Jacob H. Adler,
Lillian Hellman (Austin: Steck-Vaughn,1969), the last being part of the
Southernwritersseries. Yet her accomplishments as a dramatistare of a
minorkind, the clash betweensimplehumanityand the drive for power
whichshe projectsagainsta fast-changing South lackingthe metaphysical
engagement of a Faulkneror theoccasional symbolicdepthof a Williams.
TennesseeWilliams'moralityis of a different kind. His charactershave
alwaystroddenthedangerousborderbetweenthereal and theimaginedand
thepeculiarforceof his workderivespreciselyfromthedoomed act of will
withwhichhis protagonists resistthe factof defeator, occasionallyand less
believably,forcea victoryof sorts,a desperatecompromisewithtime.The
powerof sexuality,at timestherapeuticand redemptive, at timesan image
of determinism, gives his work its particularexcitement(Nancy Tischler,
Tennessee Williams:Rebellious Puritan[Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel, 1965]).
In his best workhis overpoeticlanguage and naive use of symbolismare
keptin checkby an imagination whichifmelodramatic is also capable offine

control.The collapse of thatcontrol,thegrowthof a self-pity whichplaced
his own plighttoo nakedlyat the centerof attention, the disintegration of
his personality,eventuallydestroyedthe honestyand perspectivewhich
enabled him to make StanleyKowalski a worthyadversaryfor Blanche
Dubois in Streetcar,and Laura's mothera compassionatefriendas well as a
shrillaccuserofherdaughterin The Glass Menagerie.
Williams'explorationof forbiddenterritory, his quixoticimagination, his
sublimatedsocial dramas recast as romanticclashes betweenthe sensual
purein heartand the soullessrepresentatives of power,are compellingpre-
ciselybecause of theirsubversivequalities.The gothicassociationof sexu-
alityand revolt(Orpheus Descending,SweetBird of Youth) or the erotic
and themenacing(SuddenlyLast Summer)fusedhis dual themesof artistic
and social persecution.Williams,a writerand a homosexual,neverneeded
a tripto the Un-AmericanActivitiesCommitteeto teach him about the
hostilityof thepublic world,strenuousin its pursuitof thenonconformist.
This is whatI take RobertHeilmanto mean whenhe speaks of the "melo-
dramaof the victim"in the workof Williamsand Miller in his book The
Iceman,theArsonist,and the TroubledAgent:Tragedyand Melodramaon
theModernStage (Seattle: Univ. of WashingtonPress, 1973).
Thoughhe too was capable ofrelaxingthetensionin his workand permit-
tinga destructiveslide into sentimentality-the simplisticironiesof The
Rose Tattoo doingnothingto preventthis-Williams at his best was from
the beginninga genuinelyoriginalvoice in a way that Miller, so heavily
dominatedby Ibsen, was perhapsnot. Yet both remaindesperatelycom-
mittedto theidea of an identifiableand functioning moralself.As a conse-
quence theirdoubtsabout individualand social coherencestend to be de-
flectedinto style.For Beckettthe public and privateare mutuallyinter-
penetratedwithabsurdity;for Miller and Williamsthe erosion of private
space and theconsequentsocial collapseare born out of a failureof courage
and imaginationon a privateand public level. Needing to believe in the
integrityof a resistantselftheyshiftthethreatof collapse onto the formof
theplay (Death of a Salesmanand CaminoReal) or onto a dramaticsym-
bol whichmuststandforthatcollapse (the unicornin The Glass Menagerie,
the dried-upfountainin Camino Real) or the constantthreatof moral
failure(the concentration camp in Afterthe Fall). In a sense the setting
itselfserves somethingof this functionin Williams' work. Certainlythe
South whichhe pictures(JhrgenKoepsal, Der Amerikanische Suden und
seine Funktionenim dramatischenWerk von Tennessee Williams[Bern,
Switzerland:Lang, 1974]) existsless as real landscape (note, forexample,
thealmostcompleteand perplexingabsence of blacks in Williams'South)
thanas an imaginative world,a disintegrating structurewhichtheindividual

mustinhabitand sustainby a combinationof will and imaginativeeconomy.
As SigniFalk pointsout (Tennessee Williams[Boston: Twayne,1962]),
theclash betweentheOld and theNew Southis a commonenoughthemeof
Southernwriting(Thomas E. Porter,Mythand Modern AmericanDrama
[Detroit:Wayne State Univ. Press, 1969]) but forWilliamsit was less a
case of collidingmoralitiesor mythsthana debate about the natureof hu-
man need and the rightsand limitsof the imagination.That is to say, as
BenjaminNelson suggestsin Tennessee Williams:The Man and his Work
(New York: Ivan Obolensky,1961), his subject is always at base the
writer,who, by definition, offershis fictionsas a paradigmof orderwhile
doubtingtheirabilityto survivethe onslaughtof the real. This is thefocus
of Robert Skloot's article,"SubmittingSelf to Flame: The Artist'sQuest
in TennesseeWilliams,1935-1954," EducationalTheatreJournal,25 (May
1973), 199-206. Williams'playsare,in effect, metadramas-reflexive works
whichcontemplatetheirown processes.And thoughthisis clearlytrue,in
a sense,of The Glass Menagerieand A StreetcarNamed Desire, it becomes
more self-consciousin a work like Outcryin which post-moderndoubt
about thenatureof realityand thefictiveprocessitselfmoves to thecenter
of his attentionas he identifiesan entropicimpulseinfecting all structures-
includinghis own modelsof artisticorder.
Such self-consciousness about the processesof art and the paradigmatic
natureof theatrehad largelybeen absentfromthe Americantheatreuntil
the 1960s. Both Millerand Williamsregardedthemselvesas experimenters,
buttheirfundamental impulsewas mimetic;the"continuouspresent"of The
Death of a Salesmanbeingdesignedto presenta mindin a stateof collapse,
and the expressionistic devices of Camino Real, the distorting power of a
prosaic world. For an account of Williams' experimentswith form,see
EstherMerle Jackson,The BrokenWorldof TennesseeWilliams(Madison:
Univ. of WisconsinPress, 1965). But with the 1960s the definitionof
theatre,thefunctionof acting,thepurposeand natureof themise en scene,
the role of theperforming self,the necessityforstructuredformin writing,
direction,and dramaticaction,all came intoquestion.The Americantheatre
entereda periodof ferment.
Certainly,by theend of the 1950s it was apparentthatAmericandrama
could no longerrestits reputationon theachievement of twowriterswhose
workseemedincreasingly to speak to a generationwhoseperceptions, social
and aestheticcriteriawereforgedin an earlierage; whoseconcep-
priorities,
tionof theatre,in otherwords,derivedout of Chekhov,Ibsen, and Strind-
bergratherthanPirandello,Beckett,and Artaud,or, perhaps,late rather
than early Ibsen, early ratherthan late Strindberg, and the Chekhov of
The CherryOrchardratherthanthe Chekhovof The Seagull (Richard B.

Vowles, "Tennessee Williams and Strindberg,"Modern Drama, 1 [Dec.
1958], 166-71) . By theend of thedecade ArthurMillerwas fouryearsinto
whatwas to become a nine-yeartheatresilence(ArthurGanz, "The Silence
of ArthurMiller,"Drama Survey,[Fall 1963]), and Tennessee Williams
had enteredan increasingly embarrassing period of decline.Even the post-
humousminingof O'Neill's workhad finallycome to an end. Therewas, in
fact,a real senseofcrisisin theAmericantheatre,a crisiswhichwentmuch
deeperthanthe apparentdeclineof its major dramatists.It was in partat
least a question of economics,as Jack Poggi makes clear in Theatrein
America: The Impact of Economic Forces, 1870-1967 (Ithaca: Cornell
Univ. Press, 1968) and in "The Economic Dilemma of the Broadway
Theatre:A Cost Study,"EducationalTheatreJournal,21 (1969), 81-100,
and as Thomas Gale Moore suggestsin The Economics of the American
Theatre(Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1968). For a view of the position
in theearlysixtiessee Tulane Drama Review,10 (Fall 1965). RobertBru-
steinadds morerecentinformation in "The MoneyCrisisand thePerform-
ingArts,"in The CultureWatch,whichcommentson theFord Foundation's
massivepublication,The Finances of the Arts. See also the Rockefeller
BrothersFund, The Performing Arts (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).
But the problemwent deeperthan this; it was a failureof confidence.
The Americanmusicalremaineda dominantand eveninnovativeform(Leh-
man Engel, The AmericanMusical [New York: Macmillan,1967]) which
comparedwell withthevapid exportsfromShaftsbury Avenue. For a more
skepticalview,see "The AmericanMusical: The SlaveryofEscape," in John
Lahr, ActingOut America:Essays on Modern Theatre (New York: Pen-
guin, 1970)-an expanded versionof Up Againstthe FourthWall (New
York: Grove, 1970). But thenon-musicalstageseemedto have lost a sense
of directionand purpose.It is worthremindingourselvesthat in Europe
Beckettand Ionesco had begunwriting in the 1940s at about thesame time
as Millerand Williamswerescoringtheirfirstsuccesses.And if theBritish
rediscoveryof naturalismin the mid-fifties was of greatersignificancein
a nationalratherthanan international context,fora generationof English
writersthetheatreseemedthecenterof culturallifein a way whichseemed
highlyunlikelyin the United States. There seemed littleopportunity for
the youngAmericanwriterto emerge.America lacked the German civic
theatretradition.It had a televisionservicewhich,aftera briefgoldenage,
had mostlyceased to providethe kind of outletfor new writersthat the
BBC did in Britain,thoughoccasional series like CBS's East Side/West
Side revealeda potentialforserious naturalisticprotestdrama whichwas
abortedwhentheserieswas discontinued. ArnoldPerl's Who Do You Kill?
(1963), an impressiveepisode fromthe series,survivesonlyas a filecopy.

Unlike many European countries,America had no nationaltheatre,and
whenone was establishedat Lincoln Centerin 1964, it failedto act as a
stimulusfor new writing.The universities, many of thembetterequipped
thanmostcommercialtheatresin Europe,did nothingto rescuethesituation.
Renewal,whenit came,could scarcelyderivefromBroadway,withitsunion
problems,highcosts,debilitating to poor reviews,
starsystem,vulnerability
and deteriorating account of Broadway
physicalsituation.For a different
theatre,see Brooks Atkinson,Broadway (New York: Macmillan, 1970),
and StuartW. Little and ArthurCantor's The Playmakers(New York:
Norton,1970). Renewal could onlycome fromregionaltheatreor fromthe
newlyarousedOff-Broadway.
Regional theatredid play an increasinglyimportantrole duringthisperi-
od, withtheestablishment ofnewtheatresand a moreinnovativethrustthan
Broadway could afford.Margo Jones foundedher Theatre-in-the-Round
in Dallas in 1947 (Margo Jones,Theatre-in-the-Round [New York: Mc-
Graw Hill, 1965]), the same year that the Alley Theatre,Houston, was
established.This was followedby Zelda Fichandler'sArena Stage in Wash-
ington,1950. The Tyrone Guthriewas establishedin Minneapolisin the
sixties,as was the San Francisco Actors Workshop (Herbert Blau, The
ImpossibleTheatre[New York: Macmillan, 1964]). Groups such as the
Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles,the CincinnatiPlayhouse,the Ameri-
can Conservatory Theatre,San Francisco,theMummersTheatre,Oklahoma
City,The Long WharfTheatrein New Haven, and theHartfordStage Com-
pany formedthebackbone of a decentralized,revivified theatre.Less cen-
trally,but stillevidenceof thisnew emphasis,in 1963 the Instituteof Out-
door Drama was foundedat the Universityof NorthCarolina. For a useful
studyof regionaltheatresee JuliusNovick'sBeyondBroadway(New York:
Hill and Wang, 1968) and StuartLittle's chapteron the subject in Off-
Broadway: The PropheticTheatre (New York: Coward, McCann and
Geoghegan,1972). ArthurBallet also outlinesthemain centersin "Ameri-
ca's Other Theatre: ProvincialismversusExperiment,"Theatre Quarterly
3 (Oct.-Dec. 1973), 47-59, 113. Joseph Ziegler makes a case for the
importanceof theatreoutsideNew York in Regional Theatre:The Revolu-
tionaryStage (Minneapolis: Univ. of MinnesotaPress, 1973), whilein A
Possible Theatre:The Experiencesof a PioneerDirectorin America'sResi-
dentTheatre(New York: McGraw Hill, 1969), StuartVaughan discusses
the workof the SeattleRepertoryTheatreand two New York companies,
the Phoenix and the New York ShakespeareFestival. The founderof the
former,Norris Houghton,had in fact called for the growthof regional
theatreas earlyas 1941 in his AdvancefromBroadway (New York: Har-
court,Brace, 1941); the founderof the latter,and of the increasingly

im-
portantPublic Theatreon LafayetteStreet,is the subjectof StuartLittle's
Enter JosephPapp. In Search of a New American Theatre (New York:
Coward,McCann and Geoghegan,1974). For a usefuldescriptivelistingof
regional,university,summer,and New York playhousessee William C.
Young, Famous AmericanPlayhouses1900-1971 (Chicago: AmericanLi-
braryAssociation,1973).
The revivalof Off-Broadway,and in particularits commitment to young
Americanwritersand its renewedinterestin the natureand role of theatre,
is describedin Gerald Weales' perceptiveand valuable The Jumping-Of]
Place (New York: Macmillan,1969), a continuanceof his equallyimpres-
sive AmericanDrama Since WorldWar II, and is seen by C. W. E. Bigsby
as betokeninga revival of the American theatre,dating, approximately,
from 1959 (Confrontationand Commitment:A Study of Contemporary
American Drama, 1959-66 [Columbia, Mo.: Univ. of Missouri Press,
1967]). A moreskepticalview is expressedby HerbertBlau in The Impos-
sible Theatre,whichregretsthat "littleof what goes on in the American
theatre . . . seems in touch with anything that really counts, rhythmically,
viscerally."Certainlyuntil that time Off-Broadwayhad done relatively
littleforAmericandrama,actingessentiallyas a showcaseforactorsand a
home forEuropean avant-gardeplaywrights ratherthan an arena fornew
Americanwritersand a place for radical enquiryinto the natureof the
theatricalexperienceand its nexus withthe unfoldingsocial and cultural
lifeof America.Admittedly, in thesixtiesit embracedthatnew role withan
enthusiasmwhich, as Robert Brusteinhas usefullyremindedus in The
Culture Watch,frequentlyfailed to distinguishthe avant-gardefromthe
merelyfaddishand all too oftensubstituted anarchismand self-indulgence
forcontroland genuineexperiment. Nonetheless,at the end of the fiftiesa
breakthroughdid occur, a breakthroughsignalledby the emergenceof
new writers,in particularthe appearanceof JackGelber and, more signifi-
cantly,Edward Albee.
As KennethTynanobservedat thetime,Gelber'sThe Connectionis close
kin to Beckett'sWaitingforGodot (Granz G. Blaham "Jack Gelber's The
Connectionand Samuel Beckett'sWaitingfor Godot," Moderne Sprachen,
13 [1969], 2-14). There is the same sense of abandonment,of an attempt
to forgemeaningwherenone exists.It is thatrarityin theAmericantheatre,
a play of genuinemetaphysicalseriousness.Yet, while the European in-
fluenceis clear, the play finallyevades the severityof Beckett'sworld,the
implacablelogic of the absurd.The analysis,social and metaphysical, is the
same,theconclusionsare different, theheavilystructured improvisations be-
comingan essentialelementof Gelber'sexistentialimaginationand, indeed,
a critiqueof an Americantheatrewhichhad too readilysettledfor a mi-

meticratherthan paradigmaticrole. Much of the same could be said of
Albee's The Zoo Story.Thus, if it was throughthe work of Gelber and
Albee that absurdistinfluenceenteredthe Americantheatre,it is equally
truethat neitherman was committedto the pervasiveironywhichis the
essence of the absurdist'sstance. For a contraryview, see MartinEsslin,
The Theatreof the Absurd (New York: Doubleday, 1961).
Gelber's subsequentwork proved disappointing,as, withthe exception
of Indians (Vera M. Jiji, "Indians: A Mosaic of Memories and Myth-
ologies,"Players,47 [1972], 230-36) did the workof ArthurKopit whose
own absurdistromp,Oh Dad, Poor Dad, had, fora while,made him seem
a promisingwriterto fillthevoid leftby O'Neill and Miller.JackRichard-
son (GilbertDebusscher,"JackRichardson,dramaturgeamericain,"Revue
des Langues Vivantes,Vol. 37, 128-51) similarlyfailed to oblige. But
Albee became the dominantplaywright of the sixties,provokingan ava-
lanche of academic articlesand half a dozen books. GilbertDebusscher's
pioneeringEdward Albee: Traditionand Renewal (Brussels: American
StudiesCentre,1967) locates his workin an Americantraditionand, fol-
lowingEsslin,sees him as an absurdist.This viewis challengedin C. W. E.
Bigsby'sAlbee (Willits,Cal.: Oliver and Boyd, 1969), while the whole
argumentis rehearsedin some detailby MartinEsslin,Brian Way, Richard
Schechner, and Alan Schneider in the same author's Edward Albee
(Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1975). Michael Rutenberg'sEd-
ward Albee: Playwright in Protest(New York: Avon, 1969) stressesthe
social dimensionof his work,and in doing so somewhatdistortsthe thrust
of a writerwhosesocial concernsare partof a moralcommitment allied to
an examinationof privatestrategies and aestheticpurposes.However,in this
context,see also Peter Wolfe, "The Social Theatre of Edward Albee,"
PrairieSchooner,39 (Fall 1965), 248-62. Lilliane Kerjan's Albee (Paris:
Seghers,1971) is largelyanecdotal and draws on the perceptiveobserva-
tions of the playwright's director,Alan Schneider.Anne Paolucci's From
Tensionto Tonic: The Plays of Edward Albee (Carbondale,Ill.: Southern
IllinoisUniv. Press,1972) offersa sensibleintroduction to theplaysas does
Richard Amacher's Edward Albee (Boston: Twayne, 1969), which in-
cludes an interestingif at timesmisleadinginterviewwiththeplaywright.
Albee's real achievement lies in his controlof and sensitivityto language,
particularlyat a time when Off-Broadway was in flightfromthe spoken
word,seeingit as a tool of power and a rationalrestrainton the intuitive
and the spontaneous.The questionof languagein theAmericantheatrehas
receivedlittleattention.RubyCohn's Dialogue in AmericanDrama (Bloom-
ington,Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1971), which discusses the work of
O'Neill, Miller, Williams,and Albee, is a perceptiveexception.Indeed,

Albee's subtleenquiryinto stylesof linguisticcontrol,in Quotationsfrom
ChairmanMao Tse-Tungand Listening,has passed largelyunremarked, as
have his increasingdoubts about the power and contingencyof his own
fictions.The moral fervorof the earlyplays (Wendell Harris, "Morality,
Absurdityand Albee," SouthwestReview, 49 [1964], 249-56) and the
simpledistinction betweenillusionand the real (Daniel MacDonald, "Truth
and Illusionin Who'sAfraidof VirginiaWoolf?"Renascence, 17, [1964],
63-69), have given way firstto a complex,if not always dramatically
satisfying,
debate about thenatureof reality,and subsequently to intelligent
if at timesarcane experiments withformand language.His plays tend no
longerto be confidently located in timeand space; the worldhe presentsis
socially,and morallyreified,as voices,detachedfrompersonal
theatrically,
and public histories,test emotionalpropositions,conduct experimentsin
dissonanceand harmony,and reveal somethingof the mechanismsof con-
trolwhichAlbee seemsto implyare the real sourceof theethicalquestions
with whichhe had begun his career. Despite his Broadway productions
Albee has remainedcommittedto experiment, to the values and objectives
of the Off-Broadway theatrefromwhichhe sprang.The very nature of
these experimentsimpliesa refusalto accept the crown as successorto
Millerand Williamsso eagerlythrustupon himin the earlysixtiesand now
equally precipitatelywithdrawnby those anxious for the emergenceof a
writerwho can satisfactorily bridgethe gulfbetweenBroadway and Off-
Broadway. See Richard Amacher and MargaretRule, Edward Albee at
Home and A broad. A Bibliography(New York: AMS Press, 1971).
Off-Broadwaywas an aestheticand social ratherthan a geographical
description.It appliedto theatresscatteredwidelyaroundNew York which
accommodatedfewerthanthreehundredseats. In the modernsense it was
born in 1949 whenOff-Broadway Incorporatedwas foundedand the Off-
BroadwayLeague of Theatreswon its battleforEquitymembersto appear
at non-Equityrates.By the 1958-59 season Varietyestimatedthatforthe
firsttimemorethanone milliondollarshad been investedOff-Broadway and
by thefollowingyeartherewere twiceas manyshowsOff-Broadway as on
(StuartLittle,Off-Broadway: The PropheticTheatre[New York: Coward,
McCann and Geoghegan, 1972]). In The Off-BroadwayExperience
(Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1971), Howard Greenbergerhas
collecteda series of useful articlesby writers,directors,actors, and re-
viewers.JamesScheville'sBreak Out! In Searchof New TheatricalEnviron-
ments(Chicago: Swallow Press, 1973) offersa numberof statementsand
criticalnoteson the new theatremovements.See also JuliaPrice, The Off-
Broadway Theatre (Metuchen,N.J.: ScarecrowPress, 1962).
By 1970, for the firsttime,both the PulitzerPrize and the New York
Critics'Circle Award had gone to Off-Broadwayshows: to Paul Zindell's
The Effectof Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-moon Marigolds,and Charles
Gordone'sNo Place to be Somebody.Ironically,thiswas less evidenceof
an experimental spiritthanof thefactthatOff-Broadway could successfully
accommodatetheconventionalas well as theinnovative.Off-Broadway was
beginningto resemblethe Broadwaywhichit had set out to reject.In fact
it began to sufferfromthe same malaise as Broadway,runninginto severe
In the 1968-69 season,92% of investorsOff-Broadway
financialdifficulties.
lost theirinvestments (see Poggi above).
Thus it was that 1959 had also markedthe firststirrings of the logical
nextstepfromOff-Broadway-Off-Off-Broadway. Joe Cino opened his cof-
feehouse theatrein December 1958, whileEllen Stuart'sCafe La Mama was
foundedin 1960. Off-Off-Broadway consistedof an amazingproliferation of
theatregroupswho performed in any convenientplace and who saw them-
selves as being in revoltagainstthe aestheticand politicalvalues of the
societywhichtheyinhabited.In The Off-Off BroadwayBook (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill,1972), AlbertRoland and Bruce Mailman reprinta num-
ber ofplays and offera descriptionof Off-Off Broadwaytheatres,including
Cafe Cino, the JudsonPoets Theatre,La Mama, Theatre Genesis, The
AmericanPlace Theatre,The Open Theatre,The PerformanceGroup,The
Playwrights Unit,and The Playhouseof theRidiculous,together witha use-
fullistof theirproductionsup to 1972. RobertPassoli offersstatisticalinfor-
mationon newplaysproducedin thenon-commercial theatresofNew York
in "The New Playwrights' Scene of the Sixties,"Tulane Drama Review, 13
(Fall 1968), while TheatreQuarterly,1 (July-Sept.,1971), 78-82, pub-
lished"TheatreSurvey:Guide to U.S. TheatreGroups."
As the sixtiesprogressed,the notionof the theatreas essentiallyliberal,
as an aspect of moral, social, and psychologicalinquiry,began to defer
to a different model in whichthe natureof theatricality and performance
became in some ways the subject.This impliesa retreatfromrealismas a
prevailingstyle.Today the theatreis more liable to signalits theatricality,
not so muchbecause it wishesto createa Brechtianalienationin whichpo-
liticaland hencemoralissues can be debatedas because the authenticity of
stage action is to be defended on grounds other than the merelyimagina-
tive,or because of a doubt about the manipulativenatureof art. This is in
part a non-teleologicaltheatre-a theatrewhich simplyexists and which
the criticcan onlyexperienceand celebrate,sincecriticismas such involves
a teleologicalact. But the liberalimpulse,thoughin retreat,foundanother
manifestation, anotherway of confronting themoralissuesofAmerica'spast
and present-the ill-namedtheatreof fact.Unlike the novel whichset out
to sabotagehistoryby drawingit intothe fictiveflux,the theatreopted for
a moreprosaic confrontation witha worldwhichmanifested its ethicaland

structuralrealityin the formof a simple and unassailablefactuality.(See
Dan Isaac, "TheatreofFact," The Drama Review,15 [Summer1971], 109-
35, which discusses Pueblo and The Trial of the CatonsvilleNine). It
also flirtedwiththe assumptionthatthe way to engagethe public imagina-
tionlay througha denial of thatimagination.Televisionhas embracedthe
same assumptionwithenthusiasmand the documentarydrama is now as
close as Americantelevisionfeelsit dare come to thedangerousenterprise of
releasingtheunfettered perceptionsof theartist.CatherineHughesdiscusses
themovementat some lengthin Plays, Politicsand Polemics (New York:
Drama Books, 1973), commentingin particularon The Trial of the
CatonsvilleNine,Inquest,and severalEuropean examples.
Such frontalattackson the real, such direct attemptsto reclaim and
reshape the past and hence assert a version of the presentwere often
touchedwithnaivete.My complaintis not,however,thatthetheatreof fact
was undramatic;it is thatin some disturbingway it feltthat the theatre
audience,once cast in the role of jury,would fail to examinethe writer's
own casuistries,thatthewriter'sown manipulations werenot themselvesfit
mattersforscrutiny. Fact seemedimportant because it could most easilybe
counterposedto themisinformation whichhad encystedAmerica'sblacksin
public theoriesof infantilismand whichhad clothedthe distantconflictin
SoutheastAsia in the languageof the veryliberalismwhichit denied. But
forthemostparttheseplaystendto offera simulateddialectic.The debate
overthenatureof truthis perceivedonlyat a superficial level. Unassailable
moraltruthsare presumedto springdirectlyfroma simplefacticity.
Such a presumptionis not made by RobertLowell in his contemplation
on history,The Old Glory.See C. W. E. Bigsby,"The Paradox of Revolu-
tion: RobertLowell's The Old Glory,"Recherchesanglaiseset americaines,
5 (1972), 63-79; and Mark W. Estrin,"RobertLowell's 'BenitoCereno',"
ModernDrama, 15 (1972), 411-26. Neitheris it made by Saul Bellow in
his liberalparable,The Last Analysis(see Confrontation and Commitment,
93-99), by Kopit in Indians (Plays, Politicsand Polemics,61-66), nor by
JulesFeifferin his sardonicimagesof Americanreality,LittleMurdersand
The WhiteHouse MurderCase. Yet, on occasion, the theatreof factdid
have a powerwhichresidedas much in the raw materialof injusticeitself
as in theparticularshape givento it by theauthor,as in MartinDuberman's
In WhiteAmerica or Eric Bentley'sAre You Now? (Jules Chametsky,
"From HUAC to Watergate:Eric Bentley'sAre You Now?", Performance
(Fall 1973), 21-28.
Such plays were evidence,however,of a radicalizationof part of the
theatrewhichin timecapturedmuch of the avant-gardeas the civil rights
movementintensifiedand as Vietnam raised questions of a destructive
rationalism, a compromisedlanguage,and a false authorityimplicitin the

natureof complexsystems.And yetin a sense thesehad been preciselythe
kindof issues whichhad alwaysbeen implicitin the workof ArthurMiller
and whichhad led Edward Albee to set his tale of moral equivocationand
thefailureof community in a townshipwiththe apocalypticname of New
Carthage.The difference lay in thelocationof politicalfailurein conflicting
dogmasand historiesratherthantheembattledconscienceof theindividual;
or, alternatively,in an assertionof the pleasure principleover the reality
principle,the attemptto counterthe collapse of a spiritualand physical
senseof community witheroticexuberanceand spiritualrenewalratherthan
a restoredliberalism.Curiously,perhapsthe Marxistlogic implicitin the
workof some of the new productiongroupswas neverpursuedwithrigor,
mostsettlingformoralityplays devoid of a consistentideology.
For a timea kind of guerillawarfarewas urgedin which,forexample,
assaultsweremade on theBroadwaytheatreby interrupting scheduledper-
formances(Richard Schechner,"Guerrilla Theatre: May, 1970," The
Drama Review, 14 [1970], 163-68) whilemanygroupsconductedexperi-
mentsin streettheatre.Guerilla StreetTheatre,edited by Henry Lesnik
(New York: Avon, 1973), offersan introduction to and sample scripts
froma numberof groups,includingEl TeatroCampesino,theSan Francisco
Mime Troupe, the Bread and Puppet Theatre, and the San Francisco
Women'sStreetTheatre.See also R. G. Davis, "1971: Rethinking Guerilla
Theatre,"Performance,1 (Dec. 1971), and DieterHerms,Zur Theorieund
Strategiedes politisch-emanzipatorischen Theatersin Amerika seit 1960
(Kronberg,Germany:Scriptor,1973). Maryot Kee examines the ethnic
dimensionof streettheatrein "StreetTheatrein Harlem: Soul and Latin
Theatre-SALT," TheatreQuarterly,2 (Oct.-Dec. 1972), 35-43. This is
a theatrein whichcharacterdefersto issue, in whichthe individualis an
historicalirrelevanceor has been renderedintoa grotesquefigurine, such as
those which destroyone anotherin the apocalypticending of America
Hurrah! and whichare depictedin the streettheatreof a group like the
Bread and PuppetTheatre.See thespecial issue on Jean-Claudevan Itallie
in Serif,9 (Winter1972). Severalarticleson theBread and PuppetTheatre
can be foundin The Drama Review, 14 (1970). See also JohnTowser,
"Bread and Puppet's 'Stations of the Cross,'" The Drama Review, 16
(Sept. 1972), 57-70, and Theodore Shank, "Bread and Puppet's Anti-
Bicentennial,"TheatreQuarterly,5 (Sept.-Nov. 1975), 73-88.
However,an increasingsuspicionof public institutions also took more
obliqueforms.The reactionagainstplotin America-plot as conspiracyand
as structured fiction-is strongin boththenovel and thedramaof the '60s.
The greatestrisk to the individual is seen as the manipulativepower
of private and public fictions. The fear of conspiracies against the
self, mirroredin Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Heller's
Catch 22, Pynchon'sV, and Kosinski'sSteps, findtheirparallel in Ken-
neth Brown's The Brig (Confrontationand Commitment,pp. 61-70),
Jean-Claudevan Itallie's America Hurrah!, and Edward Albee's Quota-
tions from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung and Listening. And for Albee,
as for Pynchon or Kosinski, the writeris not free of the desire to
dominate throughmanipulation,so that social critique coexists with
self-parody.Resistance,if still possible, lies eitherin an anarchic test-
ing of styles,a kind of neutralizingmadness,or an escape fromsociety
into community, fromsocial role into self and fromfictioninto "truth."
The formerstrategywas in a sense manifestedin happeningsand in
camp art; the latter,in its simplestform,is a descriptionof performance
theatre, whichfounditscentralexponentsin JulianBeck and JudithMalina,
itschieftheoristof audience-performer relationsin RichardSchechner,and
itsproponentofmentallyand spiritually-informed actingin JosephChaikin.
For thosewhosepurposewas notprimarily didactic-for thoseinterested
in tryingout styles,in bringingtogetherdisparateexperiences,sometimes
in a randomand sometimesin a carefullyplannedmanner,but withno so-
cial, moral,or even preciselyformulatedaestheticpurpose-the "happen-
ing" proved a sufficientresponseto the contemporary fragmenting of ex-
perienceand theneed to testtheboundariesof individualarts.Happenings
offeredan art of surfaces; they were concerned with presentation
ratherthan representation.Performancewas content. On happenings,
see Michael Kirby,Happenings (New York: Dutton, 1965) and Allan
Kaprow,Assemblage,Environment and Happenings(New York: Abrams,
n.d.). Drawingon sculpture,music,dance, art,and theatre,the happening
was an experimentin an art of the momentwhich disavowedany meta-
phoricimpulse.Yet, in its unabashedattemptsto commandeerthe natural
worldand the familiarenvironment of parkinglots, skyscrapers, and rail-
road stations,it was not withouta sense of self-parodyand irony. Its
ephemerality and affrontery were part of its purpose.It was a neo-dadaist
gesture.Unlikeperformance theatre,whichtook itselfso seriouslyat times
as to undermineits own premises,the creatorsof happeningswere aware
of thehumorwhichcould springfromtheunlikelydisjunctionswhichthey
forged.Its relevanceto thetheatrewas, finally, minorand tangentialbut the
questionswhich it raised were in many ways preciselythose which the
LivingTheatreaddressedin the mid-sixties.
The LivingTheatrewas foundedin 1951 as an avant-garde theatregroup,
producingmainlyEuropean and American modernistwork. See Pierre
Biner,The LivingTheatre(New York: Horizon Press, 1972). Its produc-
tion of The Connectionand The Brig establishedimprovisation as central
to its concerns
theatrical as a of
and, increasingly, potentimage spontaneity.
For an interesting discussionof improvisation in the Americantheatresee

Yale Theatre,5 (Spring 1974), and Viola Spolin's influential Improvisa-
tionfor the Theatre(Evanston,Ill.: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1963).
For the LivingTheatre,performance drama was a non-tragic, cathartic,
Dionysian,celebratoryepiphanyin which the mimeticprinciplewas re-
jected as a falseavenuein artjust as artificeis a denial of humanityin life.
It emphasizedtheintuitive, thespontaneous,and thephysical.In Marcusian
terms,thiswas regressionseen as a progressiveforce,and thetheatrewhich
it produced was for a time a stimulating reaction against an American
theatrewhich had shown every signof ossifying.In the case of JulianBeck
and JudithMalina it was a theatre born out of a communitarian, pacificist
impulsewhichsoughtthe reintegration body of and spiritand which, fol-
lowingArtaud,chose to stressmovement,spectacle, and the mise en scene
in preference to articulatedialogueand an examinationof social and psycho-
logicalproblemsin a carefullystructured form.(A collectionof documents
editedby E. T. KirbyentitledTotal Theatre [New York: Dutton, 1969]
providessomething of thetheatricalunderpinning fortheexperiments which
followedthe Americanpublicationof AntoninArtaud's The Theatreand
itsDouble [New York: Grove Press, 1958]). Breakingthebarrierbetween
audience and performer became a symbolof thebreakingof all barriers,a
stancewhose revolutionary implicationsdeepened as the decade continued
(see RichardSchechner,"Audience Participation,"The Drama Review, 15
[Summer1971], 73-89). The applicationof the theatricalmetaphorto
society,exploredin severalbooks by sociologistErvingGoffman,was now
propoundedas somethingmorethan simpleanalogy.RobertBrusteinpro-
videsevidenceforthisin Theatreas Revolution:Revolutionas Theatre(New
York: Liveright,1971) whileJohnLahr's and JonathanPrice's Life Show:
How to See Theatreas Life and Life as Theatre(New York: Viking,1973)
extendsthemetaphorintocontemporary culture.The same idea is explored
in 0. G. Brockett'sPerspectiveson Contemporary Theatre(Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1971), and StanfordLyman and Marvin B.
Scott's The Drama of Social Reality (New York: Oxford Univ. Press,
1975).
The Living Theatre derived its inspirationand theoryfrom Antonin
Artaud,Paul Goodman,JohnCage, Norman0. Brown,HerbertMarcuse,
and MarshallMcLuhan. Its basic presumption was thattheatricalimprovi-
sationoffersa paradigmof authenticexistenceand thatrebellionagainsta
reductiveview of theatrestandsas an exemplarof a widerrebellionto be
waged in the name of a truesense of selfhoodand community. It was de-
liberatelynon-cerebral.Scatologicallanguage,nudity,and even drugswere
employedas an imageof, and as pathwaysto, anarchicfreedom.
The theatreoffereditselfas a paradigmof community at a momentwhen

societyseemed more fragmentedthan usual. The civil rightsmovement,
studentactivists,and anti-waractivityemphasizeda fundamental disagree-
ment over values, while encountergroups,communes,and proliferating
religious and spiritualcults stressed an uncertaintyover personal and
social relationships.But in a sense thisboth explainedthe thrustof Beck's
theatreand eventuallyunderminedit as the radicalismof societysurpassed
thatof thetheatre.The actors'increasinguse of drugsin theirperformances
was also an indicationof theirgrowingsolipsism,of theiroccasional con-
temptforan audiencewhicheithersharedtheirvisionor became identified
withthe forceswhichtheywishedto destroy.Presumptionswere paraded
as self-evidenttruthsas thepriestson the stage embracedthe celebrantsin
theaudiencein thename of an ill-defined iffiercely-held
faithin Love, Man,
Spontaneity, and a joylessInstinctive Joy.This was close to beinga theatre
of therapywhich,paradoxicallyfora groupwhichregardsitselfas radical,
could be seen as essentiallyconservativein its abstractionof individual
fromhis social and economiccontextand, in the case of its specializeduse
in prisonand hospitals,in its concernwithreconcilingthe individualto the
social structureitself(see specialissue of The Drama Reviewon theatreand
therapy,no. 22 [Mar. 1976]). For an intelligent discussionof the relation-
ship betweentheatreand therapysee Eric Bentley,The Theatreof War.
Commentson Thirty-TwoOccasions (New York: Viking 1972). Beck's
own theoriescan be foundin The Life of the Theatre(San Francisco: City
Lights,1972), significantly subtitledThe Relationof theArtistto theStrug-
gle of the People. For a descriptionof Living Theatre performancessee
Aldo Rostagno, et al., We, the Living Theatre (New York: Ballantine,
1970) and RenfreuNeff,The Living Theatre (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Mer-
rill,1970). In Lunatics,Loversand Poets: The Contemporary Experimental
Theatre(New York: McGraw, 1974), MargaretCroydenoffersa sympa-
theticaccountof the rise and fall of the Living TheatrewhileRobertBru-
stein'sgrowingdisillusionment withits theoreticaland theatricalsimplicities
is documentedin The ThirdTheatre (New York: Knopf, 1969). A num-
ber of articlesappear in The Drama Review, 13 (Spring 1969). A per-
sonal accountis offeredby Michael Smith,theatrereviewerforThe Village
Voice, in TheatreTrip (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1969).
Richard Schechner'sPerformance Group was less messianic.He himself
was a morearticulatespokesmanforhis values and methodsand altogether
less orphicin his approach.Yet his workwas notfreeof some of the naivete
whichhad originallyseemedthe strength of the Living Theatrebut which
eventually became the source of its weakness. Schechnerwas a theoristas
a
well as director, and The Drama Review which he edited became the
chiefchroniclerof the movement.The PerformanceGroup's best-known

work,Dionysus in 69, providesevidenceboth for its constructive experi-
mentsin ensembleplayingand also for its somewhatsimplisticnotionof
theatricality, dogmatismwithregardto audience
as well as its destructive
response.Schechner'stheoriesare outlinedin The Public Domain: Essays
on the Theatre (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1969) and Environmental
Theatre(New York: Hawthorne,1973), whichdeals specificallywiththe
PerformanceGroup. "Actuals, PrimitiveRitual and PerformanceTheory,"
TheatreQuarterly,1 (Apr.-June,1971), 49-66 deals specifically withthe
questionof performance theatre.
The relationbetweenthe variousexperimental groupswas a close one.
The San FranciscoMime Troupe,forexample,grewfromtheSan Francisco
Actors'Workshop.See "The San FranciscoMime Troupe: From Commedia
to CollectiveCreation,"threearticlesin TheatreQuarterly,5 (June-Aug.,
1975), 41-52; Theodore Shank,"The San FranciscoMime Troupe's Pro-
ductionof False Promises,"TheatreQuarterly,7 (Autumn 1977), 41-52;
and R. S. Davis, The San Francisco Mime Troupe: The First Ten Years
(Palo Alto, Cal.: RampartsPress, 1975). And as ArthurSainer pointsout
in The Radical TheatreNotebook (New York: Avon, 1975), El Teatro
Campesinogrewout of theMime Troupe.See also JorgeHuerta,"The Agit-
Prop Pilgrimageof Luis Valdez and El Teatro Campesino,"TheatreQuar-
terly,4 (Mar.-May, 1975), 30-39; and FrangoiseKourilsky,"Approaching
Quetzalcoatl: The Evolution of El Teatro Campesino," Performance,7
(Fall 1973), 37-46.
In New York, the Open Theatrewas at firstan outgrowth of the Living
Theatre,itsdirector,JosephChaikin,havingat one timebeen an actorwith
that group. The Open Theatre was originallyestablishedas an actors'
traininggroup but turnedto productionat the urgingof some of its
supporters. Its publicsuccesswithAmericaHurrah!led theOpen Theatreto
embracea renewedcommitment to experiment, withworkslike The Ser-
pent,ratherthan turnto a Broadway mentality.Chaikin has outlinedhis
actingtheoriesin The Presenceof the Actor: Notes on the Open Theatre,
Disguises,Acting,and Repression (New York: Atheneum,1972). As his
titleindicates,he too was drawnto the social and psychologicalsciences,
in particularrole-theory and psychoanalysis, for a view of the connection
betweenthe art of the theatreand the art of living.Justas the theatrehad
been appropriatedby psychiatrists and social workersas a way of drama-
tizing problems,so now the theatrereturnedthe compliment.See the
special issue of The Drama Review, 22 (Mar. 1977), on theatreand the
social sciences. For a descriptionof the work of the Open Theatre see
RobertPasolli,A Book on theOpen Theatre(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1970), and Karen Taylor, "The Open Theatre," in People's Theatre in

Amerika(New York: Drama Books, 1971). The same book offersan ac-
count of The Living Theatre, The Bread and Puppet Theatre, the San
Francisco Mime Troupe, and El Teatro Campesino.
Most of thesegroupsshoweda considerabledistrustof texts,developing
theirperformances on thebasis of improvisation, rehearsal,and a minimum
of textualmaterial.Sometimeswriterswere employedbut theirwork was
subjectto radicalamendment. The wholemovement posed a seriousproblem
for the dramaticcriticif he was to be anythingmore than a reporter/
reviewer.And, indeed,criticismfrequently deferredto simple description.
Nor is it accidentalthatthistheatreshouldoffera seriesof directchallenges
to criticism.It is not simplythatit is increasingly difficult
to isolate a text
or thattheverbalelementbecomesless dominant.This theatrewas actually
an assaulton the notionthatart is an artifactproducedby a unique sensi-
bilityand open to interpretation and evaluationin the conventionalsense.
Both theseprocessesdependupon a rationalmethodology, and performance
dramawas in reactionagainstpositivismand rationalism.
However, since most of the major productionsdid findtheirway into
print,an implicitbetrayalof integrity whichJohnLahr notedin ActingOut
America (New York: Penguin,1972), thiswas perhapsnot thefundamen-
tal problemit appearedto be. However,the paradox,if examined,goes to
the veryheartof the criticalenterpriseand to the questionof the nature
and functionof theatre.Few reviewersor criticsresponded,thoughJohn
Lahr identified the termsof the debate in AstonishMe: Adventuresin the
Theatre,while Susan Sontag,in AgainstInterpretation (New York: Dell,
1966), had raisedthelargerquestionof interpretive criticismand Richard
Gilman had assertedpositivelimitsto the culturalpresumptionsimplied
in criticaldiscoursein "Black Writers:WhiteCritics,"The Black American
Writer,ed. C. W. E. Bigsby (Deland, Fla.: Everett/Edwards,1969),
35-50.
As the decade continued,manyof the groupswhichwere born out of a
spiritof aestheticenquirywere politicizedby the eventsof the late sixties,
and an increasingnumberof minorities and special interestgroupssaw the
stage as a naturalplatform fortheirviews and an essentialtool forraising
consciousnessand defining groupidentity.Blacks, Mexican-Americans, and
Puerto Ricans dramatizedtheirplightwhile women, who had played a
leadingrole in the avant-gardemovementof the earlysixtiesthroughthe
work and energyof JudithMalina, Ellen Stuart,Anne Halprin (dance),
and Rochelle Owens (see Joan Gaulianos, "Women and the Avant-garde
Theatre;InterviewswithRochelle Owens,CrystalField, RosalynDrexler,"
MassachusettsReview, 13 [Winter-Spring 1972], 257-67), began to explore
thepossibilitiesof a self-consciouslyfeministtheatre(Sandra Lowell, "New

FeministTheatre,"Ms. Magazine, 1 [July1972], 17-23).
By the early '70s the new theatremovementhad lost some of its mo-
mentumand purpose. The conservatismof post-Vietnamand then post-
WatergateAmerica,exacerbatedby economicdepression,was reflectedin
thetheatrewhich,havingseen itselfas something of a resistancemovement,
had come to relya littletoo muchon the implacablefactof Americanmili-
taryimperialismand manifestpoliticalcorruption.Radicals in all areas of
Americanlife adjustedto the new conservatism;theirswas a perhaps in-
evitable retreatfrom the political and aestheticbarricades. The Open
Theatreclosed, feelingthatit had become trappedin its own orthodoxies
(JosephChaikin,"Closing the Open Theatre,"TheatreQuarterly,4 [Nov.
1974-Jan.1975], 36-42); the Living Theatre effectively died, or at least
fragmented. See R. G. Davis, "The Radical Rightin theAmericanTheatre:
A PersonalRevaluationof theworkof the Becks, Chaikinand Schechner,"
Theatre Quarterly,5 (Sept.-Nov., 1975), 67-72. JerzyGrotowski,in
Towards a Poor Theatre (New York: Simon and Schuster,1968), who
had exerteda considerableinfluenceon late '60s Americantheatre,seemed
to rejectthe theatrein favorof some broader social or spiritualobjective.
Undoubtedlymuch of Off-Broadwayand Off-OffBroadway was over-
praisedat the time.Exclusivistensemblesencouragedcult support.A lack
of culturalconfidencehas, afterall, alwaystendedto lead to a vulnerability
to fashionand mereenthusiasm. Yet at thesame timeOff-Off Broadwaydid
explode establishedviews of the potentialand functionof the theatreand
open thattheatreto a dialoguewithEurope of a kind whichhad scarcely
typifiedthe American theatreuntil that time. An example is Chaikin's
landmarkmeetingwith Peter Brook and JerzyGrotowskiin connection
withthe Royal ShakespeareCompany'sproductionof US.
Once more the search began for a new savior in the Americantheatre
to succeedEdward Albee, now dismissedby mostcriticsand reviewers.The
playwright was back in vogue, even with the adherentsof performance
dramas,who came to see thewriteras offering a necessarysense of struc-
ture. See Richard Schechner,"The Writerand the PerformanceGroup,"
Performance, 1 (Mar.-Apr.,1973), 60-66. New playwrights dulyemerged
and though,like Richardsonand Kopit in the early'60s, theywereinitially
overpraisedforworkswhichwerepromising ratherthanaccomplished,John
Guare,David Rabe, and David Mamet in particulardo reveala facilitywith
languageand a sense of theatricalpower whichowes somethingto Albee
(especiallyRabe's Sticks and Bones and Mamet's Duck Variations)and
whichmakestheirworkparticularly impressive.See BarnettKellman,"Pro-
duction Casebook: David Rabe's The Orphan," Theatre Quarterly,7
(Spring1977), 72-93. Sam Shepard'sstriking images,thoughtheyhave not

always foundproductionscommensuratewith theirpotential,also reveal
a writerof genuineoriginality. See G. Stambolian,"Shepard's 'Mad Dog
Blues'; A Trip ThroughPopular Culture,"Journalof Popular Culture,7
(Spring1974), 776-86; and "JulesFeifferand Sam Shepard: Spectaclesof
Disintegration," in JohnLahr, AstonishMe: Adventuresin Contemporary
Theatre (New York: Viking, 1973). Despite the failure of his Texas
trilogyon Broadway,Preston Jones is furthertestamentto a continuing
vitalityin the provincialtheatre.
Nonetheless,the Americantheatreseems once more to be in one of its
periodiccrises. Lincoln Center is partiallyclosed, inflationhas made the
plightof a numberof regionaltheatrescritical,and the explosiveenergy
of the '60s has dissipated.The avant-gardestillhas its cult figures,Robert
Wilson's epics commandinginternational interest(Ossie Trilling,"Robert
Wilson's 'Ka Mountain,'" The Drama Review, 17, [June1973]; F. Deak,
"RobertWilson,"The Drama Review,18 [June1974], 76-86) but thereare
signsof a publicand criticalwithdrawal, just as post-modernism in thenovel
seemsto be comingup againsta renewedcommitment to narrative,char-
acter,and structure. Yet crisesin theatreare not unconnectedwiththosein
society.The theatre,as ever,is not merelyholdinga mirrorup to the cul-
ture;it is primeevidenceof thetensionin thatculture.For those interested
in the renewalof liberalism,the ideologicaltensionsof the '60s, the strug-
the effortto restorea sense of
gle to findin art a clue to culturalidentity,
secularritualto society,the struggleof the selfagainstpowersmaterialand
immaterial, the need to reshape the environment to matchthe patternsof
theimagination, or theneed to meethardpoliticalrealitiesin themiddleof
the public arena,the theatreis the logical and necessarysubjectof study.
Whetheror not one chooses to believe that theatreis itselfan agent of
change,it clearlyis at the veryheartof theculturaldebate and can onlybe
ignoredat a price which should be too high for the criticof American
societyto pay.

Bigsby 1978

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bigsby 1978

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bigsby 1978

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drama as Cultural Sign: American Dramatic Criticism, 1945-1978

DRAMA HAS ALWAYS HAD THE POWER TO ENGAGE THE PRESENT IN A

It is unfortunatelytruethatthefailureof theAmericantheatreto rise to

'James M. Calem, A Guide to Critical Reviews Part I, American Drama 1909-69,

pains to createa criticalspace betweenthemselvesand thosewho workfor

man, Common and UncommonMasks: Writingson Theatre,1961-1970

Thus, in his perceptivestudyof compositionsand decompositionsin the

thesignificance of theirfieldby exaggerating theimportance of minortalents,

theirwork. Both see societyas reachingout to crushthe individual,the

2Fora studyof stagedesign,see ElizabethBurdick,PeggyHansen,BrendaZanger,

Wirklichkeit in ArthurMiller'sDeath of a Salesman (Fribourg: Universi-

3For dissertationssee Frederic M. Litto, American Dissertations on the Drama and

analysis in Freud on Broadway (Jacksonville:Heritage House, 1955),

For ThorntonWilder, William Inge, Carson McCullers, and Robert

keptin checkby an imagination whichifmelodramatic is also capable offine

thanas an imaginative world,a disintegrating structurewhichtheindividual

The CherryOrchardratherthanthe Chekhovof The Seagull (Richard B.

(1963), an impressiveepisode fromthe series,survivesonlyas a filecopy.

court,Brace, 1941); the founderof the latter,and of the increasingly

a critiqueof an Americantheatrewhichhad too readilysettledfor a mi-

O'Neill, Miller, Williams,and Albee, is a perceptiveexception.Indeed,

a moreprosaic confrontation witha worldwhichmanifested its ethicaland

rationalism, a compromisedlanguage,and a false authorityimplicitin the

For an interesting discussionof improvisation in the Americantheatresee

The theatreoffereditselfas a paradigmof community at a momentwhen

chiefchroniclerof the movement.The PerformanceGroup's best-known

1970), and Karen Taylor, "The Open Theatre," in People's Theatre in

thepossibilitiesof a self-consciouslyfeministtheatre(Sandra Lowell, "New

(Spring1977), 72-93. Sam Shepard'sstriking images,thoughtheyhave not

You might also like