University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Critical Examination Of The Works Of Clifford Odets According To A Psychoanalytic Criterion

(USC Thesis Other)

A Critical Examination Of The Works Of Clifford Odets According To A Psychoanalytic Criterion

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content s
1 ,
70-25,075
WRIGHT, Donald Gene, 1928-
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WORKS OF
CLIFFORD ODETS ACCORDING TO A PSYCHOANALYTIC
CRITERION.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970
Mass Communications
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© Copyright by
DONALD GENE WRIGHT
1970
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WORKS
OF CLIFFO RD ODETS ACCORDING TO
A PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITERION
by
Donald Gene Wright
A D issertation P re se n te d to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P a rtia l Fulfillm ent of the
R equirem ents fo r the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Comm unication - - Drama)
June 1970
UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
....................D.QnaM..G.e.nfi..Wj.igJjit......................
under the direction of his Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
1 / Dean
Date Juufi,..I9.T.O.............
DISSERTATION
: / 7 -
COMMITTEE
J -' :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CH APTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION AND P U R P O S E ......................................................... 1
The P r o b l e m .............................................................................................. 2
Statement of the p r o b le m ............................................................. 2
Significance of the p r o b l e m ...................................................... 4
Lim itations of the study................................................................ 5
Review of the L i t e r a t u r e ................................................................... 7
Methodology, Technique and P r o c e d u r e .................................. 10
M e th o d o lo g y ....................................................................................... 10
T ec h n iq u e.............................................................................................. 10
P r o c e d u r e ........................................................................................... 10
D e fin itio n ..................................................................................................... 11
Serious d r a m a .................................................................................... 11
C r i t e r i o n ..................................................................................................... 12
I l l u s i o n ................................................................................................. 12
Control of anxiety perception--objectification
and f o c u s ....................................................................................... 13
Psychic r e w a r d s ............................................................................. 14
O rganization of the R em ainder of the S tu d y ........................... 15
II. PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITERION ...................................................... 17
I l l u s i o n ........................................................................................................ 19
I d e n tif ic a tio n - e m p a th y ................................................................ 20
H u b r i s ..................................................................................................... 21
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s .............................................................................................. 23
Objectification ................................................................................. 25
F o c u s ........................................................................................................ 26
Psychic R e w a r d s .................................................................................... 27
A m b iv a le n c e ....................................................................................... 29
C o n f r o n ta t io n .................................................................................... 30
C a t h a r s i s .............................................................................................. 31
HI. THE PLAYS OF EARLY SUCCESS AND A C C L A IM ................. 38
Waiting for L e f t y .................................................................................... 38
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 38
Illusion..................................................................................................... 43
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 50
ii
C H A PTER PAGE
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 54
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 58
Till the Day I D i e .................................................................................... 60
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 60
Illusion.................................................................................................... 63
Control of Anxiety Perception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 67
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 70
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 74
Awake and S i n g ....................................................................................... 76
Plot S u m m a r y ................................................................................... 76
Illusion.................................................................................................... 79
Control of Anxiety Perception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 85
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 93
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 98
P a ra d is e L o s t .......................................................................................... 101
Plot S u m m a r y ................................................................................... 101
Illusion.................................................................................................... 107
Control of Anxiety Perception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 112
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 116
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 124
Golden B o y ................................................................................................. 128
Plot S u m m a r y ................................................................................... 128
Illusion.................................................................................................... 134
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 141
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 147
C o n c lu s io n .......................................................................................... 154
IV. THE PLAYS OF LESSER A C C L A I M ............................................... 164
Rocket to the M o o n ................................................................................ 1 64
Plot S u m m a r y ................................................................................... 164
Illusion.................................................................................................... 172
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 181
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 185
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 191
Night M u s i c ............................................................................................. 195
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 195
Illusion.................................................................................................... 204
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 209
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 214
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 2 20
CH A PTER PAGE
Clash by N ig h t.......................................................................................... 226
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 226
Illusion.................................................................................................... 237
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 244
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 251
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 261
V. A RETURN TO SOME S U C C E S S ......................................................... 271
The Big K n i f e .......................................................................................... 271
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 271
Illusion.................................................................................................... 281
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and Focus .................................................................................... 289
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 294
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 305
The Cou: t r y G i r l .................................................................................... 311
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 311
Illusion.................................................................................................... 327
C ontrol of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and Focus .................................................................................... 335
P sychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 340
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 347
The Flow ering P e a c h .......................................................................... 353
Plot S u m m a r y .................................................................................... 3 53
Illusion.................................................................................................... 361
C ontrol of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification
and F o c u s ....................................................................................... 3 69
Psychic R e w a r d s ............................................................................. 374
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................... 383
VI. SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION......................................................... 393
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 408
CH A PTER I
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The works of Clifford Odets w ere selected for c ritic a l analysis
because considerable disag ree m en t has existed among c ritic s and
w rite rs as to the quality, intent, lite ra ry and entertainm ent value of
his produced plays. Few playwrights have experienced such e rra tic
su ccess with box office and c ritica l acclaim . The critic a l c o n tra d ic
tions, the nature of his acclaim , the diversity of subject m a te ria l
within his plays all combined to c rea te confusion and to m ake any
general conclusions about his w ork difficult. Though past c ritic ism s
and judgm ents seem ed valid, all evaluations could hardly be c o rre c t,
nor indeed all in c o rre ct.
In hopes of alleviating some of the confusion, a different method
of analysis of his w orks was sought with the hoped-for intent of p r o
viding som e meaningful conclusions which would have general im p lic a
tion and significance, and which would possibly reduce som ew hat the
existing contradictions. A psychoanalytic approach was selected
because of its em phasis upon the entertainm ent p ro c e ss as a syndrom e,
one involving both conscious and unconscious resp o n ses and placing
g reat im portance upon the kind and extent of affective resp o n ses and
values to be found within literatu re. As such, it could conceivably
account for the s o rt of effect that a w ork would have upon its audience,
1
that type of experience and knowledge sought for as an essential factor
in the satisfaction and pleasure by the theatre audience.
However, no clearly stated and w orkable c rite rio n for this
purpose or method of analysis was found to exist. Studies of a p a r
ticu lar play or of general w orks w ere found, and related inform ation
was available, but it was broadly distributed and m ost often w ritten
for the specialist within the field of psychoanalysis. T herefo re, the
re s e a r c h task becam e one of assem bling psychoanalytic lite ra ry p rin
ciples which had been set forth and w ere acceptable for such a task,
arranging them in a crite rio n that would be applicable to the d ra m a as
a lite ra ry genre, and then applying them to the plays of Odets in hopes
of som e worthy conclusions.
The P ro b lem
Statement of the p ro b le m . As a re su lt of readings within the
subject a re a of psychoanalysis and lite ra tu re , certain assum ptions
em erg ed regarding the live perform ance of d ra m a on stage. These
becam e hypotheses for fu rth e r r e s e a rc h and concentration as reg ard s
effective d ram a.
1. An essen tial req u ire m en t for audience entertainm ent is
som e em otional involvement and participation in the action
presented. Tensions asso ciated with such psychological
factors as inhibition, d e s ire s and their defenses, r e p r e s
sion, anxiety and guilt a re aroused and experienced.
2. Depth of audience vicarious participation is directly
asso ciated with the extent of illusion crea ted (i. e. , the
3
suspension and m aintenance of audience disbelief, the extent
of sympathy, em pathy, and identification with a protagonist
and his dilem m a; in turn, a cathartic relief from the tensions
and anxiety aro u sed by the agent in his predicam ent is
derived by the success which the author has in sustaining
audience affective response, in objectifying d e s ire s and their
gratification, and successfully bringing about a sense of
justice done, re g a rd le s s of the consequences.
3. The successful playwright is one who succeeds in co m m u n i
cating effectively with the unconscious concerns of his audi
ence, so that they participate to the extent that relief,
fulfillment, and a sense of satisfaction and pleasure a r e
experienced as a consequence; as a result the audience
enjoys a meaningful entertainm ent experience.
T h ere after, the p roblem becam e one of constructing a psycho
analytic c rite rio n based upon valid psychoanalytic tenets which could
be applied to the d ram a and would m eet the following critical method
requirem ents for purposes of this investigation:
1. Is the c rite rio n applicable to the d ra m a as a lite ra ry g e n re?
Z. Can it be applied to the works of a p a rtic u la r author such as
Odets ?
3. Will it add m eaningful and significant dim ensions to the
already existing analyses and c ritic ism s of the au th o r's
works ?
4
4. Does it offer a possible explanation in conclusion for the
type of acceptance the author received throughout his
c a r e e r from audiences and c ritic s ?
5. Is it sufficiently lim ited so that it m ay achieve its purpose,
yet general enough to admit additional evidence and future
r e s e a r c h ?
To date no form ulated c rite rio n for a psychoanalytic approach to
d ra m a analysis or c ritic is m is known to exist. The purpose for con
tinued r e s e a rc h becam e one of investigating w ritings within the subject
a r e a of psychoanalysis and lite ra tu re in o rd er to (1) construct such a
c rite rio n for purposes of analysis, (2) apply it to the plays of Odets,
with the (3) hoped-for resu lts of significant findings.
At all tim e s it was hoped in addition that some consistence of
basic concern or concerns on the part of Odets might becom e m anifest
in his creative product, thus perm itting possible generalizations of
value that pertained to all of his w orks, re g a rd le ss of other c o n sid e ra
tions. As a fu rth er result, som e conceivable basis for ag ree m en t
might em erg e which would help to unify past critic a l d isag ree m en t and
would reaffirm or refute som e accepted standards of c ritic a l evalua
tion; and, finally, perhaps a new or c le a re r p erspective m ight be p r o
vided to shed som e light upon the source of his creative energy.
Significance of the p ro b le m . Though psychoanalysis and d ra m a
have been linked since F re u d 's early in terest in the G reek tragedy,
Oedipus R ex , and the Shakespearean tragedy, H a m le t,^ no c rite rio n as
such for a psychoanalytic interpretation of d ra m a in g en era l was f o r
mulated. (D ram a was the firs t lite ra ry genre to which F re u d turned to
5
confirm his findings regarding the cru cial stage of sexual development
which he te rm e d the "Oedipus Complex. ")^ He w rote one a rticle which
he p resented as a gift to Max Graf, "Psychopathic C h a ra c te rs on the
3
Stage, " but he "never returned to this subject." Though other a n a
lysts in the m eantim e have w ritten about d ra m a and psychoanalysis - -
especially the N eo-F reudians - -they have not outlined a c rite rio n as
such, for d ra m a analysis. Consequently, if such a c rite rio n could be
developed, one that was succinct and would prove flexible, open-ended,
have general as well as p articu la r application, and add a new and
worthy dim ension to the alread y existing m a te ria l on Odets, then
re s e a r c h efforts w ere believed to assu m e some im portance.
Should such a fo rm at prove valuable for the subject of Odets, it
would likely prove worthy in addition by its application to the w orks of
other playwrights. Final conclusions might suggest or explain any
influence which Odets' works could have had on subsequent playwrights,
and perhaps illuminate the psychological clim ate of the nation at the
tim e, a nation for whom the plays w ere either very successful or
unsuccessful. Finally, the c rite rio n and its conclusions could suggest
fu rth er studies to help better understand the workings of the d ra m a as
a dynamic a rt fo rm and the popularity of the psychological d ra m a as
a type.
Lim itations of the study. The investigation was not intended as
a psychoanalysis of the author, or even a thorough psychoanalysis of
his w o rk s--th e r e s e a r c h e r is not qualified. R ather, it was intended
as an analysis of his works from the standpoint of selected psycho
analytic principles, and to include for com parison the w ritings of
6
c ritic s who w ere recognized in the field of dram a tic critic ism ; i.e . ,
c o n tem p o raries of Odets.
Application of the c rite rio n did not include com edy or c lassical
tragedy; consideration was re s tric te d to " se rio u s " d ra m a in o rd e r to
avoid the traditional concepts of the "tragic h e ro " or the c la ss ic a l
"king, " both so im portant to analysis of c la ss ic a l tragedy. The
intent was not to exclude the traditional concepts, but m e re ly to avoid
the lim itations they would imply.
An attem pt was m ade to s tr e s s the protagonist of m odern d ram a
whose position in the culture, though perhaps not so all-p e rv a siv e in
effect as the c lassical "king, " is n e v erth eless significant to his audi
ence on a m o re p erso n al and intim ate basis. In this m a n n er, it was
hoped that a b ro ad er basis for application would result. F u rth e r, an
attem pt was made to lay s tr e s s upon the opposing forces present
within ch aracterizatio n . Included w ere those conditions which w ere
considered n e c e s s a ry to be m e t by the playwright which would e s ta b
lish the s e rio u s -d ra m a m ilie u --th a t m a trix of conditions within which
the c h a ra c te r is developed and becom es an effective agent for audience
ente rta in m e n t.
The F reudian school of analysis was used as the principal source
and reference for the criterio n . However, no assum ption was intended
that this re p re s e n ts the only school of value for such an approach to
d ra m a analysis; e.g . , C arl Jung's concept of psychic archetypes and
th e ir relation to mythology and the phylogenetic suggests another p o s
sible approach; N orthrop F ry e , U niversity of Toronto, has done some
r e s e a rc h and w riting in this a r e a of d ram a tic c ritic ism .
O d ets’ unpublished w orks w ere not analyzed, fo r these w ere not
available to the r e s e a r c h e r (with the exception of The Flow ering
Peach). Analysis was lim ited to the available plays, since a c c e s s to
his private p ap ers and unpublished scrip ts was denied; this collection
4
will not be available until the publication of a projected biography.
No work by another author was included for analysis. The
period covered was from 1935 until the death of Odets in 1963.
Review of the L iterature
The possibility of applying psychoanalytic theory to the creative
lite ra ry a rts is not a new a r e a of interest; w rite rs in the past have
directed attention to this possibility, and many interesting conclusions
have been published. However, a few of the w ritings w ere found to be
m o re all-inclusive than o th ers, w ere m o re d irec tly concerned with the
subject of fiction o v er-all, and w ere w ritten in a style m o re easily
understood by the student of both lite ra tu re and psychoanalysis. Such
re fe re n c e s w ere found to be of p articu la r in te re s t and value with
re sp e c t to the nature of concern here; they helped in form ulating the
c rite rio n , in organizing the kind of approach pursued by this in v e sti
gation, and in addition served as pertinent referen c e and reso u rce. A
b rief su m m a ry of these helpful w orks follows.
P sychoanalysis and L ite r a t u r e , edited by H endrick Ruitenbeek,
is a selective anthology of critic a l and analytical e s sa y s , each taking
a psychoanalytic approach tow ard som e lite ra ry selection or topic.
Among the contributors included w ere such c ritic s and an aly sts as
Lionel T rilling, E rn e s t Jones, C larence O berndorf, Kenneth Burke,
Phyllis G re e n a c re , and Simon L e s s e r. T heir e s sa y s dealt p rim a rily
with such challenging subjects as psychoanalysis and the co n tem p o rary
lite ra ry culture, the sto rie s of Poe, the therapeutic effect of li te r a
tu re , poetry analysis, G reek tragedy, the p resen ce of guilt in Kafka's
w orks, Shakespearean tragedy, Lewis C a r r o ll's A lice, F reu d and
lite ra tu re , sa d ism in the works of Zola, incest, and the unconscious
d eterm inants to be found within all lite ra tu re . In addition, Dr.
Ruitenbeek him self provided an inform ative, unifying, and worthwhile
introduction.
F re u d ia n ism and the L ite ra ry M ind, by F r e d e ric k Hoffman, is
an exposition and discussion of F reu d ian psychology as it pertains
d irectly to lite ra tu re . Chapter one was especially inform ative and
pertinent; it provided a selective su m m a ry of the theories and p r a c
tices of psychoanalysis, em phasizing the aspects of F reu d ian theory
which would relate m ost directly to lite ra tu re and our p resen t day.
Within his introduction, M r. Hoffman explained that he elaborated
upon certain a r e a s and omitted others for the sole purpose of limiting
his exposition to the lite ra ry creative a rtis t. C hapters two and th ree
dealt with the twentieth century response to F reu d ian ism and its
em erg en ce into the consciousness of the age; chapter four was con
cerned with the influence of F reudian theory upon sociology, ideology,
and creativity itself; included th e re a fte r w ere a num ber of individual
studies which w ere intended to designate F r e u d 's influence upon
w r ite r s ' attitudes; the final chapter considered briefly a few of the
m en in the nineteenth century whose influence was also a determ ining
factor upon the thinking of our p re se n t century (i. e. , the nature of
m o d e rn m a n 's reactions to F reu d ian theory). Finally, Appendix I
9
("Psychology and L iteratu re") was also gainful, for it included selected
referen c es intended to provide some idea of the potential value involved
in relating F reudian theory to literature; Appendix II contained a s e le c
tive but n ev erth eless extensive bibliography.
Fiction and the Unconscious, by Simon L e s s e r, was a most
profitable reference and reso u rce. As suggested by Dr. E rn e st Jones,
who wrote the P re fa c e , the book stands as a com prehensive study of
the function of fiction and its mode of operation in m a n 's conscious and
unconscious mind. P erh ap s the m o st valuable chapters for purposes
of this investigation w ere those dealing with the lite ra ry appeals to the
psyche, the functions of lite ra ry form , the language of fiction, m o v e
m ent and re so u rc e s of form , the p ro c e s s e s of response, conscious
and unconscious perception, participation with and satisfactions from
the lite ra ry experience, and finally tragedy, com edy, and the aesthetic
experience. The Appendix ("A Note on the Use of Scientific P sy c h o
logical Knowledge in L ite ra ry Study") was also inform ative and of
general worth in this investigation.
Psychoanalytic Explorations in A r t , by E rn s t K ris, proved to be
enlightening, particularly in its d iscussion of "aesthetic ambiguity. "
In chapter ten, entitled "Aesthetic Ambiguity',' (written in collaboration
with A braham K aplan), psychic am biguity was related to the extent of
interpretation and its stim ulating effect upon the " p rim a ry p ro c e s s "
(the fundam ental needs and d e s ire s of the personality, or F reudian id).
Chapter eleven contained a review of F r e d e r ic k Hoffman's F reu d ian ism
and the L ite ra ry Mind, and ch ap ters th irteen and fourteen dealt with
10
the psychology of the creative p ro c e s se s. Included as a final section
was a com prehensive bibliography.
Methodology, Technique and P ro ced u re
Methodology. The method used was p rim a rily critical: to
evaluate past events by applying a selective c rite rio n to the plays, and
to com pare resu lts with c ritic is m and analysis of the past. In keeping
with the c ritic a l approach, as reg ard s rh eto rical c ritic ism , no special
em phasis was placed upon tren d s or the definition of new principles.
Technique. The technique was that of arriv in g at som e concise
arra n g e m e n t of statem ents which could be used as a c ritica l tool: valid
analytic principles found within the readings w ere compiled, those
which w ere believed to pertain m ost directly to the d ra m a genre. In
keeping with the intent of the study, the a re a of concentration becam e
serio u s d ra m a , not comedy; and an attem pt was made to select only
those principles considered essential for conducting such a c ritica l
analysis. After establishing such lim itations, and after gathering the
data, the concepts or precepts w ere com bined and arran g ed so that
only a few c rite rio n statem ents needed to be made in o rd e r to conduct
the investigation. Finally, the r e s e a r c h e r trie d to enunciate the
crite rio n so that it would be understandable and meaningful to one not
a specialist in the field of either psychology or psychoanalysis.
P r o c e d u r e . The basic tools having been established, the
p rocedure becam e that of applying the c rite rio n to the plays of Odets;
the plays w ere taken generally in o rd e r of production and a rb itra rily
11
arran g ed into th re e periods of his c a re e r: the early, middle, and late
periods. C ritic ism by the contem porary d ra m a c ritic s was in t e r
sp ersed within the analyses for re a d e r co m p ariso n with the results
obtained by application of the criterion. A final o v e r-a ll su m m a ry -
conclusion could then be considered on the basis of evidence collected
and possible im plications.
Definition
Serious d r a m a . By the te rm serio u s d ra m a was m eant a story
in which the protagonist is typically by some passion or limitation
brought to a catastrophe, or a se rie s of events that culm inate in
unhappiness or d is a s te r. In the c la s s ic a l- d r a m a sense, the action was
m ost often a m anifestation of fate and the c h a ra c te rs w ere passively
involved in its course of inevitability; w h ereas, in the m o re m odern
serious d ra m a , m an has become a f r e e r agent: he struggles against
his world, te sts his strength against te rrib le odds, a s s e r ts him self,
and com es to know him self with som e tru th in depth. C h a r a c te r is ti
cally, the story is po ssessed of elevated them e and diction, plus a
sense of inevitability--the impending, eventual catastrophe. Its p u r
pose is assu m ed to be the aro u sal of fear, u n easin e ss, or a p p re h e n
sion (a fear inspired by a tra n s g re s s io n , event, m istak e, or the like),
pity (sorrow , sympathy, com passion over the inevitable, the outcome,
the final just punishment), and a satisfying resolve based upon s u s
tained audience participation and the experience of a com passionate
whole.
12
C riterio n
The psychoanalytic c rite rio n m ay be found in detail and with
docum entation within Chapter II. However, for purposes of introduc
tion and g eneral overview, it is introduced in su m m a ry fo rm at this
point. In o rd e r to stru c tu re som e type of logical organization which
could be applied to the plays, the psychoanalytic concepts and precepts
w ere arran g ed into three m a jo r a re a s of concentration, with su p p o rt
ing axiom s under the m ain headings. The principal intent was to a n a
lyze and criticize each play from the point of view of its intrinsic
en tertainm ent potential, i . e . , its potential for satisfacto ry and re w a rd
ing audience intellectual and em otional involvement. The following is
an outline and succinct su m m a ry of the criterion:
1. Illusion
a. Identification-Em pathy
b. Hubris
2. Control of Anxiety P e rc e p tio n -- Objectification and Focus
3. Psychic Rew ards
a. Ambivalence
b. Confrontation
c. C ath arsis
Illusion. Illusion re p re s e n ts ov er-all that which is stated,
presented, and implied, fro m the obvious surface story to the m o re
im portant audience contributions of analogizing and unconscious
involvement and whose end result is sustained audience involvement
and a specific im p ressio n and perception. Its intent is the suspension
of audience disbelief, the creation of a sense of active involvement
13
without aw a re n e ss, and the establishm ent of p ro p er psychic or
aesthetic distance; i.e . , establishing and m aintaining a p ro p er balance
between the d esired participant and cognitive responses. Identifica-
tion-em pathy re fe rs p rim a rily to audience affective accord, em otional
involvement, and degree of vicarious participation with re sp e c t to one
or m o re c h a ra c te rs entangled within the basic situation-conflict in
question; the degree of identification-em pathy influences the extent of
ongoing involvement and vicarious participation and fu rth e r accounts
for the sustaining of, and the nature of the em otional response.
Hubris is the serious tra n s g re s s io n of a c h a ra c te r which incites au d i
ence tension, fear, apprehension, and so on, not m e re ly because of
the act itself but because of the compelling in terest in its im plications
and the inevitable serious consequences - -the inception for a p ity -fear
reaction, the source of complexity, and of didactic experience or
rew ard.
Control of anxiety perception--objectification and fo cu s. Within
this a re a , the concern involves the essence of the human dilem m a
presented, the predicam ent, motif, and cathexis which a r e dynam ically
rep resen ted for the deliberate purpose of arousing and sustaining a
degree of audience uneasiness and apprehension; fu rth er, it involves
the controls employed through m anipulation of such dim ensions as
content, form , and diction so that strength of illusion and p ro p er
psychic distance are p re s e rv e d . The essen tials of an anxiety are
em phasized, specified, perhaps even defined, so that ideally a
behavior pattern e m e rg e s along with its psychic determ inants - -p a t
te rn s obscured by the events of daily living. Its intent is to encourage
14
depth of participation but sim ultaneously to provide also for audience
a ss u ra n c e that the dynamic is occurring outside of self, the ultim ate
goal being a controlled, com passionate, and meaningful whole
experience.
Psychic r e w a r d s . Psychic rew ard s a re d irectly proportional
to the extent of personal involvement and vicarious participation, but
without an a w aren ess of having been so; they re p re s e n t such resp o n ses
as satisfactions, p le a su re s, knowledge, and com pensations for the
inadequacies and deprivations of m a n 's daily existence. A fundamental
rew ard is derived from the underlying com bat between the id and
superego, and the p e rsiste n t integrative struggles of the ego, the
pleasure principle at odds with the reality principle. Ambivalence
provides a sense of opposites in conflict, opposing points of view,
degrees of objective reality, so that participation fluctuates, values
and value sy stem s a re challenged and explored, and no single view
can overpow er the sense of plausibility or credibility. Confrontation
explores the possibility, through at least one c h a ra c te r, of forthright
acknowledgement of the re a litie s, how ever d ire, without the r e s e r v a
tions, evasions, appeals, or avoidance of im m inent calam itous c o n s e
quences so typical of m a n 's ordinary behavior pattern; it is ego-
exalting because the ego is presented as strong enough to assim ilate
both the id and superego, with the resu lt that reality, the self and
truth a r e revealed in depth. C ath arsis contributes a combined sense
of relief plus fulfillment, relief and fulfillment fro m the d ischarge yet
subsequent control of the instinctual, fro m the d e s ire s yielded to and
15
th e ir gratification that occasioned the suffering, from the tensions and
anxiety that accom panied fe a r about the tra n s g re s s io n , from pity for
the grievous consequences, yet a final justice dispensed over-all.
Organization of the R em ainder of the Study
The intent within Chapter II becam e that of setting forth the
c rite rio n in full: its source, organization, definition, and the m a jo r
concerns to be considered in its application to the plays. The re m a in
d e r of the study involved the plays them selves: (1) a plot su m m a ry for
each, ^ (2) application of the c rite rio n in combination with the c o n tem
p o ra ry d ram atic c ritic ism , and (3) a final conclusion for each based
upon the investigation and findings. The final chapter was intended to
provide the o v er-all findings and conclusions followed by a bibliography
of the sources used. The rationale for this organizational pattern was
that of enabling the re a d e r to consider the possibilities within a p a r
tic u la r play of interest without the n ece ssity of reading the entire study.
The plays them selves w ere divided into three general groupings:
early, m iddle, and late w orks. Each group provided a basis for chap
te r organization. Chapter III, "The Plays of E arly Success and
A cclaim , " included the following works: Waiting for Lefty, Till the
Day I D ie , Awake and Sing, P a ra d ise L o s t, and Golden Boy. Chapter
IV, "The Plays of L e s s e r A cclaim , " com prised Rocket to the Moon,
Night M u sic , and Clash by Night. Chapter V, "A R eturn to Some Suc
c e s s , " contained Odets' final productions, The Big K nife, The Country
Girl, and The Flow ering P e a c h . Chapter VI re p re se n te d the conclu
sion, and finally the Bibliography.
16
F ootnotes
^ B a rre tt H. C lark (ed.)> European T heories of the D ram a (New
York: Crown P u b lish ers, Inc. , 1965), pp. ^64-307.
Max Graf, "R em iniscences of P ro fe s s o r Sigmund F r e u d ,"
Psychoanalytic Q u arterly , VII (1942), p. 466.
3Ibid. , p. 476.
4
Such a publication is planned by Dr. M a rg a re t B renm an Gibson,
Austen Riggs C enter, Stockbridge, M assa ch u setts. Dr. Gibson is in
possession of Odets' private papers.
5
A type of plot s u m m a ry m ay also be found for the plays within a
book entitled, Clifford O dets, by R. Baird Shuman; how ever, for p u r
poses of this p a rtic u la r investigation, the w rite r deem ed it n e c e ss a ry
to include h erein s u m m a rie s containing g re a te r detail and without any
accompanying co m m en ta ry or in terp retatio n so that a re a d e r m ay have
a basis for and be able to follow the p ro c e s s of the psycho-analysis
via the c rite rio n as set forth.
CH APTER H
PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITERION
A ccording to certain psychoanalytic concepts or p rece p ts, the
serious lite r a r y a rts can effect a dynamic intercom m unicative p r o
c e ss which resu lts in a desirable aesthetic experience on both the
conscious and unconscious levels. * In the p ro c e s s of artistic c o m
m unication, an identification of a m utual nature occurs between play
w right and audience; the playwright identifies with his audience as he
is creating, and the audience in tu rn identifies with the playw right's
com m unication. ^
M odern d ra m a dem ands of its c re a to rs - - w r i t e r s , d ire c to rs ,
and a c t o r s - - a n artistic com m unication of inner truths. The
audience can now respond to such a rtis tic ex p ressio n with a
m o re com plete unconscious aesthetic reaction. ^
A ssum ing the actuality of this unconscious p ro c e s s , the possibility
suggested itself that ce rta in psychoanalytic tenets could be abridged
and somehow organized in o rd er to form ulate a concise c rite rio n that
could be applied to the d ra m a genre. The development of such a c r i
te rio n would prove challenging and perhaps of insightful value if it
w ere then applied to the works of a p a rtic u la r author. If the g e n e ra li
zations derived from its p a rtic u la r application w ere com pared with
those m ade by recognized c ritic s , they m ight a ssu m e som e value as
an approach to d ram a tic critic ism . The question that a ro s e w as to
what extent would such an approach prove to be in opposition with
17
18
accepted m axim s of dram a tic analysis and c ritic ism , and to what
extent would it be unique? In an attem pt to explore such possibilities,
an in-depth study of psychoanalysis and lite ra tu re was made in order
to compile som e selected concepts or precepts which would be con
sidered essential as a basis for such a psychoanalytic criterion.
Efforts in this direction revealed that the psychoanalytic
approach d irec ts its attention essentially to the kind and extent of con
scious and unconscious appeals and resp o n ses, as it explores the
dynamic experience called entertainm ent. Succinctly, as a method of
analysis it lays s tre s s on the following th re e g eneral areas:
1. O v er-all illusion-creating potential, from the obvious s u r
face story possibilities to the m o re im portant analogizing
and affective reactions present; the nature and degree of
response provided through characterization.
2. The exploration of anxiety-laden human predicam ents along
with lim itations and controls p resen t within such a re a s as
content, form , and diction that w ork tow ard the achievem ent
of certain d esired em otional resp o n ses and results.
3. The kinds of psychic rew ards provided as a result of the
entertainm ent experience.
The resu lts of re s e a r c h and study suggested that such a criterio n
not only p o sse ssed validity as a type of dram a tic c ritic ism but also
offered enlightening possibilities in its modus operandi and conclu
sions. The following becam e the organizational stru ctu re of the
psychoanalytic criterion:
19
1. Illusion--Identification, Em pathy, and Hubris
2. C ontrol of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
3. Psychic R ew ard s--A m b iv alen ce, Confrontation, and C ath arsis
Illusion
By the te r m illusion, used in the psychoanalytic sense, is m eant
the anticipation of an event,
. . . not based on the probability of its actual occu rren c e but
on a strong need for instant wishfulfillment . . . [ it is] . . .
generally connected with an anticipation . . . [ it] need not
n ec e ssa rily be false . . . unrealizable or in contradiction to
reality. . . . Illusion m ay be considered as n e c e ss a ry for our
ability to experience aesthetic pleasure; it does not in terfere
with [ our] adaptation to reality, serving to enhance it . . .
T heatre illusion is a disguised, or type of abridged reality,
which the audience willingly accepts as reality for purposes of
wishfulfillment and fantasy. The audience extends its bounda
ries of reality and relevance; the p ro c e ss is selective p erce p tio n ,
. . . a sem blance of truth sufficient to p ro cu re for [ our] shadows
of im agination that willing suspension of disbelief for the m om ent,
which constitutes poetic faith.5
When the p ro c e s s e s of psychological displacem ent and projection
a re p resen t to the degree that vicarious involvement resu lts with
resp ect to c h a ra c te rs within a problem situation, the illusion of
becom ing an active participant follows:
. . . Hence his [ spectator] enjoyment presupposes an illusion;
it p resupposes an attenuation of his suffering through the certainty
that in the f irs t place it is another than him self who acts and su f
fe rs upon the stage, and that in the second place it is only a play,
whence no th re a t to his personal secu rity can e v e r a r is e . It is
under such circ u m sta n c e s that he m a y indulge in the luxury of
being a hero; he m ay give way unasham edly to sup p ressed
im pulses such as the need for freedom in religious, political,
social or sexual a sp ects, and m ay let him self go in all directions
in each and every grand scene of the life enacted upon the stage. 6
However, o v erstatem en t or overdefinition of c h a ra c te r or problem
7
inhibits the e s s e n tia l factors of im agination and analogizing, producing
20
a predom inantly intellectual a p p ra isa l or even aversion, thus d estro y -
g
ing illusion and the p ro p er psychic distance, which is so essential for
9
the completion and enjoyment of a psychological whole.
All v arie tie s of suffering are th e re fo re the them e of d ra m a ,
which p ro m ise s to c re a te out of them p leasu re for the spectator;
whence a r is e s the firs t condition which this a rt form m ust fulfill,
that it shall cause the spectator no suffering, and that it m ust
know how to com pensate by m eans of the gratifications which it
m akes possible for the pity which it a r o u s e s - - a rule against which
m odern d ra m a tis ts have p articu la rly often been offenders. 10
Finally, E rn st K ris and A braham Kaplan had the following to say about
the a ll-im p o rtan t concept of psychic distance and its relation to the
quality and degree of illusion:
While shift in psychic level is a n e c e s s a ry condition, it is not
a sufficient condition for aesthetic com m unication to take place.
The response is not aesthetic at all unless it also c o m p rise s a
shift in psychic distance, that is, fluctuation in the degree of
involvement in action. . . . The aesthetic illusion re q u ire s, as
was em phasized by Kant, a detachm ent fro m the workings of the
p ractical reason. . . . M ore generally, when distance is m in i
m a l the reaction to works of a rt is pragm atic ra th e r than a e s
thetic. Art is tra n sfo rm e d to pin-up and propaganda, m agic and
ritual, and becom es an im portant determ inant of belief and action.
The am biguities with which interpretation m u st deal a re d isju n c
tive and additive: m eanings a re selected and ab strac ted in the
service of p ractical ends. When psychic distance is m axim al, the
response is philistine or intellectualistic. At best, the experience
is one of passive receptivity ra th e r than active participation of the
self. No contribution com es from the side of the audience because
the interpretation follows the principle of the dictionary, as d e t e r
m ined by the c u rre n t conventions of the genre. Or, indeed, there
m ay be no effort at in terp retatio n at all, and the work rejected
out of hand as unintelligible and w orthless. H
Identification-em pathy. Psychoanalytically defined, identifica
tion is
. . . c h a ra c te riz e d by a cathexis of the object presentation by
n a rc iss is tic libido and destrudo . . . the subject becom es m o re
and m o re s im ila r to the object, treating h im self as though he
w ere the object . . . [ it] m ay also take the fo rm of h y sterical
identification, in which c e rta in c h a ra c te ris tic s of the total p e r
sonality objectified a re incorporated into the self. 12
21
Empathy
. . . is a te m p o ra ry , conscious identification with an object,
in o rd e r to understand the object, not to becom e perm anently
s im ila r to it or to make it s im ila r to the subject. The subject
does not lose its identity but a s s u m e s , for a lim ited tim e only,
the role of the object . . . [it] is a te m p o ra ry identification with
an object fo r the purpose of anticipating what the object is going
to do . . . [ e .g . ] the ac to r who plays the villain, and is responded
to in those te r m s by the audience; yet, at the sam e tim e, the a u d i
ence enjoys his p erform ance and, la te r, p ra is e s him for it. *3
When sufficient depth of sympathy, extent of insight, and feeling-
into exists, psychic tra n sfe re n c e to another and covert participation
becom e strong and sustained, which is essen tial for the entertainm ent
syndrom e; those c h a ra c te rs of deepest in te re st and anxiety potential
14
re p re se n t aspects of one's self which a r e feared or unfulfilled.
T herefore, a worthy exam ple m u st e x ist--s o m e o n e not im m une to
d e s ire s which one a sso ciates with struggle, one who is within a situa-
tion-conflict of significance and m agnitude, and rep resen tin g a wish
having som e universality. ^ F o r m a x im u m involvement and effect,
one has to be able to identify with the bad in a c h a ra c te r along with the
good, even if unconsciously; otherw ise, the c h a ra c te r e m e rg e s as
unsym pathetic, and the conflict false and m eaningless. ^ The ego will
not relax, will not p erm it a tra n s fe re n c e to another, will not suspend
d isb elief--all of which re p re se n t the firs t stage of e n tertain m en t--if
sensibilities a r e offended o r understanding labored, for m an seeks
satisfaction as effortlessly as possible. ^
H u b ris . When a c h a ra c te r com m its some violation, some t r a n s
g ressio n of those tabus which his society holds in awe, a sense of te n
sion and com plexity a re esta b lish e d --th e g re a te st serious works deal
18
with such tra n s g re s s io n s ; when as a participant one can vicariously
22
experience the tensions that accom pany the d e s ire s at issue along with
th e ir strong defenses, and involved with the com plexity that a r is e s
fro m the subterfuge and indirection to which these im pulses typically
r e s o rt in securing th e ir satisfaction, pleasure and satisfaction a re the
outcome. When one is able to experience the fe a r that accom panies the
serious act of rebellion, and pity for the suffering that m u st be endured
as consequence - -at all tim es ostensibly unaw are of the conflicts as
one's own, and in a psychic state of detached s e c u rity --th e n two e s s e n
tially unconscious w ishes have been satisfied: the wish to reb el against
authority, and the w ish to be punished fo r such rebellion.
In fact, one m ight c h a ra c te riz e d ra m a by this very relation to
suffering and m isfortune. . . . The origin of d ra m a in s a c r if i
cial rites (goat and scapegoat) in the cult of the gods cannot be
without appositeness to this m eaning of d ram a; it a ssu ag es as
it w ere the beginning revolt against the divine o rd e r which
d ecreed the suffering. The h ero is at firs t a reb el against God
or the divine; and it is from the feeling of m is e r y of the w eaker
c re a tu re pitted against the divine m ight that pleasure m ay be
said to derive, through m aso ch istic gratification and the d irect
enjoyment of the personage whose g reatn ess n ev erth eless the
d ra m a em phasizes. This is the P rom etheus attitude of m an,
who in a sp irit of petty com pliance would be soothed for the
tim e being with a m e re ly m o m e n ta ry gratification.
Consequently, a type of didactic knowledge is p re se n t along with the
satisfaction and pleasure derived from involved participation. ^ It is
through such participation in im pulses which have been so strongly
re s tra in e d , in the forbidden tra n s g re s s io n itself, in the g en eral stru g -
22
gle between im pulse and inhibition in their b ro ad est sense, that deep
and prim itive longings can be gratified by re -e x p erien cin g the d e s ire s
and the guilt accompanying them and being m o m e n ta rily purged of
4 .1 . 23
them .
23
The hubris c h a ra c te r is typically arro g an t or violent out of
passion or re c k le s s n e ss , insolently disreg ard in g m o ra l laws or
24
re stra in ts; c h a ra c te ristic a lly , he is doomed to ex tre m e choices, is
violent, inflexible, incapable of making co m p ro m is e s, disdainful of the
sensible solution, and succum bs to the m o st intem perate im pulses with
an ease and suddenness that aro u se s general audience uneasiness and
u 25
apprehension.
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
F ro m a psychoanalytic standpoint, anxiety
. . . is used as a synonym for fear although F reu d suggested
that fe a r is the reaction to a known specific danger, while anxiety
is the reaction to an unknown one. . . . Neurotic anxiety is the
result of the individual's inability to differentiate between the
wish and the action, when the wish is re p re s s e d and is thereby
unconscious. Thus, it resem b les the feeling of t e r r o r m o re
closely than that of n o rm al anxiety. The full d ischarge of the
re p re s s e d wish is experienced as taking place in the presen t
instead of in the future. The neurotic reac ts as if the danger of
which he is afraid w ere actually happening. . ~ ! N orm al anxiety
resu lts from an anticipation in which the individual r e c r e a te s , in
his fantasy, a m e m o ry that is c h a ra c te ristic of anxiety. He
reca lls a m e m o ry of a previous defeat, utilizing it to experience
a dangerous th re a t to the self. He does not attribute this th re a t
to his own aggression. To protect him self against such an e x te r
nal defeat, he m obilizes his ag g ressio n and attributes part of it
to the dangerous object. Consequently, this dangerous object
attacks him with his own aggression. As a resu lt, he experiences
in his fantasy the threatened defeat, and p re p a re s for flight or
fight. 26
F ro m the viewpoint of entertainm ent, th e re fo re, the d ra m a can
actually m anifest an anxiety by degree, and one can displace u n e a s i
ness, apprehension, t e r r o r , tension, energy, and so forth, to the
c h a ra c te rs and derive s a tis fa c tio n --e n te rta in m e n t--a s a re su lt of
working through a whole predicam ent vicariously.
24
Serious lite ra ry works ov er-cath ect subject m aterial: i. e. , a
concentration of psychic energy ex ists, the investm ent of some idea
with especially strong affect and significance. C h a ra c te rs are p r e
sented with heroic qualities but a re troubled with the types of d e sire s
against which o rd in ary m an would struggle; they a re involved in large
and a ll-s e rio u s events, and a re forced to choose between extrem e
alternatives; the sto rie s work through aspects of hum an nature and its
predicam ents which would m ost likely arouse anxiety as an audience
27
reaction. Consequently, the anxiety m ust be controlled for the
d esired en tertainm ent effect.
F reud had the following to say about anxiety perception on the
stage and the conditions which it should fulfill. It is quoted h ere in full
because F re u d 's p re c ise diction conveys his thoughts and ideas m o re
succinctly and acc u rately than this w rite r felt com petent to p arap h rase:
M ental suffering we recognize. . . chiefly in relation to the
circ u m sta n c e s out of which it has developed; hence d ra m a
req u ire s an action fro m which this suffering d eriv e s, and begins
by introducing to the audience this action . . . it is easy to define
the conditions which this action m u st fulfill. T here m u st be a
play of contending forces; the action m ust contain within itself a
striving of the will and some opposition thereto. The firs t and
m o st grandiose fulfilling of these conditions [is ] exemplified in
the struggle against divinity. . . . The less that is . . . ascrib ed
to the divine, the m o re a c c ru e s to the human elem ent, which,
with ev er in creasin g insight, is m ade responsible for suffering.
. . . the next struggle [is] that of the h ero against the social
community. . . . Still another . . . is seen in the struggle
between m en th e m selv es, that is, the c h a ra c te r d ra m a . . .
enacted p referab ly between outstanding perso n alities freed from
the re s tric tio n s of hum an institutions [having] m o re than one
here. Combinations of these two a re of co u rse perfectly p e r m i s
sible, in the fo rm of a struggle on the p art of the hero against
institutions of which strong c h a ra c te rs a r e the em bodim ent. The
pure d ra m a of c h a ra c te r is lacking in the sources of enjoyment
afforded by the them e of rebellion, which in social plays, such
as those of Ibsen, is again as powerfully to the fore as in the h i s
to ric a l plays of G reek c la ss ic a l tim es. . . . we m ay now [p ro ceed
to] the psychological d ram a. F o r it is within the soul of the hero
25
him self that there takes place an anguished struggle between v a r i
ous im p u ls e s - - a struggle which m ust end, not with the downfall of
the hero, but with that of one of the contending im pulses. . . .
E very combination of this situation with that in the e a rlie r type of
d ra m a . . . is of co u rse possible in so fa r as social institutions
evoke just such an inner conflict. . . . It is here that the love
d ra m a belongs, in so f a r as the suppressing of love . . . form s
the starting point for an alm ost endless variety of confiictual s itu
ations. . . . The possibilities multiply still fu rth e r [when] the
psychological d ra m a becom es the psychopathological, when the
source of the suffering which we are to share and fro m which we
are to derive pleasure is no longer a conflict between two alm ost
equally conscious m otivations, but one between conscious and
re p re s s e d ones. H ere the precondition for enjoyment is that the
spectator shall also be neurotic. F o r it is only to him that the
release and, to a c e rta in extent, the conscious recognition of the
re p re s s e d m otivation can afford pleasure. . . . In the non-neurotic
this will m e et only with unacceptance, and will induce a readiness
to repeat the act of re p re s s io n , for in his case the latter has been
successful. ^8
When diction and action a re so selected, arran g ed , and focused,
(2) and the problem -conflict so contained or bound by controls that
these facto rs m ake possible the objectification of one's d e s ire s , fe a rs ,
and inner conflicts convincingly within another upon the stage, (3) then
the d e s ire s , fe a rs , and conflicts m ay be confronted without fear, w ith
out being acknowledged, (4) and that fear which they originally or
would ordinarily inspire within one becom es dim inished through
vicarious experiencing.
Objectification. Objectification thus provides a m eans for e x p lo r
ing som e deeply significant problem s by establishing conditions of
detachm ent and security (controlling the anxiety aroused within the
participant), and it s erv es as the first step in the aesthetic p ro c e ss
29
called "distancing, " or p ro p er aesthetic distance. When objectifica
tion has been s atisfac to rily achieved, the content and form of the story
which have activated the anxiety within the participant, have at the
sam e tim e served as "binding" p ro c e s se s , so that fe a rs aroused in
26
turn bind the v ery im pulses they stim ulated and satisfied, vicarious
satisfaction having robbed them of som e intensity. An obvious binding
device of either content or fo rm would be stylization; it serv es as a
m echanical distancing factor. ^
Focus. By omitting the sluggishness and irre le v a n c ie s which
c h a ra c te riz e daily living, by arran g in g and em phasizing the causals
and in terrelatio n sh ip s, by the focus on the essentials of the idea, a
swift and coherent sense of beginning, m iddle, and end e m e rg e , which
31
is essen tial for an aw aren ess of a com plete and meaningful action.
The use of image and m etaphor uncover patterns that keep the uncon
scious activated, but all is focused on a purposeful and o rd ered coher-
32
ence, one image succeeding another before any disturbing proportion
or im plication can destroy p ro p er psychic distance; thus, both m ovem ent
and language w ork together in the control of the p articipant's anxiety.
Ambiguity within diction m ust prevail, not the absolute, or the overly
defined; perhaps that was what W illiam Em pson m eant by the following
statem ent: "C learly this is involved in all such richness and heighten
ing of effect, and the m achinations of ambiguity a re among the very
33
roots of poetry. " T herefo re, by its capacity to telescope tim e, omit
life's confusions, and mold into a coherent and m eaningful whole, s e r i
ous lite ra ry works can reveal the ordinarily obscured and a ll-im p o r-
34
tant patterns that underlie hum an experience, and the intrapsychic
35
conflicts which d eterm ine the co u rse of life.
When a participant is provided with a m eans w hereby he can tu rn
fro m some indeterm inant and all-p e rv a siv e "free floating"foe to one of
p a rtic u la r shape and fo rm outside of self, enorm ous relief is derived
27
because of certain positive gains: anxiety, though it m ay rem a in
am orphous, becom es externalized; or if it should rem ain internal, it
3 6
becom es at least specific and defined [ italics m i n e ] .
Propaganda, the all-good or all-bad, the too p artisan and too p e r
sonal do not tran sce n d th e ir purpose and consequently in terfere with p e r
ception and plausibility by arousing a re sista n c e to com passion and to
sustained identification and participation; the satisfaction a risin g out of
vicarious participation which accounts for entertainm ent is im possible if
one is too close to a situation, if it be too p a rtisa n in view, if one is
confused, o r intellectually alienated, all of which in terfere with develop
m ent and control of the p ro p er psychic or aesthetic distance so e ss e n -
37
tial for experiencing a controlled, com passionate, seeing of a whole.
Psychic R ew ards
A ccording to psychoanalysis the p le asu re derived fro m serious
lite ra ry a r t re s ts basically upon its ability to satisfy needs of which the
participant is for the m o st p art unaw are (and usually he m u st rem a in
unaw are for sustained pleasure); i. e., when a story involves a p a r tic i
pant in the events presented without causing an aw aren ess of the nature
and extent or even fact of involvement, it satisfies needs and in so doing
provides one with psychic rew ard s. (The emotions which the story
a ro u se s serv e as evidence of the extent of involvement because they a re
too intense to be classified as sim ple cognitive reactions; norm ally,
how ever, they rem a in unnoticed until they force th e ir attention upon
one, such as in the case of weeping.) As such, psychic rew ard s can
se rv e as com pensation for the inadequacies and deprivations of one's
day-to-day experience.
28
Psychic rew ard s a re m ade possible through the discrete
p resen ce of conditions such as the following:
1. When the story intrepidly probes conflicts one would h e s i
tate to exam ine and seeks to uncover the determ ining factors
and exact influence of each; when it dignifies the very
im pulses that one would debase by denial or by gratifying
in a culpable m anner.
2. When it shows the re su lts of m isdeed and m istake, whether
in the fo rm of yielding to im pulse, denying them, or s a t i s
fying them in a covert or neurotic m anner; when the
o b s e rv e r is forced to see the consequences of an action
which he would ra th e r avoid or which he believes could
somehow be averted.
3. When it a rra n g e s and focuses on certain happenings so that
39
one is forced to see them as consequences.
4. When conflicts a re resolved in such a way that justice seem s
accom plished in light of those facto rs considered relevant.
What the participant experiences is analogous to w itnessing a
struggle between the id and superego, a struggle between the pleasure
40
principle and reality principle. As the instincts a re gratified, and
urgent and strongly re s is te d d e s ire s a r e vicariously fu lfilled --th eir
satisfaction p erm itted under conditions which for the m om ent r e
establish th e ir authority and "invest th em with a gran d eu r com m en-
41
surate with th e ir o u trag e o u sn e ss" --th e ego is richly rew arded by
having the claim s of instincts specified and disclosed, sym bolically
gratified and m ade m o re receptive to control. By allowing impulse and
29
d e sire , inhibition and conscience (the id and superego) to engage in an
open and violent battle within the security and detachm ent provided by
controls and fo rm , the integrative efforts at large becom e akin to
m a n 's ego as it striv e s to balance the conflicting psychic fo rces of id
^ 42
and superego.
A m bivalence. A concise psychoanalytic definition of am bivalence
is as follows: "Ambivalence denotes the sim ultaneous existence of
43
strong feelings of love and hate tow ard the sam e object. "
When serio u s lite ra ry w orks, despite concentration upon m otif
and hum an im pulse, can p resen t both c h a ra c te r and conflict from dif
ferent points of view so that dem ands appear balanced and claim s and
co unterclaim s harm onized, then the possibility of a fuller and m o re
rew arding satisfaction is present. When conditions such as the fol
lowing exist, the result is an underlying attitude of poised and s u s
tained am bivalence so c h a ra c te ristic of the hum an dilem m a:
1. Conscious and unconscious sym pathies coexist.
2. P e rs o n a l affirm ations take into account the conditions
urged in th e ir opposition.
3. No single view a s su m e s control for any extended tim e.
4. An o v e r-a ll sense of the opposite prevails.
5. The c h a ra c te rs --v a lu e sy stem s of great lite r a r y a r t - - a r e
p resen ted fro m different points of view.
The resulting effect m ay be likened to a fluctuating participation
in the struggles m an has with his values and value s y ste m s , and all
within a fra m e w o rk of lite ra ry plausibility and psychological validity;
am bivalence allows a lite r a r y w ork to tra n sc e n t its source and purpose
30
to becom e a rt, for fiction is defeated as a rt if a single viewpoint
44
s e e m s to dominate [ italics mine ].
Confrontation. When a c h a ra c te r m anifests the following tra its ,
he m ay be said to exem plify a psychological confrontation:
1. He seeks out what ordinary m an would avoid by re p re s s io n
or suppression, lie, or denial; and he openly confronts his
defects, m ista k e s , and te rrib le fate.
2. He acknowledges his vulnerability and does not m inim ize
suffering; ra th e r, he faces openly the p ro sp ect of annihila
tion, acknowledging his tra n s g re s s io n s and the justice of
forthcom ing punishm ent without lie, evasion or false hopes.
3. He reje cts repentance, appeals to no one, and will not sue
for peace though in so doing he might be saved.
The confrontation phase produces anxiety within the audience
participant, and it exalts m a n 's ego in the p ro c e s s. The ego is seen
as persistin g in its efforts at reality testing and reporting in the face
of calam ity, and m an is p resented as gaining ascendency over his m i s
fortune and the m istak es or w eaknesses for which he is responsible.
His ego a s s im ila te s the ty ran ts of id and superego, and it a s s e r ts its
independence; it is seen as strong, dominant, accepting of ex tre m es
and p erse v e rin g in its attem pts to integrate the p ersonality despite
catastrophe, successful by virtue of its acceptance, by the granting of
ex tre m e dem ands, yet always m aintaining its authority. This p a r tic i
pant experience is an im portant adjunct to the aesthetic experience.
In confrontation it is not m e re ly the act which so m oves one, for
it m ay seem foreordained, or the c h a ra c te r m e re ly an agent of destiny,
31
but ra th e r it is what the c h a ra c te r is m ade to think, feel, and see
(what one keeps self fro m seeing) which gives to him a la rg e r freedom
than before; his energy cea se s in the direction of imposing its will upon
the world and instead becom es directed inwardly tow ard a psychic
45
effort that provides self-rev elatio n and truth in depth.
C a th a r s is . According to psychoanalysis, c a th a rs is
. . . is the discharge of anxiety and tension through the recall,
ex p ressio n and, possibly, fu rth er exploration of significant uncon
scious m a te ria l. . . . C u rren t stru c tu ra l th eo ries s tr e s s not only
the d ischarge aspects of c a th a rsis (abreaction), but also, its
role in perm itting the ego to regain control over the id. Many
sublim ations [including d ra m a ] involve a degree of c ath arsis.
. . . F reu d (1923) noted that . . . c a th a rsis cam e about when
the path to unconsciousness was opened up. The c a th a rsis, as
such was seen as leading to a n o rm a l discharge of affect; the
affect which previously had been "strangulated" was discharged
"along the n o rm a l path leading to consciousness. "46
When an interplay of participant and cognitive reactions has been
p resen t (reaction as both spectator and acto r in the anxiety and con-
47
flict), and satisfaction vicariously derived from the c h a ra c te r's
d e s ire s along with the aw aren ess of the punishment that the s a tisfa c
tion entailed, then the ego is enabled to re -e s ta b lis h a control which
48
has been threatened by dam m ed-up instinctual dem ands. F reud used
the following exam ple for this vicarious participation, this gradually
increasing dynam ic projection and participation:
The sick neurotic is to us a m a n into whose conflict we can
obtain no insight [em pathy] when he p resen ts it to us in the
fo rm of the finished product. C onversely, if we a re fam iliar
with this conflict, we forget that he is a sick m an just as when
he becom es fa m iliar with it he him self ce a se s to be sick. It is
thus the ta sk of the d ra m a tis t to tra n s p o rt us into the sam e
illn e s s - - a thing best accom plished if we follow him through its
development. 49
32
By this statem ent it is assu m ed that F reu d believed the artful
d ra m a tis t both provokes and encourages his audience to participate in
the illusion (in the problem ), and to the extent that insight is derived,
by the d ra m a tis t's (1) careful revelation of the underlying causals and
interrelatio n sh ip s of the conflict, his (2) use of psychologically valid
responses and reactions, his (3) attention to plausibility, the (4) use
of fa m iliar and u n iv e rsal c u e s - - s e n s e of prevailing in-com m on con
c ern s o r universals; the d ra m a tist m ust perm it his audience to p a r
ticipate in depth through his skillful development of the basic problem
and his m aintenance of p ro p er psychic distance - -the audience is not
confronted with a "finished product" at the outset which would negate
sym pathetic response, or forced to see them selves as the seriously
troubled (a too personal reaction). By this p ro c e ss of identification,
or tra n sfe re n c e , the audience a ss u m e s the sam e "illn ess" uncon
sciously and should then be able to work through the predicam ent in itc
e n tire ty --its beginning, middle, and e n d --to such a degree that the
anxiety associated is consequently reduced, learning takes place, and
a combined sense of re le a s e , alienation, and realization is achieved.
The p leasu re derived is a dual one: the discharge and control of
instincts. The control is essentially an unconscious one and internal in
the sense that while the ego has becom e threatened by the gradual
dam m ing up of instinctual dem ands which crea ted tensions, the pro cess
of vicarious participation, the opportunity for discharge through
another--w ithout d irect involvement or the need for open acknow ledge
m e n t--e n a b le s the ego thereupon o r thereby to apply new or f re s h con
tro ls to the self and so se e m stro n g er as a consequence. The
33
m aintenance of the aesthetic illusion or distance guarantees one safety
and freed o m fro m guilt, for it a s s u re s that one is not pursuing his
own fantasy. As such, it allows the em erg en ce of feelings which one
m ight otherw ise be hesitant to p erm it (since they could lead to p e r
sonal conflicts) and an intensity of reaction which without the protec -
50
tion of distance one would ordinarily be unwilling to acknowledge.
When som e gratification has been derived from a p articu la r
id e n tificatio n --first constituent of the cathartic e x p e rie n c e --to the
extent that perception of the consequences of the c h a r a c te r 's conduct is
tacitly accepted without disposition to question its justice, inevitability
or im m in e n c e --se c o n d constituent--and the identification p e rs is ts in
intensity despite forthcom ing consequences, then one is so strongly
involved in the sto ry that identification-participation continues until
the v ery end or even beyond, or it is abandoned just before the end to
watch in secu re d etach m e n t--called a r e v e r s a l , or the third c o n stit
uent. This reaction constitutes a shift in attitude tow ard one or m o re
c h a ra c te rs , a r e v e r s a l of one's em otional position fro m that of p r e
dominantly participant to that of predom inantly o r entirely spectator.
Consequently, when sympathy for c h a ra c te r is not disavowed, but
actually in c re a s e s in intensity as the story draw s to a close, the effect
is a purging of the p ity -fear reaction as well as those d e s ire s to which
the c h a ra c te r yielded and whose gratification brought about the s u ffe r
ing; a combined feeling of relief and fulfillment re su lts which m o m e n
ta rily reliev es tension and anxiety. N either c a th a rs is nor aesthetic
experience can be explained except on the assum ption that one so m e-
52
how becom es actively involved in the sto ry which m oves him.
Relief of anxiety provides a positive satisfaction, a feeling which
53
has been d escribed as "subdued exhilaration" even in the face of
g re a t se rio u sn e ss and painful hum an p red ic am en ts, like one who has
n arro w ly escaped a sim ila r situation yet rem a in s in danger; the
exhilaration a r is e s fro m a feeling of having been lib erated from a
54
p a rtic u la r anxiety and m ith rid atically strengthened for anxiety in
general. G reat lite ra ry a rt can provide such a profound understanding
of a problem , and p e rm it its w orking-through with such com pleteness,
that the anxiety it aro u sed becom es entirely reduced. Man is attracted
to serious and painful w orks laden with anxiety, and he d eriv e s c a t h a r
tic value fro m them because through the experience which they can
provide he is able to grapple with the cause of his anxiety and prove
his strength vicariously; som e such contest is n e c e s s a ry before he can
confront and acknowledge the attractio n of those very things in life
55
which serv e as the source of his fears.
35
F ootnotes
^Sim onO . L e s s e r, Fiction and the Unconscious (New York:
Vintage Books, 1957), pp. 197-Zb4.
^Philip W eissm an, C reativity in the T heater (New York: Basic
Books, Inc. , 1965), pp. 220-221.
3Ibid. , p. 247.
Ludwig Eidelberg (ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis (New
York: The F re e P r e s s , 1968), p~ 186.
5
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Biographia L ite ra ria (London and
Toronto: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1927), p. 161.
^Sigmund F reud, "Psychopathic C h a ra c te rs on the Stage, "
Psychoanalytic Q uarterly, XI, 1942, p. 460.
7
L e s s e r , op. c it. , pp. 200-204.
g
Melvin R ader (ed.), A M odern Book of E sthetics (third edition;
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 394-411; and
Edward Bullough, "P sy ch ical Distance as a F a c to r in Art and Aesthetic
P rin cip le, " B ritish Journal of Psychology, V (1912-1913), pp. 87-129-
g
Sigmund F reu d , "Some C h a ra c te r Types Met With in P s y c h o
analytic Work, " Collected P a p e r s , IV (London: Hogarth P r e s s , 1948),
p. 323; and L e s s e r, op. c i t. , pp. 134, 147-148.
^ F r e u d , "Psychopathic C h a ra c te rs on the S tag e ," pp. 460-461.
^ E r n s t K ris, Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art (New York:
International U niversities P r e s s , Inc. , 1952), p. 256.
12
E idelberg, o j d . c it. , p. 186.
13Ibid. , pp. 126-127,
1 4
H endrik M. Ruitenbeek (ed. ), Psychoanalysis and L ite ra tu re
(New York: Dutton and Co. , Inc. , 1964), pp. 216-217; and L e s s e r ,
op. cit. , pp. 251-253.
15
L e s s e r , op. c it. , pp. 142-143.
^ R u ite n b e e k , op. c i t. , pp. 211-216; and L e s s e r, op. cit. ,
pp. 250, 271.
1 7
L e s s e r , op. c it. , pp. 133-134, 207-211; and Ruitenbeek, op.
cit. , pp. 214-215.
19
Ruitenbeek, op. c it. , pp. 215-217.
^ F r e u d , "Psycopathic C h a ra c te rs on the S tage," p. 460.
^ L e s s e r , op. c it. , p. 107-108, 252-253.
22
L e s s e r, op. c it. , p. 78; and F re d e ric k J. Hoffman, F reu d ian -
ism and the L ite ra ry Mind (second edition; Louisiana: Louisiana State
U niversity P r e s s , 1967), pp. 112-115.
23
L e s s e r, op. c it. , pp. 107-110.
24
Theodore Reik, Myth and Guilt (New York: George B ra z ille r,
Inc. , 1957), pp. 403-406.
25
L e s s e r, op. cit. , pp. 272-273; and Ruitenbeek, op. cit. ,
pp. 179-180.
^ E i d e l b e r g , pp. c it. , pp. 37-38.
27
L e s s e r, op. cit. , p. 276.
28
F reud, "Psychopathic C h a ra c te rs on the S tag e," pp. 461-463.
29
L e s s e r, op. c it. , pp. 151-153.
30Ibid. , pp. 182-186.
31 Ibid. , pp. 151-153, 160-165.
32
Ruitenbeek, op. cit. , p. 216.
33
William Em pson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New York: New
D irections C orporation, n. d. ), p. T.
34
L e s s e r, op. c it. , p. 257.
35
Ruitenbeek, op. cit. , p. 179.
3 6
L e s s e r, op. c it. , p. 257.
37
L e s s e r, op. c it. , pp. 194-195.
38Ibid. , pp. 188-189.
39
L e s s e r , op. cit. , pp. 188-189.
40
York
40
Ives H endrick, F a c ts and T heories of Psychoanalysis (New
: Alfred A. Knopf, 1934), pp. 92-103; and A. A. B rill, Freud's
37
Contribution to P sy ch iatry (New York: W. W. Norton and Co. , Inc. ,
1944), pp. 213-221, 155.
41
L e s s e r , op. cit. , p. 274; and M ark S chorer, Josephine M iles,
and Gordon McDelizie (eds.), C riticism , The Foundations of M odern
L ite ra ry Judgment (New York: H arco u rt B race, 1948), pp. 62-63.
42
L e s s e r, op. c it. , pp. 274-275; and Sigmund F reud, The Ego
and the Id, transTTToan R iviere (New York: Norton L ib rary , 1 960)7
pp. ,9-29, 38-44.
"^E idelberg, op. c it. , p. 27.
44
L e s s e r, op. c it. , pp. 84-87.
" ^ L e s s e r , op. c it., pp. 282-287, 306-307; and Ruitenbeek, op.
cit. , pp. 256-257.
^ E i d e l b e r g , pp. c it. , p. 62.
^ O t t o F enichel, "On Acting, " Psychoanalytic Q uarterly, XV,
1946, p. 144.
^ L e s s e r , op. c it. , p. 251.
49
F reud, "Psychopathic C h a ra c te rs on the S tag e ," p. 464.
50
E rn st K ris, op. c it. , pp. 45-46.
51
L e s s e r , op. c it., pp. 247-259-
5^Ibid. , p. 238.
53Ibid. , p. 258.
54
King M ithridates in 63 B. C. is said to have become im m uned
to a p a rtic u la r poison by adm inistering to him self gradual doses in
o rd er to build a tolerance for it.
55
L e s s e r, op. cit. , pp. 258-259; and Ruitenbeek, op. c it. ,
p. 269.
CH APTER IH
THE PLAYS OF EARLY SUCCESS AND ACCLAIM
There follows a su m m a ry , c ritic a l co m m en tary , analysis, and
conclusion for Clifford Odets' ea rlie st plays: Waiting for Lefty; Till
the Day I Die; Awake and Sing; P a ra d ise L ost; and Golden Boy.
Waiting for Lefty
Plot Sum m ary
Waiting for Lefty^ opens as a union meeting; m e m b e rs of a taxi
d r iv e r s ' union are m eeting with their union s e c re ta ry , Fatt, to con
sider a strike for b etter wages and working conditions. Fatt trie s to
dissuade them , even alluding to the possibility of violence that could
result. The d riv e rs , a hungry and d esp erate group, a re eag e r for a
change in the "System"; they a r e agitated as they await anxiously their
sp o k esm an -le ad er, Lefty. A few d riv e rs a re seated on stage and p r e
sent th e ir case to others who a re supposedly seated within the audience.
Flashback scenes depict the recent past of some of the d riv e rs , th e ir
individual problem s and struggles to survive.
Young Joe and Edna are desperate: th e ir furniture has been
taken away because final paym ents w ere not made; there is no money
for food or clothing; they a re two m onths behind in rent; Joe wants
d esp erately to work but cannot find work. He w ishes he w ere a child
38
39
again, but Edna bitterly rem inds him to think about this minute. She
encourages him to strike and w arns that his boss is actually making a
su ck er of him , "the world is supposed to be for all of us. " Joe says
one m an does not m ake a strike, and besides the union is corrupt
enough to shoot a m an for a nickel. Edna says she does not want him
alive, or indeed anyone, who would not fight for a change. She tells
him that his boss is giving the children rickets, making Joe a "jelly
fish, " putting w rinkles in h er face, and throwing h e r into h e r old boy
frien d 's lap. He tells h e r she is talking like a "red, " and she calls
him gutless; she encourages him to organize, to form his own union, to
stand up and fight for children and wives, to fight slavery: "Get b ra s s
toes on your shoes and know w here to kick! " Suddenly, Joe a g ree s; he
leaves to go looking for Lefty.
In the next scene, an industrialist, F ayette, talks to an em ployee
lab assistan t, M iller. M iller is im p ressed with the luxury of the
office. Fayette re fe rs to "pollacks" and "niggers, " and then he sug
gests a possible prom otion and raise for M iller; M iller is to sleep and
eat at the factory while working with his new asso ciate, Dr. B ren n er, a
chem ist. The nature of the w ork is highly s e c re t and concerns national
defense: poison gas for w ar. (M iller rem inds him that he lost his
b ro th er in the last w a r.) Fayette asks for a handw ritten rep o rt once a
week; he is to spy on Dr. B renner. M iller refu ses, despite additional
offers by F ayette, who in tu rn th reaten s to fire him. H owever, M iller
says he would ra th e r dig ditches first; he strik e s Fayette in the mouth.
In Scene Three a young girl, F lorence, is waiting fo r h er fiance,
Sid, to take h e r to a d an ce --th ey have been engaged for th re e y e a rs .
40
H er b ro th er, Irv, w arns h e r to b reak off th e ir engagem ent because her
m o th er objects--Sid is all right as a person but " h e a in 'tg o t nothing. "
Since he cannot m ake a living driving a cab, they will likely be wanting
to move back into the house. F lorence says she m akes a few dollars
h erself, but Irv rem inds h er that this is not the tim e to m a r r y . She
com plains that she w orks h a rd , takes c a re of h e r m o th er, but still
wants rom ance, love, babies, everything out of life she can get; all
Irv talks of is money. However, she finally consents to speak with
Sid. When Sid does a rriv e , he senses that he is not w elcom ed by the
family. He tells F lorie his own brother has just joined the navy and
he him self is tire d of being a dog. F lo rie asks him for a yes or no,
and he says no; h er fam ily needs the few dollars she brings home p er
week, and this life is for dogs, not for th e m --it is difficult trying to be
a m an. She says something wants them lonely and trapped, and he
replies that it is the "big shot money m en"; they have the pow er and
a re afraid of all the dogs. Even a college education does not help
because the card s a re stacked by the wealthy. The "System " is a
"m illionaire with a jazz band" who tells you to join the service to fight
and kill the " b a s ta rd s" who a r e m aking the w orld a lousy place. He
reflects that they have never had a room to sit in. She says she will
go with him anyw here, but he says since they cannot clim b higher,
they had better stay apart; in a y e a r or two she would hate him . He
tells h e r good-bye, but she refu ses to answ er; she buries h e r face in
h e r hands and he buries his face in h e r lap.
Scene F o u r is back in the union hall. F att w arns them about the
violence that can occur when m en strike and oppose th e ir union. He
41
introduces Tom Clayton who has supposedly been through such an
experience in Philadelphia. Clayton w arns them that their union offi
c e r s a re right about th e ir tim ing being poor. An audience voice objects
loudly, and Fatt asks that the boys "take c a re of him. " However, the
angry m an com es up on the stage and challenges Clayton; he calls him
a phony, a company spy, a professional at breaking up all o rg a n iz a
tions. He accu ses him of working for a group that furnishes " r a ts " for
any organization, before, during, or after strikes. Then he identifies
him as his own brother.
In Scene Five the elderly Dr. B arnes talks with a young intern,
Dr. Benjamin; the latter is confused by the fact that he has been
replaced in the operating room at the la st minute by an incompetent,
Dr. Leeds. Dr. B arnes rem inds him that Leeds is the nephew of
Senator Leeds, and doctors do not run the hospitals. Benjam in objects
because it is "class distinction"; m e re ly because the case is charity,
they a re perm itting incom petence. B arn es w arns him that a too r a d i
cal viewpoint could cost him his head, as in G erm any. He tells
Benjam in that the board of tru s te e s has decided to close another
charity w ard because of deficits, and this also m eans a staff cutback.
Benjamin suspects the truth but objects because he is "top Man, " has
worked h a rd e r, shown m o re p ro m ise, and has seniority; he asks if it
is because he is a Jew and B arnes ag ree s. This confuses Benjam in
because th e re a re some Jew s on the board. However, B arnes re m a rk s
that there "doesn't seem to be m uch difference between wealthy Jews
and rich Gentiles. " Benjam in says he does not feel s o rry for him self
but for his parents; they lost their money in the c r a s h and his father
42
now peddles neckties, "a m a n who's read Spinoza all his life. " The
knowledgeable m en do not run the country, says B arnes; the honest
w o rk ers w ere sold out in 1776. "The Constitution's for rich m e n then
and now. " The telephone rings and they le a rn that B enjam in's patient
has died. B arn es tells him to go out and to "fire the firs t shot" for
him. Benjam in confesses that he wanted to go to R ussia and work in
socialized m edicine, but he has decided to stay in A m eric a, maybe
drive a cab, study, work, and le arn his place, but fight for a future
even if it m eans getting killed.
In the final scene, a w orkm an, Agate, angrily d e sc rib e s some of
the d riv e rs as being "ladies" in pants. Someone calls him cockeyed,
and he says he lost his eye at work because of poor safety conditions.
They had union delegates th e re , too, but they w ere fat and corrupt.
He says that his union button has caught fire, out of sham e. Fatt and
the gunmen physically try to silence him , but a group of d riv e rs p r o
tect him. Agate says that if they are " re d s " because they wish to
strik e, then they should adopt the salute (and he gives the Com m unist
salute). He shouts that they a re dying by inches; as Joe said, "Slow
death or fight. It's w a r ! " He calls on Edna, Sid, F lo rie , and Dr.
B arnes to fight with them; he calls for a united working class to te a r
down the slaughter house of old living and let freed o m ring. He
rem inds th e m that those who gave him food, who really helped, called
him C om rade; they should not wait for Lefty because he might never
come. Suddenly, a m a n rush es in with the news that Lefty has been
shot in the head. Agate appeals to A m eric a to listen to him; he shouts
43
that they a re " s to r m - b ir d s " of the working c lass and will die for what
is right. In unison, all shout, " S trik e!"
Illusion^
The illusion of a poor working c la ss struggling for som e h ap p i
ness and security against a "System " which is not only exploiting but
continuing to ignore th e ir plight derives largely fro m Odets' effective
3
exploitation of co n tem p o rary sentim ents, those indigenous to the h i s
to ric a l period of the A m erican n in e te e n -th irtie s, and m o re specifically
those concerns which could best be d escrib e d as econom ic, political,
social, and fam ilial. Sympathetic response was no doubt possible for
m any at the tim e of the original production due to the a ll-p e rv a siv e
economic d ep ressio n which eith er touched m en in fact or in its p o s s i
bilities. Also, contem porary, was a d issatisfactio n among m any with
reg ard to the effectiveness of the national governm ent. However, such
issu es would not apply to c u rre n t conditions with com parable em otional
connotation. As a result, the play rem a in s essen tially of-th e-p erio d
in the sense that the illusion of becom ing an active participant would
depend in g reat m e a s u re upon sym pathies aro u sed in association with
the concerns that p erm e ated the d e p ressio n era: (1) poverty and s u r
vival struggle, (2) dissatisfaction with the status quo and lack of c o n
fidence in cen tral governm ent, (3) distinct c o n tra st between those who
had and those who had not, (4) in-com m on co n cern s about fair o p p o r
tunity, the future, and the outlook for youth and one's children. Con
sequently, w h e re v e r the strong sentim ents e x p re ss e d by the play could
be shared by audience m e m b e rs , som e displacem ent and projection to
c h a ra c te rs and p red icam en t could doubtlessly occur. The conditions,
44
situations and re fe re n c e s contained w ere so topical and co n tro v ersial
that some degree of im agination and analogizing m ight be aroused
within audiences of the p e rio d --th e ir "native tools of fantasy and re a l-
4
ity. " The g en eral appeal seem s to re s t upon the play's acknowledge
m ent of the e r a and the expression of some p articu la r se n tim e n ts--
p s y c h o -h is to ric - -with Odets assum ing the role as spokesm an for the
pro letaria t. However, w henever such strong convictions do exist,
when sentim ents a re e x p re sse d so fervently by an author, and when an
opposing viewpoint is not presented with som e strength, the possibility
of disturbing the degree of illusion occurs. M essages or appeals m ust
not (1) overpow er c h a ra c te r or story, and (Z) an audience's se n ti
m e n ts, sym pathies, or sensibilities m ust not be offended--a likely
possibility should an au th o r's e x p re sse d intent have as its motive
something in addition to entertainm ent. A ccordingto the d ra m a critics
of the tim e, Odets was dealing with some cu rre n t issues; he was
exploring them from a personal point of view; the resu lt was a vig
orous, propagandistic, indictment of the "System " and status quo
which was capable of arousing excitem ent and em otional response
within many. ^
A m o re encom passing generalization would be difficult because
of the disparity of evaluations found among the c ritic s . No in-com m on
form ula for c ritic ism obviously prevailed. F o r exam ple, Stark Young
believed the play re m a rk a b ly graphic and moving; it had "n earn ess and
v ern ac u lar"; o v e r-a ll the
. . . tone . . . is essentially gay . . . yet the conviction
of grave reality is strong. Creation of c h a ra c te r [ realistic]
. . . is in itself so full of satisfaction . . . that it ris e s above
45
m e re dep ressio n . . . the p ro g re s s of a zest for life combined
with a fighting sp irit . . . arousing, prophetic or passionate,
not grim . ®
(Young felt the acto rs needed "m ore distance" from what they felt or
w ere coached to feel about their roles. ) Euphem ia Wyatt stated out
right that Odets used the d ra m a for propaganda, and that he was a
Communist:
. . . It was a little difficult to become em otional over the
discrim ination against his race in A m erica. T here a re too m any
good acto rs without parts; too m any respected and successful
Jew ish physicians; too many of us all who would be glad to take
m o re taxis if we could afford them , to make Lefty's strike m e e t
ing c a r r y conviction. . . . If M r. Odets finds so m uch the m a tte r
. . . a year or so in R ussia might be very enlightening. ^
(Miss Wyatt actually says nothing about the play. ) Grenville Vernon
felt the language of the play was powerful; the scenes w ere exciting and
life-like despite "the overdose of com m unistic propaganda";
. . . but the scenes between depicting the evils of capitalistic
civilization, of what happens in the homes of w o rk e rs, in the
hospitals . . . a re stereotyped bits of com m unistic hokum, and
not p articu la rly good hokum. M r. Odets hasn 't taken the trouble
to saturate him self with the spirit which m ight have inform ed his
figures; he has simply taken age-old puppets and situation, given
them a revolutionary tw ist, and let them go at that. That this
isn't enough for a serious d ra m a tist goes without saying; it isn't
enough even for effective propaganda. . . . [the c h a ra c te rs ] are
not A m eric an or for the average A m erican . . . but . . . they
have e a rn e stn e s s . . . perhaps hate and envy ra th e r than love
are their basic passions, but at least they a re not trivial. They
are c o a rse in language and crude in action, but they a re alive.®
Joseph Wood K rutch felt the play was union propaganda and was out of
place except in a union hall,
. . . for the sim ple reason that its appeal to action is too
d irect not to seem alm ost absurd when ad d ressed to an audience
m ost of whose m e m b e rs are not, after all, actually faced with
the p roblem which is put up to them in so com pletely concrete
a fo rm . . . [ yet m o re could be said for it than] m o st plays
whose avowed intention is to prom ote the class w ar. 9
46
Finally, Edith Isaacs d escribed the play as having
. . . no c le a r outline or point of view except a g en era l one
of sympathy with the poor and the oppressed and of relief by
"actions. " The w riting is sensitive but muddy, the thinking
superficial and sentim ental . . . no re a l w orth as d ram a .
These c ritic is m s w ere included so that the re a d e r could becom e aw are
of the diversity of critic a l judgm ent, the absence of a un iv ersal basis
for th e ir c ritic ism , and in turn could m ake com parison with the p o s
sibilities em erging as a resu lt of applying the psychoanalytic c rite rio n
to the play. (For this w rite r, the published c ritic ism s w ere of in terest
but w ere not helpful in prom oting gainful generalizations and
co n c lu sio n s.)
Odets used basically a m uckraking approach tow ard exposition of
his problem . In his zeal to p ro test, expose, and aro u se, he overstated
certain sentim ents in the w r ite r 's opinion: e. g. , total corruption,
benevolent C om m unism , and bigotry. When an author d ire c ts special
attention to a bias, which in turn becom es a viewpoint p resented as the
single worthy one, re g a rd le s s of its m e rit, audience intelligence, if
not personal sentim ent, tends to be aro u sed in opposition. Should the
audience participation becom e predom inantly intellectual and the
ex p ressed sentim ents too personal, then both illusion and proper
psychic distance becom e disturbed because em otional involvement has
been altered as a result. Audience m e m b e rs becom e unwilling to s u s
pend th e ir disbelief because that which is p resen te d lacks objective
reality, validity, and the opportunity for a sense of secu rity that is
n e c e s s a ry in o rd e r to sustain the p ro p er degree of vicarious p a r tic i
pation. Waiting for Lefty actually failed to overcom e its purpose, in
the w r ite r 's opinion--i. e. , its motif, its call to a r m s , and seem ed to
47
re p re s e n t m o re of a bandwagon appeal for p ro test and an agitation for
change. In this sense, Odets handicapped his u n iv e rsal entertainm ent
potential by his overuse of propaganda and his overzealous partisan
sentiment. F o r an audience of to d ay --ev en for m any during the
n in eteen-thirties - -it would likely be regarded as m e re ly an angry p r o
te st and polity endorsem ent, a tour de fo rc e .
Identification-em pathy. ^ The c h a ra c te rs w ere sim ply co n
structed, the good opposing the bad, sympathetic struggling with non-
sym pathetic. Basically, they rep resen ted sin g le -tra it c h a ra c te rs . As
a result, the play was m e lo d ram a tic. C h a ra c te rs did not re p re s e n t
sufficiently the feared or unfulfilled aspects of the "collective" audi
ence self. Where c h a ra c te rs m ight have offered opportunity for depth
of participation, th e ir m otives and the situation conflict failed to p r o
vide sustaining strength because th e ir struggles w ere depicted from
only one point of view; also, th e ir situations w ere som ew hat unique.
Odets' em phases upon special m e ssa g e worked at odds with the p o s
sibility for strength of u n iv e rsa l and tim e le s s appeals. Audience s y m
pathies for the c h a r a c te r s ' struggles w ere not sought for so much
through th e ir personal conflicts as they w ere through the presentation
of c irc u m stan c es which surrounded the underdog and thw arted him in
his efforts to gain acceptance, to earn his "honest buck, " and to be
an individual. To re ite ra te , the collective audience ego will not relax
and fully participate if an experience in both opposing fo rces of the
conflict is denied them; if one cannot identify with the bad in a c h a r a c
t e r , as well as with the good, neither the c h a ra c te r nor his conflict
a r e convincingly plausible nor do they p o sse ss psychological validity.
48
The truly worthy c h a ra c te r example for identification-em pathy m ust
provide a depth of significance that stem s fro m a degree of personal
relevance which is sensed (consciously or unconsciously) by the au d i
ence. The significance and magnitude of c h a ra c te r predicam ent within
Waiting for Lefty seem ed lim ited to surface concerns of the s to ry --th e
c irc u m stan c es - -and consequently both depended largely upon the degree
of accord one could experience with the endorsed sentim ents set forth
by Odets. As w ritten, th e re fo re, the play presented little or no p o s s i
bility for sustained participation with a single ch a ra c te r. Instead, each
ch a ra c te r seem ed intended to re p re se n t a single aspect of an o v e r-a ll
Odets' projected sentim ent: the agents or spokesm en for im passioned
social com m entary.
F o r those audience m e m b e rs whose sentim ents w ere in full
accord, the c h a ra c te rs likely invoked some strength of em otional
response, re-a ffirm e d convictions, and ex p ressed a significant con
flict. The play cle a rly e x p re s s e d some topical concerns about which
many felt strongly; n e v e rth e le ss, the overem phasis upon m e ssag e
would work at odds with u n iv e rsal appeals and audience analogizing,
thus limiting potential in illusion.
H u b ris. In mood, the play might seem to be hubris in ty p e --
violation, tra n sg re s sio n , violence, passion, re c k le s sn e ss , d is re g a rd
for re s tra in t, the presen ce of ex tre m e choices, inflexibility, lack of
com prom ise and a disdain of the sensible. This tone was established
at the opening of the play. C h a ra c te rs often succum bed to intem perate
im pulses with an ease that could aro u se some uneasiness and a p p r e
hension. Lacking, how ever, w ere the tensions one could associate
with d e s ire s and th e ir defenses, the com plexity derived from the
devious ways in which im pulses seek satisfaction, the fe a r over r e b e l
lion, plus sustained in terest and pity over its consequences. Anxiety
would possibly have been g re a te r and m o re sustained if the situations
had not been so obviously presented as m e re ly a s e rie s of dynamic
exam ples for purposes of conveying a m e ssag e. Joe was the one
c h a ra c te r who was presen t in some strength throughout and who could
provide a limited degree of unity to the episodes. One could fear with
him in his serious act of rebelling against the authority of an e s ta b
lished union, the "System, " because he did m anifest som e d e s ire s and
defenses. In this sense he seem ed the m o st convincingly developed in
te rm s of any hubris ap p ea l--v iz. , his struggles surrounding im pulse
and inhibition. M issing within the action, how ever, was an opportunity
to experience pity for his suffering, the consequences of his rebellion
(Odets apparently expected his audience to endorse rebellion). Some
suffering was suggested by the L ab -A ssistan t and Intern episodes, but
these c h a ra c te rs w ere not w ritten as convincingly; i. e. , they did not
have the extent of internal conflict, contradiction and struggle, that
was p resent within Joe.
Interestingly, at no tim e did Odets s e e m to distinguish sharply
between the c h ara cterizatio n s of Lefty and Joe, so that psychologically
they could m e rg e in the audience mind as synonymous energies and
e ffo rts--o n e "split" c h a ra c te r. Consequently, the death of Lefty
could serv e (on an unconscious level) as a pitiful consequence of the
re b e llio n --a type of m a rty rd o m --a n d induce an affective im pact
through participation in the rebellion-punishm ent w ishes that had been
50
associated with Joe. F o r exam ple, it could have been sincere and
w ell-m eaning Joe instead of Lefty; the audience "I" could have becom e
identified with Joe; consequently, the audience reaction would be one
of, "It could have been I who was so ru th lessly and u n n ece ssarily
destroyed. "
1 3
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
Though anxiety m ay be established at the outset through such
tensions as a growing sense of desperation, anger, h atre d , and the
threshold of violence, its control did not always seem adequate
throughout the play. Odets' overcathected subject m a te ria l had a
broad range within the play: (1) a fam ilial c r is is between husband and
wife that threatened destruction of home and family, (2) the valiant
struggles of individual integrity opposed to unprincipled industry p r o
ducing poisoned gas for w ar, (3) the d esp erate and fru stratin g plight of
sin cere lovers for som e p erm anency within the future, (4) brother
turned against b ro th er, the breakdown of tr u s t and faith, and the f o r
feiting of one's principles in o rd e r to go along with the "System, "
(5) anti-S em itism and corruption in politics and pro fessio n alism , and
(6) the prevailing need fo r revolution or com plete change. The s tr u g
gles disclosed a few heroic qualities within the c h a ra c te rs and involved
som e d e sire s against which the d e p re ss io n -m a n did s tru g g le --e sc a p e ,
re g re ssio n , irresp o n sib ility , m o ra l co m p ro m ise, and so on--and
events w ere a ll-s e rio u s and altern ativ es ex tre m e, but m ost c h a ra c te rs
w ere not troubled with the types of d e s ire s against which m an usually
struggles. Even with the vicissitudes of the d ep ressio n e ra , c h a ra c te r
51
struggles still seem ed to surround unique situations whose intended
purpose was to reinforce specific sentim ents. A ssum ing that the
predicam ents w ere able to arouse some audience anxiety, Odets did
not seem to m aintain and control successfully its intensity because he
rejected all existing internal and external controls even to the extent
of advocating th e ir com plete abolishment; e. g. , em phasis was placed
upon (1) revolt and rebellion, (2) im m inent violence, (3) prevailing
m is tr u s t and the breakdown of m utual faith, (4) the deliverance by
Com m unism , and (5) pervasive internal corruption due to insidious
bigotry. Such p ersisten t em phases could very easily disturb anxiety
perception for m any by becoming too frightening in prospect, too p a r
tisan in position, or too personal in expression. Efforts seem ed to be
p resen t on the part of Odets to incite open acknowledgement, and by so
doing he threatened the sense of audience detachm ent and security
which is n e c e ss a ry for sustained entertainm ent. In addition, the
physical factor of separating audience fro m stage was broken down by
the deliberate placem ent of acto rs within the audience.
O bjectification. That which was objectified was little m o re than
an indictm ent against selective co n tem p o rary social conditions, from
labor bosses to large industry, fro m office politics to cen tral g o v e rn
m ent, fro m com m on labor to science and p rofessionalism . M an's
d e s ire s , fe a rs , and inner conflicts w ere secondary and not the cen tral
issue; ra th e r, the concern was c u rre n t social conditions. Such m ay
have had som e d ram atic and th e atric al value in potential, butthe w rite r
suggests that the strength of its im pact would be dependent upon the
extent to which the audience derived personal relevance, could have a
52
whole and participating experience from which possibilities or im p li
cations e m e rg e d --th e expose v ersu s the inspirational; the la tte r m oti-
vates an action to effect some change. Due to the nature of the p ro b
lem s which w ere objectified (intended for significance), and the
approach used to explore the conflict, control of anxiety perception
becam e predicated p rim a rily upon ag reem en t with Odets for a c o m
plete social change. His technique of development was somewhat
cinem atic in that he employed flashbacks and blackouts, with a final
re tu rn to his opening setting and scene. However, (1) by not providing
sufficient binding devices for the basic anxiety objectified, (2) by w r it
ing from such a propagandistic viewpoint, (3) by dealing in controversy
and e x tre m e s , and (4) by failing to provide a convincing e v e r-p re s e n t
cen tral c h a ra c te r with whom one could identify and em pathize in some
depth, proper psychic distance seem s questionable even for the tim es,
as well as the extent to which vicarious participation would perm it an
audience to work through and derive knowledge from any anxiety
perception.
F o c u s . With reg ard to focus, Odets seem ed to employ careful
a rran g em en t and development of story essen tials. His efforts appeared
to be m o re convincing with re g a rd to the establishm ent of causal fa c
to rs as opposed to his ability for establishing a sense of in te rre la tio n
ships. He directed audience attention to his idea by the use of concise
episodes, each building in intensity throughout and following one
another as exam ples; each was w ritten sententiously and ended on a
note of heightened effect and thoughtful challenge. F o r exam ple, the
opening scene concluded with Joe expressing strong conviction and
53
determ ination despite the allusions to violence by the union boss;
Scene One closed as Joe, convinced by Edna, left h u rried ly to confer
with Lefty--blackout and re tu rn to the union hall; Scene Two ended as
M iller actually s tru ck the industrial m an ag er who proposed that he spy
on Dr. B re n n e r's p ro g re ss; Scene T hree concluded as the young cab
d riv e r and his lover collapsed in d esp air, unable to see for them selves
any happiness or security in the future; Scene F our closed w h en b ro th er
denounced b rother and one exposed the other as a union spy; Scene Five
ended as Dr. Benjamin decided not to go to R ussia but to stay and to
fight; the final scene retu rn ed to the union hall with Agate attacking the
working conditions, and it closed with the announcement that Lefty had
been m u rd e re d . Odets attem pted to build tension and sympathy with
ev ery scene and to reinforce by the use of each his them e of c o rru p
tion and oppression. (However, overstatem ent of h is motif appeared
to work against universal entertainm ent values. ) He seem ed s u c c e s s
ful in eliminating n o n -essen tia ls for the m ost part, and in stressin g
the relevant in o rd e r to m ake his point. Diction was not only selective,
but also provocative in im age and m etaphor. C h arac ters used the
v ern acu lar one would expect; their prose was believable, yet rem ained
figurative. The m ost vivid im ages w ere actually within the dialogue
and not presented. With such words as yellow and r e d , crooked sp in e s ,
sick b ones, r ic k e ts , c u tth ro a ts , N ig g er, Wop, Jew , 1935 b lu e s, co ck
ro a c h , blood and death, and slaughter house Odets dredged up im ages
that could touch both the conscious and unconscious and keep the im a g
ination activated. The w riting style seem ed com pact and purposeful;
a c le a r beginning and conclusion was established, but the sense of a
54
"m iddle" was absent because no single p redicam ent was explored fro m
its inception to its conclusion or its resolve; no single conflict unified
the total action. The episodic flash back technique, and the lack of a
single developm ental p erso n al conflict altered the sense of a coherent
and developm ental experience. Though Odets was successful in te le
scoping tim e and omitting much of life's confusions, he failed to sug-
g estany pattern that underlies the human experience, or the in t r a
psychic conflicts that affect the co u rse of one's life. F orceful diction,
adherence to the essen tials of an idea, the p resence of strong e m o
tional appeals, and strength in closing and beginning his scenes anew
seem ed to sustain m o re emotion and in te re st than degree of illusion
or the perception of a specified anxiety.
Psychic Rew ards
In te rm s of psychic rew ards (those rew ard s which are dependent
upon involvement without aw aren ess), they did not appear to be strong
in te rm s of com pensating the average m an for the inadequacies and
deprivations of his daily experience. Though Odets probed som e
conflicts and m a y even have dignified c e rta in im pulses, a foundation of
possible u n iv e rsal response was lacking in sufficient strength to p r o
vide for strength of psychic rew ard s. Lacking w ere the convincing
resu lts of hum an e r r o r , the consequences one would hope to avoid or
avert, and certain happenings as_ consequences. E m phasis was not
sufficient with resp ect to exploration of hum an instincts, those that
would provide par suite depth in psychic rew ards. The ego m a y seem
to be rew arded in the sense that the hubris instincts w ere often s p e c i
fied, disclosed, and even sym bolically gratified; how ever, Odets'
55
tre a tm e n t in the last scene failed to p re se n t these instincts as b e c o m
ing finally and ultim ately receptive to control. In te r m s of the id and
superego struggles, ego strength would ap p ea r ultim ately to have been
o v erp o w ered --to fail in its task of in teg ratio n --b y the violent fo rces
of the id and the retributive superego forces; w h ereas the final d esired
effect should be an opposite one, a sense or an a w a re n e ss of internal
control. The audience ego, which is threatened by dam m ed up in stin c
tual dem ands, through the p ro cess of vicarious participation should be
able to discharge som e of its energy and thus m ake it possible for the
application of new controls; as a consequence the ego is then felt to
have gained some strength.
14
A m bivalence. With resp ect to am bivalence, neither the
m a jo rity of the c h a ra c te rs nor the problem -conflict w ere presented
with a convincing struggle from different points of view: demands
w ere not balanced; claim s and co unterclaim s w ere not in harm ony.
Essentially, the single view which predom inated and controlled thro u g h
out could so re s tric t audience participation that it would not have the
opportunity to fluctuate as it would norm ally in reality. The poised and
sustained am bivalence so c h a ra c te ristic of any hum an p redicam ent was
lacking because conditions in opposition w ere not adequately explored.
Consequently, plausibility and psychological validity w ere often not
convincing. Odets failed to provide sufficient participation in those
struggles of life which rela te to hum an values that a r e tim e le s s and
e v e r-p re s e n t.
56
Confrontation. Confrontation existed somewhat within c h a r a c
te r s like Edna, M iller, Sid, Benjam in, and Agate. Each confronted
openly the problem s that m any audiences no doubt sought to avoid or
suppress; each acknowledged his vulnerability, suffering, the prospect
of destruction, and for the m o st p art appealed to naught except for the
action of change. Yet, not one of these c h a ra c te rs was m ade to con
front his own defects or m istakes; and so the im m inence of the c o n s e
quences of his confrontation, and the quality of its justice was d im in
ished, if not com pletely absent. The ego was exalted on the one hand
as these c h a ra c te rs moved to act despite any reserv atio n , but a full
rew ard was absent because e a r l ie r within the action Odets did not p r o
vide these c h a ra c te rs with a convincing inner conflict (e. g. , a struggle
between the id and superego). Confrontation was th e re fo re developed
principally in only one aspect: its exploration served not so much to
provide the audience with an identity through whom it could experience
ego rew ard, as it did to rev ea l to the audience that a c ro s s section of
the disenchanted had reach ed the point of a revolution for change.
Odets m ay have exalted the ego as the c h a ra c te rs openly and strongly
acknowledged the problem s explored, but he weakened the strength of
a confrontation rew ard by (1) attem pting to d irect sym pathies and s e n
tim ents so prom inently, (2) by openly endorsing certain black and
white issu es of c o n te m p o ra ry significance, and (3) concluding with
action which lacked both control and re s tra in t. U ltim ately, the ego
was not seen as successful in its attem pts to p e rs e v e re at integration;
in the final m o m en ts it did not m aintain its authority. As a result,
energy actually rem ain ed d irec ted outwardly upon the world and not
57
toward any psychic effort that could provide c h a ra c te r self-rev elatio n
or truth in a n y d e p th --e rg o , audience psychic rew ard via identification
and vicarious participation.
1 5
C atharsis. F ro m the point of view of c a th a rs is , had Lefty not
been killed, th e re would seem to exist little or no opportunity for a
satisfaction within the audience of succumbing to d e s ire s or instincts
and experiencing punishment for having done so; i. e. , for c a th a rs is ,
one needs to experience vicarious satisfaction from a c h a r a c te r 's
d e s ire s and an aw aren ess of the punishment as a result. Odets effec
tively provided pleasure from the discharge of emotions, but not their
control. In te r m s of the basic c a th a rsis req u ire m en ts, he failed to
guarantee his audience safety and freedom from personal guilt--
indeed, at tim es he appeared to solicit its presence. C ath arsis poten
tial was also weak in the sense that perception of future consequences
was vague beyond a probable labor strike and the violence that might
accom pany it. Likewise, sustained gratification from a p articu la r
identification was not possible as the play was structured into ep i
sodes. However, the death of Leftycould possibly serv e m o m en tarily
as a reinforcem ent of any previously aroused sym pathies-identifica-
tion-em pathy (strengthened in addition with the possible psychological
m erging of the c h a ra c te rs of Lefty and Joe). With the im pact of the
announced m u rd e r, combined with Odets' power with affective appeals
in diction--"H ello A m e ric a . . . W e're Storm birds of the Working
Class . . . W orkers of the World . . . Our Bones and Blood . . .
When We Die . . . We Did It to Make a New World . . . W e'll Die for
58
What Is Right . . . S trik e !" The final m om ents of the play could be
intense for m any (if not anxiety provoking, which m ay have been the
intent of the playwright). W hereas participation m ay have been p r e
dominantly intellectual or cognitive up to this point, the possibility
exists that with the unexpected announcem ent of Lefty's m u rd e r, the
audience sym pathies could re v e rt to intense sym pathies m o m en tarily
(because of som e identification and the bru tal im plications) and be
som ew hat sustained by the intensity of the effect which Odets provided
through his final d ram atic action, his affective diction and appeals. It
was Lefty's announced death that m ade possible any p ity-fear reaction,
a n y c a th a rs is response w h atso ev er--th o se d e s ire s yielded to and whose
gratification brought about suffering and an eventual downfall.
Conclusion
Waiting for Lefty is predom inantly a propaganda statem ent with
sentim ental and p artisan appeals whose intent is to provoke strong
feelings of fe a r and hatred, hence a type of m e lo d ram a . The play is
sociological, and its indictm ent of the status quo advocates social
change through action, how ever strong. Since the sto ry and them e a re
dated because of th e ir dependence upon the topical and contem porary
social co n cern s, it becom es s o c io -h is to ric , and it becom es psycho-
h istoric because of the effect that social conditions had upon the c h a
r a c t e r s ' inner struggles and conflicts. Though the plot m ay have som e
anxiety potential because of its hubris q u a litie s --re s is ta n c e , rebellion,
v iolence--in te rm s of entertainm ent, the lack of am bivalence and
m uckraking style m ay easily fail to bind the anxiety objectified, and in
59
addition lim it illusion potential of the play. Odets took a "hyper-
cathetic" approach tow ard exposition of his situation-conflict: it is a
problem play with certain aspects of the problem p resented in obvious
intensity; consequently, the sense of re a lis m and psychological validity
a re inconsistent. Likewise, the episodic technique of stru ctu rin g the
action, and the absence of a single c h a ra c te r who m ight serve as an
agent for sustained and in c re ased sym pathies-identification-em pathy
lim its the degree of possible audience vicarious participation and
involvement. Both illusion and anxiety perception are inhibited by the
lack of re s tra in t and controls within the action and what seem s to be a
too p erso n al exp ressio n by Odets. The play contained som e e n te rta in
m ent potential at the tim e, how ever, for the very reason that it
objectified som e contem porary and c o n tro v e rsial c o n c e rn s - - re g a rd le ss
of its point of view --and thus offered an opportunity for som e discharge
of audience em otions in this reg ard . In addition, its entertainm ent
possibilities w ere likely enhanced because of its innovative realistic
staging and style, along with its seem ing acknowledgement and co n
frontation of issu es considered unusual for both d ram a tic and th e atric al
presentation--unique featu res of the play. Even had the play been less
topical, how ever, less encum bered by sentim ent and propaganda, its
entertainm ent potential would n ev erth eless rem a in lim ited in degree
because Odets failed to deal sufficiently with underlying universals; the
conflicts a r e not p erso n al and tim e le s s to the extent that an audience
could derive satisfaction from working through som e anxiety com pletely,
at least having it specified and defined; self-rev elatio n in any depth is
not a final result. E nergies re m a in directed outwardly tow ard the
60
world at large. Finally, Odets' playwriting skill, with respect to the
potential within the play for providing effective entertainm ent, seem s
m ost evident with re g a rd to his (1) m anagem ent of focus, his a w a r e
n ess and arra n g e m e n t of the pertinent essen tials of the idea he wished
to convey; (2) his ability to objectify and to exploit a prevailing social
anxiety; (3) his ability to c rea te tensions through em otional or se n ti
m ental appeal and the use of the unexpected; and (4) his diction, which
both suits the c h a ra c te r and yet is poetic in the sense of strong im ag
ery and affective connotation.
Till the Day I Die
Plot Sum m ary
Till the Day I Die ^ opens in a sm all underground room in
B erlin (1935) w here th ree m en and a g irl a re in the p ro c e ss of p r o
ducing com m unistic, anti-N azi leaflets. There is a sense of urgency
and im m inent discovery. D istru st and suspicion have even affected the
w orkers; one party m e m b e r e x p re s s e s doubt about the loyalty of
another who is absent, Z eltner. (This m otif in c re a s e s in intensity as
the play p r o g r e s s e s .) The P a rty m e m b e rs speak longingly of the past,
of the stable life with its satisfactions fro m such sim ple p le asu re s as
gardening and m u s ic --th e m ain c h a ra c te r, E rn st, was fo rm e rly a vio
linist. The spreading of F a s c is m and this group's loyalty to C o m m u
n ism have forced them to go underground and becom e revolutionaries.
The lovers, E rn s t and Tilly, are unable to m a r r y and have a fam ily
because of the furtive existence they have been forced to adopt. As
they speak of a potentially happy world under C om m unism , the Gestapo
61
in terrupts with a knock at the door. E rn st decides that Tilly should
pose as a prostitute. Scene Two opens in the Nazi "Brown H ouse" of
interrogation. E rn st has been taken p ris o n e r--T illy was re le a se d as
m e re ly a prostitute. D iso rd er, confusion, inefficiency, stupidity, and
brutality c h a ra c te riz e the Nazi ranks. Zeltner ap p ears as the
in fo rm er to identify E rn s t and his w o rk --N az is have infiltrated C o m
m unist ranks and the C om m unists th e irs. Captain Schlegel, learning
of E r n s t's love for the violin, sm ash es his fingers with a rifle butt in
o rd e r to make him inform ; E rn s t is saved from fu rth e r to rtu re , how
ever, because a M ajor Duhring has sent o rd e rs to save E rn s t for
in-depth questioning. (There a re m any referen c es to an ti-S em itism . )
The scene closes as Captain Schlegel is revealed as a hom osexual.
In Scene T hree, a b a rra c k s room in the Brown House, the p riso n e rs
are lined up against one wall, while the Nazi tro o p e rs argue and play
c ard s. E x trem e brutality and sad ism a re e x p re sse d as the tro o p e rs
kick, spit, insult, and strike the v ery old and young m en alike. E rn s t
is brought in with o rd e rs to be tre a te d with care. Bets a re m ade as to
which tro o p er can knock a m an out with a single blow; only E rn st is
able to withstand two blows. The closing speech is a quotation fro m
Goebbels to the effect that heads of prom inent Jews are to be d is
played publicly. S ceneF our (still in the Brown House) discloses
another interrogation room; M ajor Duhring, the m a s te r inquisitor, is
interrogating E rn st. E rn s t recognizes him as a fo rm e r C om m unist,
and Duhring confides that he is still loyal to th e ir cause. He w arns
E rn st that the Nazis will b reak his sp irit by devious m eans and advises
suicide. E rn st is to be rele ased , but if this does not rev ea l the
inform ation sought for, he will again be a rre s te d . Schlegel in te rru p ts
and in anger reveals that Duhring is actually a Jew; Duhring shoots
him and then tells E rn s t that he feels totally corrupted. The scene
closes as he calls for a united front and then shoots him self. Scene
Five changes to T illy's apartm ent. E rn st has com e to h e r fro m the
Brown House after a stay of tw enty-three days. His hand is still h u r t
ing, and he is unable to rem ove his shirt from his "raw " back. Tilly
tells him she is to have his child. They both concur that th e ir w ork is
m o re im portant than personal happiness. They a r e in terrupted by a
party m e m b e r whom E rn s t is ce rta in has been spotted; the scene
closes as the Nazis interrupt, and Tilly again poses as a prostitute.
In Scene Six, the "C om rades Scene, " a dozen m e m b e rs a re seated in a
locked room discussing E rnst; he is to be blacklisted. Carl, E rn s t's
b ro th er, rem in isces about their childhood but concludes that the s itu a
tion now m eans b ro th e r against b ro th er--n o th in g is so im portant as the
working class. They all vote against E rn s t, including Tilly. The final
scene takes place in C a rl's room. C arl is convinced that E rn st has
inform ed. E rn st, who has again been released , in terru p ts the c o n v e r
sation between C arl and Tilly. He is now a broken m an, and his hand
has been amputated. At firs t C arl refuses to listen as E rn st tells them
of the cru elties and to rtu re he has endured. He has brought a gun
because he has lost confidence in his strength for further endurance;
he urg es C arl to kill him. C arl refu ses, but suggests that if he will do
it him self, the world will then know he is innocent. The play closes as
E rn s t walks into the next room and shoots him self.
63
Illusion
Illusion was p rim a rily concerned with the struggles and m i s f o r
tunes of a few dedicated underground Com m unist party w o rk ers who
placed all else secondary to th e ir efforts of opposing N azism and
F a s c is m , and to th e ir propagation of the Com m unist doctrines. The
em otional appeal was not unlike that to be found in Waiting for Lefty:
the exploitation of certain sentim ents such as the forgotten proletariat,
the evils and oppressions of F a s c is m and N azism , the benevolence of
and the salvation through Com m unism , and an ti-S em itism . The tech-
1 7
nique was also sim ilar; i. e. , the use of cinem atic episodes. The
illusion, th e re fo re, becam e one of a sm all group of young people who
e x p re ss e d com plete devotion to party service and cause, while their
c irc u m stan c es becam e increasingly oppressive.
No allusion was made to any im m ediate goal other than ardent
service for the good of the p ro letaria t, the benefits to be derived
som etim e in the distant future. Like Waiting for Lefty, full p a rtic ip a
tion in the illusion would n ecessitate acceptance and accord with the
sentim ents so fervently set forth by Odets. He made it difficult for one
to becom e vicariously involved with his c h a ra c te rs , th e ir problem , and
the situation-conflict because of his use of overstatem ent: e. g. , p a r
tisan re fe re n c e s, especially p ro -C o m m u n ism and anti-N azism , and
Semitic re fe re n c e s. C ontem porary audiences w ere m o st likely in
strong sym pathy with the la tter sentim ents, but the benefits of C o m
m u n ism would p o s se ss lim ited appeal. R eg ard less, the play appeared
to be another propaganda statem ent by Odets, and it seem s unlikely that
an audience could vicariously participate to the extent that it would
64
forget itself and its presen ce due to his insistence upon projecting his
cause celbbre: salvation through C om m unism for the o p p ressed w o rk
ing cla ss. Also, the o v erstatem ent and biased em phases work at odds
with those factor s of audience im agination and analogizing which account
fo r a full entertainm ent experience; i. e. , the subtleties becam e o v e r
powered by the m e s s a g e s , and audience response would likely rem ain
predom inantly confined to an intellectual or cognitive reaction, as
opposed to em otional involvement.
Identification-em pathy. F o r the sam e d o ctrin aire reaso n s,
strong and sustained participation with c h a ra c te rs was re stric te d ; and
strength in identification-em pathy would require sym pathies in accord
with those stre s s e d . Even for th eatre audiences of the tim e, it would
be difficult to be sym pathetic and derive em pathy fro m a problem and
a situation-conflict so far rem oved fro m p erso n al experience and with
such a lim ited degree of un iv ersal relevance. If one did not accept the
18
philosophy of C om m unism , he probably would not like the play.
When m en forego th e ir quest for a hom e, th e ir d esired com forts and
p le a s u re s--e v e n love and m a r r i a g e - - th e ir rationale m u st be accepted
by an audience as fully justified according to the c irc u m sta n c e s; it
m ust a ro u se a degree of corresponding sym pathies, and re p re se n t
d e sire s that an audience understands and would typically asso ciate with
struggle; the situation-conflict m ust e x p re ss a w ish having universality.
Such possibilities as m o m e n ta ry im prisonm ent, d is a s te r, destruction
and to rtu re require a secure foundation of u n iv e rsa ls, something a
little m o re substantial than happy faces seen on the children in Mos-
19
cow. F u rth e r, Odets failed to provide a convincing degree of bad in
65
his good c h a ra c te rs . "The Naeis a re all either h y ste ric a l, degenerate,
brutal o r stupid; the C om m unists idealistic h ero es, The C om m u
nists w ere u b e r-m e n sc h e n in the sense that no frailty, doubt, or w eak
n ess w hatsoever was perm itted. (The very possibility of weakness
brought E rn st to his b ro th er C arl with the request that he kill him;
C arl never faltered, nor did Tilly actually falter in th e ir fe rv o r for
party devotion. She professed faith in E rn st, whom she loved, but both
she and C arl voted to blacklist E rnst.) M ore am bivalent feelings actu
ally existed within the Nazi ranks than among those Odets presented as
his heroes: e. g. , M ajor Duhring and the O rd erlie s in Scene Four. The
collective audience ego will not relax if the struggles of the c h a ra c te rs
fail to arouse com passion, a re not fully believable nor understandable.
N either in ch ara cterizatio n nor predicam ent did Odets seem to provide
for sufficient enrichm ent of the story through audience fantasy, the
em bellishm ent that can derive from analogizing.
H u b ris. The situation-conflict was a hubris type: the violation
and tra n s g re s s io n of the prevailing "System " or the "Establishm ent. "
Tensions would likely be derived by Odets' creation of suspense and
im m inent danger ea rly within the play. N ev erth eless, tensions a s s o
ciated with d e s ire s and th e ir defenses, or the com plexity arisin g from
im pulses striving to gain satisfaction could only be sustained if one's
sentim ents w ere as intense and w ere at least som ew hat compatible with
those espoused by Odets. Audiences of the n in e teen -th irties w ere
fa m ilia r with the growing p re se n c e of dictatorship m o v em en ts, but
th e ir experiences w ere still lim ited (and even m o re so with reg ard to
Com m unism ). Yet, it was basically this is s u e - - c h a r a c te r s who
66
m a rty re d th em selves for the cause of C o m m u n ism --th a t Odets p r e
sented for the predicam ent, for audience projection and displacem ent.
T h ere fo re , the problem which Odets presented, the situation-conflict
involving his c h a ra c te rs , was actually enclosed within a ra th e r n arro w
m a trix of propaganda.
One could say that Odets was successful in presenting a rebellion
against an authority, and its punishment as the outcome; and by so
doing he satisfied two psychic w ishes to som e d e g re e --to rebel and to
be punished for doing so; indeed th e ir p resence provided the play with
some hubris quality and tension. An audience is not taught (didacti
cism ), how ever, unless it can participate in w ishes (at least uncon
sciously) which it has strongly re stra in e d (re p re ss e d or suppressed),
in struggles between im pulse and inhibition that have relevance and
significance, with d e s ire s and their guilt, and thereby being able to
purge them. In effect, Odets lim ited his illusion potential by his lack
of re stra in t with resp ect to sentim ental and d octrinaire em phases.
The one strength in illusion would seem to be his creation of some
early hubris tension through suspense. One critic, how ever, consid
ered the play far ahead of anything else Odets had done ! (The play
was actually w ritten after Awake and Sing but was usually presented in
conjunction with Waiting for Lefty. ) F u rth e rm o re (and still according
to the aforem entioned critic), the play escaped com parison; it had
22
effective ch ara cterizatio n and deepening situation. Yet, the m ajority
of critics found little of favor to say for the play: e . g . , it lacked
reality, the c h a ra c te rs w ere "wax, " and it was ju st old-fashioned
23
m elodram a. In general, the c ritic s seem ed to feel that the play
67
used stock c h a ra c te rs , w as m e lo d ram a tic, lacked convincing develop
m ent, and that the author was fo rev er present endorsing some c a u s e d
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
A s re g a rd s anxiety perception, the hubris quality and the o v er-
cathected condition of absolute dedication in the p resen ce of such
extrem e dangers and dire consequences could aro u se som e ea rly
anxiety. H owever, Odets failed to provide a full aw a re n e ss, an u n d e r
standing of the d e s ire s being struggled against, along with some consid
eration of the la rg e r issu es that went to m ake up the predicam ent.
Psychologically, both would be n e c e s s a ry in o rd e r to aro u se strong and
sustained anxiety. Despite all of the p artisan sentim ent in the opening
scene, how ever, Odets successfully created a believable love situation
between E rn st and Tilly; sufficient anxiety with resp ect to th e ir
dilem m a seem ed to be a ro u sed so that a knock at the door by the
Gestapo could cause apprehension and uneasiness for th e ir im m ediate
security. (The technique of using shrill w histles between scenes was
also probably effective in creating tension and an oppressive a tm o
sphere. ) In the w r ite r 's opinion, how ever, Odets proceeded to destroy
any established sense of audience detachm ent and s e c u rity --p ro p e r
aesthetic distance with reg ard to anxiety p erce p tio n --b y the m a n n er in
which he attem pted to objectify his problem s. His apparent intent upon
m anifesting outspoken sadistic brutality and h atre d often failed to have
a c le a r basis, a m otivation cle a rly established within the play itself,
and seem ed to re s t p rim a rily upon assu m ed audience preconception or
prejudgm ent in accord. (The possibility suggested itself that the play
68
re p re se n te d m o re of a cathartic relief for an angry young spirit than
d ra m a of a significant hum an predicam ent. )
O bjectification. In the second scene, Odets had Schlegel delib
e ra te ly sm ash E rn s t's fingers on stage with a rifle butt. It seem s
inconceivable that audience sensibilities at large would not be offended
by such an action. In the apt words of one c ritic, Odets needed to
le a rn "that an audience can feel longer and m o re deeply . . . if they
25
see the effect . . . instead of seeing the blow itself. " Sim ilarly, in
Scene T hree, the audience was not spared the equally brutal p astim es of
the tro o p ers: spitting, kicking, insulting, and deliberate cruelty to
youths and the aged. Objectified violence was prevalent. In Scene F our,
Duhring shot Schlegel and then fired a shot into his own mouth. In the
closing scene E rn s t shot him self. This w rite r agreed with the critic
who said that in all, the play was too brutal. Such open exam ples of
violence, combined with the om nipresence and disturbing sense of
mounting d is tru s t and suspicion could be overw helm ing in anxious tone.
In addition, the lim ited possibility for vicarious participation with
c h a ra c te rs who w ere so f a r rem oved from the typical failed to serve as
the slightest justification for such violence (even to a lim ited extent),
so that the violence existed in explicit strength. Stark Young c o m
m ented that, "The g rim becom e th eatre is very different from theatre
turned grim . " 2?
F o c u s . Concerning focus, O dets' efforts seem ed inconsistent in
te rm s of directing attention to the e ssen tials of a ce n tra l worthy idea;
lacking was the sense of a swift and coherent beginning, m iddle, and
69
end--the experience of a com plete and meaningful action. As Stark
Young criticized, Odets failed to "establish the plane . . . [and] to
28
indicate the m e a s u re " of his m otivations. W hereas Scene One c a r e
fully established his problem and Scene Two seem ed a logical follow-up,
the overem otional p ro tests, polity en d o rsem en ts, and violence p e r
sistently in terfered with focus. Scenes Two and F our appeared to exist
m e re ly in o rd e r to exploit, by actions, the already overstated s e n ti
m ents p resen t within the dialogue. Scene Five re -e s ta b lis h e d and
enlarged upon the love episode, to add complexity; but Scene Six
returned to propaganda and re p re se n te d only another objectification of
"C om m unism in action, " while Scene Seven p resented it as trium phant.
The play did contain some powerful diction; the diction was con
cise, compatible with c h a ra c te r and situation, and rich in im agery.
Talk about tulips, Bach, feeding pigeons, a w a lk i n the park, happy
laughter, and so on, enriched the em otional content and relieved the
tensions, especially within Scene One. W hereas Odets m ay have o v e r
stated his them e, the dialogue rem ained generally succinct and directed
to w hatever point was at issue; the dialogue successfully projected the
illusion of actual conversation and in g en eral was forceful and seem ed
emotionally inspired.
M issing within the entire category of controlled anxiety p e rc e p
tion, how ever, was a whole that could reveal a pattern in hum an ex p e
rience or the intrapsychic conflicts that determ ine the course of life.
R egardless of plot or th e m e, an audience d e s ire s to derive knowledge
from its vicarious experience. Within the play, little or naught was
present that eith er specified or defined som ething within every m an,
70
a dynamic objectified that could be dealt with outside of self and thereby
provide som e kind of knowledge and relief. Withal, illusion and a n x i
ety perception seem ed lim ited and im p aired by the m a n n e r in which
Odets em ployed the techniques of objectification and focus along with
his lack of em otional re s tra in t in expressing his predicam ent.
Psychic Rew ards
With resp ect to psychic rew ard s, Odets seem ed to be so intent
upon arousing strong em o tio n s--a n g e r, fear, hatred, s o rro w --th a t he
directed one's attentions p rim arily to the nature of involvement which
he intended; consequently, involvement without a w aren ess seem ed s e l
dom possible, and w henever possible it seem ed uncontrolled or insuf
ficiently sustained. His conflicts w ere so specialized, so p artisan
motivated and justified, that im pulses lacked the dignity, appeal, and
benefit of gratification which they might have otherwise had. The con
sequences resulting fro m the revolutionary activities of the c h a ra c te rs
w ere indeed unfortunate, but w henever one's personal im pulses seem
at odds with those of the c h a ra c te rs , or when insufficient identification-
empathy has been a ro u sed on their behalf, then the com pensations fo r
inadequacies and deprivations of one's own daily experience which a r e
sought for through entertainm ent becom e im possible. In te rm s of the
id and superego battle, the ego did not seem adequately rew arded
because those few instinctual claim s which w ere specified w ere not in
tu rn actually (or symbolically) gratified. The ego did not trium ph u lti
m ately; it was not successful in establishing a balance, even a m odicum
of strength and happiness, despite the dire circ u m stan c es. In the end,
it was the p arty sp irit which prevailed (and even its future seem ed
71
doubtful in light of the growing Nazi "m achine"). The final rew ard was
not ego exaltation, but a propaganda reinforcem ent: i.e . , even in the
face of m a rty rd o m , party loyalty had to supersede all other c o n s id e ra
tions - -chauvinism not unlike nor less fervent than N azism . Thus, no
instinct was actually m ade m o re receptive to control. The play
assu m ed a superego quality because of the omnipotence of the party
conscience; it withstood any indulgent, personal, o r destructive forces
in opposition (id), and rejected any integrative or com prom ising fo rm s
(ego), so that no individual was seen to rise above his circ u m sta n c e s
for a m om ent of individual strength and truth. B rother turned against
brother; lover cast out lover; self-destruction was the only escape.
Consequently, justice seem ed hardly accom plished according to all
that was presented and u n d ersco red as relevant.
Ambivalence. As fo r any am bivalence rew ard, Odets failed to
p resen t both c h a ra c te r and conflict fro m different points of v ie w --a
single view predom inated. C om m unists w ere all-good, and Nazis w ere
all-bad. In so doing Odets did not p erm it the p resence of conscious
and unconscious sym pathies with re g a rd to eith er c h a ra c te r or conflict.
D em ands w ere not balanced; claim s and counterclaim s w ere not h a r
m onized. The poised and sustained am bivalence that is presen t in all
human dilem m as was absent. As a resu lt, am bivalence seem ed poorly
developed, and its absence in tu rn altered both plausibility and psycho
logical validity. (Tilly possibly m anifested some m o m en tary fluctua
tion within h e r value system , but this was m otivated m o re by the state
of being in love with E rn s t than from the possibility of e rrin g in h er
judgm ent, the dem ands of h er quandry, or conditions urged in
72
opposition.) Since the p resen ce of am bivalence perm its a play to t r a n s
cend its purpose in o rd e r to becom e a rt, its virtual absence h erein
would seem to consign the play to the category alluded to e a rlie r: a
p ro p ag an d istic, m e lo d ram a tic, p a rtisan "soap opera. "
C onfrontation. As for confrontation rew ard, any strength of
confrontation was also dim inished by ex p ressed doctrine; i. e. , the
absolutism of party doctrine and its unqualified obedience. C h a ra c te rs
did not seek out what one would o rdinarily avoid, r e p r e s s , su p p ress,
or deny; they did not acknowledge or face openly the prospects of
destruction (except in their party se rv ic e , but not for truth in depth).
The ego was not shown as bravely a s s e rtin g its independence or control
of the id and superego, p ersev erin g in integrative efforts, granting
e x tre m e s yet m aintaining its authority; ra th e r it was presented as
subservient, sup p ressed , and finally overpow ered by the tyrannical
forces of conscience, or the superego. Odets might have drawn a tte n
tion away fro m the attitude of using his c h a ra c te rs as puppets for his
exposition had he in addition made th em think, feel, and see som e of
the basic truths one usually keeps self fro m seeing, truths which
transcended his im m ediate situation and motif. By so doing, his
c h a ra c te rs would have assu m ed a b ro a d e r dim ension, a g re a te r f r e e
dom as believable individuals - -beyond th e ir unusual c irc u m stan c es - -
and the audience could thereby be inform ed and experience something
which ro se above the unique situation and specialized m e ss a g e s , s o m e
thing of u n iv e rsal value and appeal that resu lted fro m th e ir p re d ic a
m ent. As in Waiting for L efty, c h a ra c te rs p e rs is te d in imposing th e ir
w ill--th e party will, h e r e - - o n the world; energy did not becom e
73
directed inw ardly tow ard any psychic effort that would provide an
audience with an experience of self revelation, of values or truth
in depth.
C ath arsis. Finally, in te rm s of a c a th a rs is rew ard , the play did
not seem to provide an audience with the balanced degree of participant
and cognitive reactions that would be sufficient to bring about any
c a th a rsis. Due to the c h a r a c te r s ' unusual c irc u m stan c es and m o tiv a
tions, th e re seem ed little possibility for an audience to derive the
p le a su re s associated with the discharge and control of in-com m on
instincts, one of the e ssen tials for c a th a rsis. As m entioned e a rlie r,
the lack of p ro p er and sustained psychic distance would inhibit strong
em otional involvement o r sustained and heightened sym pathies. Also
lacking for this rew ard was the gratification fro m a p a rtic u la r and
prolonged identification. If strong identification with a c h a ra c te r is
not established and m aintained, audience sym pathies for his p re d ic a
m ent a re not then p re s e n t in sufficient strength so that sym pathies
in c re ase significantly as the c h a ra c te r is confronted with adverse
consequences. If an audience p re fe rs to re m a in in secure detachm ent,
fo r w hatever r e a s o n - - e .g . , too m uch anxiety, too m uch re sista n c e to
indoctrination--then a r e v e r s a l becom es im possible since the spectator
response has been predom inant all along. If an audience senses that
the author is using a c h a ra c te r to imbue a p artisan or se c ta ria n point
of view, then sym pathies for the hum an predicam ent at issu e, if not
disavowed, a r e at le ast not p resen t with enough strength to cause a
p ity -fear reaction and th e ir purge. Without the affective tria d of
74
sym pathy-identification-em pathy, without p ro g ressiv ely intensifying
sym pathies, the d e s ire s which a c h a ra c te r yields to and th e ir g ra tifi
cation (though they m a y be intended to re p re s e n t g re a t in tern al su ffe r
ing) fail to provide subsequently the n e c e s s a ry sense of relief plus
fulfillment, the cathartic experience that resu lts in relieving audience
tension and anxiety. One m ust becom e actively involved, m u st will
ingly p articipate, m u st undergo a satisfying vicarious participation,
and feel an ultim ate o r final sense of relief, fulfillment, and justice
in o rd e r to experience a ca th a rsis rew ard.
Conclus ion
In his zeal to e x p re ss his own sentim ents and convictions, and
to protest, Odets interfered with the fundamental th e a tric a l purpose
of his play: audience entertainm ent. P revalent sentim ent, m e lo
dram a tic appeals, and propaganda interfere with illusion and p ro p er
psychic distance by calling undue attention (and likely even resistance)
to th e ir vigorous endorsem ent. Odets espouses se v e ra l p ro tests and
tends to overstate each so that the play often lacks re s tra in t, unity or
clarity of motif, continuity and motivation. Consequently, illusion is
lim ited, p ro p er psychic distance is disturbed, and c h a ra cterizatio n
fails to add a significant strength which might overcom e other failings
somewhat. Odets does not com e to grips with an underlying pattern,
the basic conflicts in life which d irect all m en, the struggles whose
aspects and re s u lts can provide a rich and gratifying th e atre e x p e ri
ence fo r an audience. He fails to control audience anxiety perception
by accentuating the physical violence of his action ra th e r than its
psychological e ffe c t--h e objectifies the brutal u n n ece ssarily . (The
75
s tr e s s upon subm issive and a g g ressiv e attitudes in both social and
in terp erso n al relationships, and the degree of d estru ctiv en e ss have
29
sadom asochistic overtones.) A strength of the play seem s to lie
within the diction; Odets has the ability to d irec t attention to an idea
which he is exploring by the use of convincing dialogue, to enlarge
upon it by his use of figurative language (imagery) and forceful e x p r e s
sion. He projects strong e a rn e stn e s s and sincerity. The w riting style
is in g en eral concise, but it is too often disturbed by his d octrinaire
expostulation. Odets is very convincing in his p o rtra y a l of the te n d e r
n ess and fru stratio n s of young lovers; he projects a depth of u n d e r
standing, and his occasional use of hum or gives his two cen tral c h a r
a c te rs a believable and sym pathetic dim ension in this respect. Beyond
the vicissitudes of young love, how ever, both the c h a ra c te rs and the
dilem m a a re lacking in am bivalence and do not sustain sufficient
plausibility or validity for depth of audience involvement or p a rtic ip a
tion; c h a ra c te rs do not confront th em selv es or u n iv e rsals so th a tm a n 's
ego is presented as victorious or exalted. In brief, insufficient grounds
in plot, them e, or ch ara cterizatio n exist for the establishm ent and
m aintenance of active and sustained audience involvement. Depth of
explanation or revelation with re sp e c t to any anxiety is lacking, and
consequently the final outcome does not provide a sense of u n d erstan d
ing, com passion, relief, fulfillment, or justice accom plished. F ro m
a psychoanalytic point of view, the re q u ire m e n ts for a rew arding,
th e atric ally entertaining experience a re not present.
Awake and Sing
Plot Sum m ary
The action of the play takes place in the living and dining room
of the B erg er ap artm en t in the Bronx, 1935. The son, Ralph, is
complaining about an inability to get ahead; Jacob, his grandfather,
says that if the p resen t life leads to revolution, only then can it be a
good one. However, R alph's father, Myron, tells him that m e ritn e v e r
goes unrew arded. B essie, the m o th er, scoffs at M yron's idealism .
Ralph confesses privately to Jacob that he has a new girl friend,
Blanche, but he is afraid to tell B e s s ie --s h e is too dependent upon his
weekly pay check. Jacob w arns him against haste in love; he tells him
to go out and fight for a new world. Moe Axelrod e n te rs --h e lost a leg
fighting in the war. He and Jacob agree that w ar is im p erialistic , in
the in terest of econom ics, and not actually for the p re se rv a tio n of
dem ocracy. Hennie becom es ill, but when B essie wants to call a
doctor Hennie refuses a n g rily --B e s sie guesses that she is pregnant.
Since the child's father cannot be located, B essie decides upon a m a r
riage of convenience- -Sam F e in s c h re ib e r, a docile young m an who
adores Hennie, but to whom Hennie is not attracted. Jacob objects
upon principle, but B essie calls him a crazy idealist whose only joy is
his C aruso reco rd s and his books; the fam ily pride m ust be sustained.
Jacob rem inds h e r that M arx said to abolish such fam ilies. Moe
retu rn s and le arn s of H ennie's proposed m a rria g e ; he is bitter because
he actually loves her.
Act Two is the sam e scene, one year la ter. Jacob is giving his
wealthy son, M orty, a haircut. Dinner is im m inent and B essie sends
77
Ralph to the g ro c e ry store. The m en talk of the increasing suicides
over money problem s and the growing oppression resulting from the
economic depression. Blanche telephones, asking for Ralph, but
B essie tells h e r curtly that he is out. (Myron is now working fewer
days, and Ralph has taken a cut in salary; Hennie has had her baby,
and Moe has moved into the B e rg e r ap artm en t as a b o ard er. ) As the
fam ily adjourns to the dining room , Jacob se c re tly gives M orty his
th ree thousand dollar life insurance policy which he has m ade out to
R alph--he does not tru s t B essie. When Ralph re tu rn s , he is angered
about the telephone call from Blanche. (B essie c o n sid ers h e r only a
possible financial liability; besid es, B essie says, she is an orphan.)
Sam m eanwhile has becom e a good father and provider, but Hennie is
unhappy and only ridicules him. Jacob w arns Ralph that he cannot
ever realize his possibilities because the "System " has overpow ered
th e ir lives; the prevailing cultural propaganda is for su ccess, and s u c
cess becom es slav ery in a capitalistic system . (Jacob p re fe rs R ussia
and M arx; private property should be abolished. ) Blanche calls again
and tells Ralph that she is being forced to go away; he p ro m ise s to see
h er that evening. The next scene is la ter that night; Ralph retu rn s and
tells Jacob that Blanche m u st leave and he cannot understand why
B essie will not let them m a r r y and live together in the apartm ent.
Jacob tells him that this is a society of hate, but Ralph can m ake it a
new one if he listens to the revolution within his own h eart. Sam en ters
to tell th em that Hennie has confessed to everything, even that she does
not love him . B essie e n te rs and is able to persuade him that it was
only Hennie's exaggeration in te m p er; but she calls him a m ouse after
78
he leaves. Ralph asks openly if Blanche m ay move in, but B essie
refuses. He accidentally le a rn s of H ennie's a rran g ed m a rria g e and is
angry with B essie, Myron, and even Jacob for perm itting such an out
rage. B essie, in anger and fru stra tio n , tu rn s upon Jacob and then
b reak s all of his C aruso re c o rd s. Jacob leaves to walk the dog.
M yron adm its that he has n ever been able to establish rapport with his
own son. They a re all interrupted by the news that Jacob has a c c i
dentally slipped off the roof, but each knows the truth.
The final act opens one week later; B essie and M orty a re d is c u s
sing Jacob's insurance, and she wants to m ake certain that it goes to
the family, not Ralph. Moe se c re tly cautions Ralph that they a re t r y
ing to steal his inheritance; he tells Hennie that he is leaving. Ralph
confronts B essie and M orty with the truth; Moe supports him by saying
that he has found the suicide note which will invalidate all of their
schem es. M orty leaves in anger, but B essie trie s to appeal to Ralph's
sentim ents, telling him things are getting so much w orse. Ralph says
it is the "System " which causes people to be deceitful and to becom e
paralyzed. Blanche calls him again, but Ralph hangs up. He has
decided to forget rom ance until he can take c a re of a woman; he plans
to read Jaco b 's books, becom e a fighter and an o rg an iz er for the rights
of the little m an, and to struggle for a b etterm e n t of the future. Moe
confesses that he lied about the suicide note, and he encourages Hennie
to go away with him. Ralph o v e rh e a rs and urg es h er to go also. How
ever, he is going to stay and fight in o rd e r to get m o re out of life than
his father has; Jacob m eant for them to "Awake and Sing. " He will give
79
the money to B essie. When Jacob died, Ralph felt born anew and with
a great strength and faith in a w orld he could change.
Illusion
The illusion is one of a Jew ish fam ily struggling with th e ir f r u s
trations and a growing a w aren ess of disjunction am ong them selves.
F ru stra tio n s em anate from (1) the fam ily's attem pts to m aintain th e ir
accustom ed m iddle class living standards as econom ic conditions
w orsen and co n tem p o rary values becom e m o re at variance with those
by which they have lived and survived within the past (traditional in
contrast with the dem ands of the new), (2) th e ir inability to establish
understanding among th e m se lv e s, (3) th e ir growing difficulty to e s ta b
lish a satisfac to ry basis for com m unication among th e m selv es, and
(4) in m aintaining a sense of fam ily unity. Econom ic d eterm inants of
the d ep ressio n have thw arted th e ir d e sire s and sense of optim ism to
31
the extent that life has begun to seem "printed on dollar bills. " The
traditional, the past adjustm ent that was successful for coping with life,
has become thw arted by the existing realities. The quest for individu
ality or self-fulfillm ent for the young has becom e fru stra te d or seem s
defeated, and the gap of understanding between young and old has g r a d
ually widened. F uture happiness and potentiality for fulfillment seem s
vanquished by oppressive practicalities and the growing lack of m utual
understanding.
Just as in his one-act plays, Odets m ade the extent of illusion
dependent in g re a t m e a s u re upon audience understanding and sy m p a
thies with socio-econom ic conditions of the d ep ressio n decade, and
m o re specifically with his own interpretation of the conditions. The
80
play is sociological in the sense that it em phasized the effects of the
prevalent socio-econom ic conditions; it is h isto rical in that s im ila r
conditions w ere indigenous to this period in A m erican history; it is
psychological in the sense that Odets attem pted to e x p re ss the effects
of conditions upon the individual fam ily m e m b e rs as well as to the
fam ily as a unit. In them e the play becam e an indictm ent of the c a p i
talistic type of social, political, and governm ental stru ctu re ; i.e . ,
economic d e te rm in ism and not the dignity, worth, or potential of the
individual rep resen ted the actual m ainspring of the capitalistic system ,
and the forgotten pro letaria t becam e the scapegoat.
Odets seem ed to overstate his M arx ist views through the c h a r a c
te r of Jacob, who was presented as one of the m ore intelligent, s y m
pathetic, and idealistic c h a ra c te rs . Such concentration upon the
d em oralizing and destructive forces of the "S y stem "--i. e. , within this
p artic u la r fam ily unit, and to the potential o v e r-a ll--in combination with
the prevalent M arxist philosophy, and combined with the possibility of
redem ption fro m the predicam ent by a revolution of the young could
in terfere in total with the illusion potential of the play for many; in
effect, Odets seem ed to overstate all th re e of the aforem entioned view
points. Consequently, in o rd e r for an audience to participate fully in
the hum an p redicam ent presented, in o rd e r to forget self and becom e
actively involved, it would be n e c e ss a ry to concur with Odets' a s s u m p
tions and his doctrines (particularly economic d e te rm in ism and s a lv a
tion via C om m unism and revolt). W henever protest and M arxist d o c
trin e w ere not strongly em phasized, w henever they w ere subservient
to th e m o re psychological--the personality s tru g g le s--th e re e m e rg e d a
81
type of em otional constellation which F reu d re fe rre d to as a "fam ily
32
ro m an ce" --young people striving to em ancipate th em selv es and
s u rp a ss th e ir parents. The play then becam e not so m uch the case
study of a middle c lass Jew ish fam ily battling with the p r e s s u r e s of a
d ep ressio n econom y, as it becam e a fam ily struggle for balance
between dependence-independence, tradition and change, love and hate,
competition, growth, fe a r, needs, and so on. F o r this w r ite r, the
presen ce of these in trafam ilial dynam ics was a possible factor for
u n iv ersal (unconscious) appeals in illusion; but Odets was so zealous
in his p ro tests, in his p reachm ent, that any presen ce of u n iv e rsals
was either underdeveloped or overshadowed.
Identification-em pathy. Odets provided some opportunity for
c h a ra c te r study in that his m ain c h a ra c te rs w ere not sim ple but con
voluted. F o r exam ple, the m o th er, B essie, was reso u rcefu l and
dedicated to p reserv in g the fam ily as a unit, but h e r efforts becam e
dom ineering, ru th less, em asculating and destructive; M yron, the
father, was an idealist, believing in the w orthiness and dignity of m an,
but unpleasant realities so deluged him that he acknowledged only what
he cared to accept and hoped daily to win somehow a m illion dollars
(the panacea for all th e ir p roblem s, as he saw it); Jacob, the g ra n d
fath e r, was a sentim ental idealist who rejected the fam ily m otives as
m a te ria lis tic , p re fe rrin g to re tre a t to the com forts of m u sic and books,
but who saw hope only in the com plete abolishm ent of the status quo, a
revolution brought about by the young; Ralph and Hennie, the children,
w ere eager for love, for aw aren ess and growth, the opportunity to
explore and to change, but who did very little of a positive or re m e d ia l
82
nature to attem pt change w herever possible or to make a good a d ju s t
m ent to what could not be changed--both w ere querulous and rom antic
(Hennie's fanciful attitudes and d esire to escape cre a te d h e r own p ro b
lem); finally, Moe and Uncle M orty re p re se n te d m en who had acknow l
edged the realities and successfully m ade situations w ork to th e ir
advantage, but each was intolerant of hum an frailty, each was u n s c r u
pulous, ru th le ss, self-indulgent, and self-ce n tered . In brief, w here
m e ssag e did not predom inate, one could possibly participate to some
extent with these fam ily c h a ra c te rs as they rep resen ted different
exam ples of personality adjustm ent. Audiences of the dep ressio n
period could likely experience the fam ily's quandary and struggles with
m o re poignance than an audience of today due to O dets' combination
em phases of the so cio -psycho-historical. Also, Odets provided some
strength in ch a ra c te riz a tio n by developing them so that an audience
could identify with the bad in his c h a ra c te rs as well as with the good.
The all-bad c h a ra c te r v e rsu s the all-good did not predom inate.
Identification-em pathy m ight becom e disturbed by an objective co n sid
eration, however; viz. , that which the c h a ra c te rs actually p o sse ssed
from which they really could have derived happiness had they so willed.
This fam ily was p resen ted as having com forts and secu rity which the
g re a te st m a jo rity of others w ere not fortunate enough to p o sse ss during
the d ep ressio n decade. As Stark Young com mented: should an audience
33
be s o rry that this fam ily could not drive a Cadillac? V icarious p a r
ticipation could also be disturbed as a re su lt of e x tre m e s in c h a ra c te r
behavior; e.g . , B e s s ie 's deliberate destruction of one of the few p le a s
u re s enjoyed by old Jacob (his C aru so reco rd s) sim ply because she was
83
in a frenzy of fru stratio n , or Jacob's suicide to solve a problem .
Odets did not belabor understanding, but he often lacked re s tra in t in
e x p re s s e d statem ent, action, and intent; subtlety too often seem ed
sacrificed for effect and m e ssag e.
Hubris. T here w ere s e v e ra l h u b r is -type c h a ra c te rs , but the
ch a ra c te riz a tio n of B essie seem ed to approxim ate the hubris m ost
nearly. M oral laws or re s tra in ts for her w ere inconsequential c o m
pared to p reserv in g the fam ily unity, pride, and h e r fe a r of poverty.
Typically, she lacked re stra in t, m ade extrem e choices, was violent
on occasion, inflexible, incapable of making c o m p ro m ise, and s u c
cumbed to the intem perate with a suddenness that could m ake an audi
ence apprehensive about the final outcome of h e r actions. She was
without scru p les as she a rra n g e d h e r daughter's m a rria g e in o rd e r to
insure respectability; she was relatively unconcerned that h e r son
might actually be in love, and she openly thw arted the rom ance; when
Ralph confronted h e r with the tru th about Hennie, in h er anger and
fru stratio n she turned upon Jacob; though she was aw are that Jacob's
insurance money was willed to Ralph, she contrived to cheat h e r own
son; she aptly deceived Sam continually, pretending love and u n d e r
standing, only to e x p re ss disgust for his gullibility in his absence; she
adm itted to h e r husband that she had always wanted to go away h e rse lf
--to leave h im --b u t the children had kept h e r at home. C learly,
B essie could objectify the effects of a value sy stem co rro d ed by ov er-
m a te ria lis tic concerns. However, the im pact of h e r chara cterizatio n ,
of h e r actions, seem ed w eakened by the fact that Odets failed to provide
a convincing punishment for h e r hubris violations, not even believable
84
r e m o r s e for h e r unscrupulousness and intem perance. Indeed, h er
im p u ls iv e n e ss, h er obsession with the fam ily unit as she envisioned
and dem anded it, re g a rd le s s of the co n seq u en c es, m ade h e r seem
34
o b sessive-com pulsive; h e r apparent inability to effect a c o m p ro
m ise in light of the dem ands of reality becam e a d estructive instead of
an integrative force.
In te rm s of o v er-all illusion, then, Odets would seem to have
provided at least a stro n g er basis for illusion than that p re se n t in his
one-act plays; though the hum an predicam ent still rem ained som ew hat
unique and the em phases continued to be social, political, and e c o
nom ic, other issu es and concerns w ere p resen t in addition with m o re
strength: ch a ra c te riz a tio n p o s se sse d g re a te r depth of development
and was m o re believable due to the p resen ce of recognizable human
strengths, w eak n esses, contradictions, and ideals, so that some
degree of identification-em pathy was possible along with a g re a te r
potential for analogizing; i. e. , som e of the issu es or concerns w ere
b ro ad er and m o re fam iliar. F a c to rs that could in terfere with audience
illusion w ere the re s tric tio n s implied by the fo lk -d ra m a nature of the
play (ethnic m a trix ), Odets' lack of re s tra in t, and his lack of subtlety
as ex p ressed in ideas, endorsed beliefs, and sentim ents. The d ra m a
c ritic s w ere contradictory to the point of confusion: e .g . , for one, this
play was in the "front rank of A m e ric a n d ra m a . . . a tru e fo lk -d ra m a
35 36
. . . appalling in its truth"; intensely emotional; it was m e lo
d ra m a , boring, ugly, and
I was led to wonder why I should bother with such people . . .
[the] yapping quality . . . p a sse s endurance. It is practically
im possible to feel eith er the trag ed y or com edy of such rowing,
85
jawing, p rid e le ss and uninspiring hum an beings . . . the play
lacks a deep basis in the d ra m a tis t's own conception. What life,
beneath the incidental, has he in m in d ? . . . It lacks tonality.
". . . a v ery unattractive fam ily [w hose] a p artm en t in the Bronx
38
seem s always ringing with th e ir squabbles . . . a drab story"; his
best play. It is n eith er "orthodox re a lis m nor orthodox d ra m a but . . .
vivid grotesque . . . [ c h a r a c te r s ] a re often card b o ard vaudevillians
. . . [it] is w ritten with a purity of feeling, a com pulsion, ra th e r than
39
a calculation of purpose";
Odets has contrived one of the best pleas for C om m unist
philosophy in showing it as a form of o th e r-w o rld lin ess in these
sordid lives . . . has never w ritten with the compelling b itte r
n ess or power that he exhibits . . . shows the re s tle s s ferm e n t
of m en who have exchanged th e ir birthright for pottage. 40
It has fre s h n e s s, enthusiasm , passion and an alm o st painful
intensity of feeling. . . . A revolutionist's m o ra l . . . the sub
je ct . . . is . . . the p ersisten t and m a n y -sid ed rebellion of
hum an nature against everything which th w arts it. . . . C h a ra c
t e r s a re ignorant and often crude, but his play, despite its t r a g
edies, is exhilarating just because he m a k es it so c le a r that
people like this a re going to go right on dem anding of life m o re
than it will ev er give. 41
(This w rite r was unable to derive any so rt of generalization from
c ritic a l co m m en ta ry other than perhaps to d escrib e th e ir reactions to
the play as strongly worded, lacking in g en era l accord, and seem ingly
charged with em otional r e s p o n s e .)
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
Odets a s s e rte d an anxious m ilieu in his opening scene: he c o m
m unicated the p re se n c e of a growing econom ic oppression, as a resu lt
of which this p a rtic u la r fam ily had come to place an excessive
em phasis upon econom ic security. The s tr e s s of m a te ria lis m
86
gradually and a d v ersely affected their p rim a ry values, ideals and
goals; fam ilial bonds and intrafam ilial com m unication becam e f r a g
m ented because these w ere superseded by a type of m a te ria listic
anxiety. Ralph felt fru stra te d in his efforts to grow or to feel he was
p ro g ressin g , and he becam e anxious about the possibilities within his
future. Jacob w ithdrew from competition and debate, convinced that
the p re se n t life served for naught but to inspire com plete rev o lu tio n --
he openly stated that fam ilies such as th e irs should be abolished;
M yron had also withdrawn, but unlike Jacob, he rejected all ugly r e a l i
ties, was content to fantasy, and believed that good will would be
rew arded and would ultim ately p re v a il--lu c k might bring him a f o r
tune and thereby alleviate all of their problem s; Hennie was so intent
upon escaping in secu rity and apprehension, so absorbed in h er own
fantasies, that she p re fe rre d to believe in the m an she im agined ra th e r
than attem pt an adjustm ent with her husband. Some audience anxiety
could resu lt from the aw aren ess that fam ily intracom m unication had
becom e so disturbed and altered that Ralph was incapable of co m m u n i
cating the happiness of a new love to his m o th er, and w as even in tim i
dated by its possible m en tio n --sh e would be too disturbed at the p r o s
pect of losing his weekly income or having another mouth to feed. The
scene in which B essie overruled every consideration other than what
she called " r e s p e c t" - - in o rd er to provide a fath e r for H ennie's baby--
could cause too m uch uneasiness and apprehension for m any because
Odets failed to provide controls, sufficient binding p ro c e s s e s ; i. e. ,
fears aro u sed did not convincingly bind the im pulses that w ere s tim u
lated and satisfie d --v ic a rio u s participation could not rob them of th e ir
87
intensity because B essie w as openly and com pletely successful, while
at the sam e tim e she only aggravated the existing fam ily problem s.
An audience could easily anticipate H ennie's later m a la ise and even
h er com plete rejection of responsibility, h e r flight to hoped-for h a p
piness. (The audience could hardly be sym pathetic with B e s s ie 's total
d isre g a rd for h er d a u g h te r's happiness n o r Hennie's displaced h o s
tility to h er duped husband; also the question could a ris e as to what
ends B essie might go with reg ard to her attem pts at d eterm ining her
son's life. ) Consequently, B essie seem ed overextended in her defen
sive efforts; she becam e d estru ctiv e of happiness, an obstacle to the
sense of any justice done, and could be offensive to the sensibilities of
many. The fam ily actually em erg ed as fragm ented, an ineffectual and
apathetic unit, and one which was tyrannized by an a g g ressiv e and
petulant m a tria rc h .
O bjectification. The objectification of a growing anxiety about
the future w as v ery evident within the scene during which old Jacob cut
Uncle M o rty 's h a i r - - J a c o b who could n e v e r hold a job; they both d is
cussed the w orsening conditions, and the audience learn s that M yron is
only able to keep the shop open a few days per week, Ralph has had to
take a cut in salary , and M o e --c o n sid e re d by the fam ily to be lower
c lass in s ta tu s - - h a s been taken in as a b o ard er. Jaco b 's secretive
m a n n er in m anaging his in su ran ce money openly objectified the p re v a
lent uneasiness and apprehension regarding m utual confidence and tru s t
--th e m o tiv e s --th a t underlay the fam ily constellation. The anxiety that
Sam might one day le arn how he had been used w as abruptly and b r u
tally exposed as Hennie adm itted not only that she did not love him , but
88
she also identified the tru e fath e r of the baby. Acknowledgement of
this anxiety disturbed the psychological relationships to such an extent
that Ralph becam e openly defiant, B essie becam e vindictive and
destructive, M yron confessed that he had been unable to establish a
rew arding fa th e r-so n relationship, and Jacob com m itted suicide. In
the la st act anxiety was again strongly objectified when B essie openly
plotted to defraud h e r son, and it reached its clim ax with an open con
frontation instigated by Moe and Ralph. T h ere after, the anxiety level
seem ed to dim inish noticeably, the re m a in d e r of the play being largely
devoted to presenting Ralph as the projected M arx ist revolutionary
spirit so hoped for by his late and somewhat m a rty re d grandfather.
Hennie's decision to d e s e rt her husband and child in o rd e r to go away
with Moe seem ed not only a n tic lim a c tic , but also seem ed to add f u r
ther to an a u ra of personality confusion and g eneral destru ctiv en ess
and disintegration. In brief, the play appeared to contain sufficient
overcathected subject m a te ria l in o rd e r to aro u se anxiety, but lack of
controls or binding p ro c e s s e s often seem ed to in terfere with control of
the anxiety perception. Audience detachm ent and se c u rity could easily
become offended by O dets' u n re s tra in e d objectifications; w here he
could have suggested, he often seem ed to state openly, if not restate.
Where c h a ra c te rs could have re p re se n te d intense inner tu rm o il, signi
ficant inner problem s with which an audience could participate, Odets
som etim es drew attention away from audience im agination and an a lo
gizing and tow ard the governm ental o r political propaganda within his
surface story. Jaco b 's m otive was cle a rly a worthy o n e--R alp h 's
future independence and s e c u rity --b u t his actions betrayed the
89
d eterio ratio n of fam ily tru s t and faith, fam ily cohesiveness (an a w a r e
ness that could c re a te too m uch anxiety within an audience). Hennie
seem ed u n n e c e ssa rily cru el to h e r husband (sadistically so), because
she was co n trasted with a m a n who m anifested loyalty and an unselfish
devotion, re g a rd le s s of the fact that he was not h e r ideal. Also, as
indicated e a rlie r, B essie could disturb anxiety perception as she was
p resen te d --u n p rin cip led in h er efforts to achieve h e r goals. An a u d
ience m ight also becom e w eariso m e of the continual querulousness,
the m ordancy, and the constant tensions which w ere asso ciated funda
m entally with an anxiety whose basic roots lay obviously in an anxiety
over poverty. The poor can be happy; the rich becom e poor would not
n e c e s s a rily be denied happiness sim ply because they no longer p o s
se sse d th e ir accustom ed m eans: the question a ro s e , th e re fo re, as to
how effective, theatrically, would be the objectification of a fam ily
anxiety which appeared to stem from an inability to crea te happiness,
to make a satisfac to ry adjustm ent as a unit, sim ply because they could
not have the m a te ria ls which they once had or those which they wished?
Odets h im self d escrib e d the play as a presentation of "an adjustm ent in
42
the lives of the c h a ra c te rs , not an adjustm ent of environm ent. "
(This w rite r is of the opinion that the c h a ra c te rs m o re acc u rately
objectified a trag ic m a la d ju stm e n t, a p ro g re ss iv e individual and
fam ilial d e te rio ra tio n .) Though the c h a ra c te rs p o sse sse d believable
and sym pathetic qualities, re g a rd le s s of fault, n e v erth eless they
could not be d escrib e d ac c u ra te ly as heroic. In addition, the d e s ire s
which they struggled against w ere m o s t often m e re ly an extension or a
resu lt of th e ir poverty anxiety; as such, the possibility for u n iversality
90
becam e limited (except in an h isto ric a l sense, which of itself im poses
a limitation). Consequently, the play seem ed m o st p articu la rly to be
another of Odets' im passioned c o m m e n ta rie s or indictm ents of the
period, using a fam ily as his exam ple, in o rd e r to ex p ress a p a rtic u la r
m e ss a g e theatrically.
Focus. As re g a rd s focus, Odets was skillful, if not at tim es
obvious, in p ersisten tly directing audience attention to his cen tral
idea. Unlike his one-act plays, little actually happened in the sense of
on-stage action. The entire action took place in the living and dining
room of the fam ily ap artm en t. The play seem ed to rely p rim a rily
upon exposition and dialogue. It was them atic, and the m otif was
om nipresent: the d estru ctiv e potential of m a te ria lis m wrought by
c a p ita lism --d e stru c tiv e to love, security, fulfillment, and optim ism .
The sense of a swift and coherent beginning, m iddle, and end seem ed
often disturbed by the prevalent w ordiness and the lack of action. (As
Odets adm itted, the play concerned "adjustm ent, " not changes in envi-
43
r o n m e n t.) Both the effects of capitalistic m a te ria lis m and C o m m u
n ism seem ed alread y ov erstated by the close of the firs t act; also, the
playm ight have p o sse ssed a g re a te r psychological im pact had the au d i
ence been encouraged to speculate upon the possibilities of som e effect
ra th e r than being told and having the effects so openly objectified. The
possibility of underlying patterns seem ed confused because Odets did
not always omit irre le v a n c ie s in his dialogue and re feren c es; also, he
som etim es failed to clarify by either dialogue or action the function of
ce rta in c h a ra c te rs with re s p e c t to th e ir predicam ent; e. g. , one could
inquire as to what specific dram a tic or th e a tric a l contribution and
91
function was intended by S chlosser, what purpose M orty serv ed other
than an exam ple of successful m a te ria lis m , and to a s s is t B essie in
h e r s ch em e ? Likewise, th e re seem ed som e confusion as to ju st what
response Odets was attem pting to provoke by presenting Sam as he did,
o r what p a rtic u la r sym pathies w ere intended for Hennie? Though
Odets' diction was often poetic in te r m s of im agery, it seem ed to lose
strength through the overuse of slang, trite ex p ressio n , and ethnic
re fe re n c e s. Throughout, the play was w ritten in the Jew ish id io m --a
lim itation with reg ard to u n iv e rsal understanding and appeals. B a s i
cally, it em ployed the Bronx Jew ish v e rn a c u la r. Within the firs t act,
such im ag ery as the following was found: mud in your m outh, a four-
c a r fu n e ra l, sh e's like F re n c h w o rd s , new life can m e an new death ,
s tre e t of starving b e g g a r s , b re a s ts like ta n g e rin e s , raining p e a r l s ,
sh e'll burn him out in a month. H owever, trite and idiom atic e x p r e s
sions w ere m o re prevalent: cockeyed w o rld , k o s h e r , bum of the firs t
o r d e r , what a dum p, a i e - a i e - a i e , you should live so long, boychick,
charity sta rts at h o m e , lousy fo u rflu s h e r, yell on you, spit in your
e y e , m y gall is busting, lowest of the low , com e e a t, like a hole in the
h e a d , snowball in h e ll, you're a wow, I should live so long, a chance to
get to f irs t b a s e , d a m e s , b u s t, shut u p , a i n 't, and jig. One critic felt
the play lacked tonality in that it contained too m uch vulgar anim ation
of p h rase, forced co m p ariso n , epithet, and g u tte rism , all in an
attem pt after vivacity; the diction would have been m o re effective if
Odets had established his "key" and then m ade his c h a r a c te r s speak
sim ply, leaving outright vulgarity to those c h a ra c te rs whom it d r a m a t-
44
ically ex p ressed . F r o m a psychoanalytic point of view, diction
92
w orks along with action to control anxiety perception and control; if it
fails to focus on, or to reinforce a purpose - -so m e o rd ered coherence
for the au d ien ce--th en confusion, disturbing proportions, or im p lic a
tions can eith er disturb or can destro y p ro p er distance. In the final
scene, when Hennie openly violated m o re s - -another violation that
could disturb anxiety perception and psychic distance for m any
because one does not d e s e rt husband, child, and h o m e --s h e was glib as
she replied to h e r father: "Nobody knows, P e te r Rabbit, " and finally,
"Gee, Pop; you're such a funny guy. " The aforecited critic suggested
that Odets was inconsistent in his use of diction because he him self
45
could not decide upon the basic value he was trying to com m unicate.
T herefo re, as re g a rd s anxiety, its perception-control, objectification,
and focus, Odets dealt with an anxiety which was p rim a rily h isto rical
in significance because of its topical nature; lim ited audience appeal
(relevance or application) was p re se n t because Odets did not actually
s tr e s s behavioral patterns that w ere determ ined by intrapsychic con
flicts, but m o re the c h a r a c te r s ' reactions to pressing environm ental
conditions. Where topical em phases did not predom inate, a Jew ish
"family ro m a n c e " em erged as a source for vicarious participation.
However, his attem pted objectification of the anxiety was disturbed by
ov erstatem en t and lack of r e s tr a i n t- - e x tr e m e s in behavior and the
feelings e x p re sse d , and also the prevalence of M arxist philosophy.
Focus had som e strength, but too often it was disturbed by irre le v a n -
cies in action and diction, and som etim es by intent. Instead of a swift
beginning, m iddle, and end to a com passionate whole experience, the
93
action seem ed to have the quality of an episode or chapter in the life of
a B ronx Jewish fam ily who was attem pting (unsuccessfully) to adjust
to the demands of a changing econom y and society.
P sy ch ic Rewards
The possibility for a degree of psychic re w a rd was likely for
so m e audience m e m b e rs at the tim e of the original production: with
prevailing poverty conditions as sev ere as they w e re , no doubt m any
could become involved to an extent with the c irc u m sta n c e s p r e s e n te d - -
could sympathize, or perhaps even project and displace somewhat to
c h a r a c te r s on occasion. H owever, in the opinion of this w rite r,
a w a re n e s s of the nature, extent o r fact of involvement would soon
becom e disturbed by O dets' ov erstatem en t of C om m unism , the lack of
happenings or action, a cle a rly p erceived story line, and the p re d o m i
nant querulousness in dialogue. Psychologically, an audience d e s ire s
to becom e involved early within the action, to be m ade a w a re --e v e n if
unconsciously--of the psychic fo rc e s that a re in opposition, so that
they m ay vicariously work through the predicam ent at issue. The
final consequences objectified should m anifest psychic determ inants
46
as w ell as a degree of justice. The consequences which an audience
would be forced to acknowledge in this play often seem ed poorly
m otivated; e.g. , B essie seem ed u n n e c e ss a rily b ru tal to Jacob, if not
to h e r own husband; there did not ap p ea r to be sufficient motivation
for J a c o b 's self-destruction; Hennie seem ed u n n e c e ssa rily cru el to
Sam and overly susceptible to Moe; and finally, why did Ralph decide
to give up all of his inheritance, i. e. , fo r what specific purpose that
would have a universal appeal?
94
In te r m s of the reality and p leasu re principles, these appeared
to be in open opposition within the play. E a rly within the play, B essie
seem ed to re p re s e n t an ego force striving to effect a balance between
(1) the d estructive forces at work within the fam ily (i. e. , to dissolve
the unit), and the m o re superego-type such as (2) the id ealism , the
conscience, and stric t m o rality of M yron and Jacob. H owever, the
ego failed to be adequately rew arded b ecause B e s s ie 's struggles for
unity and to g e th ern ess becam e p ro g re s siv e ly m o re unscrupulous until
she assu m ed h u bris c h a ra c te ris tic s . C laim s of various instincts w ere
specified, disclosed, and even gratified, but they w ere not actually
m ade m o re receptive to c o n tro l- - B e s s ie , Hennie, and Moe for e x a m
ple. Odets concluded with the im p re ssio n that Ralph finally lost re sp e c t
for his m o th e r and rejected her dom inance, M yron w as even m o re
aw are of his impotence as a husband-father figure, Hennie abandoned
all responsibility in quest of happiness on h e r own t e r m s , and B essie
was left with h er own conscience. In this sen se, the destru ctiv e, self
indulgent id fo rces and the idealistic (o b ed ie n ce-to -a n -in n er-co n v ic tio n
and conscience) fo rces of the superego all subdued any integrative ego
force; in fact, the ultim ate victory would ap p ea r to go to the superego
fo rces as a re su lt of Ralph's rejection of the entire fam ily and the c o n
te m p o ra ry social values in o rd e r to striv e for his g ra n d fa th e r's ideal.
A m bivalence. A m bivalence seem ed actually m o r e apparent
through co n tra st among the c h a ra c te rs r a th e r than through its p resen ce
within individual c h a ra c te rs ; c h a ra c te rs m o re often tended to r e p r e
sent opposing stereotyped exam ples, and the conflict becam e in te n si
fied because of th e ir close association (e. g. , M yron and Jacob
95
com pared to Morty; Ralph and Sam co m p ared to Moe; Hennie com pared
with B essie). A depth of am bivalence seem ed absent in the sense that
no single c h a ra c te r was presented f r o m different points of view to the
extent that sustained am bivalence could support strength of plausibility
and psychological validity with re sp e c t to one sympathetic c h a ra c te r.
The fluctuation of value sym ptom s w as not so much the issue as was a
value sy ste m brought under attack. The struggle was essentially one
for integration, and it cen tered around the ag g re ssiv e efforts of Bessie;
how ever, the p re c ise m otives for h e r integrative efforts, th e ir value
to each fam ily m e m b e r as an individual and the degree of p erso n al
happiness which resu lted w ere not c le a r , or w ere not successful. U lti
m ate harm ony, balance, and a sense of integration was apparently
intended to come som etim e in the fu tu re through a whole new o rd e r to
be brought about by a changed Ralph: i. e. , he was so inspired by his
g ran d fath er's s e lf-sa c rific e , ideals, and m otive that although he might
rem a in at home, he would oppose the "System, " fight for the p r o le t a r
iat and com plete change, and no longer be en cum bered by m a te ria l con
cerns. The value sy ste m s that Odets failed to explore sufficiently, in
this w r ite r 's opinion, w ere those of th e traditional v e rs u s the new, a
struggle that would have transcended the surface issu e s and p o sse sse d
m o re u n iv e rsal appeal.
Confrontation. Confrontation existed, but its psychic rew ard
seem ed to be m in im ized by the p resen ce of com prom ise; e. g. , on the
surface B essie m a y have seem ed to r e p re s e n t some early confronta
tion, but she re s o rte d to lies, denial, and evasions. She did not te st
reality so much as she struggled to subdue it to h er will; tru e , she
a s s e rte d an independence and a p e rs e v e ra n c e tow ard a type of in te g ra
tion, but ultim ately she lost h e r authority. M oral co m p ro m ise m ay
have m ade h e r u n d erstan d a b le--p o sse ssin g a hum an fra ilty --b u t its
p re se n c e did not rew ard the ego so that it em e rg e d as exalted. Psychic
energy did not change d ire c tio n --B e ssie did not c e a se in h e r attem pts
to im pose h e r will upon the world. E nergy rem a in ed outwardly
directed. Ralph suggested som e depth of confrontation with re g a rd to
the future; i. e. , what he was made to think, feel, and see seem ed to
bring him a degree of, or sense of, te m p o ra ry in n e r freedom . N e v e r
th e less, as he finally told the audience, he too intended to im pose his
will upon the w orld (ra th e r than direct energy inw ardly tow ard psychic
effort which would rew ard the audience with a vicarious experience of
self revelation and tru th in depth).
C a th a rsis . A lim ited basis might seem to exist for an audience
p ity -fear response; i. e. , fe a r for what this fam ily brought down upon
itself and pity for the consequences. However, a genuine c a th a rs is -
type of resp o n se was felt to be re stric te d because of the following
lim itations o r absence of req u irem en ts for the c a th a rs is rew ard:
1. The degree of vicarious satisfaction that could be derived
fro m c h a ra c te r (or c h a ra c te rs ') satisfaction of fearful or
forbidden d e s ire s , along with the possibility of audience
a w a re n e ss of the punishment for indulging in such d e s ire s
w ithout questioning the im m inence or quality of justice;
2. A sense of relief and fulfillment from th e discharge and the
control of instincts (the instinctual);
97
3. A feeling of safety and freed o m fro m personal (audience)
responsibility and guilt;
4. Prolonged gratification fro m a p artic u la r identification that
p e rsis te d despite the consequences, and which in c re ased
in sym pathetic intensity as the s to ry drew to a close.
P erh ap s some audience p le asu re could be derived from vicariously
discharging som e of the stro n g e r em otions objectified--m aybe even
ce rta in instincts; but the degree of satisfaction that should be derived
fro m th e ir c o n tro l--a n in-depth truth, the ego strength achieved by a
c h a ra c te r as a resu lt of the consequences - -did not seem convincing.
The nature of the d ilem m a which Odets set forth for sustained involve
m ent, and the final consequences of his c h a r a c te r s ' actions, did not
appear to be conclusive o r didactic enough to p erm it eith er the working
through of an anxiety that ultim ately becam e specified and defined, or
to ex ert a psychic control possible on the related instincts within an
audience. This w rite r was uncertain as to just what could be derived
as the resu lt of experiencing a p a rtic u la r and sustained identification
with one of the c h a r a c te r s , what would re su lt that might be u n iv e r
sally applicable, or would offer a truth or rew ard in depth? Although
the c h a ra c te rs w ere powerful spokesm en for the motif, they appeared
to be overpow ered by the theme or m e ssa g e ; th e ir inner struggles
w ere m o re akin to a reaction, and the reactions w ere ultim ately le ss
significant than the p ro g re s s iv e im positions and dem ands of an o p p re s
sive "System. " A response of pity and fear, the gratification fro m a
specific d e s ire that actuated som e suffering, the sense of relief and
fulfillm ent that can relieve audience tension and anxiety w ere all
98
secondary to the intellectual appeals, the m e ss a g e of the theme; i. e. ,
instead of a balance of cognitive and participant re sp o n se s, the co g
nitive or intellectual predom inated and at the expense of participant
potential. As a resu lt, the inevitability, im m inence, or justice of the
consequences lacked em otional im pact because of limited participant
intensity, and both a pity and fe a r response, if presen t in possibility,
w ere dim inished.
Finally, B e s s ie 's efforts at integration w ere not successful; if
anything, they had an ad v erse effect upon fam ily unity. Jacob's suicide
did not achieve its purpose; Ralph did not leave home to establish his
independence, but instead gave the m oney to the very person Jacob had
avoided, B essie. Hennie did not gain happiness, and one could not
expect that Sam and the baby would be happy as a result of h e r d e s e r
tion. M yron suggested total defeat. Ralph rejected all values in o rd e r
to organize, work, and fight (presum ably as a c r u s a d e r for the f o r
gotten and downtrodden p ro letaria t, but he did not actually say this).
It was not the so rt of anxiety with which Odets was dealing that
appeared to lim it c a th a rs is , how ever, but ra th e r the prevalent con
fusion, the o m nipresence of his own p e rso n a l rationale, and the s o rt of
solution and appeals he provided: viz. , com plete change, revolt, and
the sa lu ta ry possibilities inherent within Com m unism .
Conclusion
Although with Awake and Sing Odets suggests a tren d tow ard the
m o re u n iv e rsal in audience appeals, he continues to em ploy strong
sentim ent and obvious propaganda: the op p ressed p ro letaria t should
a r is e , unite, and w ork for a com plete change. His m e ss a g e is
99
basically a hubris one: rebellion. Hope in the future lies in revolt that
shall come about through the young. Such strong and revolutionary
em phases can in terfere with audience illusion by activating an in te l
lectual response predom inantly or attitudes and sentim ents to the con
tra ry . The possibility is p resen t, perhaps, for a degree of identifica
tion and empathy with some of the c h a ra c te rs due to the com plexity
within th e ir personalities; but too often Odets uses them m e re ly as
outspoken conveyors of his own preachm ent. This tendency o b scures
th e ir inner tu rm o ils and disturbs a general sense of psychological
validity and plausibility. Also, both anxiety perception and illusion
a re too often altered by Odets' general lack of re stra in t and purpose:
he establishes a strong m ilieu of anxiety which is p a rtic u la r to this
fam ily configuration; his situations are overcathected; but his m otif
becom es confused--one m ay inquire if it is a play about traditional
values m ade obsolete by co n tem p o rary conditions and th e ir subsequent
effect upon the fam ily unit, or if it is about the effects of econom ic
d eterm in ism and the hope inherent within the acceptance of M arx ist
doctrine and revolt, or both. A single, cle a rly understood and u n i
v e rsa l theme seem s to be lacking, at least one that would sustain a
strong beginning, m iddle, and conclusion and c rea te a com passionate
whole (re g a rd le ss of the con tem p o rary considerations). Objectification
often lacks binding controls so that one is at odds to lay blame e l s e
w here except upon the "System. " The c h a r a c te r s ' actions s e e m im p u l
sive and actually defensive ra th e r than offensive in force - -p e rs o n s
being acted upon and not knowing p recise ly what re m e d ia l m e a s u r e s to
take. One is not so m uch relieved by the objectification that others
100
also p o sse ss s im ila r instincts, d e s ir e s , destructive tendencies, and
so on, or taught by exam ple what could result through th e ir g ra tific a
tion so that one rein fo rc es his own controls; ra th e r, one is taught that
something e x te rn a l--e c o n o m ic s and the " S y ste m "--is controlling m a n 's
destiny a d v ersely and so it m u st be confronted and destroyed before all
are destroyed. Focus is p re se n t in som e obvious em phases; w hatever
point Odets intends to m ake at a given tim e, he is enthusiastic about its
endorsem ent in his dialogue; how ever, dialogue c o m m e rc ia l dim inishes
audience im agination, analogizing, and the d esirab le effects of a co n
trolled anxiety perception. His diction, though often figurative, n e v e r
theless d istu rb s the sense of balance and control because of in c o n sis
tency; it is frequently prolix and lacks an o rd e re d coherence even with
resp ect to c h a ra c te r. The presen ce of any psychic re w a rd s would
n ecessitate audience em pathy with conditions of the d e p re s sio n e r a and
sym pathies-insight with re sp e c t to this family group as stru ctu re d ;
without audience understanding and acceptance h e re , it se e m s unlikely
that one could feel m uch co m passion, a willingness to w ork through
the tribulations inherent in this predicam ent. Sustained identification
and em pathy with the c h a ra c te rs is difficult because they lack con
vincing am bivalence or actual strength of confrontation. The s u p e r
ego--R alph and J a c o b --a p p a re n tly triu m p h s ultim ately. E ven the id
fo rces--H en n ie and M o e --o v e rru le a final ego victory. The outcome
of psychic energies does not provide Odets' c h a ra c te rs with g re a te r
inner tru th and strength; the end re s u lt is both c o m p ro m ise and the
d irect im position of one's will upon others. Integrative fo rc e s fail;
d estructive forces prevail; and the final resolve of the action is to
101
come som e tim e in the future. R ather than a c le a r and com plete
whole, the action seem s m o re like an in terim episode with the last act
to com e. C ath arsis is re s tric te d sim ply because m any audience m e m
b ers would not be able to p articip ate vicariously on a sustained and
individual level, to experience intensifying sym pathies re g a rd le s s of
the consequences, because that which is objectified is so p erso n al so
re s tric te d or indigenous to this p a rtic u la r fam ily, and so biased
philosophically; Odets m ay have attem pted to objectify a basic social
anxiety--now becom e h is to ric a l--b u t he perm itted other considerations
or m e ss a g e s to obscure a clear m otif, and he attem pted to ex p re ss his
situation-conflict within a v ery p a rtic u la r situation and with somewhat
atypical c h a ra c te rs (i. e. , in te r m s of un iv ersal appeal and ap p lica
tion). The play is a "call to a r m s " of the youthful pro letaria t by
objectifying what has happened to a loving, and (in Odets' opinion)
typical family who has trie d to survive according to the rules of the
"System " game.
P a ra d is e Lost
Plot S um m ary
The opening scene is the living room of the Gordon apartm ent,
47
A rm istice Day, 1935. The daughter, P e a rl, an aspiring concert
pianist, is talking on the telephone with h e r boy friend, Felix. Gus, a
fam ily friend (and an avid stam p collector) is also p resen t, along with
C lara, P e a r l's m other. C lara m entions that th e ir budget will now
allow only two days per week for the m aid. Leo, the father, en ters
and e x p re s s e s his concern about p ersecution and the profound
102
dislocation within the w orld. Gus, who is always looking for an e a s y
way to m ake a m illion, brings up the subject of radio, the p o s sib ili
ties of television, and alludes to a possible loan. C la ra rem inds
everyone that they lost m o st of their money in the bank c r a s h and that
Leo had to take out a m o rtg ag e on the home for the business. T h e ir
oldest son, Ben, is a fam ous Olympic m ile r cham pion who is p resently
engaged to G us's daughter, Libby; how ever, he has never worked and
does not now have a job. Mr. Katz, L eo's business p a rtn e r--h e and
his wife B ertha live u p sta irs - -tells Leo that a w ork delegation fro m
th e ir shop is coming to e x p re s s some grievances. After he leaves,
C la ra cautions Leo not to tru st Sam fully; how ever, he rem inds h e r
that he has faith in people, in goodness, and has confidence that right
will ultim ately prevail. Kewpie, a cab d riv e r and friend of B en's,
e n te rs looking fo r him; C lara says she does not tr u s t him either, and
Leo re m a rk s that she really does not tru s t anyone. Julie, who has
been ill for two months (he actually has sleeping sickness), com m ents
about the stock m a rk e t, saying he could have made money had he the
m oney to invest, or if som eone had only listened to him. Pike, the
furnace man, e n te rs looking fo r a ch ess p artn er, and Julie sets up the
board. Pike ta lk s of starv atio n and the inequity between rich and poor.
A local politician, Mr. Foley, and his friend enter; they a r e c a m
paigning for the D em ocratic vote. C la ra says she votes, but h e r h u s
band, Leo, does not believe in th e ir kind of governm ent. Pike adds
that rich governm ent only m e an s graft, and perhaps it should be taken
over by the people. F o ley labels them as "Reds. " Ben en ters w ith
Libby and Kewpie. He has gotten a m a n icu re and a sk s his father to
103
give Kewpie some m oney for th e atre tickets he has purchased. He
announces that he and Libby have ju st m a rr ie d and that he has t e l e
phoned the new papers. N ew sm en a r r iv e to take photographs. His
s is te r , P e a r l, refuses to pose and when goaded by Ben tells him that
he has n ever earned a nickel and in reality cannot support anyone.
Ben is m om entarily stunned, but he concurs. He confesses that the
doctor has told him he can no longer run because of his heart; he adds
hastily, how ever, that an A. A. U. official has prom ised him a position
on Wall Street. (Leo suspects the truth, that this is m e re ly wishful
thinking. ) Ben leaves to change for the th e atre, and Kewpie tells Libby
that he is still very m uch aro u sed by h e r - - th e y had an affair while Ben
was in Europe. He says he has decided to join forces with the " u n d e r
w orld" and invites h e r to "strin g along. " They a re interrupted by Leo
who senses the truth; he u rg e s Libby to be responsible. When Ben
e n te rs, Kewpie insults Libby; in an g er she tells Ben that Kewpie is
not his true friend, and she p e r s is ts in insult until Kewpie slaps h e r.
Ben then strik e s Kewpie who re tu rn s with a blow that knocks Ben out
m om entarily. Libby encourages Ben to continue fighting, but he
refu ses, telling Kewpie to leave. (Ben then begins to suspect the truth
about Libby's past and Kewpie. ) Im pulsively, Ben decides that they
will go to a movie instead of to the th e a tre , and he borrow s the m oney
from his m other, C lara. A fter they leave, Julie confesses to C la ra
that he does not think he will ev er becom e well. P e a r l's boy friend,
Felix, a r r iv e s to tell P e a rl that he has been unable to find a job as a
m usician. (They have been engaged for two y e a rs , and his inability to
earn a living as a m u sic ian has prevented the m a rria g e . ) He has com e
104
to tell P e a rl good-bye, that he is leaving the city and h er. After he
leaves, the shop delegation a r r iv e s to talk to Leo and Sam. Not only
are working conditions very poor, but the legal advisor for the union
"don't work fo r w o r k e r s ! " Leo is shocked to le arn that (1) Sam has
been exploiting the w o rk e rs by making th em w ork longer hours, (2)
signing statem ents that they have received m o re pay than they actually
received, (3) and that shop working conditions w ere as poor as they
have become. The w o rk e rs th re a te n to strik e , but not through the
" co rru p t" union. Leo p ro m ise s to m e e t th e ir conditions, despite
S am 's strong opposition, and re g a rd le s s of the profit sacrifice. Pike
attacks the capitalistic sy stem as unfair, and w ar mongering; he
adm onishes Leo for not working h ard enough for a change.
Act Two begins eighteen m onths la te r and Ju lie 's health is w orse;
he now walks around in a stupor. Gus has been living with the Gordons
since Ben and his daughter w ere m a rrie d ; he has not worked during this
tim e, and p resently has been m issin g overnight. Leo e x p re sse s
apprehension about what se e m s to be happening to the fam ily unity and
its c h a ra c te r. C lara inquires about the b u sin ess, and Leo says the
end has not yet come. Gus ap p ears; he has been in jail charged with
m olesting a g irl in the subway. They laugh, but Gus c rie s and denies it.
Ben enters looking for L ibby--they now have a baby. B en's only
em ploym ent at the tim e is selling m e ch an ic al toys on s tre e t c o rn e rs .
He tells Leo that Kewpie has a job for him , not honest but well-paying;
Leo is opposed, but Ben rep lies that honesty has not gotten him or his
fath er anyw here. He feigns a c a re fre e attitude, thanks Gus for paying
his rent, and exits. C la ra suspects that Libby has begun to m ake life
105
difficult for Ben, and Gus ag ree s. P e a r l en ters and com plains of f e e l
ing hom esick, but does not know why; Pike says that it is a "depression
of the m o d e rn m a n 's spirit, of his inability to live a full and human
48
life. " Kewpie suddenly ap p ea rs, and he offers money to Gus who in
tu rn a cc u se s him of trying to buy loyalty; Gus tells him to stay away
from Libby while Ben is out searching for work. After Kewpie has
gone, Ben en ters looking fo r him; Gus tells him that it has not been he
who has been paying B en's rent. Ben suspects the truth, but Gus will
say no m o re . When Kewpie re tu rn s, Ben confronts him with the truth.
At f irs t Kewpie is denying, but finally adm its to the truth openly--that
he has been supporting Ben, Libby, and the child. Ben s ta rts to leave,
but Kewpie te lls him that he has a dangerous job for him . Resigned,
Ben accepts. As they leave, he spits on his Olympic statue aw ard and
throw s his gold m edals to Julie. Leo and Pike enter, and Leo w onders
aloud why he has n ev er m et a happy man. Pike tells him it is the
"System " which breeds w a rs , degradation and sentim ental idiots.
However, Leo insists that life is patience and endurance. Gus r e m i
nisces about the happiness of bygone days and w onders what would h a p
pen if everyone w ere to revolt. M r. Katz en ters with M r. May, a
professional fire s ta r t e r (for insurance claim s). Leo o rd e rs him out
of the house and Sam accu ses him of selfishness. Leo tells him to pay
the shop bills even if he m u st take money out of th e ir bank account.
Sam adm its that there is no longer any money; he has em bezzled e v e ry
thing. He breaks down and c rie s , and Leo tells C lara that this m eans
voluntary bankruptcy. However, he tells C la ra that they will live to
see "strange and wonderful events. " She notices the card left by M r.
106
May and suggests that Leo reco n sid e r, but he refu ses adam antly.
When she leaves, Julie asks his father not to te ll C la ra that he knows
he is dying. Kewpie telephones and leaves a h u rrie d m e ss a g e to the
effect that Ben "got som ething" on Lincoln Avenue. Julie suspects
that he has been killed.
Act T hree begins over one y e a r later; the living room is bare
except for the m ost basic essen tials because the Gordons a re being
e v ic te d --th e ir belongings a re on the sidewalk, and C la ra has draw n
all of the blinds. Julie is now confined to a wheel ch air and C la ra is
telling him the legend of M oses and the com m andm ents. (He is to go
to the hospital that night. ) Gus and Pike enter; Pike tells him confi
dentially that he has sold his prized stam p collection as Gus has
asked him to do (two hundred and fifty dollars). Leo enters; he is late
because he has been trying to negotiate a loan on the hom e, and it was
denied. He apologizes to P e a r l because the piano m u s t be rep o ssessed .
Kewpie a r riv e s v ery pro sp ero u sly attired. He offers to help with
money but C lara and Leo refuse; they accuse h im of being responsible
for B en's death. Kewpie replies that Ben wanted to die because he was
a kid who knew he was not responsible and was asham ed. C lara and
Leo o rd e r him to leave, but he leaves money as he exits. Leo decides
to give the money to the hom eless on the block. The politician, Phil
Foley, en ters and requests that they rem ove th e ir furniture from the
sidewalk so that the neighbors can have a block party; he tells them
that ce rta in people have taken up a collection to help. However, Gus
in terru p ts and gives Leo the stam p-collection money. Foley then calls
in two detectives who in turn o rd e r others outside to begin bringing in
107
the furniture. Pike brings in two destitute m en . Leo gives them
Kewpie's money. Instead of being grateful, they deride Leo, telling
him that he still believes in ideals and that he d re a m s of a dem ocracy
and a liberty which do not exist. When they leave, C la ra tells Leo that
the m en w ere c o rre c t. Leo agrees, but he te lls her that all that has
happened was in the past; now they know something m u st be done;
everyw here m e n are awakening to the blackness of th e ir lives in order
to fight; he sees greatn ess in men; the world is to p o s se ss and not to
fear. His final words are . . no m an fights alone . . . let us have
a ir . . . open the windows. " He c ro s s e s to ra ise the blinds.
Illusion
The intended illusion did not se e m unlike that found within the
play, Awake and Sing: a m etropolitan or u rb a n middle c la ss family
which found itself at odds not only within itself but a lso collectively
with its environm ent b ecau se it had not changed co m m en su rate with the
m uch a lte re d environm ental conditions brought about by an economic
depression, co n tem p o rary governm ent and politics, and the "System";
reality and the p racticalities of increasing m a te ria lis tic considerations
becam e p ro g re s siv e ly at odds with the basic fra m e w o rk of fam ilial
values, and so becam e destructive forces which the fam ily neither
understood, was able to m anage effectively, o r even to acknowledge.
49
C ritics so m etim e s com pared Odets with Chekhov. However,
unlike the d ra m a s of Chekhov, herein (1) one would need first-h a n d
fam iliarity with the conditions of the d ep ressio n in o rd e r to experience
any sustained sym pathy or understanding--O dets seem ed to em phasize
selective p a rtic u la rs; and (2) c h a ra c te rs typified a sm all, p articu la r
108
group rath e r than a rep resen tativ e group having broad social and
psychological significance. The Gordons w ere actually very m uch
like the B e rg e rs of the Bronx (in Awake and Sing); essentially, they
rep resen ted an atypical d e p re ssio n family, having a p a rtic u la r ethnic
background, and one who lived in a n a rro w world of the la rg e st city in
50
the country. C ertain sentim ents were p resen t in stren g th --eth n ic
and especially the political or p a rtis a n --a n d these could confuse,
antagonize, or resu lt in a purely intellectual a p p ra isa l for m any
audiences - -disturbing psychic distance and illusion. As was the case
in his e a rlie r w orks, im agination and analogizing (if not inhibited by
u n restrain ed em phases) seem ed to depend largely upon sym pathies in
a cc o rd with those so ada.mantly and emotionally set fo rth by Odets; in
this sense, the play seem ed another example of attention directed m o re
tow ard the p a rtic u la r as opposed to universal appeals; in the words of
M ary Colum, "He is w riting about a special group of people who for
51
the m o st part live in the n a rro w e s t of w orlds. "
P arad ise Lost was the f ir s t play reviewed about which the critics
w ere in general accord; all but one of those who wrote about the play
(Harold Clurm an) considered it confusing, oblique, repetitive, p ro p a
g a n d is ts , sentim ental, m e d io cre, wordy, c ra m m e d with too m any
52
ideas, and generally lacking in o v e r-a ll entertainm ent value. In the
opinion of the w rite r, M a ry Colum ventured an in terestin g observation:
They a re absolute m a te ria lis ts and they believe the w orld is
going to pieces when retu rn s, im m ediate re tu rn s, do not com e in.
What they lack is a d re a m of c rea tiv en e ss. When w hatever returns
they expect don't come in, they are to rn with rage and e x a s p e r a
tion, and the author m istak es this rage and e x asp eratio n fo r a
trag ic and revolutionary emotion. Like other im m ig ra n t groups,
they have lost the idealism and culture of th e ir forefath ers and
have not yet attained any m ellow ness or balance. ^3
109
Of in terest to this w rite r was that this play w as Odets' p erso n al
favorite, and even y e a rs later he described it (without reservation) as
his very best play; he felt it w as not about the problem s of individuals
54
but those of an en tire class. (Shortly after the opening of the o r ig i
nal production in D ecem ber, 1935, Odets accepted a Hollywood con
tra c t as a script w rite r fo r $2, 500 p e r week; in turn, he attem pted to
subsidize P a ra d is e Lost because it w as not being supported by an audi-
55
ence, but despite his efforts the play was forced to c lo se .) M em bers
of the Group T heatre (who originally produced and s ta r r e d in the play)
advertised in the New York m orning p ap ers, the day a fte r the opening,
5 6
to the effect that it was a great and im portant play. They m ailed
le tters to the d r a m a c ritic s stating that the play made an im portant
contribution to th e a tre , and the critics should make a " c le a r-c u t"
statem ent to the effect that e v ery "sensitive th e a tre g o e r" m u st by all
57
m eans see it, a gestu re to which som e c ritic s took offense.
Identification-em pathy. Strong and sustained participation with
the events of this play would be virtually im possible unless one had
some insight, u nless one w ere able to identify with the p articu la r
fam ilial dynam ics of the Gordons; i. e. , one would have to be able to
feel with, feel into, and to understand their m otivations, values, and
the general decisions and m a n n er with which they attem pted to deal with
their predicam ent. (One critic was in doubt as to w hether the fam ily
58
was even intended to be A m eric an .) The extent of v ic ario u s p a r tic i
pation and involvement n e c e s s a ry for entertainm ent is always depen
dent upon ready sym pathies, insight, and empathy with c h a ra c te rs
involved in th e ir situation-conflict. Involvement is disturbed,
110
re stra in e d , if an audience questions an au th o r's point of view, finds it
overw helm ing, o r is in d isa g re e m e n t with his th e sis. Although som e
of these c h a ra c te rs w ere cle a rly worthy, they seem ed unique as indi
viduals (e.g. , Leo, Gus, M r. Pike), or somewhat bewildering in
th e ir m otivation and actions (Sam, B ertha, Kewpie). Many audience
m e m b e rs m ight understand and asso ciate with the struggles of the
m o th er, Clara: h er p erso n al conflicts and concerns contained a degree
of significance and magnitude as she struggled to balance the forces
within and impinging upon h e r family. To some extent one m ight also
identify with Ben; he could re p re s e n t the bew ilderm ent that resu lts
when the pattern of past self-indulgence, and the indulgence of others,
finally confronts the dem ands of reality and re sp o n s ib ility --a p e rs o n
ality trying to function with an inappropriate concept of self, a con
cept continually reinforced by its im m ediate environm ent. In addition
to having som e worthy qualities, neither C la ra nor Ben was all-good
nor all-bad, so that one's sym pathies could fluctuate and even be p r o
voked at tim es; also, it did not se e m n e c e s s a r y to se a rc h fo r m eaning
or to expend m uch effort in o rd e r to understand th e ir conflicts.
A ccording to what was s tre s s e d as im portant, how ever, it would
appear difficult for the audience ego to relax so that participation with
the c h a ra c te rs could occur and be sustained with ease, for Odets co n
centrated m o re attention upon the effects of th e ir situation-conflict
rath er than allowing his audience to w ork along with them through th e ir
difficulties and thereby derive som e insight into the problem s at issue.
F u rth e r, the p resen ce of such extended id ealism (particularlypolitical)
as that rep resen ted and e x p re sse d by the c h a ra c te rs of Leo or Pike
I ll
could activate a predom inant audience intellectual response (and
resistan c e) and d istu rb psychic distance. Even if one's sentim ents or
fancies w ere in accord, it was the inner struggles of these c h a ra c te rs
which did not se e m sufficiently re p re se n te d so that they might inspire
the depth of sym pathy and em pathy (insight) that is n e c e s s a ry to build
and sustain a tru ly em otional experience for an audience.
H u b ris . No genuine hubris c h a ra c te r seem ed p resent. Kewpie
violated a tabu by coveting another m a n 's wife, employing deceit,
rebelling against the law, ethics, and m orality; how ever, hubris^ c o m
plexity was lacking because strong tensions w ere not aroused, those
which resu lt from the vicarious experiencing of s im ila r d e s ire s as
well as th e ir defenses. As presented, Kewpie seem ed basically a n ti
social, a m o ra l, and without re m o rs e , even psychopathic to some
59
extent --unique, or a type. P erh ap s audience fear could be activated
as a resu lt of his rebellion, but totally lacking was any opportunity to
feel pity for some suffering on his part as a consequence of his actions.
Likewise, his conflicts did not re p re se n t those of an audience at large.
In o rd e r for the hubris c h a ra c te r to provide an audience with a didactic
experience, and one with som e degree of pleasure and satisfaction, an
audience m ust experience along with him not only the im pulses that
have been strongly restrain ed , but also the tra n s g re s s io n itself, the
struggles between im pulse and inhibition, and the consequent suffering
and punishment. Only in this sense m ay deep longings be satisfied
within the audience because they m ust be able to experience the
d e s ire s , their guilt, and so on, and feel m o m en tarily purged as a
resu lt. In addition to Kewpie, Pike m ight suggest to som e audiences a
112
hubris quality, but his function seem ed m o re that of an agent -
spokesm an for the protest imbedded within Odets' motif. Consequently,
a degree of em otional response and development seem ed lacking
because of the absence of in tern al struggle between im pulse and inhi
bition that surrounded som e forthright violation involving serious con
sequences and retribution. The nature of the basic struggle was
actually m o re ideational, intellectual, and one having a social p e r
spective; i.e . , p rim a ry concern was with contem porary socio
economic values and cultural m o re s: another folk-play, and another
p sy ch o -so cio -h isto rical expostulation.
Control of Anxiety Perception--O bjectification and Focus
As re g a rd s anxiety perception, the subject m a te ria l was intended
to be overcathected in that a ll-se rio u s events predom inated, and there
w ere e x tre m e s of conditions and demanding alternatives. However,
the cathexis (Odets' concentration of psychic energy, his investm ent of
idea with feeling and significance) was so imbued with sentim ent and
partisan sh ip that the presen ce of any u n iv e rsals was obscured. C h a r
ac te rs p o sse sse d strong conviction, but too often th e ir convictions did
not activate or re p re s e n t those human values which are tim e le ss,
broadly understood, and accepted. Some of the c h a ra c te rs had noble
qualities, but frequently the d e sire s which troubled th em w ere not
those against which the typical audience would stru g g le --th e y seem ed
m o re indigenous to the Gordon family in p articu la r. As a resu lt, the
play could fail to aro u se sufficient anxiety; i. e. , to the degree that an
audience would becom e em otionally involved, participate willingly,
desiring to experience and to learn fro m the experience.
113
Objectification. That which Odets objectified seem ed to lack a
c le a rly organized intent. Stage action often appeared crow ded with
events and happenings that w ere not closely interw oven--the causals,
the interrelationships, did not ap p ea r to be sufficiently established.
Within Act One, for exam ple, the following occurred: P e a r l fought
with Gus over the piano, the can a ry incident cam e to full attention,
Gus attem pted to secure a loan, C la ra and Leo d isag ree d over Sam
and tru s t, Phil Foley visited and labeled the household a bunch of
"Reds, " Ben m a rr ie d Libby, new sm en and photographers suddenly
a rriv e d , Ben q u arreled with P e a rl, Kewpie attem pted to seduce Libby,
th e re was a fight between Libby and Kewpie, between Ben and Kewpie
(and then among all three), Julie was discovered to have sleeping s ic k
n e ss, the engagement between P e a r l and Felix was broken and he left
fo re v e r, a shop delegation visited Leo and Sam, and Pike indicted the
"S ystem " and even Leo. M issing within all of these events, how ever,
seem ed to be a unifying understood purpose, or a c le a rly ex p ressed or
understood inciting event that m ight justify the crowded events follow
ing, clarify the intent, provoke audience involvement, and support
development and sustained in terest. Consequently, a sense of inevi
tability seem ed to be lacking. Also, in te r m s of diction, Odets s o m e
tim e s injected elevated prose and philosophical im port w here one
would least expect it, em bellishm ent that was confusing; e.g . , Pike,
the furnace man; Paul, the h o m eless bum. K ewpie's diction, though
realistic and not actually contradictory to his c h a ra cterizatio n , was
nev erth eless in such co n tra st to that of the g en era l to n e --e . g. , Leo,
P ike, Gus, B en --th a t it seem ed noticeable if not vulgar by contrast.
114
The selection and a rra n g e m e n t of diction and action seem ed to lack
consistency (a pattern) in general. (As indicated e a r lie r within the
d iscussion of Illusion, the critics felt that P a ra d ise Lost lacked a c le a r
purpose and line of development. ) One critic stated outright that the
play lacked motivation, either in straight statem ent o r s tre s s e d o v e r
tones, and that diction in addition often violated ch aracterizatio n . ^
Diction and action should com plim ent, contain and bind a predicam ent,
so that the objectification of some anxiety becom es possible which, by
their com bined efforts, is sufficiently controlled to allow a degree of
audience confrontation without fe a r, distraction, or without forcing
open acknowledgement. The violence involving Kewpie, Libby, Ben,
and Leo (to cite one example) seem ed to be in direct contradiction to
this principle. Suggested stage action m ay be m o re effective th e a tr i
cally than the overt presentation of events; for by implying, the audi
ence m ay then crea te th e ir own s to ry --a n a lo g iz e - -and they a re not
forced to acknowledge an ugly or brutal outcome. (They may e m b e l
lish and even relate below a conscious level. ) Insufficient controls,
th e re fo re, can easily disturb the aesthetic experience by forcing an
audience to acknowledge openly what it would p refer to avoid or to
imagine, to deal with subconsciously, or to manage in its own fashion
of fantasy. A feeling of audience detachm ent and se c u rity throughout
is essential for p ro p er psychic distance, fo r controlled anxiety p e r
ception; and with this play, Odets did not seem to c rea te nor to m a in
tain a p ro p e r balance.
115
F o c u s . Focus, like objectification, seem ed unclear. Instead of
omitting the sluggishness and irre le v a n c ie s of daily life, Odets
appeared to s tr e s s them to the disadvantage of action and sense of
p rogressive development. One could question the purpose or im p o r
tance of many of the episodes and th e ir integration with the plot: e. g. ,
some of the events and dialogue involving c h a ra c te rs such as Gus and
Sam; the relationship between Sam and B ertha, and their relationship
to Leo and C lara. The causals and interrelationships did not se e m to
em phasize adequately the e ssen tials of som e o v er-all, clearly
developed underlying idea, with the result that a swift and coherent
sense of beginning, m iddle, and end seem ed obscured (as well as an
aw areness of a complete and meaningful action). F or many, the play
may seem to com m ence som ew here in the middle of an action and to
end abruptly without a just resolve.
Odets employed image and m etaphor with skill; he often used
strong figurative language, but one could frequently question its intent
as well as its contribution tow ard an o rd ered coherence. The fig u ra
tive language ex p ressed p articu la rly by Pike, Leo, and Gus, was
poetic, but too often it seem ed out of context with the events and quality
of re a lis m that Odets appeared to be seeking from the outset. Focus
and objectification should combine to telescope the time factor, omit
confusions, and mold the action into a whole, thus revealing a m ean in g
ful and understood pattern. The desired resu lt would be the em ergence
of a behavior pattern o rd in arily obscured by life's irrelev an cies and
inconsistencies, a significant one underlying human experience. In tra
psychic conflicts that d eterm in e the course of human lives should be
116
m an ifest, but these m u st be perceived by the audience as outside of,
o r safely distanced from the audience s e lf--a p ro p er psychic distance
with resp ect to involvement. Should conflicts be perceived too p e r
sonally, seem too p artisan, or confusing--as they often appeared to be
within this play--then they aro u se resistan ce to com passion and impede
sustained identification and participation. The goal of anxiety p e rc e p
tion is a controlled, com passionate seeing of a whole. T herefo re, as
re g a rd s the establishm ent and control of anxiety perception, Odets
seem ed to have in terfered with its possibilities by his (1) overattention
to details which did not seem sufficiently u n iv e rsal and integrated into
a whole (if not irre le v a n t and confusing); (2) the absence of a clearly
established purpose and line of development; (3) inconsistencies within
both diction and focus; (4) inadequate clarification of causals and in te r
relationships; and (5) overly ex p ressed sentim ent and strong
partisanship.
Psychic R ew ards
F a ilu re to establish a sufficient degree of control with resp ect to
anxiety perception would as a result limit the possible effects of the
final psychoanalytic a re a of concern: the extent of psychic rew ards.
If vicarious participation and involvement on either a conscious o r an
unconscious level becom e disturbed o r restrain ed , it follows logically
that the balance of psychic distance would likewise becom e altered with
the re su lt that an intellectual response would overpow er an affective or
emotional one. Psychic rew ard s depend upon audience involvement
without a w a re n e s s, and the rew ards a r e m ost gratifying when they
function as com pensations for the m any inadequacies and deprivations
117
of daily experience. As indicated e a rlie r, the conflicts which Odets
probed h erein seem ed generally p a rtic u la r to an e ra , to a special
locale, and to an atypical fam ily group. F o r exam ple, few d ep ressio n
fam ilies could afford a m aid, had among its m e m b e rs an Olympic
champion as well as a potential concert pianist; one son dying of
sleeping sickness; a b o a rd e r fa th e r-in -la w who made no apparent
effort to find w ork (collected ra re stam ps, parked his m o to rcy cle in
the ap artm en t, and was a rre s te d in the subway on a m olesting charge);
a fiance who abandoned love and m a rria g e simply because he could not
find the job he wanted as a m usician; and a ja n ito r who was an a r ti c u
late M arx ist philosopher and who becam e virtually a m e m b e r of the
family. To determ ine psychic rew ard s one should be able to identify
the im pulses which Odets was attem pting to dignify, those which an
audience would recognize as im pulses it too would tend to deny or to
gratify culpably; one m ay question what resu lts of e r r o r or c o n s e
quences Odets was asking his audience to acknowledge, consequences
which they would ra th e r avoid and believe avoidable, but nev erth eless
effectively resolved so as to provide a sense of justice according to all
that was deem ed relevant. What needs could be satisfied about which
an audience could be totally unaware; what com pensations for their
daily fru stra tin g experiences ? P erh ap s psychic rew ards seem ed
m inim al because Odets was not stre s s in g affect and effect beyond the
obvious surface m e ssa g e provided by dialogue and interaction. As in
the play Awake and Sing, the problem appeared to be a m aladjustm ent;
and to the fam ily, the rem e d y seem ed to be either m o re m oney or a
com plete change and revolt of the presen t "System. "
118
A m bivalence. Ambivalence was p resent to a lim ited degree,
m ost noticeably within the women c h a ra c te rs (C lara, P e a rl, Libby,
and Bertha). Their conflicts occasionally seem ed to be presented from
different points of view; however, neither o v e r-a ll ch ara cterizatio n nor
conflict was so strongly developed that an internal poised and sustained
am bivalence (typical of the human dilemma) seem ed convincingly
established. Only occasionally could one find within the c h a ra c te rs
sym pathies in opposition, conditions which altered value judgment, or
a conflict of opposites. Value system s did e m e rg e , but they w ere not
so much internal-individual, or even fam ilial, as they w ere r e p r e s e n
tative of the Gordons as a unit in opposition to the "System " or the
"E stablishm ent. " The m ale c h a r a c te r s - - L e o , Ben, Julie, Gus, Sam,
Kewpie, P ik e--ten d ed to become types; once m et, they changed little,
if at all. Also, any am bivalence in th e ir c h ara cterizatio n s seem ed to
be stated in dialogue ra th e r than presented through th e ir actions. Only
Ben and Kewpie seem ed to have dialogue suggesting in tern al conflict,
Ben seem ed compelled to reinforce the im age of him self which e v e ry
one d esired to believe and which his degree of ego strength or needs
seem ed to req u ire , yet he confessed to his sense of inadequacy, fe e l
ings of w o rth lessn ess, and defeat. Kewpie p rotested his love for Ben,
yet re fe rre d to him as a "burnt out spark plug, " (and he was to a great
extent responsible for Ben's complete destruction). N evertheless,
claim s and counterclaim s did not appear balanced; dem ands did not
seem equal; a sense of bipolar harm ony was not established. Instead,
c h a ra c te rs seem ed com m itted; they proceeded in one direction in r e a c
tion to the external forces of the "System " impinging upon them . Such
119
a condition could serve conceivably as a d ram a tic conflict, but for an
audience to participate in a struggle to any degree of depth, som e con
vincing am bivalence would have to be p resen t within the m ain c h a r a c
t e r s and conflict in o rd e r to sustain identification-em pathy and to m ake
both the c h a ra c te rs and dilem m a seem valid and plausible. The "Sys
te m " should not seem all-bad (no single view in control for an extended
time) because the "System " itself is only a collective value system
functioning with some strength at a given h isto rical m om ent due to the
nature and extent of general accord.
Confrontation. No single c h a ra c te r actually rep resen ted a clear
exam ple of the confrontation-type of ch a ra c te r. C lara m ay appear to
have sought out to som e extent what the typical w ife-m other might
avoid, r e p r e s s , su p p ress, lie about or deny. (This was perhaps m ore
noticeable as she becam e contrasted with Leo. ) She confronted certain
defects, m istak es, and fate except w here conditions concerned her
children; she generally acknowledged h er own vulnerability, and she
did not m inim ize suffering nor sue for appeal or for peace, except
w here it involved her s o n s - - e .g . , she encouraged Leo to reco n sid er
the fire insurance money for the sake of Julie. In certain aspects Ben
might seem to exemplify confrontation: he confronted his defects, m i s
takes, fate, acknowledged his vulnerability and even the prospect of
annihilation; yet he employed too m any lies, evasions, false hopes,
appeals for help, and so on, in o rd e r to re p re s e n t a c o n fr o n ta tio n
c h a ra c te r. His ultim ate s e lf-sa c rific e seem ed an u n n e c e ssa ry and
unfortunate outcome, if not a w aste, because events did not suggest
that he had failed in his confrontation with reality so m uch as he had
120
not had the opportunity to build a self, an ego strength, that would
serve and support him sufficiently with resp ect to prevailing realities.
Odets m ay have intended that Leo would serv e as a confrontation
ch a ra c te r; Leo did have a final speech apparently intended to suggest
a revelation, a new direction, and truth in depth. However, Odets did
not seem to p re p a re his audience for in-depth truth or a change in
direction of energies because he failed to provide Leo with any con
vincing internal struggle, believable bad qualities along with the good,
a battle between im pulse and inhibition--any kind of am bivalence in
general. ^ Consequently, the change in L eo--though p re s e n t--s e e m e d
abrupt, and not justified according to relevant preceding events.
One final criterio n for the confrontation concept is the trium ph
of the ego; a c h a ra c te r m ay be ego-exalting when he (rep resen tin g the
ego) p e rs is ts at reality testing and reporting, re g a rd le s s of the m i s
fortunes which result. In so doing m an is perceived as transcending
m isfortune and hum an frailty. The ego a s s im ila te s the id and s u p e r
ego, a s s e r ts independence and p e rs e v e re s in its integrative efforts;
instincts a re specified, gratified, and as a result m ade m o re receptive
to audience control. Leo did not do this, of course; if anything, he
avoided reality testing. The c h a ra c te r who would m ost closely
re se m b le confrontation would be C la r a - - a n integrative force like the
e a r lie r c h a ra c te r of B essie in Awake and Sing. H er contact with real.*-
ity seem ed the m ost convincing in every resp ect except w here h e r sons
w ere concerned. In both dialogue and action, p a rticu la rly between h er
and the older m ale c h a ra c te rs , she was often integrative and testing
of reality. H owever, as an o v e r-a ll p o rtrait, she did not e m e rg e as a
121
w ell-developed or strong confrontation type because of h er in c o n sis
tencies.
Odets m ay have intended the "System " to serve as a c h ara cter;
fro m a psychoanalytic point of view, something which re p re se n te d a
destructive and indulgent id fo rc e --lik e the c h a ra c te rs Kewpie, Libby,
and Sam who seem ed to overpow er not only the superego fo rces r e p r e
sented by c h a ra c te rs such as Pike and Leo, but also the ego forces of
those like C lara and P e a rl. The pleasure principle seem ed for a tim e
victorious, but in the final m om ents of the play it was overcom e by the
inherent strength of m a n 's faith and ideals. However, it was not the
ego which em erg ed finally as victorious re g a rd le ss of Odets' intent.
C lara and P e a rl, for exam ple, w ere ultim ately overcom e by all of the
m isfo rtu n es, and C la ra 's final energies becam e subservient to those
of Leo's. The superego fo rces assu m ed final p r io rity --c o n s c ie n c e ,
idealism , faith. Im portant also, it would seem , was that L eo 's new
impetus was not given any opportunity for reality testing, but was only
ex p ressed . Neither was the id (or destructive force) absent because
real hope lay in com plete change, revolt, and the destruction of the
existent.
C atharsis. Since a c a th a rsis rew ard depends upon participant
as well as cognitive reactions, a vicarious satisfaction from a c h a r a c
t e r 's d e s ire s and an aw aren ess of the resulting penalty, p leasu re m ust
be derived from both the discharge and control of s im ila r instincts
within the audience as they work along through a predicam ent; yet, at
all tim es they m u st feel safe and free from guilt, a s s u re d they a re not
pursuing th e ir own fantasy. Absent within this play seem ed to be the
1ZZ
extent of (1) consequences of c h a ra c te r action which an audience could
recognize as the d irect result of satisfying some readily understood
and sym pathetic d e s ire s , consequences which (Z) seem ed logical and
beyond question in te rm s of justice, inevitability and im m inence, and
finally (3) consequences which enhanced sympathy, did not in terfere
with identification-em pathy, but sustained a participation with the
situation-conflict. The d e s ire s yielded to by Leo, for exam ple, had a
strong ideational appeal in the sense that he rejected doubt, suspicion,
cynicism , or change in favor of a belief in prevailing goodness, even
when evil or the demand for change should have been obvious to him.
The ultim ate consequence becam e financial ruin, not only for self but
also for his family; as a result he becam e convinced that salvation lay
in the future, in work, in the communion of m an, in a new o rd e r
brought about by the innate g reatness and love of mankind. However,
this attitude did not seem to re p re se n t so m uch a c h a ra c te r change, a
revelation, or s e lf - r e v e r s a l as it rep resen ted sim ply an extension of
his old adjustm ent; considering all that had gone before, and in the
p resence of such g rim realities, his final speech seem ed alm ost
quixotic. Any sympathy for him would depend upon audience u n d e r
standing and accord with the nature of his id e a lis m --p e rh a p s difficult
when one considers his total m e a s u re of resp o n sib ilities, the urgent
and realistic dem ands upon him for being both p ra c tic a l and responsible.
The identification-em pathy and vicarious participation that underlies
c a th a rs is depends upon co m m en su rate audience d e s ire s , insight, and
m utual em otional resp o n ses to stim uli in light of the events and logic
as p re s e n te d --a tra n sfe re n c e that is strong and sustained on both an
123
em otional and intellectual level. Much happened in L eo's life which
could provoke or effect for him an altered adjustm ent: destruction of
his older son, the im m inent death of his other son, the loss of his
daughter's com fort and happiness, disappointm ent in a life-long friend,
the loss of his long standing b u sin ess, and com plete financial ruin.
An audience m ight be able to disch arg e m uch of its own idealism
through vicarious participation with Leo; i. e. , the ideal principles by
which one would hope to live. However, L eo's final conviction--his
statem ent to C lara that only the future is real, the fo rces of goodness
united shall effect change, and so o n --s e rv e d m e re ly to restate and to
reinforce his idealism (the difference now being that m o re goodness
seem ed possible for him in the future). Leo rem ained a confirm ed
idealist. As such, his final testim ony failed to establish a n e c e ss a ry
basis for the sense of control or controls which an audience would need
in o rd e r to experience strong c a th a rs is - -the ego did not seem to t r i
umph but was overw helm ed by the superego. ^
Assum ing a collective audience ego of this h isto ric a l period,
somewhat congested by its instinctual and idealistic en ergies, and
subjected to the p ressin g co n tem p o rary socio-econom ic fo rc e s, Leo's
m isfortunes m ight have pointed tow ard som e internal controls, m ight
have assuaged anxiety about the prevailing n e c e ssity to co m p ro m ise
somewhat one's own ideals, w ere it not for his final avowal. Odets
m ay have intended for his audience to conclude that L eo's newfound
w ellspring of energy was now no longer dependent upon m oney or the
"System, " but had becom e founded upon an optim ism concerning the
innate goodness of m en and the possibility of change within the
124
"System " through com m unal efforts. If so, L eo's o v e r-a ll c h a r a c te r i
zation did not seem sufficiently contrasted at the c lo se --i. e. , some
change, som e finally realized and altered values as a resu lt of past
events, in co n trast to e a r lie r ones, that would se rv e to instruct an
audience, to purge pity and fear, to establish or confirm the need for
internal controls. Lacking seem ed to be sufficient gratification in
that which brought about the suffering, as well as satisfactions derived
fro m th e ir justice or punishment, which would in tu rn relieve audience
tension and anxiety. Instead, an unfortunate and u n n e c e ssa ry waste of
hum an energies seem ed to result, m any events which might have been
avoided easily. A s for C lara, an audience could participate and derive
pleasure from h er m a tria rc h a l efforts, h er d e s ire s and instincts
yielded to; how ever, m issin g for a c a th a rs is rew ard was the sense of
im m inent penalty for h e r seem ingly exaggerated if not at tim es incon
sistent instincts and also the absence of a final em erg en ce of controls.
Succinctly, an audience would hardly be instructed by the events and
the climax; nothing suggested that Leo or C lara would be significantly
different in th e ir futures. Leo m e re ly adm onished C la ra and said, in
effect, by looking to the future and having faith in m a n 's goodness they
would trium ph (like the B e rg e rs, they too should awake and sing).
Conclusion
The illusion was disturbed by the prevalence of p a rtic u la r sen ti
m ent and p a rtisan co m m ercial. (Ideational appeals in p a rtic u la r o v e r
powered possible potential for an audience em otional participant
resp o n se)) Because c h a ra c te rs often seem ed unique, if not confusing
in m otivation and purpose, the possibility and extent for identification-
125
em pathy p o sse sse d lim itations. The p resence of internal struggle
within one or m o re c h a ra c te rs was not convincing; any conflict of
value sy stem s presen t was concerned with the family as a unit oppos
ing the "System. " Although some hubris quality was in evidence, no
c h a ra c te r truly rep re se n te d an authentic or convincing example;
rebellion or violation went unpunished, convincing feelings of guilt
w ere not established, and so the potential for didacticism was m in i
m al, if not absent. The play concluded with the m e ssag e that c o m
m unal and not individual efforts would prevail and trium ph. The con
cerns intended to aro u se anxiety p erce p tio n --th e c ath ex is- -w ere not
those of a general or tim e le ss nature (broad and un iv ersal human
appeals), but m o re personal, con tem p o rary , and partisan. C onse
quently, degree of em otional involvement and participation, and the
balance or control of anxiety perception would have to depend not only
upon understanding but also sympathetic accord with those issues and
concerns Odets em phasized as being relevant. Diction often lacked
consistency and even ap p ro p riaten ess; the action was som etim es con
fusing in te r m s of a logical developm ental pattern having a clearly
understood purpose or motivation. Diction and action did not co o rd i
nate so as to arouse a specific anxiety and then bind the problem -
conflict in o rd e r that the anxiety could be objectified as a recognizable
whole, focused upon, and confronted with a feeling of audience security
and without distraction. By expressing em phatically what could often be
suggested, Odets failed to take advantage of audience im agination
potential (another factor which prom otes m o re intellectual audience
response than affective). A consistent c h a ra c te ristic within all of
126
Odets' plays up to this point has been this lack of aesthetic or psychic
ambiguity, the restric tio n s Odets him self brings to b e a r upon the audi
ence imagination and analogizing by his too vigorous intent upon c o m
m unicating a m e ssa g e and diagnosing his situation-conflict for the
audience; typically, his m otif is too em phatically e x p re sse d (alm ost
naively so), and is always the s a m e --th e evil and carnivorous "Sys
tem . " The focus is disturbed by irrelev an cies. One m ay be confused
as to what is of m o st im portance, as well as being unable to understand
the m otives for m uch of the action. Not carefully established is (1) a
clear sense of beginning, m iddle, and end, (2) a m eaningful pattern
which ordinarily would be obscured by life, and (3) intrapsychic con
flicts within at least one cen tral c h a ra c te r, all of which a re n e c e ssa ry
for the controlled com passionate experiencing of a whole. As for p s y
chic rew ard s, it is not clear to the w rite r what im pulses Odets was
p rim a rily attem pting to m anifest, what awful consequences of an
action, how the final events a re intended to re p re s e n t justice, what
needs a re p re se n t about which an audience would ordinarily be u n a w a re ,
and what com pensations exist for the inadequacies of one's daily liv
ing. Internal c h a ra c te r struggles between conflicting d e s ire s or
opposing sym pathies a re not presen t in sufficient strength to provide
an am bivalence rew ard. The p resen ce of value sy stem s is not evident
within c h a ra c te rs who struggle within th e m selv es, or even convinc
ingly between c h a ra c te rs ; what is apparently intended as the p rim a ry
value-conflict is the value sy stem of a fam ily opposing those of the
" S y ste m " --a conflict lim ited in universal significance, and one which
Odets projects p rim a rily in a subjective m anner. Also, m any
127
c h a ra c te rs seem to re p re s e n t a type and, as such, m o re em phasis
becom es placed upon typical action ra th e r than reaction or interaction.
A possible confrontation rew ard is ex trem ely limited. No c h a ra c te r is
m ade to think, see, or feel what an audience would ordinarily keep
self fro m seeing. F inal energies do not result in a psychic effort that
would provide an audience with the experience of self-rev elatio n and
truth in depth; the ego does not trium ph ultim ately because no single
c h a ra c te r p e rs e v e re s in his integration of all the forces despite
a d v erse c irc u m s ta n c e s, and instincts specified a r e not made m o re
receptive to control. Only if one w ere in strong agreem ent with the
personal end o rsem en ts of Odets could one accept the consequences of
the play as both inevitable and ju st--c o u ld there be any degree of a
ca th a rsis rew ard. Strong feelings of pity and fear depend upon p r e
ceding tra n sfe re n c e to the c h a ra c te rs in their p red ic am en t--em o tio n al
and in tellectu a l--p lea su re from the discharge and control of instincts,
from the tra n s fe re n c e and from its consequences. The sense of audi
ence fulfillment that derives from the p resen ce of these facto rs, plus
an aw aren ess of justice, provides a fulfillment that relieves tension
and anxiety, a combination judged to be absent here in sufficient
strength in o rd e r to provide either a cath arsis rew ard or any depth of
psychic rew ard s in general. In brief, the play seem ed m o re of an
im passioned social pro test using a p a rtic u la r fam ily as a vehicle to
d ram atize a too personal if not confused m e ssa g e . Within these e arly
plays, Odets' forte seem s to be a kind of dram atic editorialism which
he apparently d esired to express theatrically.
128
Golden Boy
Plot Sum m ary
Act One opens in the sm all Broadway office of Tom Moody, a
63
fight m anager; he is arguing with his girl friend, Lorna Moon. She
wants m a rria g e but Moody com plains that his wife will not ag ree to
divorce without a large money settlem ent. He hopes his cu rre n t
fighter, Kaplan, will bring them som e money; all they need is to find
a champion. Joe Bonaparte enters; he tells th em that Kaplan has just
broken a hand, and Joe wants to be his replacem ent. Moody calls him
b ra s h and only laughs at his request. Moody's fight tra in e r, Tokio,
en ters and inform s them that it was actually Joe who broke K aplan's
hand. Moody then decides to give Joe an opportunity. The next scene
is la te r that night in the Bonaparte hom e. M r. B onaparte, a fruit
vendor, is talking with his Jew ish friend, M r. Carp. Joe will be
twenty-one tom orrow , and M r. Bonaparte has purchased a p resent, a
violin costing twelve hundred dollars; he is concerned because the
hour is so late. (Joe's talent has recently won him firs t place in city
com petition and also a s c h o la rsh ip .) Mr. C arp cautions him that Joe
cannot earn a living as a m usician in this com petitive society; M r.
Bonaparte laughs at his practicality and cynicism . F ran k , the elder
son and a C il. O. representative, en ters and talks of going away to
w ork in the South for better wages; as he is reading the new spaper,
he d iscovers that Joe has had a professional bout that evening. Joe
e n te rs, somewhat bruised, and explains his appearance by saying he
has had a fight in the P ark. F rank c ritic iz e s him , which only enrages
Joe; he confesses to the professional bout and tells th em he has
129
actually been training fo r two y e a rs . In reply to F r a n k 's accusation
that he is always expecting opposition, Joe says he does not like h im
self, wants m a te ria l p o sse ssio n s and to change his life; he has decided
to take a vacation from m usic. Carp says that this re p re se n ts A m e r i
can propaganda; viz. , the s tre e ts are paved with gold. He rem inds
M r. Bonaparte that he forgot to give Joe the violin, but M r. Bonaparte
is too confused by all th a t has o c c u rre d . Scene T hree is two months
la ter back in Moody's office. Lorna, Tokio, and Roxy Gottlieb a r e
th e re --R o x y has recently bought a sh are of Joe. He com plains that
although Joe is speedy and clev er, he is holding back; Moody says he
pulls his punches. L orna says Joe is a student of the ring. However,
Tokio w arns that they should not p re s s u re Joe for a change of style; he
could be a great lightweight. M r. Bonaparte en ters; he has com e to
explore this new in terest of J o e 's . Tokio a sk s if Joe could be con
cerned about his hands, and M r. Bonaparte says proudly that Joe is
the best violinist in New York; w hereupon Moody realizes the truth.
M r. Bonaparte says he wants only to help, but that they a re not to tell
Joe he has been there. When he leaves, Moody concludes that Joe's
mind is actually undecided, and they m u st convince him to choose the
ring. Joe en ters and is suspicious of their sudden obsequious and
solicitous attitudes. 1 When Roxy m akes some obvious re fe re n c e s to
m u sic ian s, Joe guesses that they know; as he leaves, he says he does
not know if it is boxing he really wants. Moody tells Lorna that Joe is
th e ir last chance; she say s she can m ake him fight. In the next scene,
Joe and Lorna a r e seated on a p ark bench (a few nights later). Joe
p re fe rs to talk about th e m , but Lorna keeps re fe rrin g to his future as
130
a boxer. He confesses that m usic actually m eans m uch m o re to him
than boxing, but through m usic he cannot e x p re ss his anger and f r u s
tration. She tells him to fight for fame and fortune and then accu ses
him of not knowing which way to go, yet not adm itting it; he wants f o r
tune and fame so that people will not laugh at or sco rn him , but he is
troubled by conscience. Joe accuses h e r of being a Moody decoy and
tells h er she has erre d ; he has alread y decided to fight. He says she
does not love Moody and that she is only projecting h er own problem
to him (Joe). The following scene is a week la ter in the Bonaparte
dining room; it is midnight, and Joe is p rep arin g to leave for a boxing
tour. M r. B o n ap arte, Lorna, and Siggie a re present. .Lorna asks
M r. Bonaparte outright if he likes h er, and he replies yes. He asks if
she a g re e s with J o e 's decision to fight, and she says she does; then
he tells h e r of Jo e 's d re a m to becom e a violinist and asks that she
help him find him self. When Joe en te rs, Siggie says the only reason
Joe went into the ring originally was because he was asham ed of being
poor. When Joe is ready to leave, M r. Bonaparte gives him the violin.
Joe takes it into another room , plays for a m om ent, and then ask s his
father to re tu rn it. He asks for his fa th e r's blessing, but M r. B ona
parte refu ses. He tells Joe to take c a re of his hands. They e m b ra ce,
and Joe leaves with Lorna.
Act Two takes place six months la te r at the gym nasium . Roxy,
Moody, Lorna, and Tokio a re watching Joe w ork out. Roxy c o m p li
m ents Tokio on J o e 's im provem ent (Lorna is beginning to find Joe
attractive). Moody is concerned about a recent knockout Joe suffered;
Tokio tells him it w as because Joe saw a violinist just before the bout.
131
Moody decides that they m ust get Joe away from home. Eddie F useli,
a gam bler and gangster, en ters; he is in terested in buying into Joe
and exploiting Jo e 's m oney-m aking possibilities. Tokio m entions to
Moody that Joe has just bought a powerful D eusenberg, and this co n
cern s him because Joe drives too fast and reck lessly . Joe ap p ears,
feeling very confident; he cannot understand why Moody has not n eg o
tiated for a title bout. F useli in terru p ts and p ro m ise s him publicity
and an opportunity for the crown if he m ay buy into his ownership.
Joe is am enable as long as he retains his own half. After they leave,
Moody asks L orna for h e r help in getting Joe away from home and his
other in te re sts; she e x p re s s e s concern about the way Joe is beginning
to look at h e r, but finally a g re e s. Scene Two takes place on the sam e
park bench a few nights la ter. Joe confesses to Lorna that he is g ro w
ing fonder of her. He wanted to becom e someone else and now he is
not sure he likes what is happening to him self. He asks that she teach
him to love, but she tells him she will not leave Moody because he
loves h e r - - a t le ast Joe has him self. When Joe begs h e r to leave
Moody, she tells him that Moody rescued h er fro m the gutter. She
does finally adm it that she loves Joe, but asks that he leave h e r alone.
He says that he h im se lf will tell Moody the truth, but Lorna replies
that she would ra th e r do it. She asks Joe to take h e r home with him.
Scene Three is the next day in Moody's office. He tells Lorna that his
wife has finally agreed to divorce, he has a rra n g e d a contender bout
for Joe, and now all looks good for their m a rria g e future. Siggie
enters to re tu rn two hundred dollars which Joe sent home (his father
refused to accept it). After he leaves, Moody te lls Lorna he does not
132
like the way Joe has begun to look at her; she replies that his concern
is a little late. He confesses a dislike for Joe. She tells Moody that
she is leaving him , but he replies ominously that she is not; she then
pretends it was all a joke. Joe and F useli enter; Moody tells Joe about
his contender bout with Lom bardo in six weeks and that he is con
cerned about his speeding in the auto. F useli in terru p ts to tell Moody
that his job is only to arra n g e fights for the crown. Joe ask s Lorna
openly to tell Moody the truth; she feigns ignorance, and Joe leaves in
anger. F useli w arns Moody to be only a good m a n ag er, and he also
w arns Lorna. After F useli leaves, Moody asks L orna if she likes Joe;
she replies that she loves him. Scene F o u r takes place in Jo e 's d r e s
sing room six weeks la ter, minutes before the L om bardo fight. Mr.
Bonaparte, Siggie and Tokio a re there. F useli en ters and is angered
that Joe is being exposed to both new sm en and fam ily before a big bout.
Lorna en ters and shortly th e re a fte r Joe, along with Moody and Roxy.
Joe does not want to see eith er his father or Lorna, and he abruptly
asks L orna to leave. In anger, Moody says he hopes Joe is knocked
out, w hereupon Fuseli o rd e rs him to go; he then tells Joe to forget
Lorna and kill Lom bardo. Joe turns to his father and tells him he
wants fame and fortune. M r. Bonaparte says it is then too late for
m u sic , and he gives him his "word" to go ahead and to fight--he says
he feels s o rry for him. A fter he leaves, Joe begins to cry, and he
tells Tokio that now he is his only family. After Joe has left for the
ring, M r. Bonaparte retu rn s because he cannot stand the brutality.
Suddenly, Joe, Tokio, Moody and Roxy return; L om bardo has suffered
a knockout. When Tokio begins to rem ove his gloves, Joe tells him to
133
cut one off; his hand is broken, and this indicates to him the beginning
of a new world.
Act T h ree begins in Moody's office six months later. P re se n t
are Roxy, Tokio, two sports w rite rs and Joe; they a re talking about
to m o rro w 's bout with the champion, "Chocolate Drop. " Joe is c r i t i
cized for his overconfidence, and in the discussion le a rn s that Moody
and Lorna a r e to be m a rrie d . Tokio tells him to forget Lorna, to
find som eone to lo v e --h is h e a rt is not in fighting, only his hatred.
Joe confronts L orna in anger, and she accuses him of becoming a
k il le r - - m o r e like F u seli every day. Fuseli en ters with some custom
shirts he has had m ade for Joe. When he m entions having seen Jo e 's
brother, Joe tells him in anger that he feels sm othered by Fuseli, as
if he w ere a w ell-oiled m achine or a gun. F useli rem inds him that
within a y e a r he has m ade him a champion, that Joe owes him a lot
which he does not want forgotten. Scene Two opens in Jo e's dressin g
room on the next night as the fight is in p ro g re ss . Lorna en ters n e r
vously and then F u s e li--J o e has been fighting poorly, w hereas F useli
had expected a knockout. He o rd e rs Lorna out of town; he says she
has deceived and confused Joe. Joe en ters with Roxy and Moody; he
has knocked out the Chocolate Drop but is v ery tire d and bruised.
Suddenly, a m an en ters to inspect Jo e 's gloves; his opponent has been
killed, and the tra in e r calls Joe a m u r d e r e r . F useli o rd e rs everyone
out, but L orna defies him . Joe says he has not only m u rd e re d one
m an, but h im se lf as well; one does not conquer the w orld by fighting it,
but by finding h im se lf and being what he wants to b e --it is love, not
hate. Lorna tells him that he has actually found himstelf and that this
134
is what m akes him a re a l champion. She wants to s ta rt som ew here
anew with him, but Joe says his hands a re ruined for m usic, that he
is only half a m an now. She tells him they can find happiness s o m e
w here and suggests they take his c a r and speed away; Joe ag ree s.
Scene T hree is much la ter that night in the Bonaparte apartm ent.
Fuseli, Moody, Roxy, Siggie, F ra n k and Mr. B onaparte a re talking.
Nobody has h eard fro m Joe or Lorna. F u seli com m ents that F ran k
could also becom e a fighter, and F ra n k says he does fight, but for what
he believes in; he achieves what Joe does not, the pleasure of acting as
he thinks, of being what he is. F u seli p re s s u re s Moody strongly to
sell out his sh are of Joe. F ra n k asks what Joe actually owns of h im
self, and F u seli says only th irty percent after tonight. M r. Bonaparte
suggests that Joe m ay not want to fight again after tonight. Roxy c a n
not understand, because after tonight Joe will be worth a fortune. The
phone rings and F ran k takes it. Moody calls F u seli a killer, and then
F ra n k tu rn s from the telephone and re fe rs to all of them as k illers;
Joe and Lorna have been killed in an automobile cra sh . Moody will
not accept it, but M r. Bonaparte asks him what he could expect. He
tells F ra n k that they will go to bring Joe home w here he belongs.
Illusion
The illusion is that of a young m an who struggles between intense
conflicting d esires; h is love for m u s ic - -its fulfillment and accom plish-
m e n t--a n d the self-indulgence of his im m ediate satisfactions, his
d esire for acclaim , and wealth. The forces of the f o rm e r m ay be r e p
resen te d by Mr. B onaparte, the b ro th er F ran k , and Jo e 's own con
science (the superego); the la tte r by Moody, those associated with
Moody, those asso ciated with Moody and prizefighting in g eneral, and
Jo e's indulgent drives for im m ediate satisfaction (the id). F u rth e r
s tre s s em erg ed , with resp ect to J o e 's ego struggles, when love d ev el
oped between him and Moody's girl friend, Lorna: Lorna felt a love
for Joe, a loyalty to Moody, and a d esire to see both Joe and Moody
succeed and becom e happy; w h ereas, the fact that he loved h e r and that
she was accepted by his father made Joe feel that his decision to fight
was not so selfish. The b a r r i e r s preventing L o rn a's m a rr ia g e to
Moody dissolved; when forced to decide between the two m en, she
chose Moody, sensing that the true Joe was not actually a prizefighter.
Consequently, Joe felt betrayed and was aw are of a growing sense of
isolation and desperation. He had willingly subm itted to M oody's do m i
nation and allowed his fam ily influences and fo rces to be subdued, with
the resu lt that his sense of self (ego strength) becam e confused; this
was fu rth er com plicated by the m utual hostility (a type of defen siv e
ness) which a ro s e between him and Lorna. In addition, Moody d i s
liked him increasingly as he becam e a th rea t with resp ect to Lorna.
The gangster, F useli, added fu rth e r com plication because he e n c o u r
aged J o e 's indulgence; he wished to exploit Joe for his own personal
and financial gain, and Joe sensed this. Again, how ever, Joe allowed
him self to be m anipulated by F u seli (limited ego strength), not only out
of loneliness and his ego needs, but also because selfishly he felt F useli
could fu rth e r his c a re e r. Before his f ir s t m a jo r crow n-contender bout,
Joe confessed to his father that fam e and fortune o vercam e his sham e
of poverty and w ere his re a l m otives for fighting; his father relinquished
his hold on Jo e 's conscience by giving his p e rm issio n because for him
136
it w as then too late for m u s ic - - a fu rth e r isolation for Joe. Feeling
op p ressed and exploited by F u seli, alienated and deserted by those
whom he loved, Joe rejected everyone but Tokio, his tra in e r. He
broke his hand in this im portant bout, which to him sym bolized a full
com m itm ent th e re a fte r to prizefighting. F o r Joe, the accident
destroyed any opportunity for an alternative; i. e. , an outside force,
or fate, had d eterm ined his dilem m a since his potential as a concert
violinist had becom e im possible. T h ere after, Jo e's destructive
en erg ies, his hostility, and defensiveness intensified even in his out
side in te re sts (e. g. , powerful automobiles). On the night of the final
cham pionship bout, Joe killed his opponent. The reality -sh o ck caused
Joe to conclude that he had actually been in the p ro c e ss of destroying
him self as well all along--his b etter self. His insight, his acceptance
of self (new ego strength) renewed L o rn a 's devotion; she told him that
such honest strength would support them both som ew here else in a new
and different environm ent; both w ere killed la te r that night in Jo e's
speeding automobile. Jo e's b ro th e r, F rank, com m ented that he too
was angry and a fighter but had fought the right opponents (social evils)
and so had gained a satisfaction, identity, and a harm ony which Joe
had not. OnlyM r. Bonaparte was not s u rp ris e d at th e ir deaths; he felt
that everyone exploited Joe and for his own personal gains.
The situation-conflict p o s se ss e d a degree of significance and
magnitude in the sense that Joe succum bed to a prevalent and false
cultural v a lu e --s u c c e s s m eant acclaim , wealth, and public acceptance.
He succum bed to tem ptations any m an m ight experience (universal
appeal) and destroyed self and others in the p ro cess. H ow ever, one's
137
ego could feel secu re because the situation-conflict was not too close
to a typical personal experience, sensibilities w ere not offended--
violence, brutality, and injury w ere implied ra th e r than p re s e n te d --
and nothing appeared to exist that would belabor general audience
understanding. Jo e's w ishes contained universality; i.e . , as they
reflected upon understandable m a te ria listic d e s ire s . One critic
believed that the illusion was without a m e ssag e unless Odets was
attem pting to show what was happening to the youth of the tim e s , even
the talented, who w ere unable to find work and so w ere driven into
64
occupations w here m oney, speed, and d estru ctiv en e ss awaited them.
Wolcott Gibbs found som ething m o re specific in illusion:
. . . an honest and often moving attem pt to deal seriously
with the w ar between the need for h a lf-c ra z y popular success
and the instinct for decent, if n o n -sp ecta cu lar, accom plishm ent
that is bound to take place in alm ost any sensitive m an in our
society today. 65
Time m agazine was not so generous: the play m anifested m e re ly the
dem oralizing values that accom panied a quick, flashy, A m eric an s u c
cess. ^ Euphem ia Wyatt believed, how ever, that Odets had finally
turned fro m the "wrongs of the m a s s e s to a m o re individual appeal";
he had m anaged to p re se n t an "age-old story so trenchant and so alive
that although every c h a ra c te r is thoroughly u nattractive, they a re real
enough to have th e ir difficulties seem im portant; et al. ^ T hrough
out each of these c ritic is m s , and despite any surface d isag reem en t,
there appeared to be a significant ag ree m en t in com mon: Odets was
dealing with both values and people that did have some u n iv e rsal
appeal.
138
Identification-em pathy. The possibility for a degree of strong
and sustained audience participation seem ed likely. Joe was suffi
ciently rem oved fro m the p erso n al ex p erien ces of a th e atre au dience--
the lower class son of an Italian im m ig ra n t fruit vendor, plus the c o m
bination of an accom plished violinist and prizefighter cham p io n --y et he
ex p ressed and m anifested som e u n iv e rsal d e s ire s , tem ptations, and
fru stratio n s with which an audience could sym pathize and from which
they could derive insight, or em pathy. Despite se v e ra l contem porary
allusions which m ight date the play som ew hat, Jo e 's reaction to the
re stric tio n s im posed by poverty, his d e s ire to exploit his love energies
(especially m usic) as they cam e into conflict with his equally strong
d e s ire s to achieve acceptance and power (wealth and acclaim ) would be
fam iliar to m ost. Likewise, the intensity of his battle, and his attem pt
to regulate both conflicting d e s ire s , could aro u se anxiety as his s tr u g
gles began to re p re s e n t feared or unfulfilled aspects of the audience-
self. F u rth e r, despite his hum an frailtie s or faults, Joe rep resen ted
a worthy exam ple; he was (1) p o s se sse d of d e s ire s one could u n d e r
stand and asso ciate with struggle, (2) enm eshed in a situation-conflict
that had som e significance and m agnitude--though somewhat lim ited by
the personal relevance - -and (3) o b sessed by a wish having universality.
However, a broad base of significance and magnitude likely suffered
som e re s tric tio n because of the se v e ra l co n tem p o rary re fe re n c e s
included by O dets--union trouble in the South, fa s c is m , a D eusenberg,
and so on; also Odets did not convincingly generate m uch sympathy for
his other m ain c h a ra c te rs - -no c h a ra c te r seem ed to approxim ate the
extent of developm ent given to Joe.
139
It was possible to identify with the bad in J o e 's c h a ra c te r, as
well as with his good qualities. With re sp e c t to his good qualities, he
was actually aw are of his authentic love so u rces and his need and
capacity fo r love; he was not deceitful (except to him self) and strove
for acknowledgment with re s p e c t to Lorna and Moody; he did not want
to hurt or disappoint, and did so only when angered. With re sp e c t to
some c h a ra c te ris tic s in co n tra st, he was unable to incorporate or su b
lim ate his tensions or fru stra tio n s - -im m ediate satisfactions becam e
his goal, and he destroyed both self and lo n g -te rm relationships in the
p ro c e ss. He w as too im p ressio n ab le and allowed others to m anipulate
him; he wanted the best of two opposing w orlds, two differing value
sy ste m s, without any sacrifice; he was indecisive in m a tte r s p e r
taining to his c h a ra c te r; and, if he could not com bat fru s tra tio n or
disappointm ent with his fists, he trie d to escape. This m ixture of good
and bad, its pertinence to the human dilem m a, and its credibility m ade
the protagonist sym pathetic and the conflict meaningful even though the
situation was an unusual one. A final strength in identification-
em pathy lay in the fact that Odets did not offend sensitivities by p r e
senting openly the brutal and the cruel, and the p roblem did not b e la
bor understanding; nothing seem ed to be p re se n t which would in t e r
fe re significantly with a relaxation of the audience ego, and at least
one c h a ra c te r m anifested som e understandable u n iv e rsal w ishes.
H u b ris. Joe re p re se n te d in addition a strong hubris ch a ra c te r.
He com m itted a violation, tr a n s g r e s s e d a tabu, and set up an early
sense of em otion and com plexity as a result. He violated h im s e lf - -
his talent, love, contribution to o thers, potential h a p p in ess--an d
140
rejected the fo rces of fam ilial love which sought to serve him and his
future happiness unselfishly. He was a rro g an t and violent out of p a s
sion and re c k le s sn e ss . He d isre g a rd e d m o ra l law and re s tra in t, m ade
ex tre m e choices, was inflexible, uncom prom ising, disdainful of the
sensible, and succum bed to intem perate im pulses with an ease and
suddenness that would likely arouse uneasiness and apprehension
within an audience. An audience could experience the tensions a s s o
ciated with his d e s ire s because they w ere understandable and relevant
(could aro u se sym pathy and empathy), and so w ere their defenses
(arousing conscience and reaction). Complexity becam e possible as
a resu lt of the strong im pulses which sought to gain im m ediate s a ti s
faction and the m an n er in which they attem pted to do so. F o rc e s and
reactions of both sym pathy and opposition w e re gradually intensified
and brought into recognition and conflict. One could experience the
fe a r that accom panied Jo e 's rebellion and feel pity for the c o n s e
quences, because the dynam ics of his behavior w ere rooted in u n i
v e rs a l hum an tendencies. Yet, Odets n ever forced his audience to
open acknowledgement; they could actually rem a in in detached security
and unaw are that the conflict and battle w ere in part th e ir own. In this
m a n n er, two audience w ishes could be readily satisfied: the wish to
rebel against authority, and the d esire to be punished for having done
so. In addition to the p le asu re and satisfaction thereby derived,
knowledge could also be gained through participation; consequently, a
didactic value was possible. As a resu lt of audience participation in
im pulses hitherto strongly re stra in e d , participation in the tr a n s g r e s s
sion itself, and in the struggles between im pulse and inhibition, not
141
only m ay certain deep longings be gratified through re -e x p erien cin g
d e s ire s and th e ir accompanying guilt but also they m ay be m o m en tarily
purged.
The o v e r-a ll illusion potential was considered to be strong.
Odets did not confuse his situation-conflict with excessive sentim ent,
propaganda, or partisanship. The story did not contain the local color
of his e a r lie r w orks, but it was A m eric an universal; on the surface it
contained an interest-provoking plot, but it was also capable of a r o u s
ing an unconscious response with resp ect to the d e s ire s , fe a rs ,
defenses, conflicts, suppression, and so on, surrounding the core
dilem m a. In addition, the plot was carefully and well developed. One
69
c ritic reg ard ed the play as "Odets' best constructed play. " The
protagonist p o sse sse d strong potential as a c h a ra c te r who could arouse
audience identification-empathy; the hubris appeal w as strong, c o n s is
tent, and sustained; and didactic rew ard s seem ed possible.
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
Concentration of psychic energy throughout appeared to be co n
sistent and provocative of an audience's em otional response; the basic
conflict, tra n s g re s s io n , and outcome w ere all believable and s y m p a
thetic. Cathexis was strong and derived its strength fro m the related
feelings and analogizing it was capable of arousing. Joe had heroic
qualities, but, as m entioned e a rlie r, he was troubled with the types of
d e s ire s with which the typical m an would asso ciate struggle. The
events w ere large and serious to the c h a ra c te rs involved, and because
they w ere so interwoven with the developm ent of the m ain c h a ra c te r,
142
they also would likely se e m so to an audience who found the m ain
c h a ra c te r sym pathetic; ex tre m e altern ativ es dem anded a decision;
c h a ra c te ris tic s of hum an nature and of a p red icam en t w ere p resen t
which would very likely a ro u se some g en eral an x iety --fam ily c o n
stellation struggles, c h a ra c te r dilem m a, c o m p ro m ise, m a te ria lis m ,
destructive u rg e s, d e sire for power, exploitation, fru stratio n , r e b e l
lion, and so on. At no tim e, how ever, did Odets w rite so that he
seem ed to forfeit control over anxiety perception for the sake of shock
appeal or m e ssa g e . (Interestingly, Stark Young was of the opinion that
70
Odets had finally learned the a r t of p e rsu asio n and better taste;
w hereas M a rg a re t M a rsh a ll was of a v ery different opinion, for she
believed that Odets still "stated ra th e r than dem o n strated , " and "told"
71
as opposed to "depicted.")
Objectification. Objectification was considered strong because
(1) the action p ro g re s s e d logically according to events presented and
the resu lts anticipated; (2) the extraneous was m inim al; (3) the diction
was consistent with ch a ra c te riz a tio n and with the m ilieu established at
the outset by Odets; and (4) the ch a ra c te riz a tio n seem ed consistent and
psychologically valid, with the possible exception of F useli who
seem ed som ew hat confusing in te rm s of his m otivation and in his in ter
action with other c h a ra c te rs . Consequently, the problem -conflict
seem ed sufficiently contained and bound by subtly applied controls so
that any intense d e s ire s , fe a rs , and inner conflicts inherently possible
could be objectified and participated in by an audience without fe a r that
these would rage unchecked, or becom e too personal and force the
audience to acknowledge them as its own. A play can have therapeutic
143
value when it activates within an audience sim ilar d e s ire s , fe a rs , and
conflicts which a re objectified on the stage, but only if the anxiety
aro u sed is so bound and controlled that the audience n ever senses
these as its own; i.e . , if an audience can sym pathetically and em pa-
thetically participate with a sense of detachm ent, n ev er being forced
to acknowledge, then the fe a rs a ro u sed becom e dim inished as a result
of the vicarious participation because the act of participation reduces
th e ir initial intensity. Through this p ro c e ss, d ra m a is able to explore
som e deeply significant problem s.
Focus. O v er-all, Odets did not appear to d istra ct or confuse;
he omitted the sluggishness and irre lev an cies of day-to-day living
while arran g in g and em phasizing (1) his causals, (2) the in te rre la tio n
ships, and (3) the essentials of his m ain idea; in this resp ect, focus
was considered to be strong. For an audience to have the experience
of participating in a com plete and meaningful action, the sense of a
swift and coherent beginning, m iddle, and end m ust exist. Odets
w asted no tim e in beginning his action: in Scene One he im m ediately
established fru s tra tio n by the heated argum ent between Lorna and
Moody, the principal issue being money; Joe appeared abruptly as the
agent who had just destroyed Moody's im m ediate plans but who offered
him self as the m eans for th e ir m utual gains; fro m the onset of their
association, Moody and Joe w ere obviously not com patible in attitudes,
but each re tre a te d som ew hat for the benefit of the other; Scene Two
then identified through action and exposition the sensitive and talented
nature of Joe and the traditional and w holesom e fam ily background
144
fro m which he had sprung. Succinctly, Odets highlighted causals and
interrelatio n sh ip s in this m a n n e r so that the action p ro g re s s e d not only
with logic but also swiftly. (One critic was in com plete d isag ree m en t
with this judgment; he felt the play was too "crowded, " lacked " d is tri-
72
bution and proportion, " yet he described it as having good direction.)
The use of figurative language--im age and m etap h o r--th o u g h
presen t in som e strength (especially between Joe and Lorna) seem ed
le s s apparent than in O dets' e a r lie r works; how ever, w henever utilized,
it appeared to be effectively focused upon purpose and o rd ered c o h e r
ence so that a disturbing proportion or im plication did not d estro y
pro p er distance. C ritics w ere m ost articulate with resp ect to Odets'
73
diction. Com m ents ranged from vulgar and lam entable, grandiose,
74 ^ 75
inflated, m ean in g le ss, ordinary, fancy and cliche, to brilliantly
7 6
suggestive, avoidance of the explicit, hidden s tre a m of sequences,
7 7 78
glowing im p re ssiv e , worthy, salty, accu rate, and rich, though
79
pretentious and self-conscious.
Objectification and focus com bined effectively so that tim e
seem ed telescoped effectively, and no irrelev an cy noticeably d i s
turbed the co u rse of d ram atic action nor the sense of a com passionate
whole experience (although one critic was in d isag ree m en t with this
judgm ent; also, he felt that Odets failed to achieve a d ram a tu rg ic
80
whole). Only by convincingly projecting a whole experience m ay
d ra m a rev ea l (1) som e ordinarily obscured and im portant p attern that
u n derlies hum an experience, and (2) the intrapsychic conflicts which
effect the co u rse of life. Concerning the psychological pattern which
seem ed to e m erg e within this play, in general it appeared to be a
145
defensive one, an overem otional reaction and resp o n se to needs and
fru stra tio n s as opposed to one of reason: self-indulgence and a g g r e s
sion overw helm ing rationalization and co m p ro m ise, plus a ra th e r
infantile d e sire for omnipotence whose intent was the elim ination of all
frustration. A critic a l m o m e n t--a kind of existential decision of total
difference and effect for J o e --w a s his decision to forego m usic in
o rd e r to satisfy his m o re im m ediate w orldly d e s ire s , a decision which
ren d ered his f o r m e r adjustm ent m e c h a n ism s, the strong traditional
value sy stem by which he had been living virtually obsolete for the
dem ands of his new raison d e 'e t r e ; he could not successfully m eet
these new dem ands because he lacked the experiential tools, the flex i
bility that d erives from newly accepted values having replaced the old,
a sustained and worthy motive that of itself m anifests strength and
change. An interesting possibility is that som e of Odets the m an
might have been w ritten into this som ew hat m ultiple o r "split" type of
personality which was c h a ra c te riz e d by Joe: Joe was an established
ta len t--lik e Odets, he too had won a talent contest; Joe overruled his
e a r lie r values for defensive, ag g ressiv e, and som e inadequate-ego
reasons; though he gained his "fleece" ultim ately, in his quest he r e n
d ered im potent what he considered to be his g re a te st creativ e and
worthwhile possibilities; and Joe him self defined his quest as the self-
destruction of a b etter self.
As objectified, the aggression, intem perance, and so on, w ere
p erm itted to overpow er other needs of the personality, with the resu lt
that a p ro g re ss iv e ly self-d estru c tiv e fo rc e -p a tte rn e m erg ed which in
tu rn becam e destructive to others through association, depending upon
146
its strength and potential for contact, because it rejected all re s tra in ts
or opposition (re g a rd le ss of source or motive). Not su rp risin g was
that the pattern resulted in p ro g re ssiv e personal isolation. The i n t r a
psychic conflict a ro s e from J o e 's conscience; he needed approval for
his decision, r e a s s u ra n c e , the acceptance from his father whose love
he trusted. Not forthcom ing, Joe began to em ploy defenses so that
he might possibly re tu rn to his e a r lie r adjustm ent, his e a r lie r goal;
i. e. , he d eliberately held back in the ring, in tellectualized, and
becam e moody due to his em otional and intellectual w arfare. Lorna
was accepted by his father, and h er ad m ission of love seem ed to j u s
tify his decision to fight for a tim e, but the conflict intensified when
she would not acknowledge h er love openly--she sensed that this was
not the true Joe and was confused as to how she was needed or would
fit into his future; how ever, Joe regarded h e r refusal as rejection,
something fo rev er intolerable to him. When his hand was broken, he
in terp rete d this as fate's confirm ation of his decision; he was m o m e n
ta rily relieved to have his conclusion determ ined for him , but his
conscience dem anded retribution for the dam age and unhappiness he
had already wrought. He now p o sse sse d the wealth and acclaim , all
that he had im agined would bring him ple asu re , happiness, and s a t i s
faction; yet, he was painfully aw are that he was not actually satisfied,
that instead he felt surfeited, r e s tle s s , and the need to seek diversion.
In his quest for wealth, acclaim , and omnipotence, which he had
im agined would place him secu rely at the apex of acceptance, he had
battled with the very "System " whose acceptance he so coveted. Con
sequently, his conflicts, d estru ctiv en e ss, and isolation only intensified;
147
only afte r he accidentally killed his opponent did he com e to realize
that by so indulging in his self-ce n tered d e s ire s he had actually inten
sified them , and that one m ay not flee fro m his conscience. His con
science set up a final dem and which his lim ited ego strength could not
tolerate: responsibility for the destruction he had wrought upon others
and upon self.
The purpose intended by the above exploration of a behavioral
pattern and its intrapsychic conflicts was included to indicate to the
re a d e r how an audience m a y turn from som ething vague, in d e te rm i
nate, and a ll-p e rv a s iv e --a n x ie tie s pertaining to their own daily e x is
t e n c e - - ^ a p a rtic u la r dynamic outside of self which is contained and
whole re g a rd le s s of other factors like tim e, place, setting, and so on.
Security is derived from the detach m e n t--th e psychic distance - -and
relief is experienced by having the anxiety specified and defined within
another, as a whole, and on the stage.
Psychic Rew ards
With resp ect to the final category of psychic rew ard s, Odets
probed conflicts that one might not o rdinarily exam ine, provided suf
ficient evidence for an understanding of the determ ining factors of the
problem s explored, revealed the exact influence of each, and dignified
c e rta in im pulses one would typically deny o r gratify culpably. He
specified the re su lts of e r r o r ; the audience would be forced to see
consequences it would perhaps ra th e r avoid or believe could be
averted, and forced to see certain happenings &s_ consequences.
Joseph Wood K rutch had an interesting observation about the kind of
148
psychic environm ent which Odets explored: viz. , Odets had the power
to suggest
. . . the lonely agony of souls im prisoned in th e ir own
private hells of fru s tra te d d e sire and inarticulate hate . . .
[he could] powerfully suggest the essential loneliness of m en
and women, th e ir inability to explain the varied fo rm s assu m ed
by the sym bols of th e ir d e s ire , and the p o w erlessn ess of any
one of them to help the other. . . . He involves the spectator
in the agonies of his c h a ra c te rs.®
One m ight question perhaps the justice of the final outcome; i. e. , the
violent deaths of both L o rn a and Joe. However, th e ir deaths did not
se e m incredible in light of the circ u m sta n c e s that preceded the out
com e (but this point will be explored in m o re detail under both Con
frontation and C a th a rs is ).
Throughout, Odets pitted the pleasure principle against the
reality principle; the id was in intense conflict with the superego, not
only within Joe h im se lf--h is dem ands and d e sire s v e rs u s his con-
s c ien c e--b u t also among opposing forces like the fam ilial in opposition
to the worldly. The audience ego could be rew arded because the
claim s of specific instincts w ere specified and disclosed, perm itted
gratification, and thus could be rendered m ore receptive to control
by way of the audience's participation pro cess. A strong ego force
appeared to be p re se n t within the c h a ra c te r of M r. Bonaparte; he
attem pted to balance the conflicting fo rces of id and superego, the
indulgent dem ands and d e s ire s , the a g g ressiv e fo rces contrasted with
the potential dangers, the dem ands of the future, the o v e r-a ll concerns
of enduring values. The tra in e r, Tokio, and the b ro th e r, F ran k , w ere
both strong reality fo rces in the sense that they consistently reflected
the reality principle at large; i.e ., they dealt with the issu es objectively.
149
Ambivalence. Ambivalence was p resen t throughout, not only
within the m ain c h a ra c te rs but also within m any of the subordinate
c h a ra c te rs and the forces at large in conflict. The c h a ra c te rs as well
as the conflict w ere p resented consistently from different points of
view so that a p a rtic u la r sentim ent did not predom inate, and p a rtic u la r
and extended sym pathies w ere not perm itted to prevail. Demands co n
tinually fluctuated so that they effected a type of balance; claim s and
c o unterclaim s worked in harm ony. In general, Odets m a y be said to
have achieved the poised and sustained am bivalence so c h a ra c te ristic
of the hum an dilem m a. Because no single view was overextended,
unconscious as well as conscious sym pathies becam e possible, and
c h a ra c te rs could be seen from different points of view or aspects.
(One critic felt that in this play Odets w rote in te rm s of what was not
said, "of com binations elusive and in detail, perhaps, insignificant,
of a hidden s tre a m of sequences, and a resulting a ir of spontaneity and
8 2
true p re s s u re . . . ") As a resu lt, a fluctuating participation on the
part of the spectator seem ed to be encouraged. When this type of p a r
ticipation occu rs, values and value sy stem s becom e the issue; they
come into play within the audience as one is firs t in favor of, then
against, and then undecided. If plausibility and psychological validity
are so well established by the playwright that these support a fluctu
ating participation with values and value sy stem s, then by degree au d i
ence participation is encouraged. (As indicated within the c riterio n ,
from the psychoanalytic point of view, it is the p resence of a m b iv a
lence which p e rm its the play to tran sce n d any purpose in o rd e r to
becom e a rt. )
150
Confrontation. Confrontation was also present. A fter Joe
accidentally killed his opponent, he sought out within him self what
others would avoid, re p re s s , su p p ress, lie about or sim ply deny; he
confronted his defects and m istak es, did not m inim ize suffering, and
acknowledged his tra n s g re s s io n s . However, in the final m om ents of
Scene Two, of the la st act, L orna's influence actually changed the
direction of his energies: when she told him that (1) it was not too
late to begin anew, to give up prizefighting and re tu rn to m usic; (2)
that they had one another and som ew here happy people could teach
them how to be so, and so on, she was actually advocating escape,
and Joe consented. His decision thereby alte re d som ew hat the power
and im pact of a confrontation rew ard because by so consenting he
decided in fact to attem pt an escape fro m his conscience (superego)
instead of pursuing the confrontation truths with the sam e degree of
m o ra l courage he had just acknowledged. He actually stopped short
of considering fu rth e r responsibility, the p ro sp ect of what he had
done to self and to others, o r the justice of punishm ent. He rev erted
to evasion, to false hopes; in attitude he appealed to Lorna for a s s u r
ance, was repentant, hoped for and sued for peace. In his e arly con
frontation phase, Joe was ego exalting because he tested reality and
reported even in the face of disaster; by so doing he rose above his
m istak es, w eak n esses, and even m isfortune - -his ego a s sim ila te d his
id and superego, a s s e rte d its independence and p e rs e v e re d at in te
gration by accepting e x tre m e s , but it still retained its authority.
However, the rew ard was interrupted because his ego strength proved
inadequate when confronted with the possibilities a sso ciated with
151
escape, the possibilities suggested by Lorna. F u rth e r, if suicide
w ere a s s u m e d --M r. B o n ap arte's saying, "What h av e-a you e x p e c t? " --
then Jo e 's self-d estru c tio n becam e a m e an s w hereby he could o v e r
come com pletely his ego and superego by obliterating all potential for
suffering and avoiding in the future the anguish that would accom pany
guilt, plus the justice of m o re forthcom ing punishment. The possibility
and prospect of the superego's dem ands for retribution, with resp ect
to the destruction alread y wrought, and the failure of the ego becam e so
painful to him that he had to bring about a total destru ctio n im m ediately
and to prevent any fu rth e r suffering w hatsoever. His suicide would not
be at odds with psychoanalytic reasoning; such d estructive energies, if
suddenly dam m ed up by som e tra u m a tic ev e n t--su c h as that which
o ccu rred --w o u ld then p erm it the superego forces to overw helm and
vanquish other forces. Consequently, the destructive forces becom e
turned inward and self-violence becom es possible, ". . . the turning
8 3
of sa d ism against the ego under the influence of guilt."
What Joe was made to think, feel, and see m o m en tarily --w h at
an audience would o rd in arily keep self fro m seein g --lik ely established
a strong c h a ra c te r for audience identification-em pathy, one who had
experienced the great and rew arding sense of personal freedom ,
r e g a rd le s s of awful consequences, and thus could provide the audience
with a depth of confrontation rew ard. Had Joe p e rsiste d in his change
of energy direction, how ever (energies directed inw ardly tow ard
psychic efforts and truth in depth), rath er than continuing to im pose
his will upon the world, the confrontation rew ard would likely have
been g re a te r. Joe did suggest som e s e lf-rev elatio n and truth, of
152
course:
I m u rd e re d m yself. . . . I've been running in c irc le s . . . .
I'm asham ed. . . . I was a sp arro w , and I wanted to be a fake
eagle! But now I'm hung up by m y finger tips . . . m y feet a r e
off the earth. . . . I see w hat's happened . . . it's not the kings
and dic tato rs [who conquer the earth ] it's that kid in the park.
. . . [ I] m ight have said, 'I have m yself; I am what I want to
be !' . . . [I'm ] half a man.
However, in te rm s of a genuine confrontation rew ard, this change in
energy direction was not sufficiently sustained for m a x im u m psychic
impact. Joe accepted L o rn a 's suggestion to go speeding through the
night, for when one speeds, "Y ou're on top of the world . . . nobody
laughs . . . w e 're off the earth --u n c o n n e c te d --w e don't have to think! !
T hat's what sp eed 's for, an easy way to live! " In this sense, although
Joe offered the audience a m o m e n ta ry confrontation experience of
value, he did not m aintain sufficient authority and integrative power in
o rd e r to provide the strength of confrontation rew ard that was fully
possible. (C ritics differed here also: e. g. , one critic felt that
84
despite the logic of the ending, Odets failed to p re se n t it as truth;
yet another considered the closing a " f ir s t- r a te blending of casual
8 5
atm o sp h ere and ironic com m ent. ")
C ath arsis. Concerning the last category, c a th a rs is , Odets made
it possible for an audience to participate in his c h a ra c te r's d e s ire s and
punishm ent, so that v icarious participation in tu rn could re n d e r p o s
sible a p le asu re fro m both th e discharge and the control of basic and
understandable instincts. Likewise, Odets avoided excessive p r o p a
ganda, partisan sh ip , and the too p erso n al throughout--he m aintained
an aesthetic distance so that an audience could feel safe and free fro m
153
p ersonal guilt to the close (assu red that th e ir own p erso n al fantasies
w ere not being exploited on stage). An audience will p erm it itself
intense reactions if protected by aesthetic distance. (Joseph Wood
K rutch stated that even Odets' villains rose to the dignity of the t o r
tured, that he could involve his sp ecta to rs, creating strong em otional
tensions that would sustain beyond the final c u r t a i n ^ - a n im portant
factor for catharsis. )
Joe rep resen ted a c a th a rsis c h a ra c te r in the sense that he was
worthy, had d e sire s and conflicts in accord with basic hum an ten d en
cies, and his situation-conflict was one which an audience would likely
associate with internal struggle. T here could exist in the m inds of
som e, perhaps, a question with resp ect to the acceptance of inevita
bility, im m inence, and the justice rendered as a final consequence - -
especially the suicidal connotation, as mentioned e a rlie r; however,
audience identification-strength and vicarious participation could co n
ceivably be so involved up to Jo e's final declaration of truth that the
violent deaths would only arouse m ore fear over such a powerful,
destructive psychic force, and pity for the internal struggles u n d e r
gone. H owever, had Joe left his audience with the conclusion that
(1) he was determ ined to p e rs e v e re in his psychic efforts for truth on
the strength of the self-rev elatio n s which this trag ic event had p r o
vided (despite the pain, im m inence, or justice of punishment); and
(2) had this quest in turn placed him in a position of heroic courage as
a result of which violent death o r destruction cam e fro m an outside
fo rc e --p e rh a p s as re trib u tio n --th en it is believed that the c a th a rsis
im pact would have been g re a te r. It is not the act of a m a n o r an event
154
which so m oves an au d ien ce--it m ay seem ordained or destiny--but
ra th e r it is what a m an is ultim ately m ade to think, feel, and see
(what an audience would keep itself from seeing, along with the g ro w
ing sense of awful inevitability) that underlies in g re a t m e a su re the
depth of a p ity-fear response. Consequently, when sympathy for a
c h a ra c te r is in no way disavowed or d im in ish ed --esp ec ially uncon
scio u sly --b u t in c re a se s in intensity as the story closes (or even
beyond), the effect is a purging of the pity-fear reaction as well as
the d e s ire s yielded to and the gratification that brought about all of the
s u ffe rin g --a relief plus fulfillment which relieves the tensions and
anxiety a lre ad y generated.
Finally, Odets provided an opportunity for a r e v e r s a l in the final
scene involving Mr. Bonaparte, F rank, Moody, and F useli. The audi
ence m ay observe in secure detachm ent, gradually becoming aw are and
re v e rsin g its em otional position fro m predom inantly participant to the
closing speeches during which participation would becom e p re d o m i
nantly spectator.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Golden Boy seem s to p o sse ss strong illusion
potential due to (1) the absence of o v erstatem ent, overdefinition, or
the too personal; (2) the basic conflict is firm ly rooted in attitudes and
d e s ire s which a re recognizable and sym pathetic on both a conscious
and unconscious level; (3) the them e is consistent and logically devel
oped; (4) no single asp ect is so unique as to d istu rb appreciably the
a ll-im p o rta n t developm ent of illusion, in te rm s of audience im ag in a
tion and analogizing; (5) c h a ra cterizatio n is well developed (especially
155
the protagonist), so that the possibility exists for strong identification-
em pathy because of the u n iv e rsal appeals surrounding the predicam ent,
the w orthiness of the individuals, and the nature of the d e s ire s and
internal struggles; (6) sensibilities a re not offended despite the m ilieu
of tyranny, brutality, and destruction; (7) strong hubris appeal sets up
a sense of tension and com plexity fro m the outset, and one which con
tinues to intensify; (8) a detached secu rity on the part of the audience
is not d istu rb e d --n o forced acknow ledgem ent--and participation in
im pulses, the tra n s g re s s io n , and struggles m ay take place within an
atm o sp h ere of safety and security; (9) aesthetic distance is carefully
m aintained, so that an audience m a y gratify its longings through ex p e
riencing vicariously such strong d e s ire s and th e ir guilt, and so
m o m en tarily ridding itself of them; (10) and illusion is sufficiently
involved with u n iv e rsals so that it could have didactic value. A co n
tro l over anxiety perception is m aintained, yet cathexis rem ains
strong. The im plications of the situation-conflict and internal s tru g
gles a re sufficient to a ro u se some anxiety. Objectification is well
established without being o v e r-e m p h a siz e d --b e in g logical and balanced
in em phases throughout--and the diction is appropriate. The problem s
a re so contained that th e ir accom panying d e s ire s , fe a rs , inner con
flicts, and struggles a re objectified in an atm osphere of security, but
still having a verisim ilitu d e that p e rm its vicarious participation w ith
out r e s tr a i n t- - a n adequate aesthetic distance. Time is telescoped,
and life is abbreviated believably without drawing u n n e c e ssa ry a tte n
tion to or away fro m the causals and interrelatio n sh ip s of the cen tral
idea. Focus and diction combine to establish a strong beginning,
156
m iddle and end. The degree of plausibility is high, with no noticeable
in terferen ce by propaganda, partisanship, or p erso n al m e ssa g e . C on
tro ls a r e so successful that a perso n ality pattern becom es disclosed,
along with accompanying intrapsychic conflicts; the anxiety is specified
and sufficiently defined, and a degree of vicarious participation m akes
possible the experience of a controlled com passionate seeing of a s ig
nificant whole. Psychic rew ard s a r e p re se n t in that the basic conflict
is one an audience would o rdinarily avoid confronting; yet the play
explores determ ining facto rs, reveals the influences of each, and
objectifies without offense to audience sensibilities those im pulses
typically gratified in guilt. An audience is forced to see the c o n s e
quences of e r r o r as consequences - -those which it might p re fe r to
avoid, and for which it unconsciously dem ands punishment. The
pleasure principle and reality principle a r e in open c o m b a t--id v ersu s
the superego. The ego is rew arded because the claim s of instincts a re
specified, defined and disclosed, hence brought under control to some
extent. Sustained am bivalence c re a te s a dim ensional c h a ra cterizatio n
which exploits different points of view, opposing dem ands, claim s and
co u n terclaim s, and participation brings conflicting value sy stem s into
play (although the play is v e ry n early a s in g le -c h a ra c te r composition).
Joe exem plifies confrontation to the extent that he explores reality
testing and reporting, and he shows final insight into the root of his
personal conflict. His m o m e n ta ry a s s e rtio n of ego independence is an
assim ilatio n of the id -su p ereg o forces and becom es a strong in te g ra
tive force, despite the fact that it is not sustained. The id-superego
forces actually trium ph, however; on the one hand the idealism of the
157
superego beguiles Joe with the possibilities of a new life, but its
ultim ate motive rem a in s uncom prom ising retribution; w h ereas, the
id fo rc e s, m o m en tarily inhibited fro m im posing th e ir effect externally,
a re enabled to re d ire c t th e ir energy unobstructed tow ard a self a lre ad y
considered by the superego to be d eserving of punishment. The m a in
taining of aesthetic distance throughout, the exploration of intense
d e s ire s and punishm ent, the possibility of receiving p le asu re from
both the d ischarge and the control of instincts, plus a strong c h a r a c
terizatio n for identification-em pathy whose actions can aro u se a pity-
fe a r response, all provide for the possibility of a c a th a rs is rew ard.
Had Joe p e rs e v e re d in his confrontation, the cathartic rew ard would
likely have been enhanced because of the opportunity for in c re a se d and
sustained intensity of audience sym pathies: forbidden d e s ire s need not
only to be gratified, to bring about suffering, and to be ju stly pun
is h e d - - relief plus fulfillm ent--but also the ego m u st triu m p h through
self-rev elatio n (in-depth truth) and achieve an ultim ate integrative
su ccess for a powerful ca th a rsis rew ard.
Finally, although the powerful "System " is still p re se n t within
Odets' w riting, a new dignity for the individual will and choice seem s
to have e m erg ed , a new quality of responsibility for one's own happi
n e ss or unhappiness, an opportunity for c h a ra c te r decision, and less
p e s s im is m o v e r-a ll about the status quo. If m a n is still d eterm ined
by econom ics and the "System, " the solution no longer n e c e s s a rily
lies in change via revolt, by the indoctrination of youth and the setting
of th e ir sp irits ablaze with the possibilities that revolution could effect.
That which exists is no longer all bad; instead, th e re exists a value
158
sy stem (emanating fro m m a te ria lis m ) which can be destructive of m an
and should be heeded. Man m ust take c a re not to violate his own soul
for te m p o ra ry values or rew ard s. Also, and fo r the first tim e, Odets
has not felt it n e c e s s a ry to define outright for his audience (1) the
problem , (2) the cause, and (3) the panacea or solution; he p resen ts
his predicam ent, and for the m ost part, the audience m ay come to its
own conclusions.
159
Footnotes
^Clifford Odets, Six Plays of Clifford Odets (New York: The
M odern L ib rary , 1939), pp. 1 -31.
^See supra, Chapter II, p. 43.
3
By sentim ent is m eant . . an affective elem ent . . . an
idea of an object with which one or m o re emotions a re organized . . .
organized sy stem of em otional tendencies concerning an object or a
class of objects. It is a learned form of behavior, built upon the
experiences of the individual, and acting in the form of em otional
tension. Sentiments are not pure emotions or m otives because they
cannot exist ap art fro m a relationship to some person or object. "
Leland E. Hinsie and Robert J. Campbell, P sychiatric D ictionary,
3rd edition (New York: Oxford U niversity P r e s s , 1960), pi 673.
4
Philip W eissm an, Creativity in the T h ea ter (New York: Basic
Books, In c., 1965), p. 237.
5
Joseph Wood Krutch, "Mr. Odets Speaks His Mind, " The
Nation, CXL (April 10, 1935), pp. 427-428; G renville Vernon,
"The Play, 1 1 The C om m onw eal, XXI (April 12, 1935), p. 682;
Euphem ia Van R e n sselae r Wyatt, "The D ram a, " The Catholic W orld,
CXLI (May, 1935), p. 215; Stark Young, "Lefty and Nazi, " The New
Republic, XXCII (April 10, 1935), p. 247; and Edith J. R. Isaacs,
"Going Left with F o rtu n e ," T heatre A rts Monthly, XIX (May, 1935),
pp. 327-331.
^Young, loc. cit.
7
Wyatt, loc. cit.
g
Vernon, loc. cit.
9
Krutch, loc. cit.
1 ° T ,
Isaacs, loc. cit.
^ K r u tc h , op. cit. , p,. 427.
12
See supra, Chapter H, p. 47.
13
See supra, Chapter H, p. 50.
^ S e e supra, Chapter H, p. 55.
^See supra, Chapter H, p. 57.
160
^ O d e t s , op. c it. , pp. 102-154.
17
Isaacs, op. cit. , p. 328.
^ I s a a c s , op. cit. , p. 331.
19
Odets, op. c it. , p. 112.
^ V e r n o n , op. c it. , p. 68 2.
“ ^ I s a a c s , op. c it. , p. 328.
22Ibid.
28K rutch, op. c it. , p. 428.
24
Vernon, loc. c it. ; Wyatt, lo c. c it. ; and Young, loc. c it.
25
Isaacs, op. c it. , p. 328.
26ibid.
27
Young, op. c it. , p. 247.
28Ibid.
29
Hinsie and Cam pbell, op. c it. , pp. 655-656.
8^Odets, op. c it. , pp. 33-101.
31
Odets, op. c it. , p. 48.
32
L e s s e r , op. c it. , p. 76; and Ludwig Eidelberg (ed. ), Encyclo-
pedia of P sychoanalysis (New York: The F re e P r e s s , 1968), pp.
137-138. ---------------
33
Stark Young, "Awake and Whistle at L e a s t," The New York
Republic, LXXXII (M arch 13, 1935), p. 134.
34
Hinsie and Campbell, op. cit. , p. 144; and E idelberg, op.
c it. , p. 279.
88G renville Vernon, "The Play, " The Comm onweal, XXI
(M arch 15, 1935), p. 570.
3 6
R osam ond G ilder, " P o rtra its and B ack g ro u n d s," T heatre
A rts Monthly, XXIII (May, 1939), pp. 323-324.
Young, loc. cit.
161
^ E u p h e m i a Van R e n sselae r Wyatt, "The D ram a, " Catholic
W o rld , CXLI (April, 1935), pp. 91-92.
39E ditor, "The T heatre, " T im e , XXXIII (M arch 20, 1939),
p. 60.
40
Euphem ia Van R e n sse la e r Wyatt, "The D ram a, " Catholic
W o rld , CIXL (May, 1939), pp. 217-218.
^ Joseph Wood Krutch, "Awake and Sing, " The Nation, CXL
(M arch 13, 1935), pp. 314-315.
"^E ditor, "E ntertainm ent, " N ew s-W eek, V (March 2, 1935),
p. 31.
43
N ew s-W eek, loc. c it.
44
Stark Young, loc. c i t.
45
Ibid.
46
Once involvement has been established by the author, identi-
fication-em pathy m ade possible through relevance, appeals, and
un iv e rsals within the c h a ra c te rs o r a c h a ra c te r, vicarious p a rtic ip a
tion becom es an on-going p ro c e s s as the audience is willing to suspend
its disbelief in o rd er to experience, to feel, to le a rn --th e y attend to
be entertained. The p ro cess is disturbed if the possibility for involve
m ent becom es obfuscated--if the audience is confused, shocked,
offended, and so o n --if nothing happens e arly within the action to
pique em otional reaction, if a c h a ra c te r does not soon em erg e with
whom one can somehow identify and through whom derive some
insight. In all, credibility, m otivated actions, and a sense of justice
m u st prevail for strong psychic rew ards.
47
Odets, op. cit. , pp. 155-230.
48
Odets, op. c it. , p. 199.
49
Editor, "D ram a and Music: Odets Steps Up, " L ite ra ry D igest,
CXX (D ecem ber 21, 1935), p. 20; Stark Young, "Quite Worth Your
Thought, " The New R epublic, LXXXV (D ecem ber 25, 1935), p. 202;
Editor, "T h eatre, " T im e , XXVI (D ecem ber 23, 1935), pp. 31-32;
Grenville Vernon, "The P lay and Screen, " The Comm onweal, XXIII
(D ecem ber 27, 1935), p. 244; and Odets, op. c it. , p. 425.
50
M ary M. Colum, "The Im aginary C lass Line, " The F o r u m ,
XCV (June, 1936), p. 347; E uphem ia Van R e n s s e la e r Wyatt,
"The D ram a, " The Catholic W o rld , CXLII (F eb ru ary , 1936), p. 600;
and Grenville Vernon, loc. c it.
3^Colum, loc. cit.
162
52
L ite ra ry D igest, loc. c it. ; Colum, lo c. c it. ; Young, lo c . cit. ;
Editor, "E ntertainm ent. " News -W eek, VI (D ecem ber 21, 1936), p. 39;
Tim e, op. c it. , pp. 31-32; Wyatt, lo c. cit. ; Vernon, loc. c it. ;
Joseph Wood Krutch, " D ra m a on Good Intentions, " The Nation.
CXLII (January 1, 1936), pp. 27-28; Robert Garland, "New P lay by
Odets Opens at Longacre, " T heatre A rts Monthly, XX (June, 1936),
pp. 465-466; Edith J. R. Isaacs, "Broadway in Review, " T heatre
A rts Monthly, XX (F eb ru ary , 1936), pp. 94-97; and Odets, op. cit. ,
pp. 423-427.
53
Colum, loc. c it.
54
Maxine Block and E. M ary Trow (eds.), C u rren t Biography:
Who'B News and Why (New York: H. W. Wilson Co. , 1941), pp.
627-629.
55
Ibid.
56t ,
Isaacs, loc. c it.
57
K rutch, loc. c it.
^ Y o u n g , loc. c it.
59
Hinsie and Cam pbell, op. c it. , p. 600.
^ Y o u n g , loc. c it.
^ A c c o rd in g to this concept, it is not the act so m uch as what
the c h a ra c te r is made to think, feel, and se e --w h a t one ordinarily
keeps self fro m seein g --th at gives him a g re a te r freedom ; but, energy
m u st change from the imposing of one's will upon the outside world
tow ard a psychic effort that provides self-rev elatio n and truth in
depth.
k^Not only m ust the audience derive satisfaction fro m a c h a r a c
t e r 's d e s ire s and be aw are of the ensuing punishm ent, but also derive
pleasure fro m the d ischarge and assim ilatio n of controls regarding the
instinctual.
^ O d e t s , op. c i t., pp. 231-321.
64
V. F. Calverton, "Cultural B a ro m e te r, " C u rren t H istory,
XLVH (April, 1938), pp. 53-55.
^ W o lc o tt Gibbs, "The Ring and the Bow, " New Y orker, XXVIII
(M arch 22, 1952), p. 54.
^ E d i t o r , "The T heater, " Tim e, LIX (M arch 24, 1952), p. 56.
163
67
Euphem ia Van R e n sse la e r Wyatt, "The D ram a, " The Catholic
W orld, CXLVI (D ecem ber, 1937), p. 342.
6ft
Edith J. R. Isaacs, "When Good Men Get Together: Broadw ay
in Review, " T heatre Arts Monthly, XXII (January, 1938), pp. 11-13;
and Henry Hewes, "Broadw ay P o stsc rip t, " Saturday Review, XXXV
(M arch 29, 1952), p. 26.
69
John G assn e r (ed. ), A T re a su ry of the T heatre (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1950), p. 951.
70
Stark Young, "God's Golden Lads and G irls, " The New Repub
lic, XCIII (N ovem ber 17, 1937), pp. 44-45.
^ M a r g a r e t M a rsh a ll, "D ram a, " The Nation, CLXXIV (M arch
22, 1952), p. 285.
^ Y o u n g , lo c. c it.
73
Grenville Vernon, "The P lay and Screen, " The Comm onweal,
XXVII (November 19, 1937), p. 106.
74
Gibbs, lo c. cit.
75
M arshall, loc. cit.
7 6
Joseph Wood K rutch, "D ram a, " The Nation, CXLV (N ovem ber
19, 1937), pp. 539-540.
77
Young, lo c . cit.
^ E d i t o r , "T h eater Review, " Newsweek, XXXIX (M arch 24,
1952), p. 100.
79
W alter K e r r , "The Stage, " The Commonweal, LV (M arch 28,
1962), pp. 614-615.
80
G eorge J ean Nathan, "T heatre, " S cribner's M ag azin e, CHI
(May, 1938), p. 66.
^ K r u t c h , loc. cit.
Young, lo c. cit.
83
Hinsie and Cam pbell, o£. c it. , p. 442.
84
Nathan, op. c it. , p. 66.
^ K e r r , op. c i t . , p. 615.
8 6
K rutch, op. cit. , p. 540.
CHAPTER IV
THE PLAYS OF LESSER ACCLAIM
Chapter F our includes those plays which w ere w ritten and
produced between Odets' e a rlie r production of Golden Boy and the later
production of The Big Knife, a period of approxim ately a decade (1938
through 1949) which "m arked the final disintegration of the Group
T heatre . . . " and Odets' association with it th e re after. ^ The follow
ing is a list of these interim plays in o rd e r of th e ir production:
Rocket to the Moon; Night M usic; and Clash by Night.
Rocket to the Moon
Plot Sum m ary
Act One of Rocket to the Moon^ opens in the waiting room of a
New York dentist's office; the tim e is the present, on a hot June a f te r
noon. Dr. Ben Stark and his wife, Belle, are debating a proposal by
B elle's father, Mr. P rin ce, to finance a new opportunity, a new p r o
fessional specialty for Ben. Belle e x p re ss e s strong opposition because
she openly disapproves of h e r father. Ben argues that he him self has
always wanted to specialize, but he finally yields to h e r preference (as
he usually does); Belle tends to be very m a te rn a l tow ard Ben. She asks
if h e r fath e r has recently brought up the subject of moving in with them
--s h e is opposed to any sort of clo sen ess because she still blam es h er
164
165
father for h er m o th e r's unhappiness and suicide. Ben is unable to
understand h e r lack of forgiveness, especially since M r. P rin c e is an
old man. Abruptly, she inquires about B en's new se c re ta ry , Cleo
Singer (Cleo is nineteen y ears old, and at this m om ent has been gone
two hours for lunch). Belle scolds Ben for Cleo's high salary . She
asks if he re m e m b e re d to place the ad v ertisem en t in the paper c o n
cerning th e ir vacant apartm ent. When told that this is the reason for
M iss Singer's ta rd in e s s, Belle says that she is ce rta in Cleo will f o r
get. She also rem inds Ben that Dr. Cooper has not paid his rent for
four months; they can not take a European vacation like o th e rs, she
com plains, because Ben is too considerate of others at th e ir own
expense. Mr. P rin ce en te rs, but he leaves hastily when he sees
Belle. She com plains of feeling d ep ressed because this date is the
third an n iv e rsa ry of their only child's d e a th --sh e could not have
another, and Ben has been reluctant about adoption. She urg es him to
love and to need her. Cleo en te rs, and Belle im m ediately adm onishes
h er for being tardy; also, Cleo did forget to place the advertisem ent.
Belle tells h e r she is not efficient. She then requests of Ben that she
be allowed to speak to Cleo privately. Alone, Belle criticizes Cleo's
uniform , h er h air style, and h e r generally provocative appearance.
She also scolds h er about being c a re le s s with routine duties. They a r e
interrupted by Dr. Cooper who is anxiously awaiting a telephone call
fro m the loan company. He tells Belle that with everything e lse , his
boy has just broken his arm . N evertheless, Belle rem inds him that he
owes them rent, c ritic iz e s him for drinking on the job, and for not
m eeting his obligations. At firs t he is angered, but then says he does
166
not blame her. He is only w o rried about his child ren 's future. He
leaves, and so does Belle; but as she leaves, she asks Cleo to rem ind
Ben that she is expecting him home at seven o'clock. Mr. P rince
e n ters at that m om ent, elegantly attired. Neither he nor Belle
acknowledge one another. (F ro m the outset he is obviously fascinated
by Cleo. ) Although Cleo finds Mr. P rin ce interesting, she is baffled
by his intelligence and his type of hum or. In conversation, she
becom es convinced that he is insulting h e r intelligence and ch ara cter;
she loses her te m p e r for a m om ent, which annoys M r. P rince. About
to cry , she pretends that she has something in h er eye; as Mr. P rin ce
is helping h er, Ben enters. Ben sends h e r to the new spaper office with
the apartm ent advertisem ent; as she leaves, she gives him B elle's
m e ssag e. Ben reveals to P rin ce a mild annoyance over the incident he
has just w itnessed. When asked if he has decided to accept the new-
office and specialty proposition, Ben adm its that Belle is opposed.
P rin ce w arns Ben that he is only being led. He confesses to Ben that
he and Belle just do not like one another because Belle blam es him for
ruining her m o th e r's life, w hereas he blam es h er m o th er for ruining
his. He says he m ade his fortune in spite of his wife and his g reatest
fru stratio n now is that he believes he could have been a successful
actor w ere it not for her. He accuses Ben of lying to him self, advises
him to b reak fre e , and to take a rocket to the moon. Just before he
leaves, he recom m ends frankly that Ben have an affair with Cleo.
F ren ch y en te rs, a chiropodist from a nearby office. Ben confesses
that M r. P rin c e has just trie d to convince him of his dissatisfaction
with m a rr ie d life. He adm its to feelings of having fallen asleep in
167
m a rr ia g e , that he does not want to be disturbed, and m a rv e ls at the
little he knows. Dr. Cooper en te rs, again inquiring about a possible
telephone m e ssa g e . He tells Ben that Belle has been asking fo r the
rent in a r r e a r s . When Ben le a rn s that Cooper has no money at all, he
a g re e s to allow him to rem ain until Septem ber. Cleo re tu rn s as
Cooper exits. Ben notices her now for the firs t tim e (as a woman).
She asks him if she m ay forego stockings during the su m m e r, and
Ben a g re e s. When she suggests that his wife m ight object, Ben tells
h er that he runs his own office; Cleo tells him that she likes him.
Act Two takes place in the same office; it is now July. Ben is
reading from a Shakespeare text, Cleo is watching him carefully, and
F ren ch y is aw are of h er growing interest. The m o re attentive she
becom es to Ben, the m o re caustic F renchy becom es. Cleo com plains
about the discom fort of h e r long hair. Ben suggests she w ear it up,
but she tells him that Belle told h e r not to, that she was not hired for
modeling. Ben tells h er to w ear it as she pleases. Disgusted,
F ren ch y leaves. Abruptly, Ben asks Cleo if she intends to m a rry ;
w hereupon straightforw ardly she asks if he loves Belle. She co m p li
m ents Belle, but then says she resents the way Belle speaks to him,
as if she w ere perm anently angry. Cleo confesses that he does not
seem happy and that happiness is everything. Ben mentions that h er
friend, Willy Wax (a well known dance d irec to r), has retu rn ed to New
York. (Cleo has forgotten her e a rlie r m ention because h e r daily life is
full of m ak e-b eliev e, fantasy, and pretense; how ever, Ben has actually
begun to suspect h e r exaggerations. ) The note of jealousy in B en's
voice cau ses Cleo to becom e suddenly aw are of his different in te re st
168
in h er. Ben inquires if she likes working in the office, and she replies
that she enjoys it because she feels needed. She asks Ben if he likes
h e r, but at that m om ent a telephone call fro m Belle in terrupts them.
Ben tells Belle that they are waiting for Mr. P rin ce who is now late.
Ben then seem s about to talk to Cleo seriously, but they a re in t e r
rupted by Mr. P rin ce. P rin ce asks Cleo outright if she would c a re to
go with him to a concert that night, and then he asks h er to m a r r y
him; Ben leaves annoyed. P rin ce tells h e r that Ben has lost his
courage because of Belle. When she finally a g re e s to go out with him
the next evening, he leaves. Ben retu rn s; he is annoyed with h e r, and
Cleo accuses him of jealousy. Ben then asks her why she lies so
much, and why does she tell such p rep o stero u s stories about talent,
wealth, influential friends, and so on. Cleo becom es ex trem ely upset,
but when Ben becom es contrite she refuses to be placated. She tells
him the truth, that eight of them share an apartm ent, that none of h er
fam ily d re a m s but h e r - - th e y all laugh at h er rom antic notions. He
suggests she go home early, but she p re fe rs to go anywhere but home.
She then tells him he has lost his am bition, and it is B elle's fault.
Ben does not deny it; he cautions h e r, but she replies that she loves
him. Dr. Cooper en ters. He tells them he has suddenly realized life
is w ar, and he b reak s down; he feels he is falling apart and does not
know w here to turn. He asks w here God is, and what C ongress is
doing when people need them. He shows Ben his reg istra tio n card as
a blood donor; donors a re paid thirty dollars p er pint. When he
leaves, Cleo te lls Ben suddenly that he does not love Belle. Ben
w arns h e r that he is a m a r r i e d m an. Cleo refuses to be logical or
169
serio u s and inquires why he does not love h e r instead; she tells him
she is alone and unloved. Ben tr ie s to appeal to reason, but she
pleads with him to love h e r, to put his a rm s around her. They
e m b ra c e .
Scene Two is the beginning of August. The telephone brings
Cleo out of the office into the waiting room; she is followed by Ben.
Ben is concerned that it m ay be Belle, and his concern causes Cleo to
sulk. However, it is M r. P rin ce asking for Cleo. Cleo tells him that
she will not go out with him again this week, but perhaps next week.
Ben tells h e r that his patient, the d ire c to r Willy Wax, is now leaving
but not to accept a date with him if asked. F ren ch y suddenly interrupts
them and im m ediately suspects a m o re than business in terest on the
part of Ben. After Ben leaves, F renchy w arns Cleo not to play gam es
with Ben, that Ben is too nice and too sensitive. M r. Wax enters, and
he too is obviously interested in Cleo. He invites her to his office for
lunch, w here she can see his new method of choreography. She co n
fesses an in te re st in dancing, and he feigns com plete su rp rise . After
he leaves, Ben retu rn s, and he k is se s Cleo tenderly. She asks where
they will go that night and com plains that he takes her to such out-of-
the-w ay places. She then m entions h er luncheon engagem ent with
Willy. Ben asks her not to go, but she says she m ust. As she leaves,
she calls him Ben. At that m om ent Belle e n te rs and o verhears this.
Belle obviously wants Ben to be happy about h e r s u rp rise visit and to
ask h e r to stay for the night. Ben says the right things but without
enthusiasm . Suddenly Belle suggests taking C le o ’s position, which
Ben prom ptly reje cts with annoyance. Belle, outraged at his
170
annoyance, dem ands that Cleo be fired; she asks why Ben allows Cleo
to call h im by his f irs t nam e; and, if he does not feel guilty, why does
he not fire Cleo. Ben loses his te m p e r and tells h e r that she does not
c a re about his needs. As she leaves, Belle w arns h im that he can not
throw h e r away fo r this girl. Cleo en ters with Willy Wax (he also has
begun to suspect the close relationship between them ). When Willy
leaves, Cleo becom es petulant, saying Ben does not think of her or
really c a re for h e r . Ben p ro m ise s to take h e r som ew here different
on this night; he tells h e r she is m ore im portant than anything, and
that he does love h e r. They em b race.
Act Three begins three weeks la te r in the sam e office. Belle
and Ben a re alone, and she does not believe Ben when he te lls her that
he has stayed late only to go over vouchers. She a cc u se s h im of w a it
ing for Cleo and dem ands the truth. Mr. P rince telephones; he is
looking for Cleo and has decided to come to the office. Belle accu ses
Ben of not really wanting to go home; Ben adm its th is, but does not
wish to q u arrel. Impulsively, he decides to tell Belle the tru th about
Cleo and him self, but she refuses to listen, becom es h y sterical, and
insists that Ben does not really love the girl. She says they can o v e r
come and forget it; it has been a thing of the m om ent. Belle suddenly
decides to wait fo r Cleo; Ben says he does not know when she is c o m
ing, which only e n ra g e s Belle. He will not reply d irec tly when asked
if he really loves Cleo, but only speaks of his responsibility. Belle
dem ands the c a r keys, slaps him , and tells him that when he knows
finally what to do she will be at a frien d 's ap artm en t. F ren ch y enters;
he has h eard so m e of the argum ent. He w arns Ben that the s t r e s s e s of
171
the day a re opposed to no rm ality and m a r r i a g e , and he asks him to
consider what he could in fact do for Cleo, what she will be like within
a few y ears. However, Ben is too distraught fo r reason because Cleo
is now two hours late, and he has becom e genuinely confused about
what is happening to him self. Confronted with the question as to which
wom an he truly wants, he cannot reply. Mr. P rin c e then e n te rs look
ing for Cleo. He tells Ben he is in love with h e r and wishes to propose
m a rria g e ; Ben accuses him of trying to buy h e r, but P rin ce says he is
willing to fight for her. He tells Ben that he will wait dow nstairs and
give him five m inutes alone with h er when she retu rn s. Willy Wax
en ters; he tells Ben that Cleo is an old-fashioned rom antic who
believes in love, that he finally ju st sent her home in disgust. Ben
suggests that h erea fter Willy leave her alone, and Willy d e sc rib e s him
as a clown and a m ed d ler. They have a brief scuffle. Suddenly, Cleo
e n te rs, and she dem ands that Willy leave. Ben tells h er they m ust
somehow com e to a m utual understanding. Then Mr. P rin ce returns.
He tells Cleo that he loves h er and wants to m a r r y her. He asks her
to consider why Ben is not by h e r side, that Ben will never divorce
Belle, that Belle actually runs his life like a cre d it m an ag er, and Ben
has lost the courage and strength to leave her. Cleo questions Ben as
to why he does not defend h im se lf or a s k P rin ce to leave. P rin c e tells
h e r that he wants to make a g reat lady of her, and also a wealthy one.
She asks Ben to te ll h er of his plans for th e m , but his only reply is that
he could offer her little m o re than a second-hand life. Cleo tells
P rin c e she does not love him; to both m e n she confesses that she is
looking for love, a love that u ses her and needs her; she believes there
172
is a world of joyful people who a re not afraid to laugh and to sing, to
sing at work and love th e ir work; she does not want to play at life but
to live it. She adm its that she now has m o re confidence than when she
f irs t cam e to w ork for Ben; and she leaves. Ben says this m ust be a
beginning because for a brief m om ent he saw h im self and realized
what he was; he vows n ev er to take things for granted again. P rin ce
says that it m ust be a beginning. B en ’s final words a re , "What I don't
know would fill a book. "
Illusion
The illusion seem ed to be a dual one: on the one hand it con
cerned the a ll-p e rv a s iv e effects that money (a d e p ressio n economy)
can have on the individual; how it can affect those values by which one
lives and can d eterm in e his decisions, his complete personality. On
the other it concerned the poor or faulty adjustm ent that m an can m ake
if he seeks to insulate h im self too assiduously from the realities he
p re fe rs not to accept, attem pting to avoid the inevitable disappoint
m e n ts and fru stra tio n s of life, its pain, and strives to live securely
within a w orld of his own making; how ever, a poor adjustm ent is not
only fraught with, but also protected by defensive m e c h a n ism s which
have as th e ir basis a type of reality fear, and they in terfere with one's
effective reactions with reality; consequently, they can m ake one very
vulnerable depending upon the strength of the defense and the reality
stim ulus:
Defense m e c h a n ism s a re denotative specific patterns of
psychic action, em ployed to elim inate fro m the aw aren ess of
the total personality any of the ex tern al and internal stim uli
resulting fro m the dam m ing up of infantile instinctual tensions
and n a rc is s is tic m ortifications . . . to prevent the em ergence
173
of instinctual derivatives fro m the id into co n scio u sn ess, and to
the avoidance of the ego being overw helm ed by a re -e x p e rie n c e
of the original trau m atic n a rc iss is tic m ortification. . . . N o r
m ally, the p resen ce of external and internal stim uli produces
th re e conscious d e riv a tiv e s--id e a s , em otions, and actions.
The defense m e ch an ism s in terfere with the form ation of all
'I
th ree. . .
Ben was p resented as a m ild -m a n n e re d , kind m an approaching
m iddle age. Despite the increasing financial p r e s s u r e s of the d e p r e s
sion era , he still allowed people to take advantage of him to the
annoyance of his somewhat shrew ish wife. T here w ere no children,
and over the y e a rs he had perm itted his wife to p re -e m p t domination
within th e ir relationship. He decided to h ire a young, v e ry a t t r a c
tive dental ass is ta n t whom he could not afford, who was not p a rtic u
la rly efficient, but whose naivety and sincerity pleased him . Others
saw the possibility of a potential attraction between th e m --w ife, c o l
leagues, even the g irl--b e fo re he was willing to accept such a p o s s i
bility. Meanwhile, the girl becam e genuinely fond of him , because
unlike o th ers, Ben seem ed to listen to h e r and to re sp e c t h e r as an
individual. P rim a r ily as a resu lt of h e r ag g re ssiv e efforts, his
defenses w ere overcom e so that both moved gradually into an intimate
relationship. As a consequence, after a tim e Ben becam e in c r e a s
ingly aw are of growing confusion, distraction and guilt; e.g., his
jealous behavior, his suspicions, and an inattentiveness to his c u s to m
ary resp o n sib ilities. When he was forced finally to confront the truth
about the situation and self, he was willing to adm it openly to Belle
that he had been having an affair. However, when req u ire d to choose
between the two women, he found he could neither choose nor accept
174
divorce. Separated fro m h is wife and d eserted by Cleo at the close of
the play, Ben was left wondering at the little he actually knew o r fully
realized about self o r life.
An illusion problem e m erg ed when an attem pt was made to
analyze the basis for audience sym pathies and involvement within the
c h a ra c te rs , the p roblem and conflict: (1) the protagonist was a dentist
(old enough to be the father of the girl) who was neither very happy
nor unhappy, just accepting, passive, and anxious to avoid u n p le a s
antness; (2) the wife, Belle, was dom ineering and overly officious,
but yet devoted to Ben and attentive; (3) finances were a concern for
both of them , yet they could afford a su m m e r hom e at the beach, had
both residential and business rentals, and could talk of a possible
vacation trip to Europe; (4) the g irl's appeal (Cleo) was presented as
physical, and beyond that stem m ing m o re from naivete, rom anticism ,
and a lack of sophistication than fro m som e inner strength, conviction,
or understanding; (5) Ben believed he had fallen in love with this girl
who p re fe rre d h e r im agination to reality, and w as virtually without
form al education or values com patible with his own; (6) Dr. Cooper,
reported to be an even b e tte r dentist than Ben, did not have a single
paying patient and could not make a living--he had to sell his blood to
survive; (7) F renchy, a young chiropodist, was depicted as the c h a r a c
te r m ost firm ly rooted in the realities and the m o st stable personality;
(8) M r. P rin ce openly disliked his daughter, yet wanted to live with
h er and Ben (he had decided that he wanted to be an a c to r and felt he
had to have the nineteen y e a r old Cleo in o rd er to be happy); (9) the
situation-conflict actually affected only Ben, Belle, and Cleo to any
175
significant depth or degree; and finally, (10) the d ilem m a was one that
Ben did not actually bring about, but m e re ly passively p e rm itte d to
happen to h im --it was very difficult for h im to m ake im portant
decisions independently, and he avoided them.
Throughout, a limited opportunity existed for displacem ent or
projection to the c h a ra c te rs . That which was p resented as im portant
appeared to be m o re p a rtic u la r to these c h a ra c te rs ra th e r than involv
ing the m o re u n iv e rsal human d e s ire s and resp o n ses. The possibility
seem ed doubtful that such p artic u la r d e s ire s and resp o n ses would
activate strength of participation within an audience, at le ast to the
extent that an audience would forget itself and its physical en v iro n
m ent as a consequence of som e in-depth em otional involvement.
Though the p redicam ent was p o ssib le --p e rh a p s even re m in iscen t of
the d epression period and not rom antically u n u su al--it still did not
seem sufficiently grounded in ageless un iv ersal struggles and conflicts
so that an audience could bring its own enrichm ent to the experience
through im agination and analogizing; e. g. , the absence of serio u s and
fearful im plications, o r understood and sym pathetically appealing
m otives, would tend to re s tric t the predicam ent to an intellectual
a p p ra isa l ra th e r than an emotional one.
A few c ritic s had some interesting co m m en ta ry about the type of
illusion present: Stark Young felt that the firs t act "went rem ark ab ly
well, " but from being good the play declined gradually to a "general
looseness, a muffled u n iv e rsa lism , and a resolution in symbolic
4
banalities"; Joseph K rutch agreed in the sense that the play as a
whole never seem ed to rise above the level of its f irs t act, that as the
176
com m onplace story drew to a close its manipulation of events becam e
rath e r m echanical, though the audience was not perm itted a "rom antic
5
or sentim ental evasion of the situation" until the very end; J-.eta
Clews believed Odets had finally forsaken the rights of man for an
illusion about love, and this firs t act was the best of his w ritin g --
there was "uncanny insight into hum an nature, " and Ben was the m ost
sympathetic and convincing c h a ra c te r ever created by O dets--but the
w ordiness of the close caused the c h a ra c te rs to lose vitality and
identity;^ Rosamond G ilder was not so positive, for she felt the play
was less concerned with social injustice than with human relationships
(a them e about m odern life which failed to give tim e, place, and grace
7
to love); Grenville Vernon was of the opinion that Odets was not t r y
ing to p reac h a philosophy or social panacea but telling a story about a
m an who was in love with another woman but refused to divorce his
wife, ". . . the m ost interesting and consistent d ra m a . . . since his
'Awake and Sing, ' " but the psychology of the ending was faulty, and
Odets actually rep resen ted "the d ra m a tis t of the half-A m ericanized
g
Jew, a Jew in a state of intellectual and m o ra l flux"; E. Wyatt
believed that Odets was confused about w hether he wanted to s tre s s
strength or w eakness, and the in secu re philosophies, the "fumbling
quality" weakened the d ram a tic structure; C harles Angoff felt the
play opened "like a m achine-gun . . . but all at once the whole thing
collapses, " and it becam e banal. ^ The only conclusion that this
w riter felt he could venture on the basis of th e se c ritic ism s was that
in the m a jo rity of c ritica l opinion Odets opened his play with some
strength of illusion, his predom inant em phasis appeared to be a love
177
them e, and his conclusion was wordy and unconvincing. The w rite r
w as unable to a g ree that a love motif predom inated o v er an econom ic
one, because the c h a r a c te r s ' adjustm ents to life, th e ir reactions to the
dem ands of the situation-conflict w ere too often d irec t resu lts of
econom ic considerations, e. g. , Ben, Belle, Cleo, P rin ce, and Cooper
could not be fully explained without taking into consideration how
money had come to affect th e ir lives. The love them e was in addition
to the d e p r e s s io n - e r a love triangle. In this w r ite r 's opinion, the
c ritic s seem ed to m ake value judgm ents which, though provoking of
in te re st, they often neglected to substantiate by evidence cited within
the play or by d irec t com parison with some acceptable standard of
judgm ent other than personal opinion.
Identification-em pathy. With resp ect to identification-em pathy,
th e re did not seem to be a c h a ra c te r who could both aro u se and s u s
tain this im portant entertainm ent re q u ire m en t with convincing
strength. P erh ap s one might identify to som e extent with Belle, as
she fought to m aintain reason and happiness; o r perhaps at tim es with
Ben who on the su rface suggested ego strength, but yet was function
ing with a tenuous adjustm ent. Im portant, how ever, would be the
specific feared or unfulfilled aspects of self that either of these
c h a ra c te rs could re p re se n t within a th e atre audience, and to what
extent. Strong and sustained audience participation re s ts upon the
extent of identification-em pathy created by c h a r a c te r s who m ake e v i
dent significant hum an c h a ra c te ristic s with which an audience can
sym pathize in depth; consequently, th e re m u st be p re se n t a worthy
exam ple for sym pathy, and one who m a k es possible (through his
178
decisions and behavior) som e meaningful insight and feeling-into, or
empathy. He m ust be (1) troubled with d e sire s which an audience
a sso ciates with struggle, (2) in a situation-conflict of significance and
magnitude, and (3) ex p ressin g a wish having som e universality. In
this case, an audience could understand and sym pathize with the
d e s ire s of Ben, but his struggles revolved predom inantly around his
personal confusion. The dilem m a actually had little significance or
magnitude other than its effect upon the three principal c h a ra c te rs ,
and a g eneral allusion to the tem ptations associated with approaching
m iddle age. B en's d e sire was not u n u sual--the s e c re t w ish or te m p
tation to experience youthful love once again--but the act itself was in
reality at odds with the sym pathies and cultural values of the tim e (and
even today) that surrounded the g en eral attitudes of responsibility in
m a rria g e . Also, Odets em phasized the e x tra m a rita l love affair m o re
than he did its suffering, the accompanying d e s ire s , defenses, or
conflicts, and so m inim ized the psychological im plications which could
aro u se audience involvement. F u rth e r, f o r strong illusion, an audi
ence should be able to identify with the bad in a c h a ra c te r, as well as
with the good. This w rite r had difficulty in identifying p re c ise ly the
nature of the bad within any of the m ain c h a ra c te rs ; that which was
p resented as bad seem ed m o re like a ss o rte d defensive m e ch an ism s
and overt reactio n s to an inordinate d e s ire to be accepted and to be
loved. Though the possibility fo r offending audience sensibilities
seem ed unlikely, the audience understanding would h ard ly be labored
(with the occasional exception, perhaps, of the rationale underlying
the c h a ra c te r of M r. P rince); the basic problem o r situation-conflict
179
seem ed to lack the sort of magnitude that would be required to
establish and to sustain the extent of identification-em pathy needed
with at least one c h a ra c te r for involved audience participation. One
critic d escrib e d the c h a ra c te rs as c a ric a tu ra l, but did not explain
why. Another believed they w ere "vital" and Ben was the m o st
sympathetic and convincing c h a ra c te r to date. ^ Yet another believed
the c h a ra c te rs to re p re s e n t a "Fannie H urst parable . . . a Yiddish
pulp story, " and that the c h a ra c te rs did not reveal th em selv es as
13
human beings do, but m o re through "good talk" and e p ig ra m s.
(There was little critic a l accord with resp ect to c h a r a c te r iz a tio n - -
except possibly that the c h a ra c te rs w ere intense. However, c h a r a c
terizatio n plays a vital role in the creation and sustaining of audience
illu sio n .)
Hubris. A good example of a hubris c h a ra c te r did not ap p ear to
be present. Ben m ight seem to haye tra n s g re s s e d , to have violated a
cultural tabu in the sense that he becam e involved in an e x tra m a rita l
liaison; but, he was too passive for a hubris type. He perm itted h im
self to be influenced, to be acted upon; he was not arro g an t or violent
out of passion o r re c k le s sn e ss, did not d isre g a rd m o ra l im p lic atio n s,
m ake ex tre m e choices, becom e violent, inflexible, uncom prom ising,
and succum b to intem perate im pulses with an ease or a su d d en n ess--
any com bination of which, if actively a s s e rte d , could aro u se som e
audience anxiety. In effect, an audience would be unable to experience
the im portant tensions em anating fro m his d e s ire s and th e ir defenses,
for they w ere not p re se n t as his c h a ra c te r was expressed: Ben was
not c h a ra c te riz e d as one who initially struggled with d e s ire s and
! 180
defenses regarding Cleo; at the close of Scene One, Act Two, when
Ben was trying to com fort Cleo after wounding h e r feelings, it was
Cleo's a g g re s s iv e n e ss , h er insistence that he be not afraid, and to
love h er, that initiated th e ir affair. P r io r to that m om ent, th e re was
no convincing evidence of genuine in-depth tension within Ben. In this
sense, an im portant com plexity was lacking, for the audience would
not be perm itted to see and to experience vicariously the effects of
struggle and tension upon a troubled personality, and the ways and
extent to which im pulses typically m aneuver in o rd e r to gain s a tis fa c
tion. M issing also was the fear that an audience would norm ally
experience over an act of rebellion and pity for its consequences.
Odets established that neither Ben nor Belle was actually happily
m a rrie d ; fu rth e r (in te rm s of magnitude), only th e ir m a rria g e and
adjustm ent seem ed to be affected by the issue that underlay the basic
conflict; the e x tra m a rita l rom ance. An audience would be denied a
satisfaction fro m two im portant w ishes: (1) the wish to rebel openly
against authority, and (2) to be punished for having done so. In ad d i
tion, the audience would not be instructed (didacticism ) beyond the
fact perhaps that one should strive to keep vigorous his m a rita l
adjustm ent, be cautious about assum ing a passive role in m a rria g e ,
and be aw are that "youthful love" for the older can be fraught with
g re a te r fru stra tio n s than com forts.
The presen ce of a hubris quality provides for audience s a tis fa c
tion through an opportunity for the audience to participate in im pulses
strongly re stra in e d , in a significant tra n s g re s s io n , and in struggles
between im pulses and inhibition, so that d e s ire s can be re-e x p e rie n c e d
181
along with th e ir guilt--none of which seem ed presen t within this
conflict with any strength. Consequently, reflecting upon the total
concept of illusion, the w rite r cam e to the conclusion that Odets did
not seem to provide sufficient opportunity for an audience to proceed
m uch beyond an intellectual participation within his play. Despite
some interesting psychological p o rtra itu re s , the possibilities for
audience em otional involvement which could activate and support
vicarious participation did not appear strong enough to aro u se audi
ence im a g e ry and analogizing, and to establish at the outset an
appropriate and sustained psychic distance.
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
As re g a rd s the p resence of anxiety and the control of its p e rc e p
tion, cathexis did not seem strong because Odets concentrated p r i
m a rily upon the effects of the e x tra m a rita l rom ance, its strain s upon
the m a rita l adjustm ent of Ben and Belle, and their subsequent defen
sive reac tio n s, ra th e r than internal struggles. (Ben did have some
guilt feelings, but these appeared to be secondary in im portance to
his feelings of inadequacy. ) The concentration of psychic energy
seem ed to lack both a depth of revelation and a universality in its
appeals; the ce n tra l ideas lacked m a jo r significance. No c h a ra c te r
was especially heroic nor troubled with the types of d e s ire s against
which the g eneral th e a tre g o e r would feel he too would at som e tim e
have to struggle--significance and magnitude again --an d no choice was
presen ted between believable ex tre m e alternatives. Ben m ade it c lear
that he d e sire d to keep the love trian g le as it was. The c h a r a c te r s '
182
decisions seem ed predictable on the b a s is of the kinds of alternatives
Odets provided.
Objectification. Objectification seem ed adequate in the sense of
containm ent and controls surrounding the m ain problem -conflict.
W hereas Cleo was overly impulsive and a g g re ssiv e , Ben was re s e rv e d
and restrain ed , and at som e time Belle was each of these. The inten
sity of the rom ance relationship was suggested for the m ost p art and
not e x p re s s e d --o n ly two fervent e m b ra c e s w ere actually presented,
and these w ere used to close scenes. Anger w as re stric te d p rim a rily
to raised voices (although Belle did strik e Ben in Act Three as she
exited). If what Odets objectified had been som ehow m o re extensive in
its im plications, had contained m ore depth of significance, then the
diction and action as combined would likely have provided a com pact
and m ore convincing objectification. H owever, since Odets re s tric te d
the em otional intensity (his degree of feeling and significance) to a
problem which concerned alm ost exclusively only his m ain c h a ra c -
te r s - - B e n , Cleo, Belle, P rin c e --a n d the problem -conflict was so
lim ited in scope, then the possibility fo r audience detachment and
security to becom e over-extended was co n sid ered to be very likely;
i. e. , too m uch psychic distance. Lacking was the opportunity for
exploration of som e deeply significant in -co m m o n problem . One
entertainm ent value to be found as a re su lt of the proper control of
anxiety perception through precise objectification is that the v e ry con
tr o ls applied by the content and form serv e in tu r n to contain the real
fe a r s that becom e aroused by the events presented; they serve to con
tain within the audience the im pulses stim ulated and satisfied on stage.
183
As applied to this situation-conflict, insufficient f e a r s would likely
be stim ulated because the im pulses seem ed to lack a sufficient basis
for audience sympathy, the possibility for em pathy, and a g en era l
im portance.
F o c u s . The p re s e n c e and effective m anagem ent of focus often
appeared to be disturbed by the type of diction employed. Although the
language was frequently figurative, o v e r-a ll the play seem ed to be
wordy, the ex p ressio n s oftentim es tr ite , and the im ag ery occasionally
disturbing: e. g. , in Act One, when a snake eats a rabbit it falls
asleep, so why should I be better than a snake; children can't be
stored like fu rn itu re ; bills ate holes in me like Swiss cheese; or, such
trite expressions as, I'll eat m y h a t; charity begins at h o m e ; you 're
d re s s e d to k ill; the m a n in the m oon; I don't chew m y cabbage tw ic e ;
who w ears the pants in the fam ily . As usual, the c ritic s disagreed:
Rosamond G ilder believed the diction had eloquence, rich n e ss, hum or,
14 15
and force; Grenville Vernon d escribed it as pungent and telling;
Stark Young felt it ranged fro m Chekhovian to symbolic b a n a l i t y ; ^
17
and C harles Angoff co n sid ered it w ordy without em otional support.
The sluggishness and irre le v a n c ie s of life seem ed sufficiently
deleted, and even som e causals w ere adequately established (although
the source of m any p ro b le m s had to be assum ed), but in te rre la tio n
ships within the play did not always seem clearly fixed, and c o in c i
dence was frequently em ployed within the action. F ro m f ir s t to last,
for exam ple, M r. P r in c e 's relationship to his daughter, to his son-
in-law, to th e ir m a rr ia g e , and even to the teen-aged Cleo seem ed
confusing to the w rite r. Also confusing w ere the p erso n al and
pro fessio n al in terrelatio n sh ip s among Ben, Cooper, and Frenchy.
Exposition som etim es appeared too m echanical, obvious, and even
verbose, especially details pertaining to B elle's childhood, B en's
passivity, the loss of th e ir only baby, and M r. P r in c e 's past. A swift
sense of beginning seem ed fu rth e r disturbed by the entrance of P rin c e ,
whose dialogue with Cleo could be described as obtuse, if not often
irrelev an t: "What a re your opinions . . . what a re you . . . what is
the s e c re t of life . . . everything th at's beauty is p erso n al . . . what
is your gospel?" and so on. Then, in conversation with Ben, P rin ce
m ade u nclear allusions to a cheap neighborhood hotel, re p re se n te d his
own m o ra l standards as beyond reproach, blam ed his affluence and
fru stra tio n s to becom e an a cto r upon his deceased wife, becam e v it
riolic in referen ce to his daughter (Belle), disclosed an uneasiness
about the eventual recipient of his accum ulated fortune, described
B en's m a rr ia g e as unsuccessful and unhappy, and even p re s c rib e d an
affair for him with Cleo. In effect, P rin ce seem ed to disturb the
sense of a swift and coherent action one could anticipate after the
opening scene, a beginning action which seem ed integrated and m e a n
ingful. One critic considered P rin ce to be sim ply bew ildering in
general, ^ and this w rite r agreed.
The whole, as presented by Odets, did not seem to reveal a
pattern of behavior which would ordinarily be obscured in life by
ir r e le v a n c ie s , confusions, and so forth, or to reveal intrapsychic
conflicts which determ ine life; both pattern and conflict seem ed
obvious and predictable, and that which was specified and defined did
not seem sufficiently indeterm inant and all-p e rv a siv e so that an
185
audience m ight be able to derive relief or knowledge from having it
objectified. Odets did not disturb control of anxiety perception with
propaganda, the all-good opposing the all-bad, partisanship, or the
too personal. Instead, the action seem ed somewhat over-controlled,
or re stra in e d , and disturbed m o re by confusion. P erh ap s Odets was
not sufficiently knowledgeable in the type of love triangle he was
attem pting to explore and to portray. W hatever, he did not seem to
establish a convincing basis for com passion early within the play;
th e re fo re, at le ast for this w rite r, he inhibited the final d esired effect
of having experienced the com passionate seeing of a whole. In effect,
an audience might be confused with both his a rra n g e m e n t and em phases
upon in terrelatio n sh ip s, feel fru stra te d or confused in te rm s of the
source and kinds of actions and issu es which w ere intended to arouse
audience involvement, or becom e intellectually alien ated --if not also
confused--by the positively a s s e rte d (if not contradictory) philosophies
set forth by the m ain c h a ra c te rs .
Psychic Rew ards
Underlying the psychic rew ard s is the n ece ssity for audience
involvement to the extent that vicarious participation has o ccu rred with
increasing intensity throughout the play. Needs m ust have been s a ti s
fied, and the audience m ust have been unaw are of the p ro cess. Only
then m a y the rew ard s be p re s e n t and experienced, and only then m ay
they serv e to com pensate for the inadequacies and deprivations of one's
daily living. In addition to the lim ited u n iv ersals within his conflict,
Odets appeared to d ire c t audience attention m o re tow ard the resu lts of
186
the conflict ra th e r than its determ ining facto rs; nor did he se e m to
dignify the im p u lses that a ro s e as a result of his dilem m a. Instead of
hoping that c e rta in consequences of Ben and Cleo's behavior could
somehow be avoided or av erted , an audience would likely anticipate
th em as the events of the play w ere arra n g e d and em phasized. The
final outcome appeared to be sufficiently grounded in preceding con
sequences so that the conclusion did not seem illogical, but the quality
of justice did not se e m to dignify the conflict.
The p le asu re principle appeared to be a t w ar with the reality
principle not only within, but also between and among the c h a ra c te rs;
how ever, if the audience ego is to derive som e rew ard as the claim s
of instincts becom e gratified, then the instincts m ust f ir s t of all be
c le a rly specified and disclosed, and the p ro c e s s m ust result in making
th em m o re receptive to audience control. The possibility is su g
gested that because Odets placed so m uch em phasis upon effects,
r a th e r than upon internal struggles, that unconscious involvement
b ecam e m inim al. The play closed with each c h a ra c te r going his
s ep arate way, the protagonist expressing confusion and wonder about
all that he did not know, and the prognosis of his m a rr ia g e rem ained
com pletely in doubt. Consequently, though som e confrontation
o ccu rred between the p leasu re and reality principles, and Odets p r o
vided his audience with secu rity and detachm ent through manipulation
of controls and fo rm , the battle of id -su p ereg o did not seem to rew ard
the ego due to the absence of a c lear victory fo r the ego; the co n
science, the superego, prevailed finally. O v er-all th e re was a general
lack of a s s e rtio n on the part of the m ain protagonist, Ben. He
187
rep resen ted a com prom ising and passive personality acted upon by
others who w ere all m o re a g g ressiv e than he; one of whom, because of
a physical attraction (id) and h e r self-assertion, provoked a m o ra l
co m p ro m ise for him which disturbed his adjustm ent as his own values
w ere suddenly brought into conflict (superego fo rces dem anding r e t r i
bution); he employed deceit to protect his alre a d y vulnerable ego, and
the resu lt was confusion, guilt, and complication; com plication and
involvement becam e so extensive that a confrontation was forced, and
som e a s s e rtio n was dem anded of him , som e decision along with d e c i
sive action. It was at this c ritic a l (existential) m om ent that Odets
seem ed to dim inish psychic satisfactions and rew ard s (reveal a s ig
nificant and meaningful behavior pattern) because he denied his p r o
tagonist ego strength; Ben was unable to m e et the responsibility of a
decision, despite the circ u m sta n c e s and dem ands, and what followed
was an abrupt dissolve of the conflict which was (1) seem ingly without
full satisfaction to anyone involved, (2) without re p a ir or justice to
events of the past, and (3) it ren d ered relatively unconvincing Ben's
protests about attitudinal change for the future.
A m bivalence. As they w ere developed, the c h a ra c te rs m a n i
fested little am bivalence. The two m ain c h a ra c te rs , Ben and Belle,
served as a good exam ple: at the outset Belle was c h a ra c te riz e d as
dominating, te rm ag an t, p o sse ssiv e , and o v er-p ro te ctiv e of Ben; Ben
was indecisive, easily influenced, introspective, kind, generous, and
a disciple of the rational. N either c h a ra c te r underwent a significant
change throughout the entire co u rse of action. The conflict did not
suggest the p resen ce of different points of view, e. g. , each of the
188
m ain c h a ra c te rs was relatively com fortable according to the econom ic
standards of the tim e, no one was esp ecially unhappy fo r any length of
tim e, Ben could only blam e him self if Belle had becom e dom ineering,
and th e re was no evidence of great internal struggle with differing
values. Ben obviously had some m o r a l conflict within his conscience,
but m o re convincing was his jealousy; Belle had a conflict with pride
and insecurity; and P rin ce seem ed troubled with boredom and the
prospects of growing old, but these conflicts did not suggest a m a g n i
tude or struggle with differing value sy ste m s. Consequently, uncon
scious sym pathies, and conditions urged in opposition, with an
accompanying o v e r-a ll sense of the opposite did not seem presen t to
any extent: audience participation with the values and value sy stem s
that w ere p resen t would seem th e re fo re to be re s tric te d to the obvious
em phases upon financial and personal secu rity , and upon m o ra l
responsibility. (In o rd er to experience a depth of entertainm ent
experience, an audience should be able to participate vicariously not
only with the d ilem m a per se, but also in related conflicts which are
inspired by the im pulses, d e s ire s , and struggles a risin g as a resu lt of
the p re s s u re s of equally strong opposites, and which in turn can be
em bellished by audience im agination and an alo g izin g .)
Confrontation. Ben was on the verge of a confrontation type of
rew ard in Act T h ree when he told Belle of his sudden realization that
he had felt guilty for y e a rs , and that now he was really guilty (r e g a r d
ing Cleo) and could lie no m ore; but Belle interrupted his confrontation
with the realities, in te rfe rre d with its im pact, by refusing to listen or
to allow him to continue. Again, at the close of this act, Ben spoke
189
inspirationally of having ju st seen him self c le a rly for an hour and as
a re s u lt realizing who he w as, of having seen things in the w orld as
they really w ere fo r the f ir s t tim e. As w ritten, how ever, the play
did not tell the audience, nor could they actually observ e what had been
seen o r realized. Instead of verbalizing these new found tru th s, the
play concluded with such cliches as, ". . . this is strange! . . . I'll
never take things for granted again . . . what I don't know would fill
a book! " As a result, the ego w as not exalted b ecause it failed in both
p e rs is te n c e and in its su ccess at integrating opposing forces; it did not
pursue reality testing and reporting despite possible d is a s te r--o n ly
for a b rie f m om ent could Ben be said to rise above his m ista k e s and
w eaknesses via truth, and then only because he told his audience so.
The ego failed to a s s im ila te the id and superego fo rc e s and thus did
not a s s e r t its independence and authority. In the end, Ben rem ained
intim idated both by Belle and his own conscience. The superego was
victorious. Odets failed to provide his audience with the rew ard s they
would be justified in anticipating: i.e. , something Ben was m ade to
think, feel, and see - -som ething an audience would ordinarily keep
itself fro m seeing--w hich would give him a g r e a t e r freed o m and would
exalt him and his psychological self-aw areness and strength. Lacking
was a convincing self-rev elatio n and truth in depth; no actual change in
the directio n of psychic energy seem ed to occur.
C a th a r s is . Since c a th a rs is would n e ce ssitate gratification from
a p a rtic u la r identification, the cognition of conduct- consequences with
out questioning justice, inevitability, or im m inence, and an identifi
cation-em pathy that was not disavowed despite the consequences but
intensified by all that o ccu rred , the possibility of a significant
c a th a rsis rew ard appeared to be rem ote. In general, the presen ce of
intense sympathy and em pathy would be n e c e s s a ry in o rd e r (1) to
purge a p ity-fear reaction at the close of a story (fear over the re b e l
lion and tra n s g re s s io n and the nature of the d e s ire s yielded to, plus
pity for the awful consequences that befall and their magnitude), and
(2) a sense of gratification that derived from having participated in the
im pulses and d e s ire s that brought about the suffering (and which m ust
seem justifiably punished). Since the cathartic rew ard involves a
sense of relief plus fulfillment, one would have to fear with (and for)
Ben's yielding to d e s ire s and flouting social conventions and r e s p o n s i
bility, understand and ap p reciate the types of d e sire s which he s u c
cumbed to, pity him for the consequences that befell his m a rria g e ,
his personal life and profession, while at the sam e tim e experiencing
a gratification fro m vicariously participating in his d e s ire s and re b e l
lion, and accepting the final consequences as inevitable, awful, but
just. This w rite r believed it doubtful that sufficient anxiety could be
aroused by the dilem m a so that an audience would feel ultim ately
relieved and fulfilled. Also, the nature of the conflict did not seem
sufficiently u n iv e rsal in o rd e r to bring about a depth of gratification.
Odets did not seem to w ork through a p a rtic u la r anxiety so extensively
that a profound understanding of it would em erg e, one that would eith er
reduce a p a rtic u la r anxiety or strengthen one for anxiety in general.
This w rite r was left in doubt as to w hether m an actually proved his
strength within this play. Those c ritic s who did com m ent upon the
conclusion of the play also ex p ressed disappointment: Leta Clews
191
believed Odets was " c a rrie d away by the a b stra c t im plications of the
situation" to the extent that the play ended in a "sym posium on life and
19
love" as the c h a ra c te rs lost th e ir vitality and identity. Joseph Wood
K rutch felt the m anipulation of events w as essentially m echanical, ^
Stark Young considered the ending loose, muffled u n iv e rs a lis m , and
21 22
banal, and Grenville Vernon said simply, "disappointing. "
Conclusion
In conclusion, Odets fails to sustain strong illusion. A firm
b asis for audience sym pathies in g en era l even seem s questionable:
a passive man, te rm ag an t wife, naive ingenue, inscrutable fa th e r-in -
law, and all within a dilem m a having a lim ited opportunity fo r audience
in terest, displacem ent, and projection. Also, as the dilem m a
evolves, it seem s m ore indigenous to these c h a r a c te r s than being
specifically grounded in u n iversals; coupled w ith a la c k of serious
im plications and sym pathetic m otives, the possibility of consequent
audience im agination or analogizing s e e m s m inim al. The c h a r a c te r s
do not s e e m convincing as exam ples of anxiety-loaded individuals, nor
do they tend to explore feared and unfulfilled aspects of the instinctual.
The possibility of identification-em pathy with noble o r heroic qualities,
and with both good and bad c h a ra c te ris tic s is also limited; both s tr u g
gles and conflict suffer fro m the lack of o v e r-a ll signficance and m a g
n itu d e--su ccin ctly , the situation is m e re ly a b rie f e x tra m a rita l liaison
of a henpecked dentist w ith his rom antically m inded te en -ag ed a s s i s
tant. H ubris is absent because of the lack of s e lf-a s s e rtio n on the p art
of the protagonist; he is continually acted upon. Complexity lacks any
192
depth because convincing in tern al struggles do not p recede the inciting
incident, and the struggles th e re a fte r stem m o re fro m confusion than
fro m m o ra l responsibilities or decisions. F u rth e r, only limited
opportunity is p re se n t for an audience to participate in strongly
re s tra in e d im pulses and their drive for satisfaction, in an unqualified
rebellion, in guilt and its consequences. Illusion is generally
r e s tric te d to ra th e r mundane events, to seem ingly com m onplace
c h a ra c te rs , epigram m atic and platitudinous dialogues, and a hack
neyed dom estic problem . D idacticism is not p resen t beyond the
obvious intellectual m essag e of the dangers involved with infidelity in
a long-standing m a rria g e , and rom ance with a te e n -a g e r. F or the
sam e reaso n s, and because (1) cathexis is so lim ited in its potential
for in te re st and involvement (the idea is not sufficiently universally
applicable, and so is re stric te d in effect and significance) and because
(2) events are not p articu larly la rg e and a ll- s e r io u s , nor (3) a lte rn a
tives that ex tre m e, the possibility of arousing much audience anxiety
is considered to be slight. Objectification is adequate - -the problem
is presented, developed, and resolved within sufficient controls and
binding d e v ic e s --s o that it would h ard ly offend sensibilities, arouse
ex cessiv e fright, or force uncom fortable acknowledgement; however,
the controls a re applied to such lim ited anxiety potential that they
likely serv e only to increase the aesthetic d ista n c e - - one already p r o
tra c te d by the banal nature of the situation-conflict. In addition, th e re
s e e m s to be an overuse of coincidence; c h a ra c te rs constantly come and
go, and the telephone is used with m uch im portance. Though diction
is m any tim es forceful and ap p ro p ria te to c h a ra c te r, too often it is too
193
banal, the re fe re n c e s obtuse, and the im ag ery confusing; often the
play se e m s too talkative. The in terrelatio n sh ip s of events and c h a r a c
te r s is also confusing, in that p attern s and in te rp e rso n a l dynam ics a re
either u n clear, confused, or disturbed by coincidence. The whole is
not so co nstructed as to aro u se depth of com parison, to reveal a s ig
nificant b ehavioral p attern, or to explore meaningful intrapsychic con
flicts. Finally, psychic rew ard s are not considered to be strong due
to an absence in sufficient amount of the following req u ire m en ts: (1)
audience needs that can be satisfied unaw ares; (2) the provision of
rew ard s which life o rd in arily does not m ake possible; (3) vicarious
participation in intense internal c h a ra c te r struggles, in consequences
that em anate f r o m im pulses, d e s ire s , and the tensions of psychologi
cal conflict; (4) gratification fro m specified and disclosed instincts
that can be disch arg ed and subjected to g re a te r control as a re su lt of
the vicarious participation; (5) the p resen ce of strong am bivalence and
a fluctuating p articipation in values and value sy stem s; (6) a confron
tation of the reality and p le asu re principles that allows the em erg en ce
of ego strength; (7) a revelation of in-depth truth, and a change in the
direction of psychic energies; (8) and a victory of the ego over the
forces of the id and superego. Only lim ited fear se e m s possible for
the suffering that is intended to accom pany the tra n s g re s s io n which
Odets u ses as the m a trix for his problem -conflict; the consequences
of the tr a n s g r e s s io n a re so lim ited in scope, and a re not that cle a rly
specified, so th a t the possibility for feelings of pity also se e m li m
ited; likew ise, v icarious participation is re s tric te d to the type of
gratification p e r se that originally brought about the consequences.
194
T h ere fo re , relief plus fu lfillm e n t--c a th a rs is - -if p resen t to any extent,
is considered to be inconsequential. (Interesting, perhaps, is that the
problem d rin k er, or alcoholic, m akes his firs t appearance in Rocket
to the M oon, and he can be identified in all subsequent plays - -always
a m ale c h a ra c te r.)
Finally, the w rite r does not ag ree with opinions ex p ressed by
Leta Clews, Rosamond Gilder, or Grenville Vernon when they state
that in this play Odets has finally forsaken the rights of m an, social
injustice, and the "System " for a m o re u n iv e rsal love theme; rath e r,
Odets seem s to be saying what he has said all along but less obviously,
and under cover of an additional and o n -th e-su rface m o re appealing
motif: the m o r a l c o m p ro m ise in an e x tra m a rita l rom ance and affair.
He used the sam e approach in Golden Boy, only his c o m p ro m ise -m o tif
was m o re un iv e rsally applicable, m o re significant for every man,
contained m o re believable internal struggle, m o re rew ard s and punish
m e n ts, and was m o re convincing and entertaining as a result. One
could accept the "System " in Golden Boy and overlook the referen c es
or allusions to co rru p t capitalism because such a p redicam ent could
occur under any "System " and at any tim e in history. In Rocket to the
Moon Odets has returned to the "System " which is responsible for
prevalent social injustice, which b reed s fru stra tio n s and desperation,
which is responsible for a strangling d ep ressio n economy, one which
has an all-en co m p assin g effect upon the hum an sp irit and eith er f r u s
tra te s and prevents m a rria g e altogether (Frenchy), m akes it a t r a v
esty or d e stro y s its m eaning (Ben, Belle, and P rince), or confuses
and m akes d esp erate the young (Cleo). The re a d e r is invited to
195
com pare Cleo's new found philosophy with that e x p re s s e d by Ralph in
Awake and Sing, or Leo in P a ra d is e L o st, and to c o n sid er the s im i
larities; any one of the three c h a ra c te rs could have m ade a p p ro p ri
ately any one of the th re e statem ents:
(Cleo) Yes, if th e re 's roads, I'll take them . I'll go up all
roads till I find what I want. . . . Don't you think
th e re 's a world of joyful m en and w om en? M ust all
m en live afraid to laugh and sing? C an't we sing at
w ork and love our w ork? It's getting late to play at
life; I want to live it.
(Ralph) No g irl m e an s anything to me until. . . . Till we can
take the w orld in two hands and polish off the dirt.
. . . Spit on your hands and get to work. . . . Maybe
w e'll fix it so life won't be printed on dollar bills.
. . . I'm twenty-two and kickin! I'll get along . . .
'Awake and Sing, ' he said. . . . The night he died,
I saw it like a thunderbolt! I saw he was dead and I
was born! I sw ear to God, I'm one week old! I want
the whole city to h e a r it - - f r e s h blood, a r m s . We got
'em. W e're glad w e 're living.
(Leo) E v ery w h ere now m en a re rising fro m their sleep. . . .
I want to see that new world. I want to kiss all those
future m e n and w om en................Oh, y es, I tell you the
whole w orld is for m en to p o sse ss. H eartb rea k and
t e r r o r a r e not the heritage of m ankind! The world is
beautiful. No fruit tre e w ears a lock and key. Men
will sing at their work, m en will love. Ohhh, darling,
the w orld is in its m orning . . . and no m a n fights
a lo n e !
Night Music
Plot S um m ary
23
The opening scene of Night Music is in a New Y ork police
station; the tim e is O ctober, 1940. A detective (R osenberger), a
lieutenant, and a policem an a re questioning young Fay T ucker and
Steve Takis, while at th e sam e tim e the officers a r e trying to control
two live m onkeys. Finally, the policem an exits with the m onkeys.
196
Steve w arns the policem an that they are the m ost fam ous train ed
monkeys in the United States. The lieutenant asks Steve to leave, but
he refu ses to do so without the monkeys; he is angry, bitter, and
insulting. (A m otion picture com pany hired Steve to take the monkeys
to the west coast; while Steve was waiting on a s t r e e t c o r n e r , one
monkey th rew h is wallet away, while the other grabbed for F a y 's
locket; she s c re a m e d , and both Steve and F a y w ere brought in for
questioning on the possibility of train ed thieves. ) The police suggest
that Steve m a y re tu rn for the m onkeys Monday, after they have v e r i
fied his story; how ever, he is d esp erate because he knows he will be
fired for holding up production that long. When he d isco v ers that his
plane ticket w as lost along with his wallet, he resig n s him self to
rem aining until Monday. Fay, an aspiring a c tr e s s , leaves for her
evening p e rfo rm a n c e at the theatre. Blaming her for the incident,
Steve loses his te m p e r and th re a te n s h er safety. When he leaves,
R osenberger decides to follow him.
Scene Two begins two hours la te r at the stage door of the th e atre
where F ay is working; Steve is waiting for h e r. He talks to one of the
a c tre s s e s and le a rn s that the show just closed this night, but the c ast
will not be paid until Monday. Steve gets into a slight scuffle with a
stage hand. (Typically, Steve is v e ry defen siv e, te m p e ra m e n ta l, and
quick to take offense; he is openly hostile at tim es and fancies h im se lf
quite tough. ) F inally, Fay appears; Steve b lam es h e r for his bad luck
and possibly the loss of his job. She apologizes, but he is u n r e a s o n
able until he le a rn s that she too is poor. A m a n e n te rs trying to sell
them a stolen fu r piece. Steve d is m is s e s him abruptly; and as he
197
leaves h urriedly, he takes Steve's suitcase. Detective R osenberger
suddenly e n te rs with the m an and the suitcase in custody. In the q u e s
tioning, Fay and Steve defend the stra n g e r, pretending he had p e r m i s
sion to check the bag; finally re le a s e d , and as he leaves, the stra n g e r
gives them the fur piece in appreciation. F ay suggests that she and
Steve go to h e r hotel; she can pay for his room on Monday. As they
are about to leave, Steve gets into another argum ent with the stage
hand; this tim e he knocks Steve down twice.
Scene Three is the lobby and hotel desk of the A lgiers Hotel, a
seco n d -rate, unsavory place. M r. George, the night clerk, is a r g u
ing with a sa ilo r who wants a "quick" room; M r. G eorge, usually
cooperative in such instances, is afraid of the police on a weekend
night. Also, because of the cold w eather, M r. George wants all of the
available ro o m s kept open. When F ay and Steve com e to the desk, he
rem inds h e r that she is weeks behind in rent; he refu ses to let Steve
have a room and suggests they could "double up. " Steve becom es
furious at this suggestion and is provoking the bouncer, Teddy, when
detective R o sen b erg er en ters. M r. George then pretends to discover
that the room next to F ay 's is empty. M arty, the bellboy, takes them
up. M r. R o sen b erg er identifies M r. George as a f o r m e r National
League ball player; but when he leaves, M r. George says that R osen
b e rg e r is looking very ill and wasted.
Scene F o u r is u p sta irs in the adjoining room s of Fay and Steve;
the ro o m s a r e connected by a bath. Fay en ters h e r room; then Steve
is throw n through the door of his, luggage afte r him . Fay en ters his
room and offers to sew Steve's to rn pants, but he stubbornly refuses.
198
He com plains that R o se n b e rg e r m u s t be following him . Fay says she
will probably have to go back home to Philadelphia now that she has
lost h e r job. Steve pretends to have im portant connections in Holly
wood and perhaps could help her. He puts together his clarinet and
plays; Fay is im p ressed . They discover they a re hungry and begin to
talk about food; but F a y has only fifteen cents and re m e m b e rs she was
supposed to telephone her p arents. At that m om ent M arty en ters with
egg sandw iches and coffee, sent by R o sen b erg er. Steve is offended
and refuses to eat. He com plains also about F a y 's getting the room
for h im . She replies by telling h im he is cra z y , rude, and rash, and
to leave if he does not like it. Steve says he will do just that; w h e re
upon, Fay relents and even apologizes. He leaves, nevertheless.
Realizing that he has forgotten his suitcase, Fay grabs it, h e r coat,
the fu r neckpiece and follows.
Scene Five ta k es place som ew here in C en tral P ark . Steve
e n ters and s its on a bench. A young s tra n g e r of Steve's age, Roy,
talks to him and tells Steve that he survives by being a rre s te d (i. e. ,
for h is room and b o ard in jail); he inform s Steve that he has decided
to jo in the a r m y tom orrow . In the m ean tim e, he has always wanted to
see th e W orld's F a ir, and som ehow he m ust. Fay en ters with the
suitcase. At first Steve is v ery curt, but soon rela x es and even begins
to confide in h er about his family. Fay le a rn s that his m o th e r and
father are dead, and that he can not live with his s is te r because he
does not get along w ith his b ro th e r-in -la w . He com plains of the cold,
and F a y gives him th e fur neckpiece to w ear. A m an enters with a
dog; he talks about not being happy at home: ". . . if you got m oney,
199
you got nerve. . . . If youain't got m oney, you ain 't got n erve. " He
leaves com plaining about the w ar. Steve reflects upon the possibility
of his own enlistm ent. Fay begins talking about the dull routine and
m undane considerations of living at home in Philadelphia. Suddenly,
she re a liz e s that Steve has fallen asleep with the neckpiece wound
around him . A sin is te r m an approaches, but at that m om ent R osen
b e rg e r also a p p e a rs. He a s s u r e s h e r that he has th e ir in te re s ts at
h e a rt. Fay te lls him that Steve is not as tough as he pretends; he is
even frightened. R o senberger tells h er that he h im se lf is also in love
with "possibilities, the hum an possibilities. " So, Fay asks him to
help them . He leaves and F ay trie s to awaken Steve, but without s u c
cess; she finally resigns h erself, puts h er a r m around him , and p r e
p a re s to spend the night.
Act Two is the dawn of Sunday m orning; Steve and Fay a re still
sleeping. Steve awakens firs t and decides to slip away silently, but
he notices som eone with a cane who ap p ea rs to be staring at Fay, He
acc o sts the m a n and o rd ers him to leave, only to le a rn that he is blind.
F ay awakens, Steve is now convinced that he should join the arm y.
Fay is happy, how ever, because she feels a love for him . He c o m
plains of hunger, but she rem inds him that they have no money. They
decide to re tu rn to the hotel to bathe and finish the egg sandwiches left
fro m the night before.
Scene Two is a short tim e afterw ard , back in the lobby of the
hotel. R o sen b erg er is there with his b ro th e r-in -la w , Al, and Mr.
G eorge. Suddenly, R osenberger is seized with pain but requests that
Al not m ention it. Mr. George tells them that the children did not
200
come in la st night. At that m om ent F a y 's father, Mr. T u ck er, enters;
he dislikes the hotel and dem ands to see his daughter. He is quite
upset when he le a rn s that she has been out all night, but R o sen b erg er
re a s s u re s him . F ay and Steve enter, and M r. T ucker is im m ediately
angry with the startled Steve. Mr. T ucker tells Fay that Eddie (her
fo rm e r fiance) is on his way over and she should m ake h e rs e lf ready to
leave soon. However, Fay refuses to re tu rn to Philadelphia. Mr.
R osenberger openly a g re e s with her. Steve also trie s to defend h er,
but Mr. T ucker refu ses to listen; he questions Steve's c h a ra c te r,
which R o sen b erg er in tu rn defends. R o sen b erg er suggests that the
children change while everyone adjourns for breakfast nearby.
Scene T hree opens in a cheap re s ta u ra n t. P re s e n t a re Mr.
Tucker, R o sen b erg er, Fay and Steve. A G reek w aiter h o v ers nearby
eavesdropping (much to Steve's outspoken displeasure). M r. Tucker
is intent upon F a y 's returning home and m a rry in g Eddie (who is now
successful). F ay is hum iliated and says that they have nothing in c o m
mon. She com plains that h e r parents want h e r to accept th e ir values
and to re m a in a child fo rev er. Eddie then enters; he encourages h er
to pack and leave with h im --h e will wait fo re v e r for h e r to ag ree to
m a r r y him . He m aintains that he understands h er, that she wants the
finer things in life and d e s e rv e s them. Steve calls him disgusting.
M r. T ucker appeals to R osenberger, but he only replies that the p ro b
lem belongs to the children; he ag rees with Steve that Eddie does not
have F a y 's in te re st in m in d --e v e n chides M r. T ucker fo r not e n c o u r
aging his d au g h ter's independence. M r. T ucker is angry and leaves,
telling F ay she should be ready to leave that evening. F ay becom es
201
very upset, and R o sen b erg er suggests they all go to the W orld's
F a ir.
Scene F o u r is in the afternoon at the W orld's F a i r park. Fay is
depres sed but h e a rs som e cric k ets and says that since they sing
through the night, "we can sing through any night!" Steve is also
gloom y--he is w o rried about money and the future. He decides to do
something impulsive; buy ic e -c re a m cones. Roy e n te rs --h e has
somehow gotten into the f a ir - - a n d tells Steve he has joined the arm y.
When Steve leaves, R o se n b e rg e r is seized with another pain, but he
refuses to discuss it with Fay. He likes Steve and te lls her so; she
confesses that she is actually in love with Steve. Steve enters with the
ice cre a m . R o sen b erg er leaves to find some asp irin , and F ay trie s to
dissuade Steve from joining the service. Steve c u rs e s im pulsively,
and Fay slaps him. He alm ost strikes h e r. Then he becom es bitter
and self-pitying. He w onders why they do not m ake A m eric a for
people like th em selv es. R o senberger, who has retu rn e d , o v erh ea rs
and suggests that he change it; as a m e m b e r of the younger generation,
the whole country is looking to him. They leave and Steve in sists that
Fay take his a rm .
Scene Five is that night back in the adjoining hotel room s; Fay,
Steve, Al, R o sen b erg er, M r. Tucker, and Eddie a re all in F a y 's
room. Fay refuses to d iscu ss leaving; Eddie suggests the possibility
that perhaps he might just find someone else, but Fay does not d i s
courage him. He leaves in anger, and so does M r. T ucker. Steve
alludes to a s c re e n te s t for F ay, but she is too disturbed to c a re .
R o senberger suspects that Steve is just pretending to be im portant,
202
and he even suggests that Steve is lying. Angered, Steve says he
hopes R o se n b e rg e r dies. Al becom es furious and tells everyone that
R o sen b erg er is dying of c a n c e r and is to be re tire d from the force
tom orrow . Humiliated, Steve runs to his room. R osenberger follows;
he cautions him not to look back, to stop fighting with everyone o v er
nothing, and to u s e his stren g th to look ahead and make things d iffe r
ent. Fay also goes to him . Steve still pretends Hollywood connec
tions, and he ask s her to sight read from the Bible; he becom es c o n
vinced as a resu lt that she has g re a t talent. She tells him that she was
good only because she loves him; Steve is e m b a rra s se d and re tu rn s to
his room despite h e r p ro te s ts that she was only being hone st. Annoyed,
she dem ands that he leave. When he trie s to apologize, she bolts the
door; this wounds his pride. She relents but then cannot open the door.
W hereupon, she opens his hall door and falls into his a r m s .
Act Three is Monday m orning back at the police station. F ay ,
Steve, R o se n b e rg e r, the lieutenant, and a drunk a re present. The
drunk talks about his clean hands, and of not being guilty of bloodshed.
They discover that he is m e r e ly responding to the vegetarian code of
no bloodshed. M r. G ilbert, the New York representative of F e d e ra l
P ic tu re s , enters with his a ss o c ia te Arnold. He inquires about the
monkeys and ac c u se s Steve of being an eighteen-fifty per week e rra n d
boy who has cost the studio too m uch money; he prom ptly fire s him .
He refuses to listen to an excuse o r to Steve's pleadings. Just as
Steve is about to lose his te m p e r , R osenberger dem ands that he sit
down and shut up. R o sen b erg er then a s s u re s M r. Gilbert that it w as
all an accident and a m isunderstanding; he convinces him that Steve
203
can get the monkeys to C alifornia alone, w hereas som eone else might
not. M r. Gilbert finally consents and sends Steve away with the
monkeys. As soon as he has left, how ever, G ilbert le arn s by a te le
phone call that the m onkeys are no longer needed after all; he sends
Arnold after Steve to fire him , give him bus fare to the coast, and to
bring back the monkeys.
Scene Two is an hour later at the airp o rt. Steve and Fay a re
waiting for his plane, and he tr ie s to lighten her sp irits. Fay m akes
him tell the truth about any possible s c re e n test. An attendant takes
his suitcase. Fay asks if they will ever see one another again. D is
appointed at his response, she decides she will have to re tu rn to
Philadelphia. Steve finally tells h e r that he is actually nobody and
they can not see one another again because he can not even afford the
things he needs for him self. Fay tells h im that th e re is a way when
there is a will. They acknowledge their devotion to one another, but
Steve says money is his w o rst enemy. F a y is undaunted; if they love
one another, she says, then they m ust find a way. His flight is
announced, and he gives h e r his good-luck ring; F a y will join him as
soon as things a re settled and secu re. R o se n b e rg e r then a rriv e s with
Arnold. They tell him of the change of plans: the monkeys are to
stay, Steve gets a check fo r bus fa re , and he is fired. R o sen b erg er
gives him his suitcase. Steve again m entions the possibility of'enlist-
ing in the arm y, but R o sen b erg er says he is now a m e m b e r of the
w o rld 's g reatest arm y , ". . . th e re 's w a r here . . . " F a y says it is
a w a r to make a living, keep resp ect, and to be in love. R osenberger
tells Steve to fight for love, a hom e, the way of life that Steve wants.
204
Steve then offers Fay his arm ; R o sen b erg er takes h er other a r m , and
they walk off together.
Illusion
The illusion was that of two young people, alone in the big city,
who w ere brought together by an accident and fell in love over the
course of a weekend. Both w ere trying to estab lish th e ir independence
and to becom e self-sufficient; both w ere poor, and as a result of c i r
cu m stan ces, each lost his job. The law, in the p erso n of a kindly
detective, not only protected th em from h a rm but also from fo rces
which would destroy th e ir relationship (including them selves). The
struggle becam e one of self-determ ination, of young love in the face of
such w orldly concerns as poverty, unem ploym ent, the future, and the
c u rre n t w ar.
A satisfacto ry degree of illusion would req u ire that one be able
to displace and to project self into one or m o re of the principal c h a r
a c t e r s ' struggles: F ay was a young, sin cere , aspiring a c tr e s s , away
from home and its middle class background influences; Steve w as a
young, bum ptious, and defensive G re e k -A m e ric a n fro m a low er class
background, who had no actual home and was en route to California;
R o sen b erg er was a kindly, thoughtful detective who seem ed o m n i
p resen t and all-w ise, was v ery in terested in th e ir love and in helping
them (he w as dying of can c er and v ery soon to be retired). V icarious
involvement, th e re fo re , would depend largely upon the extent to which
one could accept these happenings and the pred ic am en t as credible,
and would feel a w illingness to work through the dilem m a with these
205
c h a ra c te rs (that is, to displace and to project actively into th e ir
p roblem -conflict).
The catalyst for the p redicam ent w as b iz a rre , if not farcical:
Steve's charge of tran sp o rtin g two uncaged m onkeys to Hollywood for
a film, one of whom threw away his w allet on a busy s tr e e t c o r n e r , and
the other grabbed F a y 's locket. Odets apparently intended that illusion
would be stru ctu re d initially upon Steve's concern over losing his job;
F a y 's sense of feeling somehow responsible and wanting to help; th e ir
kindred problem s and p ro cess of falling in love; R o se n b e rg e r's deeper
understanding of th e ir fears and actual needs, his faith, and his d e sire
to bring them c lo ser together. H ow ever, the question aro se as to
what degree an audience could actively participate in their special
problem s, that is to the extent of forgetting self. The m ost sy m p a
thetic audience response would be forthcom ing fro m lovers who had
undergone or who could project into a s im ila r fru s tra tio n (itself a type
of limitation). In general, as Odets outlined h is entire problem , he
seem ed to lim it the extensiveness of his illusion potential; i. e. , the
num ber of people who could participate vicario u sly and to what extent.
F u rth e r, for many, the question of unem ploym ent m ight seem to have
been overstated; its p resence becam e firm ly established within the
firs t two scenes, and then Odets re ite ra te d and em phasized it th ro u g h
out, even within the final scene. In his zeal to project the sm othering
effects of poverty on youthful a sp iratio n and love, and the fru stra tio n s
of no opportunity for youth, Odets m ay have o v e rs tre s s e d his point at
the expense of possible illusion strength.
206
Identification-em pathy. The c h a ra c te rs m a y be in terestin g as
types and by contrast; how ever, one could question th e ir potentiality
for invoking audience anxiety if fo r no other reaso n than the limited
u n iv e rsals which they rep resen ted . Likewise, th e re seem ed some
question as to the feared or unfulfilled asp ects of self which they could
possibly project. Fay was a worthy perso n , as was R osenberger, but
audiences m ight find somewhat incredible th e ir patience and concern
with S tev e--a ra th e r com m onplace young m an distinguished principally
by te m p e ra m e n t, defensiveness, and pride. All the world m ay love a
lover; but Steve often seem ed v ery im m a tu re for tw enty-two y e a rs ,
and the efforts expended to understand and placate him frequently did
not se e m justified or clearly m otivated on the b asis of his contribution
to w orthiness. (Perhaps Odets intended for his audience to accept that
in addition F ay and R osenberger had som e profound insight into Steve
which, at least for this w rite r, was not e x p re sse d within the script. )
A sen se of struggle was prevalent, p artic u la rly between the lovers,
but the conflict which engendered the struggle lacked a foundation in
broad significance or m agnitude, and the p resen ce of a w ish having
u niversal appeal. The young lovers w ere fo re v e r struggling with a
m isunderstanding or the lack of understanding.
Another inhibiting facto r fo r strong identification-em pathy
(which helps to sustain, if not intensify illusion) is that an audience
would be hard p re s s e d to identify with the "bad" within two of the m ain
c h a ra c te rs: F ay was contrite, patient, b rav e, long-suffering, only
ra r e ly annoyed and then justifiably so; R o s e n b e rg e r was thoughtful,
w ise, consistent, dependable, and so on. Only Steve was both good
207
and bad, but usually m e re ly hostile; how ever, his le ss adm irable
qualities actually suggested a sim ple im m atu rity m o re than in-com m on
hum an frailties which an audience could recognize as p re se n t in part
within itself. Typically, he was spiteful, defensive, peevish and
pouting, if not at tim es willfully difficult.
Hubris. Steve's open ag g ressiv en e ss and his outright defiance
of any authority figure suggested som e hubris quality in his c h a r a c
terization. Though p resen t to only a lim ited degree, it was perhaps
one factor which lent some limited strength to psychic illusion. Steve
at tim e s was arro g an t, uncom prom ising, and violent out of passion or
re c k le ssn e ss; he lacked re stra in t, was inflexible, and succum bed to
intem perate im pulses with a suddenness that m ight aro u se slight
uneasiness and apprehension within an audience (although this possible
strength was dim inished by his frequently im m atu re outbursts and
defensiveness). His s tric t m o ra l code seem ed at tim es to be incon
sistent with his otherw ise intem perate and self-indulgent behavior.
Likewise, because the situation was som ew hat banal (if not incredible)
the p resen ce of a dilem m a which was re s tric te d to ex tre m e choices
was not convincing. Nor did Steve actually d is re g a rd m o ra l laws.
The hubris appeal he provided was lim ited p rim a rily to his reactions
to authority and authority figures, his disdain of the reasonable, and
his rejection of middle class social am enities. To this extent perhaps
an audience could at least experience one of the w ishes asso ciated with
h u b ris ; the wish to rebel openly and brash ly against an authority.
H owever, a strong didactic experience was m issin g because of the
208
absence of the second wish asso ciated with h u b r is - - a just punishment
for the act of rebelling. Odets failed to p o rtra y Steve's punishment
convincingly; Steve lost his job, but the last act m ade it c le a r that he
would have lost it re g a rd le ss. Also, his te m p e ra m e n ta l outbursts
worked in effect to his advantage, in the sen se that Fay m ade great
efforts to please and to placate him , and R o sen b erg er was infinitely
patient. As suggested, Steve lost his job not because of arro g an ce ,
but because c irc u m stan c es m e re ly ren d ered his job unnecessary.
C ritics w ere in considerable d isa g re e m e n t about the quality of
ch ara cterizatio n , them e and illusion. C om m ents ranged fro m . .
24
an incisive, a compelling quality of life, " ". . . charm ingly sen ti
m e n tal . . . com m edia dell' arte scen ario . . . cutely obstreperous
25 26
. . . tw entieth-century P ie rro t, " to ". . . 50-p ercent n o n se n se , "
". . . [the c h a ra c te rs w ere] little sketches . . . c a ric a tu re s, o v e r
draw n on Bowery types . . . the incipient m ating of two notably back-
27
w ard children, " ". . . forced vigor, and impotent sociological dia-
28
lectics. " F o r this w rite r, som e basis for psychic illusion was
p resen t through the love motif, but the situation-conflict ranged from
b iz a rre to hackneyed. The p re se n c e of som e hubris quality within
Steve lent a limited possibility for som e audience psychological
asso ciatio n -p articip atio n but failed to bring a full satisfaction because
angry defiance seem ed o v e rs tre s s e d , and believable punishments for
open defiance w ere not always present. F a y 's p ersisten t goodness,
h e r long-suffering, h e r belief in h e r new love, and the re c u rre n t
q u a rre ls and reconciliations gave to the play an adolescent, rom antic,
and sentim ental quality.
209
Psychic ambiguity, intense struggles, conflicts of significance
and m agnitude, and universal w ishes involving c h a ra c te rs whose
n atu re s in sp ire strong identification-em pathy and sustained vicarious
participation a re the p re re q u isite s for building a substantial psychic
illusion; and, for the m ost part, m o st of the req u isites seem ed either
m issin g within this play, or p re se n t within a very r e s tric te d sense.
Control of Anxiety P ercep tio n --O b jectificatio n and Focus
With re g a rd to anxiety p erception and its control, the following
possibilities w ere likely intended to r e p re s e n t overcathected subject
m aterial: the incidence of intense c h a ra c te r reaction and interaction
with resp ect to the c irc u m stan c es which surro u n d the ideas of home,
em ploym ent, poverty, health, p e rso n al happiness, and optim ism about
the future. H owever, the idea o r ideas which Odets invested with his
g re a te st significance and feeling, his concentration of psychic energy,
w ere not especially broad in implication; they were predom inantly
suitable to these few individuals and to their unusual weekend c irc u m
stances (and fu rth er, m o st ap p ro p riate for the p sy ch o -so cio -h isto rical
d ep ressio n e ra , which according to Odets' r e c u r r e n t em phases
abounded in vicissitudes that m ilitated against self-realiza tio n and ful
fillm ent for young love). P e rh a p s each m a in c h a ra c te r could be
reg ard ed as having had some h ero ic qualities in light of his individual
courage; n e v e rth e le s s , one could not d e sc rib e them as being troubled
with the all-im p o rta n t types of d e s ire s against which the usual au d i
ence m e m b e r would likely or typically struggle. The action was one of
an unusual situation, involving atypical c irc u m s ta n c e s, and c o m p li
cated by a youthful rom ance.
210
O bjectification. The events w ere not large or a ll-s e rio u s ; and
the altern ativ es w ere not extrem e. P e rh a p s certain im plications of
those events which w ere presented could provoke som e serio u s con
sideration, but Odets did not actually dwell upon these, did not
objectify them in p a rtic u la r--th e love affair was the unifying issue.
In g eneral, the c h a ra c te ris tic s of hum an nature and the p redicam ent
explored w ere quite p erso n al and p a rtic u la r to the three ce n tra l p e r
sonalities, ra th e r than being general and u n iv e rsal o ver-all; and th e ir
potential to aro u se anxiety seem ed lim ited by this lack of general
application, th e ir lack of tim e le s sn e s s , and im portance. Harold
Clurm an m ay have unintentionally revealed an inherent problem
within the play in a favorable review which he contributed: ". . . the
29
audience refuses to identify this h o m eless world as th e irs. "
W hereas, Odets objectified h o m e le ss n e ss , ro o tlessn ess, and d iso ri-
entation--even his own im p a tie n c e --fo r M r. C lurm an, the audience
was at fault for rejecting th e m as not their own. M r. C lurm an failed
to explore his rationale for this judgm ent. In fact, a play is w ritten
for the entertainm ent of an audience. If the audience reje cted Odets'
illusion, would not participate (in depth) in the problem -conflict or
dilem m a, then they failed to do so b ecause (1) Odets was unable to
establish for them a strong psychic illusion, (2) he failed to create or
to sustain the p ro p er balance of psychic distance, (3) he did not p r o
vide his audience with c h a ra c te rs and a p redicam ent which w ere
capable of arousing, sustaining, and controlling a degree of anxiety
from which they could derive satisfaction, fulfillment, and e n te rta in
ment, o r (4) all of these. The objectification within Night M usic
211
apparently failed to provide for som e audiences a satisfaction derived
from the exploration of som e deeply significant problem : p rim arily ,
the audience w itnessed the blossom ing of love amid an unusual c i r
cum stance and situation, and its affect and effect upon th ree likeable
but ra th e r com m onplace individuals.
The s o rt of controls p resen t that would have served to bind any
anxiety seem ed inconsistent. Steve was so uncontrolled throughout
that one m ight not only lose sym pathy for h is seem ing b ra s h n e s s , his
over reaction, exaggerated defensiveness, and outright violent nature,
but also ra ise some question as to how he could be so with such suc
cess; i. e. , specifically, what in his c h a r a c te r enabled him to deserve
such dedication fro m others, and what in his c h a ra c te r justified their
motivation to do so? Several tim es he threatened violence to F ay and
even to her life; he decided to d e s e rt her a fte r she had cared p ro te c
tively for his person during the night; and throughout the play he
seem ed ungrateful for any kindness. In addition, perception and its
control seem ed confused fu rth e r by the questionable purpose of includ
ing se v e ra l b iz a rre m inor c h a ra c te rs ; e. g. , those in C entral P ark , at
the hotel, o r the drunken vegetarian. P e rh a p s Odets was intending to
objectify a "slice of reality"; but, if so (at least for this w riter), it
was often at the expense of logical and m eaningful objectification, as
well as adequate psychic and aesthetic distance. (One critic noted that
with all of the inherent exhibitionism , com m onness, hint of the
pathetic, and endless resentm ent in O dets' plays, he nev erth eless
failed to establish or endorse som e c lear p h ilo so p h y ;^ another
212
believed the play w as a parody of Odets him self; the plot, if it w ere a
plot at all, was com pletely "innocent of fo rm a l design. " ) ^
F o c u s . Focus seem ed unclear, not so m uch b ecause Odets
failed to om it the sluggishness and irre le v a n c ie s of life, but because
he did not s e e m to a rra n g e and em phasize specific c au sals and in t e r
relationships, the esse n tia ls of his m ain idea, so that an underlying
pattern was om nipresent, at least unconsciously. Consequently, the
play seem ed to lack a coherent and strong sense of beginning, middle,
and e n d --th e experience of a complete and m eaningful action. Acoood-
ing to one c ritic, "It lacks en tra ils, it lacks sense of direction, it
offers no w eightier m e ss a g e than Heaven Helps Those Who Help
32
T h em selv es. " A ssum ing Mr. C lu rm an w ere c o r r e c t in his a fo re
mentioned judgm ent: viz. , that Odets attem pted to objectify h o m e
le s s n e s s , ro o tle s sn e s s, and disorientation; if one w ere to add to these
concepts the inhibiting effect of poverty upon a s p ira tio n s , the f r u s
trated fulfillment of young love, and the lack of opportunity for self-
realization and self-determ ination, an audience would still find the
young lovers virtually h om eless, ro o tless, diso rien ted , poor, jo b less,
and fru s tra te d at the close of the play. In spite of these facts, Odets
asked that his audience accept Steve as having been sufficiently
inspired by R osenberger and Fay (during the final m o m en ts of the play)
to re je c t all of the grim realities which had h ith erto se rv e d to make
him so b itter, and to re d ire c t his e n erg ies tow ard changing and b e tte r
ing the "System " at large. W alter K e rr stated succinctly that Odets
often brought into focus ". . . the fa m ilia r clash betw een d irec t o b s e r
vation and superim posed ideology . . . again and again [he sets] an
213
ab strac t conclusion, a political interpretation, " a juxtaposition
33
e m b a rra s s in g to an audience. P resu m ab ly , M r. K e rr was re fe rrin g
to the audience need for a meaningful didactic experience, for the
working through of a significant problem that provides g re a te r insight
and com passion, one which is u n iv e rsal in its application to mankind
and not so intim ately involved with co n tem p o rary politics, or the
obtuse. (A com m ent by Mr. C lurm an was in com plete d isa g re e m e n t
with that of M r. K err: e.g. , "There is no p re a c h m e n t--e x c e p t on
behalf of the m o s t classic values and an alm ost old-fashioned, flag-
a • ,,v 34
waving A m e ric a n is m . )
As fo r diction, though language and dialogue w ere believable and
contained im a g e ry and m etap h o r, diction often suggest :d a lack of c lear
focus so that the dialogue frequently seem ed prolix. (Several critics
35
w ere in a g re e m e n t h e r e .) In su m m a ry , focus (including diction) did
not seem sufficiently coordinated to the extent that the resu lt was one
of a m eaningful em erging pattern of hum an experience, the d e te r m in
ing intrapsychic conflicts of life; ra th e r, the whole seem ed m o re of a
personal e s sa y of im passioned sentim ent with accom panying actions
for purposes of dynam ic rep resen tatio n and exam ple. Odets did not
really specify o r define an anxiety so that his audience could derive
relief fro m turning to some p a rtic u la r dynamic outside of self, s o m e
thing objectified into which an audience could displace and project
itself with security. (The lack of c le a r objectification and focus tends
to disturb audience perception and to aro u se re sista n c e to com passion,
to a sustained identification and p e rc e p tio n --e ss e n tia ls n e c e s s a ry for
214
audience entertainm ent, for a controlled and com passionate seeing of
a whole. )
Psychic R ew ards
Psychic rew ard s w ere limited not only because illusion and
psychic distance seem ed eith er disturbed o r inconsistent, but also
because of the nature of the needs which Odets explored: they w ere
m o re socio-econom ic, m o re topical than psychological, and did not
have a sufficient degree of tim e le ss quality or g en eral verity. They
tended to reflect and to s tr e s s p articu la r inadequacies and deprivations
of the tim es ra th e r than to serv e somehow as com pensations for the
lim itations within the daily life of m an. Odets did not (1) probe con
flicts which an audience would ordinarily not exam ine (revealing
determining fa c to rs, exact influences, and dignifying im pulses typi
cally denied); he did not (2) show the resu lts of e r r o r , forcing the
audience to see consequences they would ra th e r a v o id --s e e happenings
as consequences - -but finally resolved so that justice seem ed a c c o m
plished; both a r e im portant for strong psychic rew ard s. (An audience
d e s ire s to see the claim s of human instincts specified, disclosed, and
gratified, because by such an experience the instincts a r e thereby
m ade m o re receptive to control within the participant. )
A struggle between the pleasure principle and the reality p rin
ciple was not p resen t with any consistency; it was suggested within the
c h a ra c te r of S tev e --a factor which m a y have m ade him one of the m o re
interesting c h a ra c te rs from a psychological point of view. F ro m the
outset he suggested an id force (Fay even called him an animal). H ow
e v e r, the superego em erg ed with strength when he re a c te d so strongly
215
to m o ra l questions o r referen c e, or when he experienced qualm s about
his cursing, fo r exam ple. He som etim es appeared to oscillate between
id and superego dom inance, but his ego was not strong enough to su b
due or to integrate both. This inability could be seen in his failure to
control his te m p e r, in his need to present him self pretentiously as an
influential som ebody, in his periodic bouts with a sense of com plete
f a ilu r e - - c h a r a c te r is tic s not found typically within the strong ego. Fay
strived for integration and was somewhat successful in the sense that
she finally succeeded in encouraging Steve to acknowledge his p r e
tense: e. g. , when he said, "I'm nobody, nothing--I want you to know
it. " H owever, the strongest ego force (though perhaps not always
convincing with re sp e c t to credibility) seem ed to be R o sen b erg er; he
did not w aver but p e rs is te d at integration despite abuse and f r u s t r a
tion. It was R o sen b erg er who convinced Steve that he could becom e
what he wanted to be; but he would n ece ssarily have to change the
direction of his en erg ies toward that of building a future; he would
have to fight for a goal, ra th e r than indulge him self in anger and
aggression tow ard the world just because he felt cheated and denied.
(Interestingly, from a psychological point of view, Odets incorporated
this ego force within a c h a ra c te r who was suffering intensely and who
was soon to die. A re c u rre n t Odets theme has been that the status quo
was inadequate, lacked the strength, and could not effect change; hope
lay in the young a g g re s s iv e spirits who would change the w orld in the
future by th e ir strength and determ ination. ) P e rh a p s Odets intended
to leave the audience with the im p re ssio n that Steve would build a
stro n g er ego with the help of Fay. However, fo r a strong psychic
216
rew ard, an audience should see and ex p erien ce the ego as it strives to
balance the conflicting forces of id and superego, and should also be
aw are of its final victory.
A m bivalence. Odets apparently intended some am bivalence
within the ch ara cterizatio n of Fay; i. e. , as he brought her into conflict
with the p resen t, with family, and with the p a s t--th e s e forces which
as a re su lt w ere aligned pro and con, such as Mr. T ucker and Eddie
versus R o senberger and Steve. P o ssib ly she was intended to r e p r e
sent youth resistin g the hypocrisy, the se c u rity oriented, the r e s t r i c
tions of middle class values. In this sense value sy stem s w e re
brought to one's attention and did com e into som e conflict. However,
the em phasis did not seem so much to be upon value s y ste m s pitted
against one a n o th e r--th e value sy stem s of youth and (or versus) m iddle
class adulthood w ere actually not that c le a rly d elineated--but the
em phasis appeared to be ra th e r that of the rejection and rebellion of
one p a rtic u la r value system: the sm ug, s e c u re , and com fortable
middle class with its em phasis upon steady income, a home, neighbor
hood, and an automobile. Psychic re w a rd s m ight have been presen t in
g re a te r strength had Odets objectified two clearly developed and
acceptable value sy stem s in opposition, each having understandable
m e rits (ambivalence), and each struggling fo r suprem acy, ra th e r than
objectifying a shallow, unsym pathetic, and rigid m iddle c la s s value
system attem pting to proselytize youth.
C onfrontation. Both F a y and Steve w e re confrontation c h a ra c
te rs , but only to a limited extent. Odets likely intended that they w ere
217
to re p re s e n t youthful sp irits confronting the existing realities and
attem pting to establish th e ir independence: i.e . , te s t their ego
strength. However, neither sought out in p a rtic u la r what others
m ight avoid, r e p r e s s , su p p re ss, lie about o r deny, so m uch as they
w ere m e re ly seeking validity of self (ego s tre n g th )--a worthy quest,
but not one which would n e c e s s a rily invoke strong psychic rew ard s.
Fay seem ed m o re consistent in her c h a ra c te riz a tio n and seem ed to
m anifest g re a te r ego strength as she openly confronted h er own defects
and m is ta k e s , acknowledged h er vulnerability, and faced the prospects
of the future without evasion o r false hopes. Confrontation strength
was not actually evident within Steve until the final scene: only then
did he acknowledge any vulnerability or confront the prospects of his
future without lie, evasion, o r false hopes. R egardless, the basic
idea o r issue still rem ained p rim a rily a personal one between two
young people which was not p articu la rly u n iv e rsal and which possessed
little or no magnitude.
The ego was m o m en tarily exalted to some degree when the young
people found g re a te r strength as a re su lt of their love and acknow l
edgem ent of it, and each finally d eterm ined to a s s e r t independence and
p e rs e v e re at in teg ratio n --accep t, grant e x tre m e s , and w e re d e t e r
m ined to m aintain som e authority. Some forces of id and superego
seem ed assim ilated ,an d energies tow ard a future integration were
indicated by the dialogue. However, th e ir struggles possessed little
anxiety potential because the issues w ere sm all, and the ego did not
actually struggle at reality testing in the face of any d isa ste r. The
struggles w ere actually pertinent only to these two young people who
218
w ere in a p a rtic u la r set of socio-econom ic c irc u m s ta n c e s. What each
was m ade to think, feel, and see as a final outcom e of his struggle was
not the s o rt of awful truth or revelation about s e lf--so m eth in g appli
cable to all m e n --th a t an audience would o rd in arily keep itself from
seeing, that kind of truth which gives to m an a sense of relief, of
g re a te r psychological freedom through its recognition. R ather, th e ir
"truth" was essentially the effect of ego strength verbalized by R o sen
b e rg e r, which was inspirational and which they assim ilated : i.e. ,
being in love with the possibilities of hum an p ossibilities, the p o s si
bilities that could be wrought in the future (idealism ). E nergy may
have appeared on the surface to change direction for both; i. e. , le ss
im position of th e ir individual wills upon the world. However, c o llec
tively they w ere going to w ork together in the future to m ake the world
a b e tte r place in which to live. The change of energy was not so much,
th e re fo re , that of directing energy inw ardly tow ard psychic effort--
self-rev elatio n and truth in d ep th --a s it was tow ard effecting social,
political, and economic changes within the future.
The psychic rew ard derived fro m confrontation stem s from
audience insight and in-depth truth as a result of c h a ra c te r energies
which change direction, which becom e channeled into psychic effort,
thus revealing a basic self, stripped of all fa c a d e --a n understandable
and significant truth that can tell an audience something about itself.
The rew ard h erein was not strong because O dets' c h a r a c te r s were not
p o sse sse d of faults or virtues which re p re s e n te d an extension of the
m o re signficant faults and virtues sh a re d by all mankind; the issues
219
w ere not of g re a t m agnitude; and consequently, the re su lts of insight
would be of lim ited im portance to many.
C ath arsis. The possibility for a c a th a rsis rew ard was also
lim ited due to the natu re of the d e s ire s and instincts explored (along
with, of c o u rs e , the lim itations in significance, m agnitude, and iden-
tification-em pathy). C ath arsis dem ands vicarious satisfaction fro m a
c h a ra c te r's d e s ir e s and also a w a re n e ss of his punishm ent, a p le asu re
resulting fro m experiencing the d ischarge and control of the strongly
instinctual.
The c lo se s t approxim ation to a c h a ra c te r who p o sse sse d strong
instincts and d e s ir e s seem ed to be Steve with his h o s tile -a g g re ss iv e
drive, his d e s tru c tiv e and re ta lia to ry im pulses, his rejection and
seem ing d is tru s t of everyone. H owever, as suggested e a r lie r in the
discussion of Identification-E m pathy, Steve was so continually b ra sh ,
so o v e rre a c tio n a ry (h y per-responsive), and willfully difficult that
strong identification seem ed rem ote fo r an a u d ien ce--a p rim a ry
requisite fo r a cathartic rew ard. (Identification with a c h a r a c te r m u st
of n ece ssity be so strong that it p e r s is ts despite his m ista k e s and the
consequences of his actions; sympathy m u st in c re ase in intensity as
the story p r o g r e s s e s , and as the action draw s to a close. The c h a r
a c te r 's actions m u st aro u se som e fe a r, som e anxiety concerning the
act, some u n e a s in e ss and apprehension about the outcome. )
Steve's suggestion of som e hubris quality m ight possibly a ro u se
u neasiness within an audience e a rly within the action. H owever, au d i
ence sym pathies should not be offended as action p r o g r e s s e s , w h ereas
Steve at tim e s seem e d rash , if not impudent. Also, the m ain
220
c h a ra c te r m ust have such psychological validity and plausibility, the
situation-conflict m ust seem so credible, and so fraught with im p lic a
tions, significance and sym pathies, that an audience m ay identify with
the c h a ra c te r, feel with him (empathize), and experience som e insight
as the p ro c e s s of vicarious participation p e rm its a com passionate
working through of a whole actio n -p attern . The consequences of the
c h a r a c te r 's actions m ust aro u se som e pity within the audience, all of
which did not appear to be p resen t with sufficient strength within the
c h a ra c te riz a tio n of Steve. (In the opinion of this w rite r, he seem ed to
d eserv e a spanking fro m the outset. ) Very lim ited fear-p ity reaction
seem ed possible for one, who in F a y 's w ords, was only "frightened
. . . very m ad because he's nobody and everyone tells him s o !" F o r a
significant cathartic rew ard , the identification m u st be so intense, the
vicarious participation c o n s is te n t--stro n g illusion and psychic d is
ta n c e --a n d the action so contained within a whole experience that fear
and pity becom e not only aroused but resolved (or purged); one m ust
experience the d e s ire s of a c h a r a c te r and his gratifications that
brought about som e suffering in o rd e r to derive the satisfactions and
therapeutic sense of relief plus fulfillment which alleviates the tension
and anxiety created by the dilem m a. In light of these conditions, no
cathartic rew ard seem ed p re se n t to any degree deserv in g of g re a te r
exam ination or mention.
Conclusion
Illusion is presen t only to the extent that one is willing and able
to displace and to project to these young lovers, can accept th e ir
situation and c irc u m sta n c e s, sym pathize with th e ir fru s tra tio n s, th e ir
221
struggles, and th e ir m otives. The illusion potential is frequently
disturbed by the o v erstatem ent of c e rta in topics; jo b le ssn e ss, poverty
of opportunity, the re stric tio n s of an adult world, and the "System " at
large. F u rth e r lim itations are involved with re sp e c t to the psycho
logical validity and plausibility within the m a jo r ch ara cterizatio n s
(which affects the extent of identification and empathy); e .g . , no c h a r
a c te r convincingly re p re s e n ts a believable or convincing combination
of both good and bad; none brings to the fore an extent of feared or
unfulfilled aspects of each of us. The c h a ra c te rs a re ra th e r easily
defined: Steve is an insecure, defensive, reactionary, an arro g an t
and ag g ressiv e youth, who is full of ire which he is unable to control;
Fay is a rom antic, long-suffering, kind, innocent child in love with
being in love--and both a re seeking identity (ego strength); Rosen-
b e rg e r is ubiquitous and o m n ip re s e n t--u n iv e rsa l strong e g o --a logos
or ra is o n n e u r; and all a re sentim entalists. Although Steve suggests a
hubris quality on the surface, his tr a n s g r e s s io n is lim ited p rim a rily to
attacking any authority (or being defiant), and his open a g g re ssiv e n e ss
often lacks convincing provocation. Since the opposition to this trio of
c h a ra c te rs is portrayed as an u n s y m p ath etic, unrelenting, and p r o s
elytizing middle class, the point Odets seem s to m ake is that youth
should attend m o st diligently to the dictates of its h e a rt (a somewhat
sentim ental attitude) and strive to change the "System " within the
future. A final lim itation to illusion is the lack of significance and
magnitude as fa r as the dilem m a is concerned; it is predom inantly c i r
cum stantial, rom antic, and sentim ental, and it lacks a w ish having
u n iv e rsal affective appeal. As for anxiety perception, som e degree of
22 2
anxiety m ight be initiated by Steve's outright reb ellio u sn ess, or by
sym pathies projected for the plight of the young lovers; how ever, the
extent of anxiety s e e m s re s tric te d (if not overshadowed) by the topical
ideas Odets chooses to s tr e s s , the unusual c irc u m s ta n c e s in his s itu
ation (from train ed m onkeys to a detective dying of cancer), and his
all too fa m ilia r gospel that youth m u st bring about a com plete change.
(P erhaps Odets was speaking to himself; viz. , that such a combination
as the im pulsive Steve and the m o re rational F ay would be the perfect
liaison for the revolutionary changes he was apparently endorsing. )
Odets does not re p re s e n t h erein the d e s ire s against which a
th e a tre audience would ordinarily struggle. F u rth e r, hum an nature
and the p red icam en t he objectifies are actually m o re p e rso n al and
p articu la r as opposed to general and u n iv e rs a l--th e y lack tim e le s s n e s s
or lasting im portance. Controls a r e inconsistently applied; i. e. ,
explosive and even violent action is often followed im m ediately by
te n d ern ess, then th re a ts , then rejection, and so on, so that instead of
a logical developm ent, th e re seem s to be one episode a fte r another in
which Odets m e re ly objectifies a youthful, explosive, and fru stra tin g
rom ance between opposite personalities. The re su lt is confusion in
te rm s of a c le a rly established o v e r-a ll m otivation and purpose; and the
thought p r o c e s s e s , or line of thought force which would underlie a
whole experience, is som ew hat unclear. F u rth e r, because cau sals and
interrelatio n sh ip s do not seem clearly established, the events s o m e
tim es seem irre le v a n t, if not confusing (e. g. , the m in o r c h a ra c te rs
and incidents). Focus does not tend to m aintain a strong motif. D ic
tion, though occasionally figurative and affective, is also without a
223
consistent and c le a r focus; at tim es it is ra th e r banal and wordy. As
a result of lim ited anxiety and controls, a perso n ality p attern fro m
which an audience d eriv e s knowledge, or intrapsychic conflicts gov
erning behavior do not em erg e (at le a st with noticeable effect). Odets
does not specify or define any universally relevant anxiety to the
extent that it p ertain s in part to all m e n and can be experienced outside
of self, one that can provide the audience with an understanding and
sense of relief. Such lack of controls and focus in terfere with the
possibility for experiencing a com passionate whole. In addition,
cathexis is too lim ited in scope, so that there is a lim itation with
re sp e c t to psychic rew ard s. R ather than rep resen tin g a com pensation
for the inadequacies of daily life, the play s e e m s to s tre s s them , and
to tell its audience that the youth who reject all prevailing values a re
our only deliverance.
Actually the play does not probe conflicts ordinarily avoided by
m any, nor does it reveal determ ining facto rs or th e ir exact influences.
Though the instinctual m a y finally se e m to be brought under m o re c o n
tro l, the resu lts of e r r o r are hardly punished or seem inconsequential.
Steve m ay re p re s e n t in kind an interesting exam ple of an ego incapable
of integrating the id and superego, but psychic rew ard n e c e ssita te s an
ego seen as strong enough to balance such fo rc e s, as ultim ately being
successful in doing so, re g a rd le s s of the outcome of events. A m biv
alence is suggested by the contradiction of value sy stem s which is
p resen t, but both the m iddle c la s s and the "new o rd e r" value sy stem s
a r e only superficially explained or objectified--one presented as bad,
the other good--and the latter is obviously subjectively endorsed by the
224
author. Confrontation is p re se n t only to a v ery lim ited extent because
of the nature of the is s u e s and th e ir significance, and the fact that re a l
ego strength and victory is p resen te d as residing only in the p o ssib ili
ties of youth and the future; consequently, no convincing self-rev elatio n
or truth in any depth re su lts. Finally, c a th a rsis (or a cathartic
rew ard) is inhibited by the absence of a c h a ra c te r who is able to p r o
vide prolonged vicarious participation--intensifying sy m p ath ies--w ith
the result that one can derive vicarious pleasure fro m the objectified
d ischarge and control of instincts, the d e s ire s yielded to, th e ir fu l
fillm ent, and their subsequent punishment. Anxiety and prolonged te n
sion, feelings of pity and fe a r, m u st all be aroused by vicariously
experiencing d e sire s so intensely, th e ir gratification and suffering so
com passionately as a consequence, that strong emotions becom e
purged with the resulting effect of relief plus fulfillment. At the close
of the play, both of the m ain c h a ra c te rs are jobless, both a re h o m e
le s s and n early penniless, and th e ir m o st im portant integrative (ego)
force is fatally ill. O v er-all, the play seem s m e re ly a rom ance d e a l
ing superficially with middle class value sy stem s and the struggles of
young love, but at the sam e tim e attem pting to lay the m a jo rity of the
blam e upon psycho-socio (historical) conditions for the dilem m a which
is objectified.
Finally, Night Music re p re s e n ts one of Odets' stro n g est indict
m ents against middle class values since his e a rlie s t plays of 1935, one
of the m ost urgent c a l l- to - a r m s for the young pro letaria t, one of the
c le a re s t objectifications of the fru stra tio n s surrounding youthful love
and talent, and one of the m o s t outspoken testim onials for future
225
salvation through the united and revolutionary efforts of youth (from
Waiting for Lefty to P a ra d is e L o st). Although the gospel m ay not be
as outspoken as it was within his e a rlie s t w orks, n o r as strongly
e x p re s se d or p ressin g , n ev erth eless it exists and indicates that by
1940 Odets still espoused his initial cause c e le b r e , despite the fact
that audiences rejected his last unequivocal m iddle class tour de
fo rce, P a ra d is e L o s t. The sam e em phases p e r s is t- - p r o le ta r ia t,
econom ic, the "System " and so on--but Odets is now attempting to
inject the em phases into a situation-conflict which p o s se ss e s in ad d i
tion some m o re universal, rom antic, and sentim ental appeals, as he
did m o re successfully in Golden Boy and not so successfully in Rocket
to the Moon. However, unlike these la tte r ex am ples, this p redicam ent
does not contain enough psychological a p p e a l--s tro n g d e s ire s ,
defenses, wish fulfillment, satisfaction, punishm ents, and so on--to
overpow er O dets' "ism s. " In fact, the single unifying symbol of
objectivity, Detective R o sen b erg er, who successfully d irec ts the
co u rse of psychic en erg ies throughout the play (especially with resp ect
to the young lovers), in the final scene is responsible for providing
Steve with a future motivation, fo r changing Steve's psychic energy
fro m resignation to that of d eterm ination with a typical Odets credo:
. . . Y ou're a m e m b e r now of the biggest a r m y in the world.
C an't you see th e re 's a w ar h e re , right under your G reek-
A m erican n o s e ? . . . You a r e ignorant. B ecause your fight is
h e re , not a c ro s s the w ater. You love this g irl? . . . Then fight
for love ! . . . You want a hom e ? . . . then fight for hom es !
. . . You a re the people. W hatever you want to say, say it!
W hatever has to be changed, change it! Who told you not to
m ake a new political p arty ? . . . Only a m o ra l bankrupt could
object! . . . I'll tell you both a secret; no old m a n can r e s t if
you don't use your health to fight. . .
Inspired, Steve walks off a r m in a r m with F ay and R osenberger.
226
Clash by Night
Plot S um m ary
3 6
C lash by Night takes place in the s u m m e r of 1941. It is a hot
June night; J e r r y and Mae Wilenski a re sitting on the front porch of
th e ir sm all Staten Island home entertaining two young frien d s, Peggy
Coffey and h e r fiance, Joe Doyle. They are enjoying a b eer and ta lk
ing about the heat. Mae becom es annoyed with J e r r y and im plies that
socially he is too eager and too solicitous. (Seven weeks ago Mae gave
birth to a baby girl, Gloria, and she has com plained of not feeling well
sin ce.) They can h e a r J e r r y 's father playing a concertina from within
the house; he often plays a Polish folk song about a home to which one
d e s ire s to retu rn but is unable to locate. Peggy says the song m akes
h e r feel the way she did when she went into r e tr e a t at the convent fo l
lowing the death of her m other. Mae in sists that J e r r y m ake him stop
playing; as he goes into the house, he checks on the baby (he is
e x tre m ely attentive to the child). Mae then asks Joe and Peggy openly
why they do not m a rry ; Peggy becom es e m b a rra s s e d , while Joe is
annoyed and refuses to talk about it. Peggy leaves suddenly, crying,
and Joe goes after her. J e r r y re tu rn s and tells Mae that Joe is now
able to get work only th re e days p e r week (so they can not m a rry ).
Mae becom es generally annoyed with him and in anger tells him that
he is ju st dumb. However, J e r r y loves h er too m uch to be vexed.
In fact he apologizes for somehow annoying h e r. Mae says she is
going to bed, and J e r r y tells h e r that she m eans everything to him and
to the baby. He asks that she wait up just a little while longer, how
ever; his new and best friend with whom he works on a W. P. A.
227
project, and whom he considers " s m a rt, " is going to com e over.
Mae says she is not in the mood and goes into the house. Peggy
re tu rn s and then Joe. E a rl Pfeiffer, J e r r y 's friend, en ters; and
J e r r y runs to m e et him. E a rl m e e ts J e r r y 's friends and is p a rtic u
larly attracted to Peggy; how ever, she and Joe leave very soon. J e r r y
cautions E a rl that Peggy is v ery religious, but E a rl says the day is
past when he wants to "cut up" every beautiful woman he notices.
J e r r y does not understand, and E a rl calls him a "pigeon-head. " Mae
has entered quietly and pretends not to have heard. E a r l tr ie s to m ake
conversation, but Mae is te rs e and so m etim e s impolite. J e r r y talks
enthusiastically about their baby. (He is obviously eag er for Mae and
E a rl to like one another. ) E a rl becom es gradually annoyed with M ae's
distance; but J e r r y insists that he keep talking, and about him self.
E a rl tells Mae that he operates a m ovie projector, by trade (whenever
he is able to find such employment). J e r r y 's father enters; he is a
shy old m an and speaks English very poorly. When he leaves, J e r r y
says that his father can not find work and has begun to play his con
certin a fo r drinks in the local b a rs . E a r l confides in J e r r y that he has
just seen a m an who has p ro m ise d to get him back into his old trade
union (this m e an s he could e a rn sixty dollars per week). J e r r y tells
him that th e ir seventh wedding a n n iv e rsa ry was y esterd ay , and he
bought Mae a w ris t watch; he leaves to get m o re b eer so that they can
all celebrate. E a rl tu rn s to Mae and suggests they at least pretend to
like one another. He asks if she w ere ever in show business and tells
h er his fo rm e r wife was in b u rle s q u e --it has taken him six y e a rs to
get control of him self and of his love fo r h e r. Mae is touched by his
228
difference in attitude; he tells h er that e a r lie r he was only trying to
m ake an unusually good im p ressio n . J e r r y re tu rn s with the beer.
E a rl says he would like to elim inate all possible contacts with his
f o rm e r wife, and J e r r y suggests he move in (they have been trying to
rent a spare room). He looks to Mae for confirm ation, but she d is
courages the suggestion and finally says that E a r l has a lre ad y seen the
room and does not like it. E a r l is stunned, and J e r r y is disappointed.
E a rl suggests that he leave, but J e r r y asks him to stay. Mae says
angrily that J e r r y is always forcing his attentions upon people who in
tu rn resen t it. After E a rl leaves, J e r r y asks Mae if she liked Earl;
and she says he was too patronizing to J e r r y (which com pletely con
fuses h im ).
In Scene Two Peggy, Joe, and E a rl a re seated at a table in an
oceanside pavilion; it is now July. The sound of m usic and dancing can
be heard. E a rl o rd e rs beer and is very dem anding of service. When
he exits, Joe say s E a rl is a lot of b lu ste r and too generous, as if he
w ere buying approval. Peg ask s Joe if he would m a r r y h er. Told no,
she asks why, and Joe says because they have nothing. They exit to
dance as E arl, J e rry , and Mae return. All are drinking b e e r when
Vince K re s s e n te rs, J e r r y 's uncle. (K ress was once a p rie s t, but has
becom e an alcoholic and a h u stle r for drin k s.) J e r r y introduces him ,
and E a rl offers him a beer. Mae and E a rl leave to dance. The p r o
p rie to r e n te rs, d isco v ers K re ss, and calls him a "slut, " a m o o c h e r of
drinks. K re ss exits quickly, but he re tu rn s as soon as the p ro p rie to r
leaves. V ery soon, Peggy and Joe re tu rn from the dance floor. J e r r y
introduces them and K re s s pretends not to know Peggy. K ress tells
229
J e r r y quietly that his father is at the b ar, and they both leave to
investigate. Peg tells Joe that she once discovered K re ss peeping
through her bedroom window. She says that J e r r y used to support
both his father and K re ss, and that they lived like pigs until Mae
moved in. When Mae found so m uch filth and pornography within the
house, she told J e r r y eith er she o r K re s s had to leave. Whereupon,
K ress was forced to leave and has hated her since. Peggy tells Joe
that she likes Mae v ery m uch, that she w as so wonderful to h e r sick
m o th er before she died. They decide to take a walk on the beach. E arl
and Mae re tu rn to the table. E a rl o rd e rs some bourbon; Mae says she
feels as if it w ere a re a l holiday for her. He asks why she told J e r r y
that he had a lre ad y seen the spare room (the f irs t evening they met),
but she refuses to answ er. E arl confesses that his life has been
ra th e r irre sp o n sib le , but now he has little optim ism at thirty-eight;
no one c a re s about him . M ae decides to have a drink. J e r r y enters;
his father has refused to leave the bar. He ask s Mae not to drink any
bourbon, but she tells him to mind his own business. He also m e n
tions tha.t one of the m en on their W. P. A. project has just gotten a
pink slip (a lay off). Mae is angered that he would talk of unpleasant
things at this m om ent. When he leaves, she confides to E a rl that
J e r r y is sentim ental and not responsible; he does not realize that they
a r e battling poverty, and he expects h e r to do all of the m anaging and
w orrying. She has another drink and then im pulsively tells E a r l about
the one m an whom she has loved, a politician with whom she lived for
th ree y e a rs. After his death she took odd jobs and finally m et J e r r y
in Manhattan. E a rl in te rp re ts this as m eaning that she does not really
230
love J e r r y , but Mae will not reply. She m entions that Joe is what she
co n sid ers to be a real man. When E a r l suggests that he m ight be able
to m ake som e a rran g em en t, she slaps him. Peggy and Joe return.
E a rl, still angry, alludes to th e ir having done m o re than just walk on
the beach. J e r r y returns; he has decided to take his father hom e, and
when he leaves he asks E a rl to take Mae hom e (which fu rth e r angers
her). E a r l continues to drink and becom es increasingly hostile toward
Joe. Joe suggests that they leave; Peggy is confused, and Mae says
E a r l is m e re ly drunk. However, he continues to o rd er m o re drinks.
Finally, Joe loses his te m p e r, but Mae and Peggy intervene to prevent
a fight; Joe tells the women they are leaving. As she is leaving, Mae
tells E a rl he is "nuts. " When they have gone, K re s s re tu rn s to share
the rem ains of the drinks along with Earl.
Scene T hree is two weeks la ter in the combination kitchen,
dining and living room of the Wilenski home. E a rl has moved into
one of the bedroom s. J e r r y is reading a n ew spaper at the breakfast
table. Mae en ters in h e r kimono and slip p ers. J e r r y is su rp rise d ,
but she says she could not sleep for w orrying about the baby's crying.
She notices an envelope; it is a notice about paym ents due on h er
a n n iv e rsa ry watch. She gives J e r r y the watch with instructions to
retu rn it, telling him not to buy anything e lse on an installm ent plan.
He is e m b a r r a s s e d and tells h e r that he had m eant to take care of it.
She also rem inds him that a collections m a n called again about the
re frig e ra to r. All J e r r y can say is, "don't w orry. " E m b a r r a s s e d , he
a sk s h er for c a rfa re . He pours her a cup of coffee, and ready to
leave, he stands by h e r guiltily. She tells him to kiss h er; he does,
231
and he rem inds h e r to take c a re of herself. A fterh e leaves, she b reaks
down and sobs. E a rl enters; he does not notice Mae, and she com poses
h e rs e lf quickly. He is suffering fro m a sev ere h ang-over (the night
before his fo rm e r wife cam e to him asking for money). He decides to
have another drink, and he gives Mae some vitam ins he bought for her.
He mentions the girl with whom he slept the night before, but Mae does
not want to h e a r about it. J e r r y 's father en ters from his room. He
has a c a rp e n te r's kit under his a rm , as if he w ere ready for possible
work. He too asks for c a rfa re and m entions a possibility he has
noticed in the paper. When he leaves, Mae tells E a rl that he cannot
read at all but is afraid he will be deported if anyone le arn s the truth.
E a rl tells Mae that they a re both alike, both unhappy; he is so unhappy
that he has been unable to sleep; no one needs him or loves him; he
feels hom esick, but there is no home. He asks her to help him , to love
him; he tells h e r that he loves h e r and is dying of lonesom eness. Mae
tr ie s to avoid E a rl and cautions him not to awaken the baby. Suddenly,
Peg en ters to ask if she can help Mae in any way, but Mae says no.
She inquires of P eg if Joe gives h e r a feeling of confidence; when P eg
says yes, Mae tells h er that then she will really love him. After Peg
leaves, E a rl asks s a rc a s tic a lly if this is the end of th e ir friendship.
Infuriated, Mae calls him both proud and sa rc a s tic . He trie s to apolo
gize, but she tells him to get out. In anger, he goes to his room and
slam s the door. She goes to the door and calls to him; when he opens
the door, she goes in and closes it behind h er.
Scene F o u r is the sam e setting, only it is midnight a few weeks
later. K ress p eers in through a kitchen window, calls for J e r r y , and
232
then h u rrie s away as Peg and Joe a rriv e . They a r e s u rp ris e d to find
the lights on, the baby unattended, and no one in sight. Peg has d i s
covered Mae and E a r l's relationship. She is disillusioned, but Joe
tells her she m u st consider everything that can happen in a m a rria g e .
He tells h e r th e re a re now new work opportunities in his position, and
perhaps they can m a r r y soon. However, she feels h e r sense of s e c u
rity has been too disturbed, and she asks him to wait a while longer.
J e r r y enters; he tells them E a rl has taken Mae to an am u sem en t park.
Joe asks J e r r y about his work, and he confides that everyone is now
expecting a lay off. He says everything boils down to w orry, that one
day one becom es old and then no one wants him. Peg and Joe exit,
K re s s slips in, bringing J e r r y 's father who is obviously drunk and has
been in a fight. The father goes into his room and begins playing the
sad Polish song. K re s s m a k es reference to E a r l's spending and some
gossip he has heard. J e r r y is confused, and K re s s suggests that he
ask his father ju st why he got into a fight. J e r r y only laughs, which
annoys K re s s, who then openly suggests that J e r r y ask about Mae and
E arl. J e r r y becom es angry, pushes K ress to the floor, and tells him
to leave before he h u rts him. When he does leave, J e r r y tr ie s to talk
to his father, who refuses to answ er. He finally tells him to go to bed
and to forget it, even if he does know something. However, J e r r y
rem a in s troubled. He goes into his bedroom and re tu rn s with two
gift-wrapped packages. Opening them , he finds silk nightgowns in one
and a large bottle of perfum e in the other. He accidentally drops and
spills som e of the perfum e. Quickly, he reties the packages and puts
them away. E a r l and Mae re tu rn suddenly; E a r l has won se v e ra l
233
p rize s. They a r e both su rp rise d to find J e r r y awake. Mae sm ells the
perfum e and w onders why J e r r y opened it. He m akes a feeble excuse.
She asks what else he found. Mae goes into the bedroom and re tu rn s
with the package of nightgowns. J e r r y inquires how she could afford
silk. At f ir s t Mae says they a re only rayon but then tells him it would
not m a tte r if they w ere silk. J e r r y becom es increasingly angry, but
Mae tells him that he has literally pushed E a r l 's attentions upon h er
fro m th e ir firs t m eeting, that th e ir going out together has always been
his own idea. She asks what he would do about it if she had slept with
E arl. J e r r y m oves toward h e r threateningly, but E a rl knocks him to
the floor. He apologizes to Je rry ; J e r r y replies that he will not hurt
him and can not understand how he could have entertained such
thoughts about him or Mae. E a rl offers J e r r y a drink, but he refuses;
however, Mae drinks two. E a r l tells them to "kiss an' m ake up. "
This suggestion annoys Mae who asks E a rl just how m any m en he
thinks she sleeps with at once. She takes one of the nightgowns, s a y
ing she is going to sleep in E a r l's room; she suggests that E a rl tell
J e r r y the com plete truth. Then she tells J e r r y that he has dropped
h e r, as he did the perfum e bottle; he has taken h er for granted, been
dependent and irre sp o n sib le , and that she will take G loria and leave
before the child can grow up in this environm ent. The father en ters
and asks J e r r y to go to bed; but J e r r y brushes him aside, tells E a rl
and Mae that they a re bad, and he d isappears into the night. Mae asks
E a rl to take c a re of h er. She goes to h e r own room, tu rn s and tells
E a rl that she had no intention of sleeping with him , but J e r r y did not
stop her.
234
Act Two is three days la te r, and it is now alm o st evening. E a rl
and Mae a re on the front porch; he is nervous and getting ready to go
to w ork (he is now working as a projectionist). He tells Mae they m ust
leave the place, but she refuses until she h e a rs fro m J e r r y . E a rl's
conscience has begun to bother him; he does not want to hurt J e rry ,
yet he loves Mae. He says he will stick by h e r re g a rd le ss. Both con
fess that they have not been sleeping well. Finally, she tells him to go
to work, that she has to go to the store, and she leaves. K re s s and
the father enter; the father says J e r r y has lost his job, has no money,
and that he is extrem ely concerned about him. Suddenly, J e r r y en ters;
he asks for Mae but E a rl tells him she is gone. A collections m an
a p p ears and tells E a rl that they a re going to re p o s s e s s the r e f r i g e r
a to r unless payments are m ade. J e r r y and his father a re e m b a r
ra ss e d , but say nothing; E a rl pays the balance. Mae retu rn s, finds
J e r r y , and tells him that they have been w o rried about him. He asks
to talk to h e r alone; he tells h e r that G loria is the m ost im portant,
that he will forget the past, and that he still loves her. Mae apolo
gizes for hurting him , but te lls him it is all over between them and
that she and E a rl a re leaving. E a rl re tu rn s and J e r r y p re p a re s to
leave. Impulsively, E a rl offers him some money. This an g ers J e r r y ,
and he throw s a h a m m e r at him (which strik es the house). Then, he
loses consciousness and falls. They take him into the house. Mae
tells E a r l that she has told J e r r y they a r e leaving; she puts h e r head
on his chest and crie s.
Scene Two is one hour la te r, and J e r r y and his father a re seated
at the kitchen table. The father tr ie s to m ake conversation, but J e r r y
235
is too thoughtful. Mae en ters fro m the bathroom and goes into E a r l 's
room. J e r r y pretends not to notice; he suddenly talks loudly about
future em ploym ent possibilities and that he m ay go to the P anam a
Canal for work. He tells his father to go for a walk. He trie s to
listen at E a r l 's door, but Mae discovers him; she is d re ssin g to go to
the m ovies with Peggy and Joe. Suddenly, Joe becom es aroused but
Mae rep u lses him . P eeling rejected, J e r r y calls h e r a whore. Mae
says she is s o rry , but n ev erth eless, she and E a rl a re leaving t o m o r
row. He asks about G loria, reminding h er that the baby is his also.
K re s s en te rs, and Mae leaves quickly for the movie. K re ss goes to
E a r l's room , gets a bottle and pours two drinks. He suggests that
J e r r y beat Mae. J e r r y begins to drink. K re s s also te lls him he
would strangle E a rl if he w ere J e r r y , that God would expect him to
intervene. He continues to pour liquor, to m ake insinuations, and to
provoke, even to the point of telling J e r r y that E a rl has openly laughed
at him. Suddenly Joe en ters; he guesses that K re s s has been trying to
incite J e r r y 's jealousy, and he r e fe rs to K re ss as being dangerously
ignorant and tra s h . J e r r y dem ands that they stop quarreling, and
K ress leaves in anger. Joe convinces J e r r y to lie down and to sleep
for a while, that all m ay be talked over tom orrow . J e r r y goes into
his bedroom , and Peggy enters. Joe tells her that J e r r y feels alone
and wants to belong to someone. Joe asks h e r to m a r r y him that night;
he tells h e r that everyone is afraid and is looking for a p arad ise when
actually it is only around the c o rn e r and begins with responsibility.
Mae enters; she has returned because she feared K r e s s 's influence,
and she has o v erh eard the conversation between Peggy and Joe. She
236
tells both to "find out what you're for! We only know what w e're
against. " She asks them not to think badly of her. Suddenly, J e r r y
en ters from the bedroom ; he has d re s se d to go out. Mae tells Peggy
and Joe to leave; she inquires w here J e r r y intends to go, but he will
not answ er. She tr ie s to talk to him , but he o rd e rs her to get out.
He then asks his father to take care of Gloria; but he will not reveal
where he is going. The father sits down alone and plays his favorite
folk song.
Scene T hree is later that night in the projection booth of a movie
theatre; E a rl and his co-w orker, Abe, a r e occupied with the equip
m ent and are criticizing the movie in p ro g re s s . Mae en ters and
knocks on the door of the projection booth. E a rl r e a s s u r e s h er that
J e r r y will not come th e re nor h a rm them, and he sends her away.
The telephone rings; the office wants someone to pick up their pay
envelopes. Abe decides to go for both of them . A fter he leaves,
J e r r y en ters silently; unnoticed, he goes into the booth and closes the
door. When E a r l d isco v ers him and re alizes he has been drinking,
he becom es a larm ed . J e r r y says he wants only to talk, but E a rl
o rd e rs him to leave. J e r r y advances and tells E a r l that he now
believes he is his friend and that he is no longer angry with him. E a r l
is unconvinced and rem inds J e r r y that he trie d to kill him e a rlie r that
evening with a h a m m e r. Suddenly, E a rl picks up a w rench and strik e s
J e r r y , saying Mae and he love one another and J e r r y m u st leave
im m ediately. J e r r y becom es violent and bolts the door. He slowly
advances on E a r l who keeps striking him with the wrench. Finally,
J e r r y catches him and begins to strangle him , saying that now E a rl
237
can no longer hurt him . M eanwhile, Abe has been trying to get into
the door of the booth, and M ae, Peggy, and Joe have also entered.
J e r r y drops E a r l's body and begins to pray. Mae recognizes his
voice through the closed door. Joe says he will go for help, but
intuitively Mae says it is now too late. She tells them to leave so that
they will not be involved, to go live th e ir lives and th e ir future. Then
she quietly raps on the door, telling J e r r y it is she.
Illusion
The problem which Odets selected as his source of audience
involvement in Clash by Night and the c h a ra c te rs he crea ted for au d i
ence sym pathies, projection, and displacem ent basically concerned a
love triangle, that of an unhappy woman, h er lower class Polish h u s
band, and a handsom e lodger; the h isto ric a l period was im portant in
the sense that effects of the econom ic d ep ressio n on contem porary
socio-econom ic conditions w ere om nipresent throughout the action.
An attractive, intelligent and sophisticated woman m a rrie d into
a Polish family (in which th e re was no woman) p rim a rily for reasons
of economic security and because h e r future husband seem ed c o m
pletely devoted to her. A fter a tim e she becam e increasingly aw are
that h e r husband, even though hard working and loving, was ra th e r
insensitive, unintelligent, dependent, and irresponsible; as a result,
she was forced to a ssu m e the head of household, the responsible role.
As the aw aren ess of h e r c o m p ro m ise and h er inability to re tu rn re c ip
rocal love m ade h e r p ro g re ssiv e ly m o re unhappy, fru strate d , and d is
satisfied, h e r husband's subsequent concern provoked him to becom e
238
m o re attentive, devoted, and to seek ways in which he might bring her
pleasure. With the birth of th e ir baby (after seven y e a rs of m a rria g e ),
s ev eral factors combined to in c re a se h e r unhappiness: h e r growing
fru stratio n s and dissatisfactions w ere agitated by (1) h er husband's
ex tre m e pride in and attentiveness to the baby (perhaps jealousy on
h e r part), (2) his lack of understanding of h er, (3) the ev e rp re se n t
financial p ro b lem s resulting from his irresponsibility, (4) the e v e r
p resen t possibility of his losing em ploym ent, and (5) the fact that she
could not re tu rn his love in kind. F acto rs such as these combined to
m ake her surroundings becom e p ro g re ssiv e ly m o re d ep ressin g and
offered for the future less and less o ptim ism to the extent that she
began to experience feelings of b ittern ess, entrapm ent, and obligation.
H er fru stratio n was fu rth er intensified by the fact that her insensitive
husband was not aw are of the true problem , but ra th e r chose to place
the blame of h e r indifference upon a difficult childbirth. In an attem pt
to in te re st and to am use h er, he invited a handsom e and intelligent
friend fro m his W. P. A. project who, though also somewhat ir r e s p o n
sible, was actually so because he too was unhappy and fru stra te d in
his need for love. These two fru stra te d individuals found a m utual
attraction, fell in love, and eventually began having an affair. After
the affair was finally discovered, she forced a full acknowledgement
of the truth and insisted upon leaving with h e r lover; how ever, the
husband w as opposed because of his love for her and for th e ir baby.
He was willing to forgive. N evertheless, she rejected his forgiveness
and was d eterm ined to leave. When all attem pts at reconciliation,
understanding, and forgiveness w ere thw arted, in a final g estu re to
239
save his home and m a rr ia g e the husband visited his friend for help.
The friend becam e frightened and struck him out of fe a r, which in
tu rn provoked the husband to such violence that he strangled him.
The them e of econom ics was such a prevalent u n d e rc u rre n t that
it seem ed overstated. The intent m ay have been to c re a te the sense
of oppression that poverty m ay have upon the hum an spirit, but
em phasis was so r e c u rre n t that it often seem ed to in te rfe re if not
overpow er the human conflict at issue; i.e . , throughout, there was
referen c e to the uneasiness and apprehension (anxiety) that stem m ed
fro m the possibility of unem p lo y m en t,. the inhibiting, crippling, and
d estructive potential of poverty upon happiness, optim ism , security,
self-fulfillm ent, and a satisfying home environm ent (a re c u rre n t
them e with Odets). Likew ise, illusion might have been lim ited also
by the strongly em phasized setting, an obviously lower class
environm ent.
Identification-em pathy. An audience could conceivably find
J e r r y a naive and lovable Polack, but the possibility for extensive and
prolonged identification seem ed questionable if for no other reason
than that he was clearly irresp o n sib le and in a situation which
dem anded m uch responsibility (rem iniscent of the c h a ra c te r Leo
Gordon in P a ra d is e L o st). Mae appeared to approxim ate m o re closely
some feared or unfulfilled aspects of an audience self: (1) the a c c e p
tance of what appeared to be a reasonable c o m p ro m ise for purposes of
security, (2) the com prom ising of one's own ego ideal for the pursuit
of p le a su re , satisfaction, and the alleviation of fru stra tio n , (3) the
240
battle with conscience and obligations, and the quest for justice
(superego forces). She was a contrast or d ram a tic foil for J e r r y (in
intellect, te m p e ra m e n t, values, and so on) and seem ed le ss of a c h a r
a c te r stereotype; i. e. , one could not determ in e with any degree of
exactness what h e r background had been nor relegate h e r presen t p e r
sonality to a very simple category. H er actions and reactions w ere
not as readily anticipated as those of J e rry . Consequently, she
seem ed to offer a g re a te r possibility for analogizing, for o v e r-a ll
identification, for sympathy, insight, and em pathy. E a r l was not
unlike h e r in m otive, though like J e r r y he was not an especially worthy
exam ple for strong identification-em pathy--he too lacked ego strength.
He was m o re articulate about his d e s ire s , struggles, pro b lem s, and
so on than J e rry ; but Mae seem ed less re s tric te d than both m ale c h a r
a c te rs by the specific, by d ire c t statem ent, or the anticipated (typical)
reaction. As a result, she p resented a g re a te r potential for analogiz
ing. H owever, even with the possibility of some strength in h e r c h a r
acterization, the situation-conflict m ight fail to provoke strong and
sustained participation, prolonged identification and em pathy, fo r the
following reasons: (1) though it was of critic a l significance to those
few involved (a personal or fam ily tragedy), it would likely be of lim
ited significance to others; (2) it lacked m a g n itu d e --a love triangle has
never been an unfam iliar situation and has seldom involved g reatn ess
in eith er people or events. The lack of significance and magnitude
seem ed red eem ed somewhat by the p resen ce of one u n iv e rs a l wish:
the wish to feel confident, s ecu re, and to experience a rec ip ro c a l love.
Also, Odets c re a te d believable dim ensions within his c h a ra c te rs with
241
reg ard to ex p ressio n s of love and the presen ce of faults and virtues.
Mae seem ed to be the m o st convincingly developed, but no m a jo r
c h a ra c te r was either all-good nor all-bad; one could identify with both
good and bad by degree within each. Identification and em pathy t h e r e
fore, though lim ited som ew hat by the p resen ce of types, w orthiness in
exam ple, and significance and magnitude in its struggles, gained some
strength by the inclusion of a few anxieties o r concerns in com m on,
u n iv e rsal w ishes, and believable good-bad dim ensions. In the opinion
of this w rite r, had Odets w ritten in the style, let us say, of C harles
Dickens or Chekhov so that his individual c h a ra c te rs w ere imbued with
readily understood u n iv e rsal feelings, a broad basis for sympathy, for
identification and em pathy with each, something emotionally significant
in addition to the effects of the im m ediate p racticalities surrounding
th e ir g rim c irc u m sta n c e s - -the individual's dignity transcending the
situation--then Odets' social m e ssa g e , his com m entary, would likely
have had a g r e a te r em otional im pact by virtue of associated or related
em otional re sp o n se s (empathy and analogizing) that an audience in
addition would bring to the predicam ent them selves as they becam e
involved and participated vicariously; in this re sp e c t the em otional
responses aro u sed would then serve to enhance ra th e r than disturb
illusion. A strong, controlled em otional response can aro u se sen ti
m ents and m a y provoke subsequent intellectualizing and even a motive
for effecting som e so rt of social re fo rm (as was the case with
Dickens); how ever, the converse would not n e c e s s a rily be tru e, for a
predom inantly intellectual response would hardly aro u se a la te r
response of strong em otional reaction.
r
242
Understanding was not labored because little actually happened
within the play; the m ost im portant concern was the love affair and
its outcome. The audience ego could likely relax, in te rm s of what
actually o ccu rred , depending upon the extent of co u rse that it would
willingly suspend its disbelief in o rd e r to participate in this dom estic
triangle. As usual, c ritic s of the play w ere at variance in th e ir
approval o r disapproval: Rosamond Gilder felt that the them e was
eternal, the plot d ram e p a s s io n e l, the story negligible; and though the
c h a ra c te rs w ere quite ordinary, they poignantly pictured some funda
m ental concerns of m an, his loneliness, yearnings and fru stra tio n s,
m ischievous evil, sorrow , love and death, and M ae's re s tle s s self-
centered type existed everyw here; J e r r y 's am iable and simple philos
ophy could not cope with the adult, brutal world; and E a r l was an
37
authentic and appealing w aster. Wolcott Gibbs believe the entire
concern was little m o re than a tale of a disenchanted suburban wife, a
dism al and comic story, m ost of whose c h a ra c te rs seem ed a little
38
feeble-m inded. Joseph Wood Krutch considered the play to be about
"unbeautiful people, " the catastrophe weak, the settings drab, and the
39
story deliberately banal. David B urnham reg ard ed the play as m e re ly
the triangle of a bored wife, an insentient husband, a handsom e
lo d g e r--m ean in g less infidelity without a villain, c h a ra c te rs with
interesting te m p e ra m e n ts, but no tragedy; and n a tu ra lism that verged
40
upon the ludicrous. (The c ritic s w ere at least in accord that a love
story e x is te d .)
243
H ubris. Both Mae and E a rl could aro u se som e hubris appeal.
M ae was arro g an t, passionate, and flagrantly d isre g a rd e d m o ra l law
and restrain t; h e r tra n s g re s s io n s and te m p e ra m e n t forced h e r into
ex tre m e choices; she disdained the sensible, or any c o m p ro m ise once
she had tr a n s g re s s e d , and she succum bed to the intem perate with an
ease which could arouse som e audience anxiety. E a rl re s o rte d to vio
lence and re c k le s sn e ss; he also d isreg ard e d m o ra l law and re s tra in t,
succumbing to intem perate reaction readily. However, he seem ed to
lack the degree of hubris appeal possible through M ae's c h a r a c te r iz a
tion because he actively sought out and hoped for some so rt of c o m
p ro m ise , some sensible solution. R eg ard less, both c h a ra c te rs suf
ficiently tr a n s g r e s s e d a tabu (m arital and familial) to the extent that at
least a limited sense of tension and com plexity could be established.
The c h a ra c te r of Mae could likewise stim ulate audience tensions
associated with strong d e s ire s and th e ir defenses; complexity was
p re se n t (especially within Act One) as one would be able to d iscern the
ways in which ce rta in im pulses could be disguised and how they in turn
sought to gain satisfaction. Two w ishes asso ciated with hubris w ere
p resen t with som e strength: the wish to rebel against authority, and
the wish to be punished for rebelling. Some didactic potential was also
present, but only to the extent that one had vicariously participated
within the predicam ent. (The degree of knowledge plus satisfaction
that m ay be derived is directly proportional to the extent of vicarious
involvem ent.) P re s e n t also was the possibility to participate in
re stra in e d im pulses, in a tra n s g re s s io n , in the struggles between
im pulses and inhibition, the gratification of longings, the
244
re-ex p erien cin g of d e s ire s and guilt, with the re su lt that one m ight be
m o m en tarily purged of them . However, with resp ect to the o v e r-a ll
participation possibilities within the play, the extent of vicarious
involvement would always be influenced by the g en era l significance and
the magnitude of both events and the people involved. The lack of s ig
nificance and m agnitude, plus the o v erstatem ent of econom ics seem ed
to w ork against the p resen ce of strong and sustained illusion. Illusion
seem ed strongest h e re in when Odets directed his attention to such
u n iversals as m o ra l c o m p ro m ise and its effects, the effect that p e r
sonal unhappiness can have upon loved ones, how m utually unhappy
individuals m ay be attra c te d to one another, how love m ay becom e
destructive, and the dominance that passion m ay a ssu m e over reason.
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
As for anxiety perception, that which Odets selected for his
overcathected subject m a te ria l contained some easily understood
general concerns: e. g. , home and fam ily life, m a rita l infidelity,
tru s t, friendship, loyalty, sexual and intellectual fru stratio n , and
co m prom ise. The concentration of psychic energy appeared e s p e c i
ally strong in Act One, as Odets established the conflict between Mae
and E arl, the underlying difficulties between Mae and J e r r y , and
within each c h a ra c te r individually. However, one could not actually
describ e any of the c h a ra c te rs as heroic nor the events as la rg e and
a ll-s e rio u s; though the alternatives w ere m ade to a s s u m e ex tre m e
im portance in this situation (and for these c h a ra c te rs in particular),
they w ere not likely the so rt that audiences at la rg e would consider
extrem e.
245
As Odets em phasized his predicam ent, it appeared to have
potential for arousing some audience anxiety within two specific a re a s:
(1) security (job security, financial security, co m p ro m ise for security,
security in love, and m a rita l, hom e, and family security), and (2)
responsibility (for self, for the happiness of others, for friendship,
for obligations, and so on).
The control of anxiety seem ed usually to be overly determ ined
(although M ae's confrontation with J e r r y at the close of Act One might
disturb control for som e because the acknowledgement of her affair,
as she forced it, seem ed u n n ece ssarily protracted if not brutal). The
level of anxiety seem ed to dim inish within Act Two (especially in
Scenes One and Two); the re m a in d e r appeared to be prolonged and to
involve action of little or no p a rtic u la r contribution to the sense of
inevitability established within Act One. The acts leading up to the
final scene could very likely be anticipated by any audience, with the
result thattthe anxiety level actually seem ed to becom e overdeterm ined
or o v ercontrolled--the high point reached at the close of Act One.
O bjectification. Odets appeared to crea te a clearly understood
objectification of his situation-conflict; he contained and bound his
problem in o rd er that some strong d e s ire s , fe a rs, and inner conflicts
could becom e m anifest by his c h a ra c te rs , yet confronted by an audi
ence without u n n ece ssary fe a rs (without being acknowledged as c h a r a c
te ris tic s belonging to one's self).
Within Act Two, how ever, the intensity seem ed to diminish;
d e s ire s had changed to guilt, fears and conflicts had becom e personal,
and the m ain c h a ra c te rs seem ed to lack the so rt of c le a r-c u t
motivation they had p o sse ssed earlier: Mae refused to leave until she
saw J e r r y , yet was in no convincing haste once they had th e ir con
frontation; E a rl did not want to hurt J e r r y (was troubled with his con
science), yet he provoked him to violence twice; and, J e r r y was either
running away, apologetic, violent, brooding, pleading, or m u rd ero u s.
The entire Act Two seem ed u n n ece ssarily lengthy and oftentim es con
fusing in te rm s of precise intent. Mae stated openly that fro m the out
set J e r r y had encouraged a close relationship between h e r and E a rl
(which was obvious within the script); but, in the opinion of this
w rite r, what was not so obvious within the scrip t was that Mae seem ed
to be aw are of (and m ade little attem pt to discourage) the final and
fatal outcome from the m om ent she forced J e r r y to accept the truth of
h er infidelity: the fatal outcome neither seem ed to s u rp ris e h er, nor
was there convincing evidence that she had trie d to prevent it with
m uch energy. T herefore, what seem ed to be objectified was the d is in
tegration and com plete destruction of a home and fam ily unit; c o m p ro
m ise (Mae d esired security) could not sustain love; irresponsibility
within m a rria g e becam e a destructive force; without recip ro cal love
and a sense of individual and m utual security, a m a rria g e failed; the
id forces overpow ered the ego and superego to such an extent that Mae
and J e r r y 's past adjustm ent was destroyed and reconciliation was r e n
dered im possible for the future; the superego fo rces brought about
com plete destruction so that at the close everyone had lost even the
little which he had p o sse ssed at the beginning.
Focus. As re g a rd s focus, its p resen ce and strengths seem ed
inconsistent. The sluggishness and irre le v a n c ie s of life, which m ust
247
be om itted in o rd e r for a whole experience to e m erg e and to assu m e
the sense of a swift beginning, middle, and end som etim es seem ed to
be deliberately em phasized; e.g . , the oftentim es m eaningless c o n v e r
sational dialogue which predom inated in Scene One. The play was at
tim es polemic, re p a rte e , or m e re conversation. (Odets' diction m ay
have been an attem pt to suggest and to project the tedium of M ae's
existence; n ev e rth e le ss, such a technique m ay not be employed at the
expense of a sense of action, one that m ust se e m on-going, p r o g r e s
sive, and relevant; ) Odets established som e cau sals and in t e r r e la
tionships early within his action, but these also appeared to be overly
s tre s s e d at tim es: for exam ple, the problem and its conclusion
seem ed anticipated fro m very early within the action so that any sense
of inevitability could easily be overshadow ed by anticipation, thus
m inim izing the possibility of audience curiosity and suspense (if not
possible pity and fear). In total, the play did not seem to possess the
c le a r and coherent sense of beginning, m iddle, and end that would be
needed for a whole and com passionate audience experience. The
action appeared to be slow in its building of intensity; it becam e strong
tow ard the close of Act One, reduced in intensity at the outset of Act
Two, and seem ed th e re a fte r to level off or to decline in the final
scenes (owing possibly to an anticipated conclusion). C ritics w ere
at least som ew hat in ag ree m en t with re g a rd to focus: one believed the
first half of the play was filled with the irre le v a n t and m y ste rio u s
actions of human beings, but the la st half was labored and repeti-
41
tious; another felt that ce rta in scenes w ere overly long, and the
42
catastrophe was weak o r unimaginative; still another believed the
248
plot m echanics w ere poor and the play suffered principally from a
lack of direction which a ro se fro m the want of an adequate fra m e of
# 43
re fe re n c e .
Though diction seem ed consistent with ch ara cterizatio n o v er-all,
and it bespoke the reality Odets likely intended to project, this w rite r
did not consider it p articu la rly figurative (at least possessing the
im agery and m etaphor usually presen t within an Odets play). A s s u m
ing that the diction was not especially figurative, its absence would not
n e c e ssa rily d etract from the objectified problem , but the point intended
here is that its p re se n c e could have possibly enhanced the total effect
through an audience unconscious response to the im agery. Odets f
intent was probably to reproduce re a lis m via his diction; how ever, his
final result in tu rn could have worked at odds with his original inten
tions in the sense of being too specific in realistic detail and in t e r f e r
ing with im agination and sym pathies: e. g. , two c ritic s described
J e r r y in the following m anner: a slow-witted Polack who was inarticu-
45 46
late, and one who was brawny, dim -w itted, and lum bering.
Though Odets' diction seem ed to have a clear purpose, p a rticu la rly as
it was consistent with his c h a ra c te rs , n evertheless one could not
d escribe it as having the capacity to provoke m uch im agery, much
audience imagination, and (as suggested) m a y even have interfered
with audience imagination.
Actually, both focus and objectification seem ed to be in c o n sis
tent, not only in th e ir strengths but also in th e ir presence: w hereas
tim e seem ed telescoped and the action seem ed to p ro g re s s tow ard a
whole at one point, at another the action would s e e m to be sacrificed
249
for dialogue which becam e m e re ly repetitious or sim ply conversational
(banal). Odets did seem to be successful with re sp e c t to objectifying
to some extent certain personality patterns; viz. , Mae, J e rry , and
E arl. Mae was p articu larly interesting because h er personality co n
figuration did not appear to be as easily understood on the surface and
as predictable as the others (more convoluted); i.e . , she was not as
outspoken, nor did she speak as freely of her co n cern s, nor confide as
quickly as the others. There w ere some exam ples of Odets' e x p lo ra
tion into the intrapsychic conflicts that determ ined the lives of the
c h a ra c te rs (especially through the past experiences of Mae and Earl),
but it seem ed difficult often to relate their conflicts to the action at
issue. J e r r y was much less complicated; he was not struggling with
past disappointm ent or m e m o rie s , fru stra tio n s, or internal conflict,
but had simple wants and p leasu res. He was happy until his happiness
ended abruptly, at which point he becam e angry, frightened, and
anxious; and, he rem ained in virtual confusion until E a rl provoked him
to lose all control and restrain t. (Interestingly, to the last, J e r r y
blam ed E a rl and not Mae for the p roblem .) T h ere fo re , it appeared
that Odets explored to some degree the anxieties surrounding his basic
dilem m a; but it seem ed questionable that audiences would be able as a
result to turn fro m a feeling of uneasiness and apprehension (within
th e ir own collective unconscious) about an anxiety at least closely
related to the one that was being specified and defined for them , and
would in tu rn be able to derive knowledge, relief, or pleasure from
the experience of having done so. Odets m ay have provided som e
psychic relief for ce rta in audience m e m b e rs , in the sense that he
250
objectified and explored anxieties associated with a very p articular
predicam ent. However, even so, forces seem ed so inconsistent, the
c h a ra c te rs so unusual, and the situation-conflict so o rd in ary that a
com passionate whole seem ed to be lacking.
In the opinion of this w rite r, J e r r y could actually have assum ed
a trag ic quality within his ch ara cterizatio n had Odets m ade him m ore
noble and som ew hat m o re heroic, had he concentrated m o re upon
J e r r y 's inner turm oil (his d e s ire s and defenses), and m ade him
becom e m o re aw are of self and of others with som e final in-depth
truth as a result; instead, to the last J e r r y was at tim es imprudent,
irre sp o n sib le , im pulsive, incompetent, insensitive, or brutal)--not
especially sym pathetic. Likewise, Odets did not seem to establish
with m uch care the tran sitio n s, the m otives for J e r r y 's rath e r abrupt
changes of mood, his im pulsiveness, or his behavior in general, with
the resu lt that audience sym pathies could conceivably becom e con
fused. C ertain questions aro se for this w riter; (1) w ere audience
sym pathies to be directed p rim a rily toward J e r r y who was unable to
contain his fam ily and home unit and so was forced into a situation
which provoked him to destro y them com pletely; (2) for E a rl who
fought with feelings of pity and so rro w for J e r r y but felt a love and a
responsibility for Mae; (3) for Mae who destroyed her old adjustm ent
for p le asu re and the possibility of something m o re satisfactory to her
in the fu tu re? Actually, E a rl made few re fe re n c e s to the child
throughout the entire play: "wonderful baby, " "darling child, " "the
other m a n 's baby, " and "the kid. " Also, he m ade no positive
251
statem ent of his intent to m a r r y Mae; he m e re ly asked Abe in Act Two,
Scene T hree, . . what m akes a happy m a rria g e . . . ?"
Psychic R ew ards
A sustained involvement in any situation-conflict that involved
identification, in c re a se d sym pathies, insight, em pathy, and vicarious
participation (even to a limited degree) would suggest the presen ce of
psychic rew ard s. Although Odets probed a conflict not very e x t r a o r
dinary, he did reveal some determ ining factors contained within his
dilem m a, som e influences of each; and, he dignified certain im pulses
that one would norm ally gratify culpably. He m ade m anifest the resu lts
of e r r o r ; an audience would be forced to see certain happenings as the
consequences of e r r o r and a resolve that was not actually illogical
(though it m ay have seem ed extrem e).
The id and superego could be recognized as being in open
struggle; the p le asu re principle was at w ar with the reality principle.
The claim s of ce rta in instincts w ere specified, disclosed, sym boli
cally gratified, and the possibility would exist, of co u rse, that these
could in tu rn becom e somewhat m o re receptive to audience control.
(Odets seem ed to take c a re that his m o st intense reactions w ere p r e
sented within a m a trix of security and detachm ent so that an audience
would not feel too close, too threatened. )
Evidence of id, superego, and ego striv in g --in alternating
strengths - -w ere identifiable within each of the m ain c h a ra c te rs .
M ae's superego was strong because outwardly she m ade some effort
to avoid hurting J e r r y or to reveal the depth of h e r disappointm ent and
fru stratio n s; h e r ego was also strong because it was successful in
252
subduing no doubt strong id p r e s s u r e s , and in m ediating between the id
and the superego, until she found a kindred fru s tra tio n and need within
the p erso n of E a rl (at which tim e the id assu m ed dominance). T h e re
a fter, h e r ego seem ed to regain some strength, but a strong id force
still prevailed because th e re was no convincing a s s u ra n c e of a balance
or p erm an en ce, of a future m a rria g e between her and Earl. Also, she
openly adm itted to a physical d esire for h er best frie n d 's fiance, Joe.
She refused h e r husband's bed or affections subsequent to h er e x tra
m a rita l affair, which m ay have been superego or repugnance, or both.
Despite vascillation in h e r ego strength, how ever, Mae n ev erth eless
appeared to be the strongest ego force within the play.
J e r r y obviously did not possess a strong ego; he was ex trem ely
dependent upon others, did not seem fully aw are of the dem ands of his
reality (quite irresp o n sib le and insensitive to others), was d is o rg a
nized, and could not adapt to the realities of the m om ent. He p os
s e sse d a strong superego in the sense of devotion, dedication, loyalty
and conscience; and, he had a w ell-integrated (or controlled) id until
his ego strength (Mae in particular) was th reaten ed with destruction
and confusion, at which point his behavior becam e ra th e r chaotic, and
he never regained ego strength.
E a rl also did not re p re s e n t a strong ego force; his contact with
reality was inconsistent: for six years his f o r m e r wife had been able
to m anipulate him successfully, he complained of always feeling as if
he w ere on the "outside looking in, " he begged Mae for help, for love,
and to need him; he looked for strength in others. He was defensive,
affected an overconfident a ir, and he was a show-off. (Joe com m ented
253
that E a rl behaved as if he wanted to buy friends or approval. ) His ego
did not integrate the id and superego well: at tim es he was openly
hostile and ag g ressiv e, and he fled fro m possible conscience. His
m otivation after Act One appeared to be p rim a rily one of escape.
A m bivalence. The rew ard of am bivalence was m o st convincingly
p resen t within the c h a ra c te rs of Mae and E arl. Odets successfully
presented both at tim es fro m different points of view: i. e. , each
could conceivably arouse some conscious as well as unconscious
audience sym pathies due to Odets' probing of the nature or source of
th e ir unhappiness, and th e ir m utual need for re c ip ro cal love and ful
fillment. No single view appeared to a s s u m e control for an extended
tim e, at least during Act One, but Act Two seem ed to suggest a p r o
longed and anticipated conclusion. Consequently, although the p r e s
ence of personality opposites (both in m otivation and conflict) did
exist, they seem ed to develop definite lim itations as the action p r o
g re ss e d with resp ect to balanced dem ands and a sense of sustained or
poised am bivalence. As an exam ple, at the outset J e r r y appeared to
personify naivete, goodness, and dedication; then his lack of s e n s i
tivity for the needs of others em erg ed , his irresp o n sib ility , low social
intelligence, dependency, and so on. All gradually contributed to the
developing sense of am bivalence concerning his ch aracterizatio n ; but
his e rra tic behavior in Act Two seem ed to contribute m o re toward
confusion than to any degree of sustained am bivalence.
Demands w ere balanced in the sense that sym pathies aroused
w ere not actually perm itted to reach that point at which the actions of a
254
m ain c h a ra c te r becam e all-good or all-bad, w here c h a ra c te rs becam e
m e re ly agents of a clearly defined good o r bad force. (Even within
Act Two, though one m ight becom e confused or lose som e sympathy
for his behavior, J e r r y n ev erth eless did not becom e an agent fo r good
or bad--although Odets perm itted him to com e close to assu m in g the
role of a m a rty r . ) Mae was clearly an unfaithful wife, but J e r r y had
m ade little effort to m ake h im self sensitive to the types of needs she
so d esp erately d e s ir e d - - a responsible p a rtn e r, provider, and one who
com plem ented h e r own ego n e e d s--th e point being that some claim s
and co u n terclaim s w ere presen t to an extent, and some feelings of
audience am bivalence seem ed possibly p resen t as a result. Likewise,
E a rl slept with his frien d 's wife, but not without h er willingness
(indeed invitation), nor without J e r r y 's unconscious encouragem ent.
Value sy stem s w ere m o re evident after the act of infidelity, and
c h a ra c te r conflict in c re ased as each strived for his own type of future
happiness. Consequently, even though the p resen ce of u n iversals was
not strong and even as the critics co n cu rred , that both story and c h a r-
47
a c te rs w ere ra th e r com m onplace, the events and actions seem ed to
rem a in sufficiently within the bounds of both plausibility and psycho
logical validity so that an audience might derive some am bivalence
rew ard.
C onfrontation. Through the c h a ra cterizatio n of M ae, an audi
ence m ight derive som e confrontation rew ard: i. e. , she did not try to
escape, s u p p ress truth, lie or deny to others; afte r h e r affair with
E a rl she confronted the problem and the m ista k e s m ade, acknowledged
not only h e r own vulnerability but that of others; she faced openly the
255
re su lts of h e r tra n s g re s s io n and its punishment without evasion, and
she rejected all repentance, appeals, and co m prom ise. (W hereas,
both J e r r y and E a rl would have p re fe rre d some so rt of com prom ise. )
H er insistence upon acknowledgement and confrontation could not only
arouse som e anxiety in considering its effects upon all of the c h a r a c
t e r s concerned, but it also becam e ego exalting as she p e rsiste d in
testing reality and reporting in the face of d is a s te r and impending
tragedy (which she gave som e indication of anticipating in advance).
By so doing she appeared to be the one c h a ra c te r who rose to some
degree above the m isfo rtu n es, m istak es, and hum an w eaknesses which
w ere objectified; i. e. , h e r ego was able to assim ilate in part both id
and superego at tim e s, a s s e r t some independence, and to effect a type
of integration. (At such a m om ent, an audience would see the ego
become exalted because it is shown as successful in accepting and
granting e x tre m e s , but n ev erth eless maintaining its authority, an
im portant contribution for the aesthetic experience. ) However, con
frontation stops short of a strong rew ard at this point because Odets
appeared to concentrate m o re upon the effect of the act itself, ra th e r
than upon what the c h a ra c te rs w ere m ade to think, feel, and see as a
re s u lt--w h a t an audience would generally keep itself fro m seeing,
which in tu rn would provide at least one c h a ra c te r with a g re a te r
psychic freedom , or a glim pse of som e un iv ersal truth or pattern.
Although Odets gave Mae som e thought-provoking dialogue, h e r e x p r e s
sions w ere at tim es epigram m atic or obscure in meaning; he did not
give to h e r the in-depth insight which he gave to Joe, for exam ple(A ct
Two, Scene Two), when Joe explained to Peggy that the paradise
256
everyone was seeking was actually to be found within responsibility.
Though Mae confronted and acknowledged truth, an audience would not
actually have the opportunity to see psychic energy changing direction,
at least convincingly; Mae did not cease in h e r attem pts to im pose h e r
will upon the world; energy did not change by word or deed from a..
centrifugal to centripetal effort that would provide h e r (and in turn also
the audience) a meaningful self-rev elatio n and som e tim e le s s truth.
Events and influences leading up to the love affair w ere carefully p r e
sented, and with a sufficient degree of plausibility and psychological
validity; what followed, how ever, seem ed to be m o re the consequences
of an effort for happiness at any cost, ra th e r than som e revelation of
u n iv ersals that would tend to threaten m a n 's existence, that would
determ ine m a n 's behavior and his dilem m as. (F or this w rite r, the
m in o r c h a ra c te rs - -Peggy and J o e --e x p e rie n c e d m o re tru th in depth as
a result of the events than did Odets' m a jo r c h a ra c te rs . )
C ath arsis. Any cathartic rew ard within this play would depend
upon the degree to which an audience would be able to identify with one
or m o re of these com m onplace c h a ra c te rs in th e ir ra th e r com m on
place love-triangle predicam ent: viz. , the degree to which an audi
ence could em pathize with their fe a rs , fru s tra tio n s, and d e s ire s ,
could derive satisfaction from th e ir d e s ire s via both participant and
cognitive reactions, while at the sam e tim e experiencing a state of
in c re ased u n easin ess about the inevitable punishment (and in this
instance, a som ew hat anticipated one). In o rd e r for an audience to
experience a cathartic rew ard, the total effect of the theatre
257
experience m u st be one which is derived not only from the d ischarge
but also fro m the control of the instinctual. A esthetic distance m u st
be sustained at all tim es (that is, the p ro p e r balance between spectator
and participant is n e c e s s a ry in o rd e r to aro u se and to m aintain an
unconscious involvement with that which is being objectified): at no
tim e should an audience feel that the objectified p redicam ent or
dilem m a is that of the audience's fantasy, for too personal feelings
would be a ro u sed and in tu rn m ight cause too m uch internal conflict,
too m uch anxiety (e. g. , the reaction of Claudius in H am let); neither
should an audience find difficulty in identifying with the individuals or
th e ir situation-conflict, for the response would be either confusion,
intellectualizing, boredom , or a combination of these (i. e. , the c h a r
a c te rs would lose all personal relevance, as would their problem ).
The firs t req u ire m en t for the complex c a th a rs is response then is g r a t
ification fro m a sustained and p a rtic u la r identification in an u n d e r
standable, logical, and plausible situation-conflict which a ro u s e s and
su stain s--in d ee d in te n s ifie s --a sym pathetic audience response.
Although each of these m ain c h a ra c te rs seem ed psychologically
valid for the m o st part, and even somewhat com plex on o c c a s io n --
J e r r y being the m o st incongruous - -the actual b asis for audience id e n
tification seem ed to r e s t largely upon sym pathies and em pathy co n
cerning such affectively charged a re a s as the following: m a rita l b o r e
dom, o v er-all fru stratio n , the need for a feeling of self-fulfillm ent,
an inability to forego the past coupled with an anxiety about the future,
the need to feel loved and a re c ip ro c a l love, a refu sal to acknowledge
unpleasant re a litie s, and the oppressing effects and fears of poverty.
? . 58
Odets p resented p a rtic u la r people, in a specific situation, whose
behavior for the m o st p a rt was co m m en su rate with expectations. Each
was convincingly different to some extent. However, the difference
m ay have been too exaggerated in the case of Mae and J e rry ; e. g. ,
one could question even at the outset the extent of happiness Mae could
possibly have expected by m a rry in g a m an whom she did not love from
the beginning, and one with whom she had so little in common. Adul
te ry has never been re s tric te d to any class and was surely not intended
as the m o st im portant issue here; ra th e r, the cathexis was m o re likely
the eroding effect of boredom , frustration, sup p ressed d e s ire s , and
so on, and then intensified by economic w o rries or concerns. The
w ellspring for M ae's discontent (those concerns which surfaced and
w ere apparently intended to activate audience em otional response and
to establish the basic predicam ent) actually seem ed to stem p rim a rily
from economic considerations and specifically those pertaining to a
generally lower class social fra m e of reference. At least these
appeared to be the m a jo r irrita n t which provoked h e r fru stratio n and
was the source of her original unfortunate com prom ise. (As m e n
tioned e a rlie r, this w rite r considered the economic em phasis to be a
lim itation throughout all of the preceding analysis c a te g o rie s --fo r a
strong entertainm ent potential--in the sense that it could possibly
inhibit the p resence of m o re u n iv e rsal and tim e le s s co n cern s, those
about which and with which any audience could analogize. ) To r e i t e r
ate briefly, the preponderant em phasis upon econom ics appeared to
r e s tr ic t fu rth e r an already p a rtic u la r situation. Consequently, the
m a jo r issue did not seem to be so m uch the inability or reluctance of
259
a personality to accept its co m p ro m ise s, e r r o r s , or its failure to
adjust to imposing re alities, so m uch as it becam e the intensifying
p r e s s u r e s of an inadequate adjustm ent, the com pensating tendencies
of self-indulgence, the victim izing of insentient innocence, and the
insidious effects of poverty. In the opinion of this w rite r, Joseph
Wood K rutch su m m a riz e d the predicam ent very succinctly, . . the
tragedy of those who hurt others not in blindness or m alice but only
48
because they a re th em selves in agony. "
A cathartic rew ard n ece ssitate s audience recognition of the
consequences of conduct and, without questioning th e ir justice, inevi
tability, or im m inence. The consequences of this dom estic triangle
seem ed recognizable e a rly in the events as something that would
becom e inevitably destructive; and, although d estru ctiv en e ss m ay not
have been illogical in light of the tra n s g re s s io n , the degree or justice
of the final outcome m ight be questioned by som e. F o r exam ple,
J e r r y m ay have been boorish, unintelligent, dependent, and often
irresp o n sib le, but he n ev erth eless m ade an effort to be loving and to
be devoted to the com fort and happiness of both his wife and child; he
expended g re a t effort to please and to protect them; he was loyal to
friends and care d for his aging father. Mae did m a r r y him; also,
after seven y e a rs , one could reasonably expect h er to assu m e some
degree of responsibility for his dependence, or to have m ade some
previous dem ands for a change. In addition, since the significance
and magnitude of the p redicam ent seem ed somewhat lim ited by these
ra th e r o rd in ary individuals in th e ir p artic u la r situation, an audience
260
m ight find the consequences and resolution overly ex tre m e in light of
the foregoing c irc u m stan c es.
C ath arsis also dem ands that identification p e rs is t despite the
consequences and the resolution of the conflict: this w rite r suggests
that due to O dets' em phases - -the restric tio n s upon analogizing, the
lim itations upon u n iv e rsal appeals and g eneral application, the willful
en erg ies which w ere outwardly d irec ted --au d ien ce in terest could
becom e diverted tow ard a concentration upon the m achinations con
cerning the retributive outcome, and thus the possibilities for any
extended identification would becom e dim inished. As a result, the
r e v e r s a l (from the predom inantly participant to the predom inantly
sp ecta to r response) would occur too early within the action and with
the re su lt of overextended aesthetic distance - -which in this instance
appeared to be not only a possibility but also likely. In the event of
a p re m a tu re re v e rs a l, the intensity of fear for all that has befallen
one or m o re c h a ra c te rs , and pity for th e ir suffering, would c o n s e
quently becom e overshadowed by an intellectual resp o n se, an objective
and sim ple spectator response. It appeared that som e basis for a
cathartic rew ard was introduced within Act One (assum ing, of co u rse,
som e degree of identification-em pathy had taken place with one or
m o re of the m a jo r c h a ra c te rs) in te rm s of the satisfactions and p u rg
ing of intense d e s ire s to which the c h a ra c te rs yielded, along with the
consequences that resulted from th e ir satisfaction. H owever, one
could question the magnitude of the consequences within the setting
which Odets chose: and, due to the energies which dominated the later
scenes of the play (not behavioral pattern s, intrapsychic conflicts, o r
261
self-rev elatio n , but outwardly directed, willful, d estructive and
retributive energies), a final sense of genuine relief plus fulfillment
seem ed questionable if not absent alto g e th e r--th a t affective state
which re su lts fro m the relief of both tension and anxiety and which
u n derlies a strong cathartic rew ard for an audience.
The cathartic and aesthetic experiences require active involve
m ent with a sto ry , and an involvement which is sustained until the
conclusion, if not beyond. It is the relief and fulfillment fro m anxiety
which provides the rew arding feeling of a positive satisfaction because
it lib erate s one to som e extent fro m a p a rtic u la r anxiety and thus m ay
lend to an audience some strength for dealing with anxiety in general.
H owever, for this w rite r, Odets did not actually provide a profound
understanding of his dilem m a; instead he concentrated upon the d is
integrative and destructive effects of fru stra tio n and m is e ry , and he
did not p e rm it his c h a ra c te rs to w ork through their problem so t h o r
oughly that asso ciated or related anxieties within his audience would
becom e aro u se d subsequently and so possibly be reduced in th e ir
intensity. The "tw o-hour traffic" did not appear to offer an o ppor
tunity for vicarious participation in a w a rfa re with anxieties so m uch
as the opportunity to experience the objectified (and possible) resu lts
of unhappiness, fru stratio n , and c o m p ro m ise which was intensified if
not catalyzed by economic oppression.
Conclusion
In conclusion, illusion depends larg ely upon sym pathies,
em pathy, and identification with a w om an whose original decision to
m a r r y (into what was an atypical situation--husband, fath e r-in -law ,
26 2
b ro th er-in -law ) was p rim a rily for reaso n s of security. Though the
wish to feel confident and secu re is clearly a u n iv e rsal one, her
somewhat selfish decision brings about a struggle to m aintain what in
actuality is a m o ra l c o m p ro m is e --s h e did not love J e r r y deeply when
she m a rr ie d h im --a n d one which becom es p ro g re ssiv e ly m o re f r u s
trating and unpleasant for her. An e x tra m a rita l affair with a lodger
brings to h e r m o m en tary happiness, re le a s e , and pleasure; but, its
subsequent discovery forces h e r into a new struggle, that of ju s tifi
cation, resolve, and the m aintenance of what she c o n sid ers to be h e r
new happiness (ego strength is pitted against superego and id forces).
The predicam ent and dilem m a seem s to offer opportunity for e x p lo ra
tion of hum an fa u lts , v irtu es, d e s ire s , defenses, inner turm oil, c o n
flict, and so on. The crippling effects of econom ics are so p re d o m i
nantly em phasized, how ever, so overstated at tim es, that they i n t e r
fere with the effects of illusion by distracting from the possible
p resen ce of m o re u n iv e rsal and psychological conflicts that could be
p re se n t within the predicam ent. Also, the setting is low er class, and
this environm ent is so em phasized by Odets that u n iv e rsal application
and appeal, if not significance and m agnitude, appear to be fu rth er
limited. Odets seem ed to have m o re to say at the tim e about social
conditions and th e ir responsibility for the situation-conflict or p r e
dicam ent than he did about the human im plications. The play is
p sy ch o -so cio -h isto ric in the sense that it m akes an attem pt to explore
the co n tem p o rary psychology of the low er c la ss that was affected by
the econom ic depression.
263
In addition, the problem which stem s initially from M ae's e arly
co m p ro m ise only resu lts in m o re of the sam e and finally culm inates
in the general destruction of adjustm ent and an unhappiness for all.
This factor could also d istu rb illusion through loss of sym pathy and
lim ited identification-em pathy, because in a true sense she c re a te s
h e r own unhappiness by attem pting to escape it via a com prom ise; and
in so doing, she affects a d v e rse ly the lives of everyone with whom she
becom es subsequently involved. H ubris com plication within the s tr u g
gle is clearly evident; it is seen in the struggle between inhibition and
im pulse, d e s ire s and th e ir guilt, the tra n s g re s s io n itself, rebellion
and its punishment, and so on. (No single m a jo r c h a ra c te r is a sim ple
all-good or all-bad ex am ple.) H ow ever, the hubris appeal is
re s tric te d because the issu es a re of m o st im portance only to those
im m ediately concerned, and the tra n s g re s s io n lacks the sort of su f
ficient magnitude that would likely a ro u se strong feelings of audience
f e a r and pity. The point intended is that though the anxiety with which
Odets deals does not belabor understanding, and it involves some
u n iv e rsal w ishes, it s e e m s too com m on as it is set and objectified.
Anxiety perception is both encouraged and possible to som e extent, but
it seem s overly controlled. The possible im pact that could resu lt
fro m audience perception of the anxiety is limited by the scope of the
d ilem m a and the anxiety-binding techniques Odets em ploys - -especially
within the events following Act One. Although causals and i n t e r r e la
tionships a re clear, the m a n n e r in which they a re s tre s s e d and the
m a n n e r in which the m a jo r conflict develops tend to m ake the events
m e re ly a very unhappy experience for these few c h a ra c te rs , ra th e r
264
than revealing a significant truth for an audience; they also m ake the
conclusion anticipated fro m ea rly within the action. Consequently,
the sense of a swift beginning, m iddle, and end is m issing. Once the
audience is aw are that th e re exists an attractio n between Mae and
E a rl, the action gains pace, but after th e ir affair the action s u b
sides, and the final outcome is anticipated (if not seem ing unfortunate
and unnecessary). With re s p e c t to an audience being able to e x p e ri
ence a com passionate whole experience, this seem s disturbed by (1)
ra th e r com m onplace people involved within a conflict not especially
im portant, (2) overly controlled objectification whose purpose seem s
to be social co m m en tary as m uch as any rep resen tatio n of a human
predicam ent, (3) s e n tim en tality --th e backgrounds of M ae and Earl,
the baby, the father, Peg and Joe, and of course the plight of J e rry ,
(4) unclear or som etim es inconsistent focus, and (5) ra th e r banal
diction.
Some psychic re w a rd s are p resent: the id, ego, and superego
forces a r e evident and identifiable. The superego fo rc e s ap p ea r to
trium ph ultim ately, b ecause when E arl is destroyed by J e r r y the id
is spent, and the m ediating ego forces have failed; in the final
m om ents J e r r y is left praying, and the im plication for the future is
that now both J e r r y and Mae have only th e ir consciences with which to
contend. Odets probes a conflict; he rev ea ls som e d eterm in in g fac
to rs; he specifies the claim s of certain instincts, gratifies them , and
p resen ts consequences of e r r o r . N evertheless, the is s u e still
rem ains ra th e r o rd in ary and relatively p ersonal. A m bivalence is
present because sym pathies fluctuate (although p rim a rily only within
2 65
Act One), and value sy stem s do em erge by co n trast as a resu lt of
individual struggles for p erso n al happiness. Mae is the one c h a r a c
ter who has some potential for providing a confrontation rew ard in
strength; how ever, lacking is the experience or ultim ate a w aren ess of
g re a te r insight into the nature of h e r problem as w ell as that of the
o v er-all dilem m a (which would provide som e didactic experience for
an audience). Had h e r psychic energies ceased to be so willful (i. e. ,
so outwardly directed) and instead becom e diverted m o re tow ard self-
understanding and self-revelation, an audience could derive som e
truth in depth (which provides the exhilarating experience of m o m e n
tary psychic freed o m or aw a re n e ss, re g a rd le ss of what has gone
before or the trag ic c irc u m stan c es to follow). Finally, a ca th a rsis
rew ard is lim ited by the possibility for a strong, sustained, and p a r
ticular identification--again due to the types of c h a ra c te rs presented,
their m ilieu, and the scope of the situation-conflict.
In actuality, this is a p ro trac ted episode in the lives of a very
few o rd in ary people who h ard ly touch the lives of o th e rs, unless one
felt that the love-triangle affected Peggy and Joe to some profound
degree, which did not seem to be the case. The issu es a re essentially
personal to those m o st intim ately involved, and the ultim ate c o n s e
quences se e m u n n e c e ssa rily severe so that a sense of ultim ate justice
is questionable. Finally, the m an n er in which Odets projected his
anxious situation (the com plications, and his em phasis upon the
impending outcome) could cause a r e v e r s a l of audience reaction too
early within the action (i. e. , the r e v e r s a l from participant to s p e c
tator response). When this occu rs, attention becom es too detached
266
for the possibility of any personal relevance, but m o r e intellectual,
m o re concentrated upon the m eans by which the author is effecting
som e conclusion ra th e r than experiencing possible em otional rew ards
through an uninterrupted, sustained identification and vicarious p a r
ticipation to the v ery close. Odets carefully established his p re d ic a
m e n t and dilem m a (however limited), and he em bellished it with
com plications and c ris e s ; but, he did not p e rm it his c h a ra c te rs to
w ork through it so com pletely that the whole experience provides a
profound understanding for an audience, a final re w a rd of relief, ful
fillm ent, and positive satisfaction.
As in the other plays of this period, Clash by Night contains
som e of the sam e anxieties c h a ra c te ristic of Odets' e a rlie s t w orks:
an anxiety about losing one's job, a strong dependence upon em p lo y
m e n t, om nipresent economic p r e s s u r e s , the effects that m oney can
have upon individual adjustm ent, upon young love, m a rr ia g e , home
and fam ily life --a money anxiety p redom inates. A lso, Odets injects
the sam e type of "hom esick" them e that he used in P a ra d is e Lost
(through the c h a ra c te r of Pearl) when he has E a rl com plain of feeling
hom esick, but without the p resence of a re a l home. He re tu rn s to the
plight of the old and alone (like the c h a ra c te r Jake in Awake and Sing)
through J e r r y 's father; also, the love triangle r e - e m e r g e s , which can
be identified in ev ery play he has w ritten since Awake and Sing. The
"S ystem " is not as openly indicted as it was in his e a r l ie r w o r k s --
instead it rem a in s in the b ackground--nor is th e re the outspoken call-
to - a r m s fo r youth. A genuine strength of the play is the convincing
love energy that is p ersisten t and strong throughout, especially within
the c h a ra c te riz a tio n of J e r r y , and also between Peg and Joe. Odets
appears to be ex p ressin g a naive love energy that tr ie s to integrate
and to hold together a love field despite alien fo rc e s, but it is u lti
m ately defeated by the dem ands of a com plicated world. H ere again,
the illusion is a dual one: (1) though love is e ssen tial, it is not enough
for a m a rria g e relationship, but does demand in addition g re a t re s p o n
sibility and flexibility on the p art of both p a rtn e rs; and (2) economic
concerns have an eroding effect upon m a n 's love energy and its
fulfillment.
F o o tn o te s
*R. B aird Shuman, Clifford Odets (New York: Twayne
P u b lish e rs, In c., 1962), p. 34.
^Clifford Odets, Six Plays of Clifford Odets (New York: The
M odern L ib ra ry , 1939), pp. 323-418.
3
Ludwig Eidelberg (ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis (New
York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1968), pp. 92-96.
4
Stark Young, "Rockets Old and New, " The New Republic,
XCVII (D ecem ber 14, 1938), p. 173.
^Joseph Wood K rutch, "D ram a, " The Nation, CXLVII (D ecem
ber 3, 1938), pp. 600-601.
^Leta Clews, "This T heater, " F o ru m and C en tu ry , Cl (F e b
ru ary , 1939), pp. 72-73.
7
Rosamond G ilder, "Song and Dance, " T heatre A rts Journal,
XXIH (January, 1939), pp. 11-13.
O
Grenville Vernon, "The Stage and Screen, " The Commonweal,
XXIX (D ecem ber 9, 1938), p. 190.
^Euphem ia Van R e n s se la e r Wyatt, "The D ram a, " The Catholic
W orld, CSLVIII (January, 1939), p. 476.
^ C h a r l e s Angoff, "D ra m a, " The North A m eric an Review,
CCXLVII (M arch, 1939), pp. 157-158.
^ G i l d e r , loc. c it.
12
Clews, loc. c it.
13
Angoff, lo c. c it.
^ G i l d e r , lo c. c i t.
^ V e r n o n , lo c . c it.
* ^Young, lo c. c it.
17
Angoff, lo c. c it.
18
G ilder, lo c. c it.
19
Clews, loc. cit.
269
2^K rutch, lo c. c it.
Young, loc. c it.
^ V e r n o n , loc. c it.
^ C lif f o r d Odets, Night M usic (New York: Random House, 1940).
24
Rosam ond G ilder, "Manhattan M usic, " T heatre A rts Monthly,
XXIV (April, 1940), pp. 230-234.
^ H a r o l d C lurm an, "T h eatre, " The New R epublic, CXXIV
(April 30, 1951), p. 22.
2^Stark Young, "Two New F a ilu re s , " The New R epublic, CH
(M arch 18, 1940), pp. 377-378.
^ W o lc o tt Gibbs, "Who Brought That Up?" New Y o r k e r , XXVII
(April 21, 1951), pp. 58-59.
90
G eorge Jean Nathan, "The White Hope Gets P a l e r , " N ew sw eek,
XV (M arch 4, 1940), p. 42.
29
C lurm an, lo c . cit.
Young, loc. c it.
Gibbs, loc. c it.
32E ditor, "The T heatre, " T im e , XXXV (M arch 4, 1940), p. 34.
33W alter K e rr, "The Stage, " The C om m onw eal, LIV (April 27,
1951), pp. 58-59.
34
C lurm an, lo c . c it.
35
G ilder, loc. c it. ; Young, lo c . c i t . ; Nathan, lo c . c it. ; and
G ibbs, lo c. c it.
9 Z
Clifford Odets, Clash by Night (New York: Random House,
1942).
37
Rosam ond G ilder, "Tim e and the Rivals, " T heatre A rts,
XXVI (M arch, 1942), pp. 150-152.
3^Wolcott Gibbs, "The T heatre, " New Y orker, XXVII (January
3, 1942), pp. 28-29.
Joseph Wood K rutch, "D ram a: The Unbeautiful People, " The
Nation, C U V (January 10, 1942), pp. 45-46.
270
40
David B urnham , "The Stage and Screen, " The C om m onw eal,
XXXV (January 16, 1942), pp. 319-320.
41
G ilder, lo c. cit.
42
K rutch, lo c. c it.
43
B urnham , loc. cit.
44
As for the critic s, Rosam ond Gilder believed the diction con
tained power and poetry; Wolcott Gibbs described it as flat and undis
tinguished; and David B urnham re fe rre d to it as m e re ly stenographic
natu ralism .
45
B urnham , loc. cit.
"^G ilder, loc. c it.
47
Gibbs, lo c . c it. ; K rutch, loc. cit.; B urnham , loc. c it.; and
G ilder, lo c. c it.
48
K rutch, loc. cit.
CHAPTER V
A RETURN TO SOME SUCCESS
The final th re e produced plays of Odets' c a r e e r w ere those he
w rote after what this w rite r d escrib e d within Chapter IV as the second
phase of his creativ e output ("The Plays of L e s s e r A cclaim "); the
final plays w ere w ritten after Odets had retu rn ed fro m a second
sojourn in Hollywood during which tim e he w o rk e d --fo r a second
period within his life tim e --a s a s c re e n w rite r. These plays spanned
a period of approxim ately six y ears (1949 through 1954), and they
w ere arra n g e d h ere in chronological o rd e r of production: The Big
Knife; The Country Girl; and The Flow ering P e a c h .
The Big Knife
Plot Sum m ary
The Big Knife^ opens in the den of the Castle home in Beverly
Hills, California (the tim e is the present); the room is richly appointed
and contains m any expensive paintings. Buddy B liss, a publicity
agent, e n te rs and is followed by Charlie C astle (a v e ry well-known
movie star). They a re talking about Patty Benedict, a Hollywood g o s
sip colum nist who is m o m en tarily out of the room. Buddy gently
reproves C harlie for having insulted h e r. P atty en ters; she is in s is
tent upon discovering some gossip. She p e r s is ts in questioning
271
272
Charlie about a possible feud between him and M arcus Hoff (mogul of
the m a jo r m otion picture studio to whom C harlie is contracted), and
also about separation ru m o rs between M arion and Charlie. C harlie
debunks the ru m o rs , saying M arion has only taken their son to the
beach fo r the su m m e r. Annoyed, P atty asks why the studio re h ire d
Buddy a fte r he went to jail. (Supposedly, Buddy took C h arlie's c a r,
struck and killed a child--hit and ru n --a n d then abandoned the c a r in
C h a rlie 's yard. In actuality it was C harlie who was at the wheel, a
fact v ery few know, and it was Buddy who then went to jail for ten
months in o rd e r to protect C h arlie's c a r e e r .) Patty questions why
Charlie paid all of the fees and Buddy was reh ired . M arion e n te rs and
Patty ask s abruptly if they use a double bed and a re actually separated;
M arion tells h e r it is none of her b u sin ess, that she is the only person
in town not intimidated by Patty. P atty leaves insulted. Both C harlie
and Buddy are somewhat upset. Buddy leaves and M arion rem inds
C harlie that they have not seen one another for th ree weeks. He tells
h e r that he c a re s only for three and one half people--M arion, his son,
Hank Teagle (a w riter), and his own b e tte r half. He asks her to come
back and p ro m ise s her he will change. M arion tells him that a fte r
twelve y e a rs he will not likely change, that he wants two worlds:
m a rr ia g e and bachelorhood. She says he actually belongs to M arcu s
Hoff, and then she questions him about the new studio contract they
a re proposing for him. (She also m entions that Hank has proposed to
h e r, which annoys Charlie som ew hat.) He avoids questions about the
contract, but M arion tells him that she does not intend to come back if
C harlie signs the new contract. He rem in d s h e r that it entails th re e
and one half m illion dollars; how ever, M arion rem inds him that it also
has a fo u rte e n -y e a r obligation and th e re fo re he will be literally owned
by Hoff and the studio. C harlie tells h e r that he knows Hoff will not
re le a s e him , but M arion suggests that he leave Hollywood altogether
and re tu rn to the New York th eatre. He rem inds h er again that in fact
he becam e Hoff's p riso n e r when the accident o ccu rred , because he
lacked nerve; he allowed his best friend to take the blam e. M arion
replies that they both m ade the wrong decision; they failed together;
now, how ever, she feels they could have another chance if C harlie will
only refuse to sign the contract. He finally a g re e s to try . M arion
leaves and C h a rlie 's agent, Nat D anziger, a rriv e s . C harlie t e l e
phones his business m a n ag er to get som e m oney for M arion but learns
in tu rn that he is n early broke (Charlie is generally a poor m an ag er
and is unconcerned about how he m anages his money). Nat (a m an in
his sixties) is very fond of both C harlie and M arion, but he is c u r
rently disturbed by C h arlie's reluctance to sign the new contract. He
suggests to C harlie that the contract m e a n s com plete approval of the
scrip ts; also, Hoff is annoyed because he feels Charlie is stalling; he
tells him that Hoff is at this m om ent on his way over, probably for a
show-down. He rem inds Charlie that he was a free agent until that
C h ristm a s Eve m istake, that if he reje cts both Hoff and the contract
Hoff will probably send him to jail. M a rc u s Hoff and his cohort,
Smiley Coy, a rriv e ; they pretend they have com e to take C harlie to
the ra c e s. Hoff asks about the contract and C harlie te lls him that
not only M arion is opposed, but also he has decided that he w ants to
leave Hollywood altogether. In turn, Hoff rem inds h im of the
274
C h ristm a s Eve faux pas and m entions his own f o r m e r wife and their
problem s; he alludes to h e r willful and m alicious jealousy, to her
tendencies to r e s tr a in his e a rly am bitions. Nat trie s to m ediate,
which only annoys Hoff. Hoff m akes an appeal to C h a rlie 's vanity,
his sense of im portance, offers him the best s c rip ts, and so on.
C harlie says he will p ro m ise anything if Hoff will let him go; he does
not want to lose M arion. However, Hoff is adam ant and p e rs e v e ra n t
without m e rc y . C harlie finally signs. Before Hoff and Coy leave,
Coy slyly rem in d s C harlie that a ce rta in young lady is fascinated with
him . When C harlie telephones M arion to tell h e r that he has signed,
she m e re ly hangs up the rece iv er. Nat suggests he him self could talk
to M arion, but C harlie asks him not to. Nat leaves and Connie B liss
(Buddy's wife) e n te rs. C harlie m entions to her that she is creating
som e gossip with the so rt of com pany she has been keeping. She only
replies that Buddy lacks a sense of hum or. Charlie ac c u se s h e r of
fe r r e try , that she always s e e m s to "sniff" him out when he is drunk
(Charlie has been recently drinking too much, and usually does). He
is m o m en tarily a ttracted to h e r, but then he tells h er to go home.
She m entions that she had planned to leave Buddy until that "C h ristm a s
Eve" incident (about which she has since guessed the truth). She su g
gests openly that they go to bed together, but C harlie says he does not
need her. He goes u p sta irs with a bottle, but she follows.
Act Two is the sam e scene, two w eeks later; Connie and Buddy
have been the evening guests of M arion and Charlie. It is late and
M arion politely suggests that Connie take Buddy hom e, and so they
leave. M arion then ask s C harlie why they bothered with the evening
275
at all, and C harlie tells h e r that he has been avoiding Buddy lately.
He asks M arion if th e ir m a rria g e is really over, and she seem s to
agree: she calls him com prom ising, com m on tra s h , and a m an whose
guilt m akes him vicious. She sta rts to leave but suddenly reca lls that
Hank actually brought her. Charlie asks her to stay. She tells
Charlie that the day he signed the Hoff contract she in turn decided to
have an abortion (his decision was the deciding factor); she had waited
six weeks to le arn what he would finally do. He is stunned and asks
h e r why she is always so sensible and objective, why she does not fall
occasionally so that he can help h er. Hank in te rru p ts th e ir c o n v e rs a
tion; Charlie offers him a drink, but Hank (a re fo rm e d alcoholic)
refuses. C harlie says that he understands Hank is planning to retu rn
to New York in o rd er to w rite a book, and Hank a g re e s; he also q u e s
tions Hank about his in terests in M arion. Hank adm its he has asked
M arion to m a r r y him and says that C harlie has finally lost her.
Charlie is bitter but becom es suddenly contrite with M arion; he tells
h e r he is "bleeding to death, " and to please wait a while before seeing
a lawyer. However, M arion calls him the w o rst in h e r life and
leaves. He tells Hank that he cannot blame him fo r loving her; they
shake hands and Hank' leaves with M arion. Suddenly, Coy en ters from
next door (the party has been a dull one). As they talk, he tells
C harlie that Dixie Evans has been talking; she keeps rem inding Coy
publicly that the two of them "know som ething" (Dixie was actually in
the car with C harlie the night of the accident). C harlie is concerned
because he does not want M arion to know, in addition to everything
else, that he had a g irl with him. that night. Coy suggests to him that
276
he "ask h e r over, " because buying h e r off (a bribe) has not been
successful. C harlie consents, telephones next door, and invites Dixie
over for a swim. Coy te lls C harlie that what she really w ants, in his
opinion, is to m a r r y Charlie; and he m entions that they m ay have to
"get rid of her. " C harlie is stunned and repulsed by Coy's d is in te r
ested and calculating m a n n er. Coy leaves, and Dixie en ters. She
asks why they n ev er see each other, saying she has not seen him since
that night (in the sam e room) when she asked for a contract in o rd e r to
keep quiet about the accident. Charlie k is s e s h e r, but she w arns him
about being too fa m ilia r. She tells him that she likes him because he
is kind and courteous, that she is sending m oney hom e as well as s a v
ing for a m a rr ia g e one day; she does confess that she has been d elib
erately needling Coy ju st to make him sq u irm , "to m ake them craw l, "
but that she would n ev er betray Charlie him self. He w arns h e r that in
this case she is fighting odds too powerful for her. Suddenly, M arion
enters quietly; Dixie leaves im m ediately to re tu rn to the party. M arion
guesses the tru th , but Charlie says he was only getting ready for bed.
She tells him that the reaso n she returned was because he seem ed to
need h e r, seem ed inconsolable when she left; but now she feels foolish,
and she asks h im to call h er a cab. Charlie tells h e r that she is
always forcing self-justification, bargaining with h e r nature, and f o r c
ing conditions; why not be them selves, he in q u ire s? He tells h e r he
loves h e r and needs h e r, to stop reaching for the doorknob and to give
him som e silence. M arion b reaks down and decides to stay, but she
w arns C harlie to grow up before it is too late.
277
Act T hree is the sam e scene a few days later; M arion is doing
h e r g ro cery shopping by phone. Coy's s e c re ta ry has been calling for
Charlie, but M arion has deliberately neglected to give C harlie the
m essag e. She leaves and Charlie en ters with Nat D anziger. Nat wants
him to do a m u s ic a l scrip t, but C harlie refuses; he confesses that he
and M arion a re considering a second honeymoon. Nat is very pleased
and leaves with congratulations. Buddy B liss enters quite dispirited;
he confesses that Connie has been showing le ss and less in te re st in
their home and has been going out alone and drinking; he asks C harlie
d irectly if he thinks Connie has been unfaithful. Charlie tells him he is
wrong in his suspicions and suggests that they have dinner together that
night. A fter he has gone, Hank Teagle e n te r s - - h e is leaving for New
York tom orrow . He tells Charlie that despite their seem ing re c o n c ili
ation, he doubts that M arion can be happy with him , that C harlie has
sold out, has becom e a half-idealist; he has com prom ised. C harlie is
angry but tells h im that everyone is dead who tries to m ake the dollar
reproduce itself. Where could I go, or what could I do, he a s k s ? He
does not want to hurt M arion because she is what holds him together.
They em b ra ce for a m om ent, and then Hank leaves. Suddenly Coy
enters; he is som ew hat annoyed because C harlie has not retu rn ed his
telephone calls. He tells him that M arcus sent for Dixie e a r l ie r in the
day; she a rriv e d at his office late and drunk. When he re s o rte d to
te a rs for p ersu asio n , Dixie only laughed at him and told him that the
entire industry knew about his crying a c t - - i t was all phony. Hoff
thereon beat and kicked h e r badly. Consequently, Dixie was now
threatening to te ll C h arlie's sto ry to the p re s s . Coy tells him that
278
p re se n tly she is at a certain b ar and he asks C harlie to go to h e r,
take h e r to her ap artm en t, feed h er alcohol that has a lre a d y been
"doctored, " and when she p a sse s out to leave (the alibi will be that
C harlie has been making publicity stills all day). In com plete disgust,
C harlie telephones M arcus Hoff. Coy becom es agitated and annoyed at
the possibility of im plicating M arcus Hoff, but C h arlie tells him that
m u r d e r is indivisible: " T h e re 's no such thing as a s m a ll am ount of
it. " M arion suddenly en ters and C harlie encourages Coy to tell h e r
the tru th , but Coy refuses to talk. Provoked, Coy finally tells M arion
that C harlie im agines that the studio is plotting to m u r d e r a sim ple
little stock player who was with him in the car the night of the fatal
auto accident. C harlie req u ests that M arion telephone Nat im m e d i
ately: Coy w arns h im not to m ishandle his friends, but Charlie tells
h im that Dixie is the one who is actually his friend, not Coy.
Scene Two is the sam e, only an hour la te r. C harlie, M arion,
Hoff, Coy, and Nat are p resen t. Hoff m e re ly scoffs at C harlie's
story, saying that perhaps he has drunk too m uch. M arion in turn
acc u se s Hoff of always talking too m uch about him self. Nat suggests
a cash offer to Dixie; at f ir s t Hoff says fifty thousand dollars, but then
decides it is too late for a bribe. C harlie brings up m u r d e r again and
Hoff lo ses his te m p e r, calling him a m u r d e r e r , a m is e ra b le boy,
snotty a ris to c ra c y , and a nothing without studio backing. C harlie
d e s c rib e s Hoff's speech as cathedral eloquence; he r e f e r s to him as a
swollen m o n ste r and a lizard. Hoff o rd e rs Coy to find some loophole
in the Castle contract, to let Dixie talk, or C harlie can even call the
police him self. Coy suggests that M arion and C h arlie could a rra n g e
279
a divorce; in this way C harlie could m a r r y Dixie, M arion would get
com m unity p ro p erty , and Dixie could not testify legally against h er
husband. Hoff says slyly that, afte r all, M arion does love one of their
studio w r ite r s and has slept with him . C harlie defends h e r and defies
Hoff to prove it. Hoff says he has recordings; C harlie dem ands them ,
and Hoff sends Coy for them . This enrages Nat who then slaps the
glass out of Hoff's hand and calls him m ean and dirty (Nat begins to
c ry and sob uncontrollably). Coy retu rn s with the re c o rd s . After he
gives them to C harlie, C harlie tells Coy to take Hoff home; and then
he slaps Hoff. Hoff says he will b reak C harlie for this. When he
leaves, C harlie sim ply destroys the reco rd s. Coy te lls C harlie that
he will sit at home if legally n e c e ss a ry , but he will n ever a c t again.
He leaves. Nat offers to give Dixie money fro m his own pocket, but
Charlie says he can not go on covering c rim e with crim e . He asks
Nat to leave, saying he will go over la ter and speak with Dixie. Nat
leaves and the butler, R ussell, en ters; C harlie asks him to p re p a re a
hot bath. He tells M arion that he does not believe she tru ly slept with
Hank but not to explain; they need to learn to live in silence. He also
asks h er to call Hank so they can talk to him . He is in agony as to
w hether to do nothing or to call the police; he b reak s down and asks
M arion fo r help. He tells h er he has to m ake peace som ehow ; he has
sworn his life away, and now they want to m u r d e r him . Buddy Bliss
calls (and he is crying); Connie is leaving him , and she has brought up
C h arlie's nam e. Charlie tells M arion that he has m u r d e r e d him self;
he has always yearned for people to bring fo rth his best, but his life is
really an em pty one. He pledges h e r a b etter future beginning tonight;
280
he waits for h e r to reply, but she rem ains silent. He slowly goes up
the sta irs. M arion finally says quietly that she is com m itted to him ,
loves him , and will not talk about the past again; but when she tu rn s,
Charlie has gone. R ussell en ters and M arion asks if there a re su f
ficient bath towels. She then telephones to the beach to say that she
intends to bring Billy and the n urse home tom orrow . Suddenly Coy
returns; he apologizes for the interruption and telephones Hoff. He
tells Hoff that Dixie left the b ar alone and w as struck down and killed
by a police c a r as she tried to c ro s s the stre e t. He advises M arion to
strive for som e apology to Hoff about their e a r lie r q u arrel. Suddenly,
he notices w ater dripping fro m the ceiling. M arion calls to R u ssell
who says he cannot get into the bathroom (it is locked and th e re is no
reply to his calls). Coy rush es u p stairs and M arion telephones the
doctor: then she slowly goes u p stairs. Hank en ters. Coy re tu rn s in
haste and telephones the studio. He gives them the news s to ry which
he wants printed: viz. , C harlie died of a h e a rt attack; friends, r e l a
tives, and a doctor w ere at his sid e--th ey a r e to send a dozen studio
cops, but M arcu s Hoff is to be notified of the real truth, that C harlie
actually cut him self in three places. He te lls R ussell to w ash and to
change (prom ising him money for keeping his mouth shut about the
truth). M arion re tu rn s , stunned. Hank in terru p ts and says he will
talk to the r e p o r te r s , but Coy objects. Authoritatively Hank says that
this tim e th e re will be no lies, no display, that this is C h arlie's hour
and not M arcu s Hoff's; C harlie killed him self because that w as the only
way he could live, and people like Coy do not recognize a final act of
281
faith. M arion suddenly b re a k s down with c rie s for help fro m Hank,
and he places his a r m s around her.
Illusion
The degree of illusion would depend p rim a rily upon one's ability
to displace and to project to Charlie C a stle 's dilem m a, a dilem m a
that actually stem m ed fro m a co m prom ise (p rim arily a m o r a l one)
and which preceded the action offered the audience. The problem , the
situation-conflict, which resulted as the aftereffect of this existential
m om ent becam e one which necessitated fu rth e r and in creasin g c o m
p ro m ise on his p a r t- - d e c e it to disguise e a r lie r deceit. Consequently,
the audience would encounter a protagonist who w as already battling
with a gradually eroding a w a re n e s s or concept of self--dim inishing
ego s tre n g th --a m a n who m anifested self-indulgences, was indecisive,
selfish, and self-cen tered . The kind of audience involvement and
vicarious participation, which would underlie illusion herein, would
depend upon an audience's capacity for understanding, its w illingness,
and sophistication in o rd e r to participate in C h arlie's struggles with
the e v e r-in c re a s in g p r e s s u r e s and dem ands of his ra th e r unusual
predicam ent and situation: audience participation would depend upon
(1) its aw aren ess and acceptance of the intense superego p r e s s u r e s
(conscience), (2) C h a rlie 's fears (apprehensions and uneasiness) and
his need for feelings of security, and (3) his p erso n al need for love
and support. A ssum ing th e se to be p re se n t with a sufficient strength
that would provoke some in te re s t and involvement, a degree of an alo
gizing would then s e e m possible to in c re a se sym pathies further; but,
282
without such understandings and sym pathies an audience would likely
find his d ilem m a to be shallow and his c h a ra c te r to be ra th e r weak
ov er-all.
Identification-em pathy. Although one could not d escrib e Charlie
Castle as a p a rticu la rly worthy exam ple of m an (as an audience would
m eet him ea rly within the action of the play), neither could he be con
sidered entirely unworthy. Odets presented a difficult challenge for
vicarious participation in that the p rotagonist's original tra n s g re s s io n
was an action which occu rred p rio r to the p resen t events of the play
(C h arlie's cow ardice and the values he placed u p p erm o st in im portance
at the tim e, the deceit to which he becam e a p a rtn e r, all of which
com bined to c re a te a type of psychological s tr e s s , and one that
involved the type of reality he becam e forced to liv e --its reaction or
interaction with his own c h a ra c te r ideals). Also, the fatal event, the
principal c o m p ro m ise , was n ever explained in detail, so that an audi
ence would be forced to provide som e of the details via its im ag in a
tion. What followed the "original sin" was that deceit dem anded f u r
th e r deceit, and at the outset of the action the audience would encounter
a m a n who in reality m anifested largely the resu lts of all of his past
c o m p ro m ise s, a m an who was obviously unhappy, and one whose intel
ligence and sensitivity m ade him increasingly anxious about the future
of such a continued pattern (an anxiety reinforced by his wife whom he
needed and loved), yet p essim istic and anxious about the possibility of
changing his p re s e n t existent pattern. Recent events then dem anded
another m a jo r d e c isio n -co m p ro m ise pertaining to his future, and one
which th rea ten ed to destro y his m a r r i a g e - - th e signing of the fourteen-
283
year contract. C harlie would seem a worthy exam ple of m an, t h e r e
fore, only to the extent that one could discover o r experience some
insight into his basic failings, his initial m is ta k e s , could accept them
as plausible, could sym pathize with his inner tu rm o il and predicam ent,
and could identify som ew hat with him to the degree that v ic ario u s p a r
ticipation would becom e possible within the objectified dilem m a. One
critic d escrib e d C harlie as ". . . whose b etter self we a r e expected to
take on faith, a descrip tio n which seem ed apt.
Working against audience sym pathies was the fact that Charlie,
like the c h a r a c te r Mae Wilenski (in Clash by Night), c re a te d his own
problem through an initial and a ll-im p o rtan t m o ra l co m p ro m ise. (Not
only did he know the se rio u sn e s s of his e r r o r , but he also allowed a
close friend to be bribed into taking the punishm ent which he him self
d e se rv e d .) The subsequent consequences b ecam e increasingly b u r
densom e to his conscience (superego), and he sought d iv ersions (e.g. ,
alcohol and other women) in o rd er p resum ably to d e c re a s e his psychic
tensions or to reduce superego p re s s u re s ; an audience would never
fully excuse h is self-indulgence, but for a degree of identification -
em pathy they would need to find some understanding and be somewhat
sympathetic with his w eaknesses and tu rm o il under the existing c i r
cum stances. In a v ery re a l sense Charlie bargained with his "soul"
for p erso n al gain (Faust); and he becam e entrapped in h is own intrigue,
forced to cover c rim e with c rim e (Macbeth). He could ea sily fail as a
sym pathetic c h a r a c te r if one concentrated m e re ly upon h is c h a ra c te r
w eaknesses: cow ardice, deceit, conceit, dependence, self-indulgence,
and so on. He could succeed as a sym pathetic c h a ra c te r, as suggested
284
e a rlie r, only to the degree that one might accept (at le ast uncon
sciously) his frailtie s and m istak es as possible in kind for one's own
self within the prevailing realities of the situation-conflict: strength
of illusion seem ed to depend p rim a rily th e re fo re upon a key factor;
i. e. , the degree to which one could em pathize and identify with the
protagonist, and largely on an unconscious level (since the m a jo r t u r
m o ils, conflicts, and struggles w ere not so m uch objectified as they
w ere intended to be imagined; the story per se had strong m e lo d r a
m atic overtones, and very little action actually o c c u rre d on stage).
In general, the d ra m a critics of the tim e saw little or no possibility
for Charlie to a ro u se any identification or em pathy but found him to be
an unsym pathetic ch ara cter; e. g. , he was kidding him self that a
dilem m a actually existed (he could easily have solved his problem by
3
denouncing wealth); he wallowed in guilt, dom estic woe, and weak-
4
n e ss , being an "elliptical idealist;" he spiralled fu rth er and fu rth er
5
into w eakness, without once ev er being p resen ted as a strong man;
he was a sturdy egotist, weak in m o ra l values, one who delighted in
discussing his tro u b les, ^ and one who actually loved Hollywood, who
7
was only good because his wife said so (and she was an accom plice).
Odets 1 situation-conflict was of limited significance and m a g n i
tude: C h arlie's c a r e e r and m a rria g e w ere at stake, perhaps prison
was in the offing, and no doubt movie fans and the in te re ste d would be
disappointed or perhaps even shocked; how ever, few people w ere
involved or threatened, and the im plications w ere predom inantly p e r
sonal. The sto ry had some significance as co m m en ta ry on A m erican
cultural values, on the indulged Hollywood m otion picture idol (the
285
" s ta r " whose every decision has been controlled by the "System "), on
the motion picture studio mogul; but the underlying m otif seem ed fun
dam entally to be econom ics, the power or effect that money can exert
upon man. Although this has been a consistent m otif with Odets, its
p resen ce h erein did not seem so ov erstated that it would im p a ir illu
sion significantly, interfere with identification-em pathy, or disturb
aesthetic distance. Movie studios have always contracted, perhaps
paid th e ir m a jo r s ta r s too well, dictated to them , and protected what
they considered th e ir investm ents. However, the them e was o v e r
stated for som e c ritic s who likened it to O dets' own life, his personal
g
situation, and se v e ra l considered the p red ic am en t absurd in light of
the so -called sacrifices demanded, the affluent m ilieu, and the nature
of the consequences. These judgm ents w ere opinion, how ever, and in
fact m ust be considered as such. In the opinion of this w rite r, m any
c ritic s m ay not have considered carefully enough the type of inner
tu rm o il with which Charlie was struggling; also, it m a tte r s not the
degree of affluence so much as the m a n n e r in which it has been
derived, dispensed with, and the attitudes asso ciated with its
possession.
Some strength of illusion was possible through the presen ce of
u n iv e rsal wishes: family, m a rita l, and p e rso n a l secu rity , su ccess,
recognition, the need to be loved and to experience rec ip ro c a l love,
to experience p erso n al pride and s e lf-re s p e c t, self-fulfillm ent, f a i r
n e s s , independence, justice, a sense of opportunity and freedom , faith
in the future, and so on. These w ere p re s e n t and c le a rly re c o g n iz
able, if not stated outright; they w ere at all tim es th rea d s in the w arp
286
of action and likely served to help facilitate (and perhaps to sustain)
some degree of identification-em pathy (unless, as som e c ritic s did,
one w ere to reje ct the entire predicam ent or dilem m a as incredible
9
and m e re ly Hollywood propaganda, or a too p erso n al ex p ressio n of
the au th o r's own life story).
A fu rth e r strength of illusion appeared to lie in the fluctuating
good-bad qualities of both C harlie and M arion. If one took the position
of som e c ritic s that C harlie was basically weak and beyond change,
then possible sym pathies for his situation-conflict would becom e nil,
and the play would seem m e re ly a m e lo d ram a tic expose of Hollywood
evils. F o r this w rite r, how ever, both C harlie and M arion p o sse ssed
som e understandable faults which w ere credible and which in turn w ere
p ro g re ss iv e ly aggravated by the c irc u m stan c es. T heir psychological
or inner struggles seem ed actually to s tru c tu re m o re illusion than the
surface events presented, or the c h a ra c te rs ' overt b ehaviors, and to
provide the g re a te r opportunity for analogizing. C h a rlie 's faults p r e
cipitated the conflict; M ario n 's faults intensified it. By contrast, how
ever, Hank and Nat seem ed predom inantly all-good, w h ereas Hoff and
Coy w ere evil; one p air seem ed to serve as a d ram a tic foil for the
other, and in this sense the play could be judged as tending tow ard the
m e lo d ra m a tic (i.e. , the good struggling with evil). T h eir opposing
influences and dem ands, nev erth eless, consistently functioned as an
em otional m a trix within which the m o re convoluted c h a ra c te rs of
C harlie and M arion struggled (som etim es in opposition, and finally
together). F o r this w rite r, the p resence of o v erstatem e n t, o v erd efi
nition, or the too p erso n al did not seem sufficiently intense to prevent
287
an audience ego fro m relaxing and feeling secure enough to participate.
However, as one critic so aptly im plied, Odets' plots would likely be
m o r e effective w ere he sim ply to "take the fact and let the sym bol go,
for his am bition is of a higher o rd e r and com pulsive.
Hubris. In te rm s of hubris strength that C h a rlie 's c h a r a c te r iz a
tion might add to illusion, the script revealed that he had been a r r o
gant, violent out of passion and re c k le ssn e ss , had considered him self
god-like, and had d isreg ard e d m o ra l law and r e s tra in ts , but he was
not doomed to extrem e choices simply because he had not functioned as
a fre e agent (he had always done what he was told to do); also, he was
m alleable, com prom ising, and accepting of the dictated and fabricated
solution to his original problem . Only after the action of the play was
w ell under way did Charlie begin to evidence any hubris appeal (only
la te r did he becom e inflexible, disdainful of any fu rth e r com prom ise
o r the sensible solution). His signing of the contract nullified the p o s
sibility for any hubris appeal at the tim e. However, la te r with the
suggested m u rd e r of Dixie, C harlie re v e rte d to com plete revolt
against fu rth er c o m p ro m ise or the dictates of o thers. T h e re a fte r, he
becam e violent, inflexible, uncom prom ising, and forced into extrem e
choices (the dictates of his own will); then he succum bed to in te m p e r
ate im pulses with an ease and suddenness that could easily arouse
audience u n easin ess and apprehension. Consequently, though this
energy change o ccu rred late within the play, it m ight well re n d e r p o s
sible an audience participation for a tim e in im pulses that had been
re stra in e d , and in the struggles between im pulses and inhibition. An
288
audience could experience to a degree two im portant hubris wishes:
to rebel against authority and to be punished for the rebellion (and with
the secu rity that the predicam ent was far rem oved from th e ir own
lives). Also, an audience could experience (1) the tensions associated
with d e s ire s and th e ir defenses, and (2) the com plexity that a r is e s as
a result of those im pulses which strive to gain satisfaction. In this
sense, som e didactic value seem ed p resen t within the problem as it
was evolved and concluded. To a lim ited d eg ree, an audience could be
taught the "wages of sin, " the dangers of m o ra l co m p ro m ise, the
effects of self-indulgence, and the resu lts of overevaluation or o v e r
im portance placed upon money: they could possibly derive some
knowledge, satisfaction, and ple asu re , depending of course upon the
extent of th e ir participation.
Finally, hubris strength was handicapped, how ever, because
m o st of the struggle actually o ccu rred afte r the fact: i. e. , an au d i
ence was not p erm itted to participate d irectly in an early, initial, and
im portant tra n s g re s s io n of significance or magnitude that would create
a resulting sense of awe and fe a r about the inevitable and im m inent
outcome. In actuality, the problem rem ained p rim a rily re s tric te d to
a lim ited num ber of individuals, and the initial source of affective
incitem ent was not the presen ce of a tr a n s g re s s io n so m uch as it was
the effects of affluence and acclaim and the prevailing p r e s s u r e s of
absolute hum an tyranny (not only by one's own conscience but also by
one individual over another).
289
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
Cathexis seem ed to be re s tric te d to the inner tu rm o il or
c h a r a c te r-w a rfa re that o ccu rred as a result of the struggles within
C harlie, and his difficulties w ere compounded by the type of love
relationship that existed between him and M arion. N either c h a ra c te r
could actually be considered as heroic, except as he or she rebelled
against the all-pow erful Hollywood "System " or "E stablishm ent. "
Both m a jo r c h a ra c te rs could be described as troubled with the types of
d e s ire s against which an audience would struggle under sim ila r c i r
cum stances; how ever, what occu rred did not truly re p re se n t large and
a ll-s e rio u s events. Consequently, the c h a ra c te ristic s of their n atu re s
and the p red icam en t could or could not arouse audience anxiety to
varying d eg rees (as indicated under Illusion), depending upon the
extent of sym pathetic accord, the willingness to suspend disbelief,
and the consequent extent of vicarious participation which would follow
as a result. The possibility for anxiety perception (an audience u n e a s
iness or apprehension with re g a rd to the problem ) would hardly be
possible unless the audience w ere able to identify in p a rtic u la r with
Charlie and to respond in emotional accord with the cathexis.
Objectification. A ssum ing the presen ce of som e degree of
anxiety perception, Odets seem ed to em ploy sufficient controls so that
illusion would not becom e disturbed. However, that which was objec
tified did not s e e m to be n e a rly as im portant as that which the audience
was apparently expected to fill in or to imagine (to analogize), that
which o c c u rre d within the m inds of the c h a ra c te rs , happenings in addi
tion to the events p resented on stage: e.g . , the auto accident and
290
death, Buddy's going to p rison, the struggles between C harlie and
M arion and th e ir separation, their child, C h arlie's affair with Connie
B liss, the abortion, the internal anguish within both C harlie and
M arion individually, the relationship between M arion and Hank, the
relationship between Buddy, Nat, Hank, and C harlie, D ixie's actual
th re a ts , business and d isa g re e m e n t--re la tio n sh ip s with Hoff, the r e l a
tionship between Hoff and Coy, Dixie's fight with Hoff, h e r death, and
C h arlie's suicide. The only m a jo r events that actually occu rred on
stage were the signing of the contract (Act One), the confrontation
between M arion and C harlie (close of Act Two), the confrontation with
Hoff and Coy over plans to m u rd e r Dixie (Act Three), and the final
scene in which Hank becam e dominant over Coy (hence, overruling
the "System"). The fears and personal conflicts which w ere objecti
fied, however, seem ed so w ell-controlled that it would appear likely
they could be easily confronted by an audience without personal fe a r,
discom fort, or acknowledgement: the tribulations of a wealthy movie
idol rem ain fa r rem oved fro m m an's typical situation. Also, in the
p ro c e s s, an audience could explore som e significant hum an problem s;
i. e. , it was possible to w itness how affluence and acclaim could affect
m a rita l stability (if not em otional stability), o r the effects of guilt and
self-indulgence, deceit and co m p ro m ise, m a te ria lis tic values, and so
on. A ssum ing this hum an p redicam ent did aro u se some audience
anxiety, the im portant point is that the binding p ro c e sse s em ployed by
Odets appeared such that any fears aroused would in turn be able to
bind the im pulses which w ere stim ulated and satisfied; i. e. , vicarious
participation could possibly rob them of som e of their in ten sity --in
291
b rief, the possibility existed that one could le a rn som ething from
identification with Charlie and Marion.
Focus. Focus seem ed well controlled throughout: although
Odets tended to use much conversational dialogue, with but few excep
tions the dialogue in general did not seem irre le v a n t, oblique, or con
fusing. M ore im portant, perhaps, his causals and interrelationships
seem ed sufficiently clear, and the essentials of the m ain idea suffi
ciently em phasized, so that he appeared to achieve successfully a
sense of beginning, middle, and end (though the ending appeared con
triv ed and som ew hat abrupt). O ver-all, the action seem ed credible,
plausible, and to p ro g re ss logically. However, at tim es objectifica
tion and focus seem ed somewhat disturbed by ce rta in d ram a tic te c h
niques which Odets employed; e.g. , his use of coincidence--C onnie
and Coy just happened to stop by at the right tim e, M arion just decided
to re tu rn , Dixie was struck down by a police c a r, c h a ra c te rs w ere
always dropping in or out, and the use of the telephone was very f r e
quent and im portant to the action. Also, O dets' techniques for m a n
aging entrances and exits often appeared ra th e r m echanical; people
cam e and went alm o st upon the heels of one another, or reap p eared
for no apparent reaso n (like Coy). There w ere b rie f and som etim es
unclarified c h a ra c te r encounters such as Patty Benedict or Dr. Fray;
and th e re w ere occasional unexplained allusions like M ario n 's " r e p r e
hensible politics. " O therw ise, objectification and focus seem ed strong
enough to sustain an illusion.
Diction seem ed inconsistent: poetic, concise, powerful and fig
urative, v e rsu s the confusing, saccharine, trite and cliche. In Act
292
One, for exam ple, one m a y find such im agery as the following: sh e's
coming at me with g re a t lo b ster c la w s , h e r mind clicks in h er head
like knitting n e e d le s , we a rriv e d in a pumpkin c o a c h , ice-cold p r o f its ,
I've had you with m y m orning coffee, veteran of the Hollywood w a r s ,
this free giving of [Hollywood] h earts freeze s m y blood, Hoff and his
feudal friends, whose m oney is getting pale white, actually you 're
always naked, I don't need you to go to hell with. These in tu rn m ay
be com pared with such perplexing or tim ew orn ex p ressio n s as the fo l
lowing: free speech is the highest priced luxury in our country, teenie
w eenie, the th e a tre 's a bleeding stu m p , brutally frank, how do we
know A m erica isn't dying of trying to please its c lie n ts , the wide
w o rld , w e're pushing m a n off the world and putting the custom s in his
place, rain or sh in e, if I didn't love people so m uch, I'd hate 'e m ,
till I'm blue in the face, all the red neon lights a r e on and the sky is
full of drunken b la c k b ird s , sore as a b o il, a show -dow n, call a spade
a spade, stewed to the g il ls , and mince w o rd s .
Also, for this w r ite r, Odets often incorporated obscure allusion
within his figurative diction. Image and m etaphor uncover patterns
and keep the unconscious activated, but these m u st be focused upon a
purpose and upon o rd ered coherence. Overly com m on expressions
neutralize involvement, but confusion is disturbing to psychic or a e s
thetic distance; a lost im plication in terferes with continuity and
m o m en tarily in te rfe re s with audience concentration, all of which o v e r
distances audience participation. Despite some diction inconsistency,
however, Odets seem ed to telescope tim e successfully and to c re a te a
type of whole; likew ise, he (1) objectified a behavioral pattern within
293
Charlie which in reality would ordinarily be obscured by confusion,
im pulsive behaviors, and distractions, and (2) at le ast to some degree
Odets explored som e of those intrapsychic conflicts which determ ined
C harlie's behavior. In so doing, an audience would have the o ppor
tunity to tu rn fro m something vague, indeterm inant and frightening to
a p artic u la r dynamic outside of s e lf--a believable hum an predicam ent
objectified--som ething that could provide relief by being so specified
and defined.
Finally, Odets seem ed to be on the fringe of propaganda as he
indicted the Hollywood "System"; Hollywood was presented as having
no redeem ing aspects w h a ts o e v e r, destructive and evil to the end.
Certain c h a ra c te rs w ere confusing and seem ed som ew hat u n d e rd e
veloped--H ank, Dr. F ra y , Buddy and Connie, for ex am p le --o th e rs
(as alluded to e a rlie r) w ere all-good or all-b a d --H o ff, Coy, Patty,
Nat, and Buddy. In addition, th e re w ere some confusing re fe re n c e s,
especially with reg ard to M arion: her politics, h er "A m erican stock, "
and her fa th e r's h isto ry books. In all, how ever, this w rite r was not
in accord with the m a jo rity of the critics: i. e. , despite the p ropagan
d i s t s , m e lo d ram a tic, and personal qualities occasionally present,
Odets seem ed still to achieve an entertaining experience (and for a
rath e r la rg e potential audience); the possibility existed for a controlled
seeing of a whole experience which in tu rn appeared to have some
potential fo r com passion p rim a rily because of the psychological p o r
tra itu re s of both C harlie and M arion, the convolutions of th e ir love,
and their believable struggles to retain a m a rria g e and a re c ip ro c a l
love whom each respected. (Odets has always seem ed to have the
294
capacity to w rite v ery effectively about an intense love between two
p e o p le .)
Psychic Rew ards
In te rm s of psychic rew ard s, certain rew ard s seem ed possible
as a result of O dets' attem pt (1) to probe the kinds of conflicts which
he selected (those one might not ordinarily exam ine within self), (2) to
reveal their determ ining factors and the exact influence of each (their
cau sals, interrelatio n sh ip s, and effects), and (3) then his attem pt to
dignify the im pulses that one would ordinarily deny or gratify culpably
(from venery to rebellion). Odets presented effectively the resu lts of
e r r o r (for both C harlie and Marion); an audience would be forced to
see certain consequences it might ra th e r avoid or believe could be
averted; certain happenings w ere presented as consequences (im p o r
tant for the possibility of psychic rew ards). However, a sense of
strong psychic rew ard s dem ands that justice m ust prevail according to
all that has been presented (and accepted) as relevant; and som e audi
ences m ight question the nature of the final outcome, the sense of u lti
m ate justice: D ixie's death, Connie and Buddy's separation, C h arlie's
suicide, the freed o m of Hoff and Coy to continue doing just as they had
done in the past. (As indicated e a rlie r, se v e ra l c ritic s felt n e v e rth e
le ss that C h arlie's dilem m a was unfounded, that he was making thou
sands per week, was fabulously successful, actually risked losing
nothing but the m illions, and in reality loved the Hollywood he berated.)
N evertheless, some redeem ing factors (with re sp e c t to psychic
rew ards) did seem to exist within the situation-conflict: C harlie s tru g
gled with his world (and figuratively speaking in isolation, at least in
295
p a rt the is o la tio n of h is own co n sc ie n c e ), he te s te d h is s tre n g th
ag a in st the odds at som e tim e , even a s s e r te d h im se lf, and he c a m e to
know h im s e lf fin ally w ith som e d e g re e of depth (if only fo r a b r ie f
tim e).
The id and su p e re g o se e m e d co n stan tly at w ar w ithin the d r a
m a tic action; the p le a su re p rin c ip le stru g g le d w ith the re a lity p r in
ciple th ro u g h o u t, not only w ithin individual c h a r a c te r s (e.g .,. C h a rlie ),
but a ls o betw een c h a r a c te r s (M arion and C h arlie again). Y et, due to
the d e g re e of O d ets' c o n tro ls , h is m a n n e r of objectifying and his
fo cu s, it w as p o ssib le fo r an audience to view this open b attle w ith a
d e g re e of s e c u rity and d e ta c h m e n t. (No a c tu a l violence o c c u rre d on
stag e. ) The au dience ego could be re w a rd e d b e c a u se an opportunity
ex isted fo r the c la im s of c e rta in in stin c ts to be sp ecified , d is c lo se d ,
sy m b o lically g ra tifie d , and thus m ade in p o ssib ility m o re re c e p tiv e to
audience co n tro l; the ego fo rc e s b e c a m e m a n ife st a s they s triv e d to
m a in ta in som e s o rt of b alan ce betw een the conflicting id and su p ereg o .
In effect, the su p e re g o w as v ic to rio u s b e c a u se the ego u ltim a te ly
failed in its ta s k of m ed iatio n . One m a y a s s u m e th a t the su p ereg o
o v erw h elm ed C h a rlie to such an ex ten t that he tu rn e d all of his
d e s tru c tiv e e n e rg ie s upon h im se lf and as a conseq u en ce d e s tro y e d
s e lf - - a final a c t of h a tre d fo r s e lf and the w orld as w ell as a p e j o r a
tive a c c u sa tio n of self.
A m b iv a le n c e . Both C h a rlie and M a rio n a p p e a re d to provide an
opportunity fo r som e a m b iv a le n c e re w a rd ; a s the situ a tio n and conflict
w e re e x p lo re d and developed, it would s e e m that an au d ien ce would be
296
able to gain a p e rs p e c tiv e with r e g a rd to th e ir individual co n flicts fro m
differe n t points of view: c la im s w e re p re se n te d along w ith c o u n te r
c la im s . (C onscious a s w ell as un co n scio u s sy m p ath ies b eca m e p o s
sible in t e r m s of both th e ir in n e r stru g g le s as w ell as th e ir opposition;
each c h a r a c te r opposed to the o th e r. ) No single view a s s u m e d such
co m p lete and su sta in e d co n tro l fo r any length of tim e so th at p la u s i
bility would se e m d im in ish ed ; a se n se of o p p o sites in v a lu e s, ju d g
m e n ts , and so on, se e m e d p re s e n t. C h a r a c te r s could be seen fro m
d iffere n t points of view. On the b a sis of dialogue and actio n it s e e m s
doubtful th at an audience would a c tu a lly be able to a g re e fully with
e ith e r c h a r a c te r fo r any extended tim e ; a lso , value s y ste m s w e re c o n
tin u ally a m a jo r c o n c e rn w ithin the actio n . As a con seq u en ce, an
audience would be exposed to differin g value s y ste m s and the p o s s i
b ility fo r fluctuating p a rtic ip a tio n w ithin a p rev ailin g value sy ste m at
la rg e . A key fa c to r fo r a m b iv a le n c e , h o w ev er, is a se n se of p la u s i
b ility and p sy ch o lo g ical valid ity (a d efic ien cy w ithin the play acc o rd in g
to the opinions of m o st afo re m e n tio n e d d ra m a c ritic s ). F o r this
w r ite r , h o w ev er, the b a s ic p re d ic a m e n t with its a ss o c ia te d stru g g le s
w as e x p re s s e d with su fficien t p la u sib ility and p sychological v alid ity to
su sta in a psychic re w a rd of am b iv alen ce; i . e . (1) the e ffo rts expended
by both C h arlie and M a rio n fo r ego stren g th ; (2) th e ir s tru g g le s to
re ta in th e ir love and m a r r i a g e , (3) th e ir m u tu a l dependence, n e e d s in
com m on, d e s ir e s , d e fe n s e s , in c o n s iste n c ie s , and so on, se e m e d not
only c re d ib le and p sy ch o lo g ically sound, but th ey a lso se e m e d m o re
im p o rta n t than the ev en ts of the s u rfa c e s to ry and actu ally p re v e n te d
the play fro m becom ing p re d o m in a n tly one sin g le m e s s a g e - - a
297
p ro p a g a n d istic a rra ig n m e n t of a b e h in d -th e -s c e n e s Hollywood.
(A m bivalence - -C h a p te r II: As the r e a d e r m a y re c a ll, w ithin the e x p o
sitio n of this c r ite r io n concept, a play b e c o m e s defeated as a r t if a
single view d o m in ates all else: co m p a ssio n im p lie s a b ro ad b a s is of
u n d e rsta n d in g , sym pathy, a c c e p ta n c e , and v ic a rio u s p a rtic ip a tio n ; it
does not im ply co m p lete a c c o rd w ith any d o ctrin e. )
C onfrontation. As fo r the d e g re e of a co n fro n ta tio n re w a rd ,
w hen an audience f ir s t e n c o u n te rs C h arlie C a stle , C h a rlie would
a lre a d y have avoided a s sid u o u sly any confro n tatio n w ith th o se v e ry
fo rc e s w hich s e rv e d actu ally as th e w e llsp rin g fo r his p re d ic a m e n t.
C h a rlie had avoided, s u p p re s se d , lied about, denied, feigned, and
allow ed h im se lf to be m a n ip u lated and to be d ire c te d into a b e h a v io ra l
p a tte rn of le a st re s is ta n c e . M a rio n 's influence p re c ip ita te d som e t e m
p o r a r y acknow ledgem ent, and even a feeble a tte m p t at con fro n tatio n ,
but his co w ard ic e and lack of confidence (ego stren g th ) u n d erm in ed his
d e te rm in a tio n to p e r s is t, to co n fro n t, or to t e s t the r e a litie s openly,
to re so lv e any ex isten t p a tte rn r e g a r d le s s of h is fe a r s o r any n e c e s
s a r y p e rs o n a l s a c rific e . H ow ever, M a rio n 's continued stre n g th and
th e confidence she had in the C h a rlie w hich he h im s e lf w ished to love
(his ego ideal), com bined in tu rn w ith a s im ila r re in fo rc e m e n t fro m
h is frie n d , D ixie, and then am p lified by the im p lic a tio n s of the awful
re a lity th at the studio (or the Hollywood " E sta b lish m e n t") would a c tu
a lly e x te rm in a te Dixie r a th e r than en d u re h e r f u r th e r a n n o y a n c e --it
even e x e rte d p r e s s u r e s in o rd e r to im p licate C h a rlie f u r t h e r - - a l l
c u lm in ated in sufficient m o tiv atio n to activ ate and to s u s ta in a le g iti
m a te co n fro n tatio n effort on C h a r lie 's p a rt (and a con seq u en t
co n fro n tatio n re w a rd fo r the audience). An audience could see C h arlie
change ab ru p tly ; he c e a se d in h is old p a tte rn of avoiding, su p p re s sin g ,
lying, and denying; he su m m o n e d H off, and a fte r having done so, he
openly con fro n ted his own d e fe c ts, m is ta k e s , and the p o ssib ility of
h is te r r i b le fate; he acknow ledged h is v u ln e ra b ility , did not m in im iz e
su ffe rin g , and faced the p ro s p e c t of annihilation; he acknow ledged his
tr a n s g r e s s io n s and the ju s tic e of fo rth co m in g pun ish m en t w ithout f u r
th e r lie, ev asio n , or fa lse hopes; d esp ite all of the p e rs u a s iv e co u n sel
to the c o n tra ry , he re je c te d re p e n ta n c e , re fu se d to ap p eal to anyone,
and re fu se d to sue fo r peace (even slapped Hoff). His only ap p eal
(a fte r his confrontation) w as to M a rio n fo r h e r love and h e r continued
help. His confro n tatio n p o s s e s s e d anxiety potential b eca u se an a u d i
ence would see him d e s tro y d e lib e ra te ly a p a tte rn by w hich he had
lived and su rv iv ed fo r m any y e a r s , and he began suddenly to w age a
p e rs o n a l w a r w ith w hat he had h e re to fo re com e to re g a rd as an o m n i
potent p ro te c to ra te , but ty ra n t. A lso, th e re w as the fe a r of p o ssib le
im p lic a tio n s fo r his fu tu re . H is co n fro n tatio n w as ego exalting
b eca u se the ego was c le a rly m a n ife s t a s f e a r l e s s , disdainful of e v e r y
thing but tru th , p e rs is te n t in the te stin g of re a lity , and re p o rtin g even
in the face of im pending d is a s te r . C o n tra ry to the e a r l i e r e x p re s s e d
opinions of m any d ra m a c r it ic s , th is w r ite r felt th at h is b rie f c o n
fro n ta tio n m o m en t w as one w hich could r e p r e s e n t C h arlie a s a m a n
who had tra n s c e n d e d h is p a s t m is ta k e s and w e a k n e sse s (how ever b rie f
it m ay have been). The ego (i. e. , as p e rso n ifie d by C h arlie) w as seen
m o m e n ta rily a s a stro n g and s u c c e s s fu l in te g ra tiv e fo rce; it a s s i m i
lated the id and su p ereg o , a s s e r t e d its independence r e g a r d le s s of
299
o th e r c o n s id e ra tio n s , and it p e r s e v e r e d at in te g ra tio n d esp ite o b stacle
o r th re a t. A lso, it w as s u c c e s s fu l in the sen se th a t it acc e p te d and
g ra n te d e x tre m e s , but did not re lin q u is h any of its a u th o rity d esp ite
obvious in tim id atin g fa c to rs . (The a c t of confronting, p e r se, is not
as im p o rta n t a s its effect upon the ego involved, and hence its effect
upon the ego fo rc e w ithin the au d ien ce; i. e. , w hat C h a rlie w as m ade
to th in k , feel, and see, and w hat u n d e r o rd in a ry c irc u m s ta n c e s one
would k eep the se lf fro m seeing: e. g. , C harlie said ,
I re a liz e w hat I am . . . c a r r y in g a m u sk et fo r Hoff, being
h is boy . . . I c a n 't go on, c o v e rin g one c rim e w ith an o th er
. . . one by one [one can k ill] h is b e tte r selv es . . . they
slow ly . . . m u r d e r ev ery o n e th ey u se . . . ev ery o n e needs a
c a u s e to touch g re a tn e s s . . . . I c a n 't give m y s e lf up! . . . He
gave m e an ap petizing nam e and now he thinks h e 'll eat m e! My
life is sw orn aw ay and now th ey w anna m u rd e r fo r m e and I see
w hat I a m !)
Odets w eakened his co n fro n ta tio n re w a rd , h o w ev er, w ithin the
final m o m en ts of the action: to re v ie w , (1) an audience would see
C h a rlie suddenly begin to think, fe e l, and see not only w hat he had
avoided, but a ls o what an audience m ig h t keep its e lf fro m ack n o w l
edging; (2) e n e rg y openly changed d ire c tio n fro m the outw ard im p o s i
tion of an individual w ill upon the w o rld to becom ing inw ardly d ire c te d
to w ard a psychic effo rt that re v e a le d som e tru th in depth (not only
about h im se lf, but about the situ a tio n -c o n flic t); h o w ev er, with the
in tro d u ctio n of the telephone c a ll fro m Buddy about C onnie's leaving,
and the su g g estio n by Buddy of so m e p o ssib le in tim a c y betw een h e r
and C h a rlie , C h a rlie 's ego s tre n g th suddenly seem e d ov erw h elm ed
w ith s e lf-d e p re c ia tio n , se lf-p ity , and d e s p a ir (the ty ra n n ic a l su p e re g o
a p p e a re d to a s s u m e co m p lete d o m in an ce). In th is re s p e c t, O d ets'
300
c h a r a c te r iz a tio n se e m e d in c o n siste n t, if not confusing; i.e . , w hat
m ig h t have provided a d e g re e of p sy ch ic p le a su re and re w a rd , even
p e rh a p s a d idactic e x p e rie n c e fo r an au d ien ce, a p p e a re d to becom e
slig h tly m au d lin and to r e p r e s e n t an o v e rre a c tio n to a s tim u lu s w hich,
by c o m p a riso n w ith p rev io u s and m u ch m o re s e rio u s e v e n ts, se e m e d
lacking in the s o rt of pow er o r ju stific a tio n th at would incite the
vio len t su icid al re sp o n s e w hich follow ed.
C a th a rs is . In te r m s of c a t h a r s is , the p o ssib ility fo r audience
p a rtic ip a n t re a c tio n s would s e e m to be p re s e n t; C h arlie re p re s e n te d
one who w as battling w ithin a situ a tio n -c o n flic t of som e g e n e ra l a u d i
ence in te r e s t and em o tio n al ap p eal. (The w o rld of Hollywood has
alw ays held fascin a tio n fo r m an y . ) A cognitive re a c tio n would not
lik ely be d is tu rb e d and would be re a d ily p o s sib le , but would se e m to
be le s s im p o rta n t by c o m p a ris o n with the p o ten tial fo r an affective
re s p o n s e ; the c irc u m s ta n c e s w e re e a sily u n d e rsto o d , te n ab le, and not
lik ely to provoke too m uch in te lle c tu a liz in g (at le a s t to the point of d i s
tu rb in g a e s th e tic d istan ce). O pportunity was p r e s e n t fo r both the d i s
c h a rg e and co n tro l of u n d e rs ta n d a b le in stin cts; and, as the conflict w as
evolved, an audience could fe e l a s s u r e d they w e re not p u rsu in g th e ir
own fa n ta sie s - -th e settin g and situ a tio n -c o n flic t w e re too fa r rem o v ed
fro m o n e 's com m on e x p e rie n c e . The d e g re e of a e sth e tic d ista n c e ,
th e n , w as judged by th is w r ite r to be sufficient in o r d e r to p e rm it an
audience re sp o n se th at would not likely b ecom e too p e rs o n a l, c re a te
too m uch p e rs o n a l conflict, and would not d is c o u ra g e the e m e rg e n c e
of so m e stro n g sy m p ath etic re a c tio n s . T hus, O dets a p p e a re d to
301
pro v id e som e b a s is fo r c a th a r s is by m aking p o ssib le an in stin c tu a l
re a c tio n and p a rtic ip a tio n fo r h is audience w hich in tu rn would be
su fficien tly d ista n ced by c o n tro ls contained w ithin the s c rip t. H ow
e v e r, c a th a rs is re q u ire s in addition a g ra tific a tio n fro m a p a r tic u la r
c h a r a c te r id e n tificatio n , the fe a rfu l co n seq u en c es of w hose conduct is
w ithout question w ith r e g a rd to (1) sym pathy, (2) in ev itab ility , o r (3)
ju s tic e ; a lso , the id en tificatio n m u s t p e r s is t d esp ite the c o n seq u en c es
and p e r s is t until the c lo se , n e a r c lo se , o r even beyond the c lo se of
the action. As su g g ested u n d e r the e a r l i e r c a te g o rie s of Illu sio n and
A nxiety P e r c e p tio n , g ra tific a tio n fro m identification w ith C h a rlie would
n eed to d eriv e p red o m in an tly fro m sy m p ath ies and em p ath y w hich s u r
rounded his p a rtic u la r conflict o r ego stru g g le s. (As the r e a d e r m a y
ag ain re c a ll, acc o rd in g to m an y of the c r it ic s , the (1) d ile m m a se e m e d
n e ith e r to ju stify his re s p o n s e , n o r (2) did C h arlie se e m a w orthy
individual fro m the outset. ) A ssu m in g som e d eg ree of su sta in e d id e n
tificatio n (how ever slight), and on the b a s is of co n scio u s and u n c o n
scio u s audience re s p o n s e , the logic and ju s tic e of the u ltim a te c o n s e
q u en ces and th e ir in e v itab ility se e m e d q u estio n ab le, if not som ew hat
confusing to this w r ite r ; i. e. , p re s u m in g one had identified w ith
C h a rlie to som e extent, then the p re s e n c e of at le a s t a lim ite d d e g re e
of p e rs o n a l w orth (with re s p e c t to h im as an individual) would have to
be assu m e d ; th e re f o r e , the w r ite r questioned how Odets hoped to s u s
ta in o r to in c re a s e any se n se of C h a rlie 's w orth by effecting a su icid e.
E x ac tly what events n e c e s s ita te d the final s e lf-d e s tru c tio n ? What
d y n am ics ju stifie d H an k 's follow ing conclusion: ". . . b e c a u se th at
w as the only way he could live, " o r th at C h a rlie 's s e lf-d e s tru c tio n w as
302
a "final act of fa ith " ? S uccinctly, when C h a rlie a p p e a re d to be on the
v e rg e of finding h im se lf, he d e stro y e d h im se lf. His suicide and d eath
seem e d r a th e r c o n tra d ic to ry in light of the fact th a t genuine ego
stre n g th and o p tim ism had only re c e n tly e m e rg e d w ithin his c h a ra c te r;
his d eath se e m e d n e ith e r in e v itab le, im m in e n t, n o r n e c e s s a r y fo r this
w r ite r .
The fin al m o m e n ts of the play a lso su g g ested som e in c o n siste n c y
w ithin c h a ra c te riz a tio n : a ss u m in g C h a r lie 's ego s tre n g th to be as
b an k ru p t as h is final act of suicide su g g ested (following the telephone
c a ll fro m Buddy), it h a rd ly se e m e d lik ely th a t he would have p o s s e s s e d
the ex ten t of e a r l ie r ego s tre n g th w hich he m a n ife ste d w hen he c o n
fro n te d Hoff and Coy w ith such in n e r conviction and disdain; it s e e m s
m o re likely th a t he would have a c q u ie sc e d to som e s o rt of sc h e m e fo r
rem o v in g D ixie as the p e r s is te n t p ro v o c a te u r and then p erh ap s vented
h is a g g re s s io n upon h im se lf. O dets m a y have intended fo r C h a rlie to
r e p r e s e n t a type of m a r t y r , a m a n who w as c o m p lete ly d e s tro y e d by
the w ealth , po w er, and s in fu ln e ss of Hollywood. H ow ever, th is p o s
sib ility s e e m e d som ew hat in c o n siste n t w ith C h a rlie 's p rev io u s p a tte rn
of b eh a v io r as set fo rth by O dets: a p sy ch o lo g ically valid ex p lan atio n
fo r h is e a r l i e r p a tte rn of se lf-in d u lg e n c e could be c o n s id e re d as a
r e s o r t to c o m p ro m is e and p le a s u re -s e e k in g in an a tte m p t to e s c a p e
and to a lle v ia te h is u n re m ittin g s u p e re g o re trib u tiv e d em an d s; a t r a u
m a tic incident could co n ceivably in c re a s e su sc e p tib ility to the in e x o
ra b le d em an d s of the s u p e re g o , w hich in com bination with in ten se
h o s tility , a g g re s s io n , and th e fe a r of lo sin g M ario n f o re v e r m ig h t
provoke s e lf-d e s tru c tio n ; h o w ev er, th is ex p lan atio n did not se e m
303
lo g ic a l in the c a se of C h a rlie , since acc o rd in g to th e dialogue he had
only re c e n tly shown tre m e n d o u s p r o g r e s s in the building of ego
s tre n g th , had ta k en s trid e s to w ard s e lf - r e s p e c t, and indeed had
re a c h e d a m u c h b ro a d e r p la te a u of u n d e rsta n d in g and ra p p o rt w ith
M ario n . It s e e m s th e re fo re unlikely th at he would p u rp o s e ly d e s e r t
h e r. In effect, the final m o m e n ts of the play not only se e m e d in c o n
s is te n t w ith the u n d erly in g p a tte rn th a t had been dev elo p ed but a lso
a p p e a re d to pro d u ce an a d v e rs e effect upon (1) any fin a l s e n s e of j u s
tic e , and (2) to d istu rb the p o ten tial and q u ality of s u sta in e d id e n tific a
tio n w hich would be n e c e s s a r y fo r a c a th a r s is re w a rd . F u r th e r ,
sy m p ath ies w hich m a y have been p re s e n t and c u m u la tiv e fo r a m a n
who had been in w ard ly s tru g g lin g --p e rh a p s behaving u n w isely and even
d e s e rv in g of h is m is e r y , but stru g g lin g n e v e r t h e l e s s - - a m a n who
fin ally b ro k e his b e h a v io ra l p a tte rn by d ire c t co n fro n ta tio n and s e lf
re v e la tio n , and a m a n who show ed a w illin g n ess to begin anew would
se e m in g ly be g re a tly d im in ish e d (if not disavow ed) by such a fin al and
v io len t cap itu la tio n as w as p re s e n te d . Would an a u d ien ce be expected
to a s s u m e th at he believed M a rio n would leav e h im sim p ly b e c a u se she
had le a rn e d th at he had one m o re affa ir w ithin h is p a s t about w hich she
had been ig n o ran t, and w ith a w om an whom no one s e e m e d to r e s p e c t
but B uddy?
The m a n n e r in w hich O dets concluded the play s e e m e d to inhibit
th e p o te n tial fo r any stro n g p ity -fe a r re a c tio n s , as w e ll as to exploit
the d e s ir e s to w hich C h a rlie yielded and the g ra tific a tio n that brought
about h is su fferin g ; a s e n s e of re lie f could be p r e s e n t, p ro v id ed one
had w orked th ro u g h a ll of the p rece d in g trib u la tio n s to so m e d e g re e ,
304
but a final s e n se of fu lfillm en t a p p e a re d to be lack in g , w hich would be
n e c e s s a r y in o r d e r to re lie v e in g re a t m e a s u r e any te n sio n and anxiety
th a t (p resu m ab ly ) had been c re a te d via the o v e r - a ll e x p e rie n c e of the
play. One m a y f e a r fo r C h a rlie 's p ast tr a n s g r e s s io n s , and h is d ire c t
affro n t to the "S y ste m " o r " E s ta b lis h m e n t" w hich had s e rv e d as his
p ro te c to r and p ro v id e r (albeit d ic tato r); one m a y pity h im fo r his co n
scien c e to rm e n t, h is s tru g g le s and his b attle with self, but both pity
and fe a r seem e d to te rm in a te ab ru p tly w ith h is fin al p e jo ra tiv e a c c u
satio n s of se lf and his violent suicide; in so doing, O dets actu ally
denied his audience the psychic re w a rd of fu lfillm en t th a t it could have
an ticip ated on the b a s is of w hat had gone b efo re; i. e. , the positive
sa tisfa c tio n of a m an who had a s s e r te d h im se lf in the face of w orldly
d e stru c tio n and ru in , one who fin ally found h im s e lf, and one who won
an ego battle r e g a r d le s s of the c o n se q u e n c e s. T h is final point (the
affective audience e x p e rie n c e o r rea liz a tio n ) is one w hich can lib e ra te
an audience by d e g re e fro m a p a rtic u la r anxiety and yield s tre n g th fo r
fu tu re anxiety in the follow ing m a n n e r: the profound u n d erstan d in g that
can a c c ru e as a re s u lt of id e n tific a tio n -e m p a th y , and the p o ssib ility
fo r w orking th ro u g h a p re d ic a m e n t so c o m p lete ly via such u n d e rs ta n d
ing along w ith su sta in e d and intensifying p a rtic ip a tio n , a ll com bine to
red u ce the anxiety o bjectified on stage th ro u g h the p ro c e s s of having
v ic a rio u sly p roven o n e 's own stre n g th to so m e d e g re e . F o r th e se
re a s o n s , the p re s e n c e of any c a th a r s is re w a rd w as c o n s id e re d to be
m in im a l, or at le a s t of lim ited sig n ifican ce.
305
C onclusion
O dets p r e s e n ts an illu sio n challenge: the su sp e n sio n of d isb e lie f
dem ands th a t one beco m e co n ce rn ed (1) not only w ith ev en ts w hich a re
o c c u rrin g in ad d itio n to th o se objectified , but a ls o events w hich p r e
date c o n sid e ra b ly the c u r r e n t actio n on the stage; and (2) even m o re
im p o rta n t, the extent to w hich one can identify and em p ath ize with the
in te rn a l and p sy ch o lo g ical w a rfa re of the p r o ta g o n is t- - sy m p ath ies with
h is f r a iltie s , em p ath y w ith h is to rm e n t and s tru g g le s , identification
w ith h is p sy ch o lo g ical d ile m m a o r p re d ic a m e n t. S uccinctly, the p r o
ta g o n ist r e p r e s e n ts the m a n ife sta tio n of a r a th e r s e rio u s m o ra l c o m
p ro m ise w hich h a s p y ra m id e d into additional c o m p ro m is e s along with
intensifying s u p e re g o dem an d s and d efen ses; th e se s tru g g le s a r e c o m
p licate d fo r h im by a d e s ir e to o b lite ra te the m o re g rim re a litie s , by
h is e ffo rts to m a in ta in som e ego stre n g th , and by his p e r s is te n t needs
fo r love and a c c e p ta n c e ; p r im a r ily , th e n , the co n flict is one of a p e r
sonal n a tu re , and the p re s e n c e of any illu sio n s tre n g th dem ands som e
u n d e rsta n d in g of, and som e sy m p ath etic and e m p ath etic a c c o rd with
th is m an. The ch allenge is not in tellectu a l; the is s u e is not actu ally
one of eth ics; th e s u rfa c e s to ry is not p ro fo u n d --it b eco m es even
m e lo d ra m a tic on o c c a s io n - - it is lacking in sig n ifican ce and m agnitude,
and co n tain s abundant coincidence; n e v e rth e le s s , u n iv e rs a l w ishes a r e
e a s ily id en tifiab le and a r e p re s e n t in s tre n g th w ith r e c u r r e n t e m p h a
se s . As fo r c h a ra c te riz a tio n , it co n tain s convincing c o n tra s t and c o n
trib u te s to illusion; e .g . , the m a in c h a r a c te r s , C h a rlie and M ario n ,
a r e convoluted (and they a r e b elievably alike and unlike); they, in tu rn ,
a r e placed in c o n tra s t w ith s e v e r a l o th e r o n e - tr a it (all-g o o d , all-bad)
306
c h a r a c te r s who (though m e lo d ra m a tic as such) s e e m not only to s e rv e
su c c e ss fu lly as d ra m a tic fo ils fo r one a n o th e r but a lso to in ten sify
th o se co n tra d ic tio n s w ithin and betw een C h a rlie and M ario n . Some
h u b ris ap p eal a lso fo rtifie s illusion, though it o c c u rs very la te w ithin
the actio n and flu ctu ate s both in e n erg y and in pow er. The audience is
actu ally denied full p a rtic ip a tio n in som e of the v e ry s e rio u s t r a n s
g re s s io n s - -the a c c id e n t, the G od-like a s su m p tio n of po w er, the abuse
of a c c e p ta b le m o ra lity ; still, w ithin the actio n th at is p re s e n te d , the
audience is p e rm itte d to p a rtic ip a te in som e re s tr a in e d im p u lse s
re su ltin g fro m the s tru g g le s em erg in g betw een im p u lse and inhibition,
the w ish to re b e l and y et to see re b e llio n punished, the te n sio n s a s s o
ciated w ith d e s ir e s and th e ir d efen ses, and the co m p lex ity th at r e s u lts
when im p u lse s t r y to gain satisfac tio n . B rie fly , illu sio n stre n g th
depends upon o n e 's a b ility to re la te to the re a lity w hich C h a rlie is
e x p e rie n c in g (p h y sically as w ell as p sy ch o lo g ically ), and the extent of
illu sio n would be d ire c tly p ro p o rtio n a l to the d e g re e of th is r e la tio n
ship.
A nxiety p e rc e p tio n and co n tro l r e s t la rg e ly upon the sam e k e y
stone: the c ath ex is. It involves the feelin g s and sig n ifican ce a s s o c i
ated w ith the b a sic co n ce p ts of c o m p ro m is e , love, and acc ep tan c e;
i. e. , the stru g g le s fo r love and re s p e c t of self, the c a p a c ity and the
d em an d s a s s o c ia te d w ith the giving and re c e iv in g of love (a d is in te
g ra tin g ego but one stru g g lin g fo r su rv iv al). P r e s e n t a r e re co g n izab le
and ty p ical d e s ir e s and s tru g g le s, but the s u rfa c e events a c tu a lly c o n
ta in m agnitude and g ra v ity fo r a lim ited few. P e rc e p tio n of anxiety
depends la rg e ly then upon o ne's cap acity to in te rn a liz e and to resp o n d
307
to the c a th e x is. Though only a few c r is e s a r e p re s e n t, th e se and the
m a jo r ev en ts o bjectified se e m e d to be m o tiv ated and to be su b jected
to su fficien t c o n tro ls and binding d e v ic e s. C onsequently, an au d ien ce
would not likely q u estio n th e ir re le v a n c e to the m otif, su ffe r a too
p e rs o n a l d is c o m fo rt, o r be fo rc e d into p e rs o n a l acknow ledgem ent.
The in te rn a l focus s e e m s to be c o n s is te n t in g en era l: c a u s a ls and
in te rre la tio n s h ip s a r e e sta b lis h e d to the d e g re e th a t one is not tro u b led
by m a jo r co n fu sio n s, abundant ir r e l e v a n c i e s , o r p e r s is te n t o b sc u rity ;
th e e s s e n tia ls of the m a in idea a r e sufficiently em p h a siz e d in o r d e r to
provide a stro n g beginning and to su p p o rt a se n se of p ro g r e s s io n
to w a rd som e clim ax . Only the co n clu sio n s e e m s w ithout sufficient
c a u s a ls o r c le a r and w e ll-e s ta b lis h e d in te rre la tio n s h ip s ; the p re v io u s
ev en ts do not s e e m to provide a convincing m o tiv atio n fo r such an
a b ru p t, violent, and (for th is w rite r) u s e le s s suicide. C onsequently,
the effect of the co n clu sio n s e e m s m e c h a n ic a l and c o n triv ed , a s o r t of
deux ex m a c h in a . F u r th e r , O d ets' a d h e re n c e to p u rp o se and o rd e re d
co h e re n c e a r e s o m e tim e s d istu rb e d by h is u se of co in cid en ce, by
o b sc u re a llu sio n s and re fe re n c e , and diction which is often clich e o r
c o m m o n p lace. The r e a l s tre n g th p r e s e n t w ithin anxiety p e rc e p tio n
a p p e a rs to be the b e h a v io ra l p a tte rn O dets o b jectifies w ithin C h a rlie
and the in tra p sy c h ic co n flicts w hich d e te rm in e h is p a tte rn of b eh av io r;
by so doing, an audience h as the opportunity to see and w o rk th ro u g h
som e re le v a n t d y n a m ic s, but d y n am ics w hich on the s u rfa c e s till se e m
sufficiently rem o v e d fro m d ire c t audience e x p e rie n c e .
F in ally , in te r m s of the psychic re w a rd s , the play p ro b e s c o n
flic ts w hich one m ight o rd in a rily ig n o re o r not ex am in e; it r e v e a ls
d e te rm in in g f a c to r s , h u m an f ra iltie s and e r r o r , and the co n seq u en c es
of e r r o r - - t h o s e an au d ien ce would hope could be a v e rte d o r avoided.
T h e re e x ists an evident stru g g le betw een the id and su p ereg o ; the
p le a s u re p rin c ip le b a ttle s w ith the re a lity p rin c ip le (but w ithin c o n
tr o ls th a t should e s ta b lis h sufficient audience s e c u rity and d etach m en t).
The in stin c tu a l is exploited both in deed and in a llu sio n , and hence
could p o ssib ly be bro u g h t u n d e r m o re audience c o n tro l. The ego is
seen striv in g to b alan ce the fo rc e s of the id and su p ereg o . E ach fo rce
p re d o m in a te s at som e tim e w ithin the action, although the su p e re g o
b e c o m e s the fin al v ic to r. An am b iv ale n ce re w a rd is p re s e n t to som e
d e g re e w ithin the c h a ra c te riz a tio n s of C h a rlie and M arion: p a r tic ip a
tion (sy m p ath etic re sp o n se ) flu c tu a te s; co n scio u s and un co n scio u s
sy m p ath ies a r e p o ssib le; both m a jo r c h a r a c te r s a r e p re s e n te d fro m
d iffere n t po in ts of view. Value s y ste m s a r e p re s e n t and in opposition
so that o n e 's p a rtic ip a tio n in and with th e m can flu ctu ate. (The p r e s
ence of am b iv ale n ce k eep s the play fro m becom ing p re d o m in a n tly a
p ro p a g a n d istic tira d e d ire c te d ag a in st Hollywood) ) The co n fro n tatio n
re w a rd --th o u g h p e rh a p s too b r ie f and o c c u rrin g r a th e r late w ithin the
actio n — is m o m e n ta rily v e ry stro n g b e c a u se C h a rlie has avoided an y
thing s im ila r fo r so m a n y y e a r s and b eca u se it is in such c o n tra s t to
h is p rev io u s and ty p ic a l b e h a v io ra l p a tte rn . H is open ack n o w le d g e
m e n t of the p ro b le m s and h im se lf, his co m p lete d is r e g a r d fo r p ra c tic a l
c o n sid e ra tio n s o r a p p e a ls , h is denial of ap p eal and the d e s tru c tio n of
h is p ast a d ju stm e n t ex a lts the e g o - - it a s s im ila te s the id and su p e re g o
and ab so lu tely p e r s is ts in te stin g re a lity . C onsequently, tru th in
depth e m e rg e s ; h o w ev er, the re w a rd is s h o rt-liv e d b e c a u se of the
309
ab ru p t r e v e r s a l; i. e. , s h o rtly a fte r the co n fro n tatio n , th e audience
sees the ego w hich has been exalted suddenly o v erw h elm ed by the
su p e re g o to b eco m e confused, if not m au d lin . F in a lly , in t e r m s of
c a th a r s is , O dets p ro v id e s fo r the d is c h a rg e and c o n tro l of e m o tio n s,
and th ro u g h h is unique settin g o r situ a tio n a s s u r e s his au d ien ce that
they a r e not p u rsu in g th e ir own fan ta sy . He even p ro v id e s for v a rie d
and p a r tic u la r id e n tificatio n s; h o w ev er, the c lim a x s e e m s n e ith e r j u s
tified, in e v itab le, n o r im m in e n t on the b a sis of all th at h a s gone
b efo re. C a th a rs is d em an d s su stain e d (and intensifying) sy m p ath ies
and a se n se of ju s tic e , r e g a r d le s s of awful co n se q u e n c e s: Odets
d im in ish ed both sy m p a th ie s and a s e n se of ju s tic e by having the p r o
ta g o n ist r e v e r t suddenly to s e lf-d e p re c ia tio n and suicide w hen he had
ju s t ex p lo re d so m e of h is own d e te rm in in g in tra p sy c h ic co n flicts, had
ju st exposed and denounced a d e s tru c tiv e b e h a v io ra l p a tte rn , and had
e sta b lish e d a g r e a t e r u n d e rsta n d in g w ith the only p e rs o n in the w orld
w hom he could tru ly love and r e s p e c t, his w ife. (T his w r ite r is of the
opinion th at the co n clu sio n w as e ith e r an afte rth o u g h t m e a n s to end the
situ a tio n -c o n flic t, o r th a t C h arlie w as intended to r e p r e s e n t a m a r t y r
to the Hollywood " E sta b lish m e n t" ; and n e ith e r would su p p o rt a stro n g
c a th a rs is re w a r d .) N eith er p ity -fe a r re a c tio n s n o r sy m p a th ie s se e m
heightened by the fin al s e lf-d e s tru c tio n in light of w hat has gone b efo re
n o r its im p lic a tio n s fo r the fu tu re; p e rh a p s even re lie f could be e x p e r i
enced by som e au d ien ce m e m b e rs , but a s e n se of fu lfillm e n t se e m s
lacking n e v e rth e le s s ; co n seq u en tly , the d e g re e of te n sio n and anxiety
that m a y have b een a ro u s e d fa ils to be s a tis fa c to rily reso lv e d .
310
In re v ie w , illu sio n is challenging, and p r im a r ily so b e c a u se of
the p o s sib ilitie s fo r an involved audience re s p o n s e (p rim a rily due to
the extent to w hich the p ro ta g o n is t's co n flicts a r e exploited and
explored); an x iety p e rc e p tio n depends upon o n e 's c a p a c ity to acc ep t
and to resp o n d to the c a th e x is, and its im p a c t d e riv e s fro m re sp o n se
and sym p ath ies w ith the o b jectificatio n of a b e h a v io ra l p a tte rn and its
in trap sy ch ic co n flicts (p ro b lem s ranging fro m m o r a l c o m p ro m ise to
tyranny); p sy ch ic re w a rd s s te m p r im a r ily fro m the id -s u p e re g o open
w a rfa re , and the te m p o r a r y v ic to ry and ex altatio n of the ego (although
the rew ard is too s h o rt-liv e d and the s u p e re g o finally o v e rc o m e s all
else). The p re s e n c e of am b iv ale n ce k eep s the play fro m becom ing a
m e lo d ra m a tic , p ro p ag an d istic in d ictm en t of H ollywood, but a c a t h a r
s is re w a rd is lacking b e c a u se it is in te rru p te d by an ab ru p t r e v e r s a l
which s e e m s p sy ch o lo g ically confusing and one w hich th w a rts a final
and n e c e s s a r y se n se of fulfillm en t. The Big K n ife, like the e a r l ie r
C lash by N ight, e m p h a siz e s the pow erful influence and dem ands that
m oney can have on love and the hum an s p irit; h o w ev er, h e re the in flu
encing fa c to r is not so m uch the ab sen ce of m oney as the fe a r of its
absence. C h a rlie C astle is ac tu a lly as a p p re h e n siv e about lo sin g his
source of incom e as w as the lo w er c la ss J e r r y W ilenski (the p ro ta g
onist in C lash by N ight). F o r the f i r s t tim e the " S y stem " w hich co m es
under O d ets' a tta c k does not have stro n g p o litic a l o v erto n e s; it is
ra th e r a c lo sed c o rp o ra tio n of m oguls who can d isg u ise th e ir u n s c r u
p ulousness with the pow er of th e ir w ealth and who ad d ict em p lo y ees to
dependence, f e a r , and self-in d u lg en ce w ith the u se of m oney. (Only a
few oblique c o m m e n ts a r e v en tu re d about p o litic s. ) The th em e of
311
m o ra l c o m p ro m is e th at f ir s t a p p e a re d w ithin G olden Boy (and has
p e rs is te d in all su b seq u en t plays w ith the p o ssib le ex ception of Night
M usic) is p re s e n t h e re in g re a t stre n g th : the e x iste n tia l h ell of having
a rriv e d a t, and having cau sed o n e 's sta te of an g u ish by e a r l i e r d e c i
sions of c h a r a c te r . Odets o b je ctifies C h a r lie 's to rm e n t and s tru g g le s,
but he a ls o has h im v e rb a liz e his in te rn a l s tru g g le s (like the c h a r a c
te riz a tio n s of Joe B o n ap arte, Ben S ta rk , and M ae W ilenski). E m p h a
sis is p laced upon C h a rlie 's p a tte rn of b eh a v io r and h is in tra p sy c h ic
co n flicts. As such the play is a p sy ch o lo g ical study of s o r t s - - t h e
f ir s t, h o w ev er, w hich is not p red o m in an tly s o c io -h is to ric -p s y c h o lo g i-
cal, but p r im a r ily p sy chological. In addition, as in e v e ry play since
his e a r l ie s t, a type of m a r t y r e x ists to som e cau se o r to som e
inequity; a se n sitiv e soul is confused o r tro d d e n upon by so m e g r e a te r
o rg an iz atio n to w hich he cannot a d ju st, cannot cope w ith su ccessfu lly .
The C ountry G irl
P lot S u m m a ry
14
The C ountry G irl opens on the b a re stag e of a New Y ork
th e a tre ; the tim e is the p re s e n t. T h re e m e n a r e p re s e n t: B ern ie
Dodd, the d ire c to r; P au l U nger, th e playw right; and P h il Cook, the
p ro d u c e r. They a r e co n cern ed b e c a u se they have ju s t lo st th e ir le a d
ing m a n and the play is due to open in B oston w ithin w eeks. B ern ie
has h is stag e m a n a g e r d is m is s the e n tire com pany except f o r F ra n k
Elgin. P h il Cook b eco m es annoyed w ith B ern ie o v e r re ta in in g F ra n k ,
b ecau se although F ra n k w as f o r m e r ly an ex ce lle n t a c to r , a lc o h o lism
ruined h is c a r e e r . B ern ie upholds F ra n k , h o w ev er, tellin g P h il he
312
decided to give F ra n k the ro le of g e n e ra l u n d e rstu d y b eca u se he
b eliev ed in him ; how he is c o n sid e rin g h im fo r the lead. When F ra n k
e n te r s , B ern ie d ecid es to read along w ith him ; he te lls F ra n k to rela x ,
to do ju s t as he feels m o tiv ated . A fte r read in g fo r a w hile, F ra n k
suddenly says he cannot continue b e c a u se his hands a r e shaking; and
b e s id e s , he c o n fe s s e s , he w as n e v e r a good s ig h t- r e a d e r . B ern ie
te lls him then to fo rg e t the s c rip t, m e r e ly im p ro v is e on the situ atio n ,
and ju s t to a d -lib . B ern ie co ach es h im , and F r a n k soon r e v e r ts to an
e a r l i e r c h a ra c te riz a tio n w hich he once p o rtra y e d with g re a t s u c c e s s .
When he fin ish e s, B ern ie a s k s th a t he w ait o u tsid e fo r a few m in u te s.
Cook cautions th a t ad -lib b in g does not m e a n th a t F ra n k is able to
m e m o riz e lin es; h o w ev er, U nger say s he is not w o rrie d if B ern ie has
confidence in F ra n k . B ern ie te lls th e m his fa th e r w as a "lush, " and
he thinks he know s w hat he is doing (that he w ill have to be F r a n k 's
support) b e c a u se the final p e rfo rm a n c e could v e ry lik ely be o u ts ta n d
ing. Cook su g g ests they look around fo r so m eo n e e lse while F ra n k is
re h e a rs in g , but B ern ie re fu s e s ; he a ls o d em an d s a ru n -o f-th e -p la y
c o n tra c t in ste a d of a te m p o r a r y tw o -w eek s c o n tra c t sim p ly b eca u se
F r a n k would s e n s e the te m p o r a r y a s p e c t of th e situ a tio n and becom e
even m o re anxious. Cook re fu s e s , ho w ev er: a tw o -w eek s c o n tra c t or
none at all. B ern ie finally a g re e s . He ca lls fo r F ra n k but L a r r y , the
stag e m a n a g e r, says th at F ra n k left five m in u te s e a r l ie r . B ern ie
d e c id e s to find him .
Scene Two is a s h o rt tim e la te r in a sh ab b ily fu rn ish ed ro o m in
m id -M a n h a tta n . G eo rg ie, F r a n k 's w ife, is packing a su itc a se and is
obviously su fferin g with a toothache. B e rn ie knocks a t the do o r; she
313
p ushes h e r s u itc a s e u n d er the bed and a n s w e rs . She te lls h im that
she d oes not know when F r a n k w ill re tu r n , but he d ecid es to w ait.
B e rn ie te lls h e r that he is the d ir e c to r of the play F ra n k is now w o rk
ing in, and she e x p re s s e s s u r p r is e th a t he looks so young. B ern ie
r e m a r k s th at she too looks young, but th at she a c ts like an old lady.
She in q u ire s if som ething is w rong, and B e rn ie a s k s a b ru p tly if F ra n k
s till d rin k s . She rep lies c u rtly th at ev ery o n e does. B ern ie co m m en ts
about a ll of the books she a p p a re n tly re a d s , but she in te rru p ts and
a s k s ju s t what his visit is a c tu a lly about. F ra n k e n te rs at th is point.
B ern ie a s k s F ra n k what happened, and F ra n k say s he ju s t decided to
tak e a w alk. B ern ie a d m its th a t he w ants F ra n k to play the lead, but
he n eed s an a c to r who w ill sta y so b er and le a r n lin es. F ra n k re p lie s
th a t alco h o l is no longer h is p ro b le m , th a t he n e v e r d rin k s when he is
w orking. H ow ever, B ern ie c ite s a m ista k e w ithin F r a n k 's p a st to the
c o n tra ry . W hereupon, F ra n k b la m e s the m ista k e on the lo ss of th e ir
d au g h ter. F r a n k decides th a t they should fo rg e t it, d esp ite B e rn ie 's
re m in d e r th a t he was once a s ta r . G eorgie in te rru p ts and te lls B ern ie
th a t he does n o t really lis te n , that F r a n k is ac tu a lly saying he is
a fra id of the resp o n sib ility . H ow ever, B e rn ie p e r s is ts and says th at
he is the one who is a c tu a lly taking a ll of the gam ble. N e v e rth e le s s,
F ra n k is s till reluctant; he d oes not even fe e l he could le a rn the lin es
in such a s h o rt tim e. B ern ie te lls h im th a t he h as confidence in him
b e c a u se F r a n k w as the h e ro of his childhood, w hich G eo rg ie la b els
d e lib e ra te sen tim en t. So B e rn ie te lls th e m both th at at this point
F ra n k is a bum ; but, if he w ill c o m m it h im s e lf to the show, B ern ie
w ill be his w ill u n less F ra n k d isap p o in ts h im once, and then no pity.
314
G eorgie a s k s about the c o n tra c t, and B e rn ie te lls h e r the tru th . She
does not feel F ra n k should tak e it, th at he n eed s confidence and not a
tw o -w eek s c la u se . B e rn ie is annoyed w ith th e ir re a c tio n s , but F ra n k
says he ju s t does not w ant to "bite off m o re than [h e] can chew . "
B ern ie re p lie s that he h a s m a d e h is offer; the show is booked in B oston
fo r two w eek s, but they can stay out u n til F ra n k b e c o m e s p e rfe c t. He
te lls F ra n k to c a ll him by th re e o 'c lo c k , le av es a tw e n ty -d o lla r bill,
and d e p a rts. F ra n k a s k s G eo rg ie if she thinks he can do it; she
re p lie s th at he m u s t m a k e the d e c isio n and m ake it his re s p o n sib ility .
She w onders why he cannot a d m it th a t he is a fa ilu re , th a t he would
die to save his face and to avoid failing in public. N e v e rth e le s s , she
su g g ests th a t he take the p a rt, r e g a r d le s s of the tw o -w eek s c la u se ,
b eca u se he would n e v e r get p e rfe c t te r m s . Suddenly F r a n k d e c id e s to
take the role b e c a u se he say s he too could u se the c la u se to h is own
advantage if things did not w o rk out (ju st w alk off of the show). He
te lls h e r about a d re a m he had the night b efo re w hich m u s t have m e a n t
th at the w o rld is now w ith h im and he cannot fail. (G eorgie is not
caught up in h is e n th u sia sm . ) He d e c id e s to take the p a r t and to c a ll
on B ern ie Dodd in p erso n ; he ta k e s the m oney and say s he w ill get a
h a irc u t f ir s t. A fter he le a v e s , G eo rg ie s a y s, "My God, " and begins
to unpack.
Scene T h re e is ten days la te r b ack on the sa m e sta g e . It is la te
at night and B e rn ie is w atching a r e h e a r s a l betw een F r a n k and N ancy,
the sev en te en y e a r old ingenue. N ancy know s h e r lin es; F r a n k does
not, and he is w o rrie d . F ra n k fo rg e ts a line and N ancy p ro m p ts him ,
which only a n g e rs F ra n k ; th en B ern ie c a lls a h alt to th e r e h e a r s a l
315
b eca u se of the late h o u r. F ra n k a sk s if B e rn ie did not m e n tio n a little
g irl of his own; B ern ie a d m its he once w as m a r r i e d and has a child,
but h is wife d iv o rc e d h im ( r e f e r r e d to him as a p e re n n ia l b ach e lo r).
He a sk s if F ra n k p r e f e r s to stop; F ra n k co m p lain s of a h ead ach e but
su g g ests th a t they k eep w orking at his c h a ra c te riz a tio n fo r a b e tte r
u n d erstan d in g . B e rn ie co m p lim e n ts him ; he say s F ra n k is not a te c h
n ic a l a c to r, that he m u s t u n d e rsta n d and like the c h a r a c te r he is p o r
tray in g . He a s k s how a m a n of his ta le n ts could go "h ay w ire. " F ra n k
ta lk s in g e n e ra litie s but he v e ry subtly b la m e s G eorgie; he confides
that she was once "M iss A m e ric a " and had to give up h e r c a r e e r in
o rd e r to m a r r y him ; h e r p sy ch o an aly st c o st him th o u san d s. T h is, in
tu rn , c a lls to B e r n ie 's m ind h is own unhappy m a r r i a g e . F ra n k te lls
B ern ie th a t one night he found G eorgie d runk, th a t then she b e c a m e a
h o p eless d ru n k a rd w ithin a y e a r , and the battle b e c a m e c a r e e r v e rs u s
c a r e e r ; they had the child, and a f te r that G eorgie b e c a m e so je a lo u s of
e v e ry p a rt he played th a t she began to drink. She would cut h e r w rists,,
set fire to the h o te l su ite , and re q u ire d a n u rs e w hile he w as p e r f o r m
ing. A fter they lo st th e ir child, th en he h im s e lf began to d rin k v e ry
m uch. When ask ed if G eorgie s till d ran k , F ra n k re p lie s th a t she
stopped w hen he began. Now, he c o n fe s s e s , he know s how to handle
h e r , th at he p rete n d ed not to w ant the p a rt so she could convince him .
B ern ie b e c o m e s so m ew h at co n c e rn e d about G e o rg ie 's accom panying
th e m to B oston, but F r a n k a s s u r e s him th a t he know s how to handle
h e r . Suddenly, both b eco m e a w a re th at G eorgie has e n te re d , but
n e ith e r knows how m u c h she h as h e a rd . She a p o lo g izes, saying she
p re fe rs to m ak e h e r s e lf u n o b tru siv e when F ra n k is w ork in g , u n le ss he
316
n eed s h e r help; h o w ev er, B ern ie sa y s they w e re ju s t leaving and s u g
g e s ts a late coffee. F ra n k tu rn s to G eo rg ie, saying she m a k e s a ll of
the d e c isio n s; and G eo rg ie re p lie s th a t th is is tr u e only to the extent
th a t F ra n k b rin g s out the m o th e r in h e r. She c o n fe s s e s she would like
to get to know M r. Dodd b e tte r , and he ad m its a s im i la r in te r e s t in
h e r.
Scene F o u r is one w eek la te r back in F ra n k and G e o rg ie 's room .
F ra n k is d re s s in g w hile G eo rg ie is pouring his coffee. G eo rg ie, who
is n e a r - s ig h te d , is looking fo r h e r g la s s e s . She sto p s suddenly, h a v
ing kicked o v er tw o em pty b e e r b o ttles. F ra n k defends h im se lf, t e l l
ing h e r th at he did not hide th e m , th a t they helped h im to re s t. She
in q u ire s w h ere he got th e m , and F ra n k say s a f te r she fell a s le e p ,h e
took a w alk, bought som e n e w s p a p e rs , and a lso the b e e r. She s u s
p ects he has b ecom e w o rrie d about som ething, but he m a k e s a joke
of h e r s e r io u s n e s s , saying th a t only the lin es b o th e r him . N e v e rth e
le s s , she w a rn s h im not to s ta r t on b e e r, th a t she w ill get h im som e
sleep in g p ills. He jokingly allu d es to the s e v e rity of the B oston
c r i t i c s , but say s he could a c tu a lly " c h a rm a b ird off a b ra n c h , " and
is re a lly taking it all in his s trid e . He ta lk s about a ll of the lu x u rie s ,
good food, and p le a sa n t tim e s they w ill have in B oston. A bruptly,
G eo rg ie a sk s h im if B e rn ie Dodd lik es h e r; F ra n k t r i e s la m e ly to
r e a s s u r e h e r and tr e a ts h e r c o n c e rn lightly, but she p r e f e r s to a cc ep t
th e re a lity if th is be the situation. She c o n fe s se s th a t she h a s decided
not to acc o m p an y h im to B oston sim p ly b e c a u se she fe e ls B e rn ie does
not re a lly like h e r. F ra n k b e c o m e s v e ry u p se t, te llin g h e r he could
n o t tak e the job w ithout h e r , th at he needs h e r. She fin ally a g r e e s to
317
go, if he n eed s h e r th a t m uch. She su g g e sts th at he take a le s s o n fro m
h e r own fa th e r who w as a lso a p e rfo rm e r: he did not c a r e w hat people
thought of him ; he b eliev ed in h im se lf; w h e re a s , F ra n k does not, and
th a t h as c o s t th e m so m uch u n h ap p in ess. F ra n k holds up an a d d re s s
book and jo k e s about U n g e r's aunt whom he say s he has not seen in
y e a rs and only m e t ag ain la s t evening. (She is supposedly a w ealthy
w idow .) In h is b a n te r, F ra n k a sk s G eorgie not to call B e rn ie " B e r
n a rd o the G re a t" at th e ir ru n -th ro u g h on the next evening. G eorgie is
som ew hat stunned th a t F ra n k h as not told h e r about the ru n -th ro u g h .
She in q u ire s if he re a lly w ants h e r to be p re s e n t. F ra n k ad m its that
sin ce it is not ac tu a lly a d r e s s r e h e a r s a l, p e rh a p s he would feel b e tte r
w ithout h e r. G eorgie says she w ill w ait to see it in Boston; but she
cau tio n s h im about becom ing s e c re tiv e . She te lls him th a t she w ill
d r ill and cue h im , but he m u s t be " s tr a ig h t" with h e r, te ll h e r what is
on h is m in d , and he is not to "shuffle. " He a s s u r e s h e r th a t they w ill
be at the top; but she su g g ests one rung at a tim e . She a lso r e c o m
m e n d s th a t he ta lk o v er his w o rrie s w ith B ern ie (" H e 's young, but h e 's
a good m an . . . . ") F ra n k te lls h e r he loves h er; he k is s e s h e r and
le av es ebu llien tly . G eorgie is m o m e n ta rily unhappy w hen she again
n o tic e s the b o ttle s, but then she begins to w ork and to w histle.
Scene F iv e is a w eek la te r; it is m idnight in F r a n k 's d re s s in g
ro o m in a B oston th e a tre and th e f i r s t d r e s s r e h e a r s a l h as ju s t ended.
U nger and L a r r y e n te r looking fo r F ra n k . Both co m m en t about som e
difficulty w ithin Scene Six, w h ere so m eth in g alw ays s e e m s to go
w rong. A fter they leave G eorgie e n te rs ; she is tidying up the room
w hen B e rn ie e n te rs ; he is a lso looking fo r F ra n k . He in q u ire s how
she liked the d r e s s r e h e a r s a l, but she is n o n c o m m itta l except for
d e s c rib in g F ra n k as te n se . She a ls o c a lls B e rn ie te n s e , but he
laughingly te lls h e r not to re v e a l it, th at ev ery o n e b elie v e s h im to be
m a d e of ste e l. G eorgie te lls h im th a t F r a n k th in k s highly of h im , but
B e rn ie say s th a t F ra n k h as p ro b ab ly fo cu sed m o re on h e r re a c tio n s .
She is co n c e rn e d th at opening night is only tw o nights aw ay, and a ls o
about F r a n k 's n e w sp a p e r re v ie w s to follow. They d is c u s s F r a n k 's
acting te ch n iq u e, and B ern ie d e s c r ib e s it as im p ro v is a to ry , that
F ra n k n e v e r re a lly knows what he is going to do next. G eorgie re p lie s
th a t m an y of h is p e rs o n a l p ro b le m s s te m fro m th is tendency. B e rn ie
is d e te rm in e d to allow F r a n k continued e x p e rim e n ta tio n with h is ro le ,
but a s k s G eorgie not to m e n tio n it to F ra n k ; she te lls h im th a t she is
not th at foolish. As soon as B e rn ie le a v e s, F r a n k e n te rs ; he tr i e s to
get G eo rg ie to te ll h im about h is p e rfo rm a n c e - -he s u sp e c ts the
w o r s t- - b u t she te lls h im he w ill be a sto n ish in g and is only n erv o u s
now. F ra n k b e c o m e s a n g ry and su lk s. He is an g ry th a t they have
not given h im a d r e s s e r fo r his fa s t ch an g e s, th a t o th e rs a re
earn in g m o re m oney, th a t young N ancy s e e m s to u p stag e h im , and
th a t h is u n d e rstu d y s e e m s "snoopy. " G eo rg ie te lls h im to c o n c e n
t r a t e m o r e upon his own s tre n g th s , but she te lls h im she w ill sp eak
to B e rn ie about the d r e s s e r and the u n d e rstu d y . U nger and Cook
e n te r. U nger is p le a se d w ith the show , but Cook is r a th e r d is a p
pointed. B e rn ie e n te rs jo v ia lly , and Cook s ta te s openly th a t he did not
like the d r e s s r e h e a r s a l. B e rn ie a g r e e s but re fu s e s to be d isc o u ra g e d .
U nger le a v e s to w ork on h is s c r ip t, and L a r r y a s k s F r a n k to run
th ro u g h the la s t scen e ag ain w ith the c a s t. A fte r they leav e, Cook
a s k s B e rn ie if he re a lly th in k s F ra n k w ill know th e s c rip t by opening
night. B e rn ie r e a s s u r e s him . G eo rg ie a s k s Cook d ire c tly if F ra n k
m a y have a d r e s s e r . Cook le av es in d is g u s t, but B ern ie a s s u r e s h e r
th a t th ey w ill get a d r e s s e r fo r F ra n k . Then she m en tio n s the u n d e r
study w hose p re s e n c e se e m s to b o th e r F ra n k ; B e rn ie a g re e s to sp eak
to him . He a s k s G eorgie if F ra n k is re a lly that in s e c u re , b e c a u se
F ra n k a c tu a lly s e e m s in good h u m o r. G eorgie te lls him that the
jo v ia lity is a ll p re te n se , that F ra n k does not want to m ake the s lig h te s t
r e m a r k to lo se him the re g a rd o r affectio n of o th e rs ; she is h is lia iso n
o ffice r out of habit. T estin g h e r and disg u isin g h is annoyance, B ern ie
ask s w hat e lse is b o th erin g F ra n k , and G eorgie te lls him all, even to
the m e n tio n of his s a la ry . Coldly, B e rn ie says th a t he intends to m ak e
F ra n k a five p e rc e n t p a rtn e r of the show if all goes w ell. Would he
put it in w ritin g , she in q u ires; but B e rn ie re fu se s. He re m in d s h e r
th a t F ra n k m a y go anyw here fro m h e r e , to Hollywood o r to th e g u tte r,
but she w ill go with him . G eorgie is stunned, h u r t, and confused; she
a sk s h im to explain. He te lls h e r th a t she rid es F r a n k like a b ro o m ,
th a t she is a "bitch. " As he is leaving, F ra n k e n te rs ; he a s k s F ra n k
if the p re s e n c e of the u n d e rstu d y b o th e rs him and F ra n k jokingly
re p lie s , "No"; F ra n k then b la m e s the p ro b lem in Scene Six on the
young ingenue, Nancy. A fter B e rn ie le a v e s , F r a n k s e e m s ju b ilan t and
m a k e s plans fo r th e ir evening. G eo rg ie, fighting back t e a r s , te lls h im
th a t he is going to get his d r e s s e r ; h o w ev er, she has decided th a t she
should go back to New Y ork, th a t she fe e ls she w ill be only in th e way
and is a lre a d y re s e n te d . F ra n k is overw helm ed; he a sk s who r e s e n ts
h e r, w hat is w rong, and so on. She begins to c r y , but b la m e s it on h e r
320
toothache. F r a n k says he w ill get h e r a good d e n tist, th at B oston is
going to be th e ir honeym oon, but G eorgie pulls aw ay. He say s he w ill
n e v e r u n d erstan d h e r m o o d s, and he ju s t cannot se e m to be rig h t fo r
h e r; he co m p lain s of being u p se t and a sk s if th a t w as not h e r intent.
She re p lie s th at one day soon they w ill see w hat she w ants.
Act Two is s e v e ra l nights la te r in F r a n k 's d re s s in g ro o m . It is
a f te r one A .M . , and they a r e taking pro d u ctio n p ic tu re s on stag e.
G eorgie and P a u l U nger a r e p re s e n t; she is knittin g , and he is typing.
P a u l re m a rk s th a t G eorgie is w e ll-re a d , and she says she has had
nothing else to do (as a child o r as an adult). He a sk s a b ru p tly why
F ra n k began to d rin k , and she re p lie s th at th e re w as no one reaso n ;
e. g. , he lo st eighty thousand d o lla rs w ithin fifteen m onths b e c a u se he
w anted to be h is own p ro d u c e r; he w as a fra id to te ll G eorgie; a fte r they
lo st th e ir child he began drin k in g heavily. G eorgie say s th at F ra n k
should actu ally be in bed now, h o w ev er, b e c a u se of h is cold. She
re q u e s ts P a u l's opinion w ith r e s p e c t to the p oor rev ie w s of the play;
he scoffs at th e m , and she su g g e sts that he convey th is im p re s s io n to
F ra n k . She a lso a s k s about h is aunt, Sue L ew is, and su g g e sts th at it
would be good fo r F ra n k if Sue took him out to lunch. F ra n k e n te rs;
he obviously is su fferin g fro m a bad cold and is o v e rly affable and
bluffing in o r d e r to co v e r his anxiety. He begins s e a rc h in g fo r his
cough syrup. F ra n k co m p lain s of n e rv o u s n e s s and d rin k s som e cough
m ed icin e. G eo rg ie does not ap p ro v e b e c a u se both she and F ra n k know
it contains tw en ty -tw o p e rc e n t alcohol. He r e a s s u r e s h e r , but
b eco m es suddenly a n g e re d th a t n e ith e r B e rn ie n o r Cook cam e b a c k
stage on the second night of the show. G eo rg ie say s it m e a n s nothing,
321
but F ra n k say s th a t th is is the only way he know s if he is any good.
H ow ever, he r e c a lls th at he h a s a tw o -w eek s c la u se and re m in d s h e r
th a t he can quit; she say s he w ill n e v e r see h e r again if he w alk s off
th is show. A n g ered , F r a n k say s she is only taking th e ir p a rt, and
G eorgie r e to r t s that she is now stic k in g up fo r h e rs e lf. Som ew hat
ta k en ab ack , F r a n k m a k e s a joke about his fan m a il and a s k s if she
would c a r e if he did n o t com e hom e som e night. L a r r y c a lls , saying
th ey a r e re a d y fo r him ; and F r a n k in q u ire s if she would re tu r n to the
s a m e life and ro o m with him . G eorgie re p lie s th a t people go above
o r below , but n e v e r back. As he is about to leav e, G eo rg ie a s k s him
to leav e the cough m e d icin e ; a n g e re d , F ra n k say s he needs it, and
le a v e s. N ancy co m es in to u se the m i r r o r . She le a rn s th a t G eorgie
is o v er th irty but c o m m e n ts that they could a c tu a lly be s is t e r s . L a r r y
c a lls fo r h e r a lso , and N ancy le a v e s h u rrie d ly . A lone, G eo rg ie looks
at h e r s e lf v e ry c r itic a lly in th e m i r r o r ; she begins to w altz alone v e ry
gently but is in te rru p te d by B e rn ie . She w a rn s B e rn ie th at it is too
late for F r a n k to be w orking and his s p ir its a r e low b e c a u se of the
rev ie w s; she a lso s u g g e sts th a t b e c a u se B e rn ie h a s m o re confidence,
th is m a k e s h im pushy and a bully. She re m in d s h im th at n e ith e r he
n o r Cook b o th e re d to co m e b a c k sta g e th is night. B ern ie te lls h e r th a t
he h as w o rk ed w ith F r a n k fo r so long th a t he can te ll nothing is b o th e r
ing him but h e r own m outh. She w a rn s B e rn ie th a t his a b s e n c e w as a
re p rim a n d fo r F ra n k , th a t w ith h is p r e s e n t m ood and h is cold he is
head ed fo r a "b en d er. " B ern ie te lls h e r to stop "h andling" F ra n k ,
th a t he is going to fight h e r fo r him . She w a rn s th a t she m a y ju s t le t
him have him . B ern ie a c c u s e s h e r of ruining F ra n k and th en try in g to
322
explain aw ay ev ery th in g w ith sen tim en t. H er only re p ly is th a t she
has o v e rra te d h is in te lle c t, th at he is m e r e ly a boy, one who is f e a r
ful of fa ilu re , a m a ch in e lacking m a n n e rs and sty le , and p rete n d in g a
h u m a n ity he does not p ra c tic e . " J u s t w hat do you w ant m e to do fo r
F ra n k ? " she in q u ire s . B ern ie a s k s th a t she get out, that Cook w ants
to re p la c e him ; and though F ra n k w ill im p ro v e , he w ill not so long as
she is aro u n d . G eorgie a g r e e s to le av e, but only if she m a y in fo rm
F ra n k in h e r own way, and she fin ally w a rn s B e rn ie th a t he m a y be
s o r r y . He c a lls h e r a phony, and she s la p s him . F ra n k e n te rs and
B ern ie co m p lim e n ts his w ork; but he a s k s w hat happened again in Act
Two and m e n tio n s th a t F r a n k 's e n e rg y s e e m s low. F r a n k b la m e s it on
the cold. G eorgie a s k s why F ra n k does not te ll the tru th ; viz. , th at
Cook and th e n o tic e s a re b o th erin g him . F ra n k is e v a siv e , but
G eorgie ch allen g e s h im about w hat he had said e a r lie r ; i. e. , handing
in h is n o tice. F ra n k says it was only a gag. Then B ern ie m e n tio n s
th a t G eo rg ie m a y go back to New Y ork and G eorgie ad m its to th is.
F ra n k is about to ta k e som e m o re cough m e d ic in e w hen G eo rg ie ta k e s
it aw ay fro m h im , and B ern ie in tu r n n o tic e s the alcoholic content.
F ra n k say s th a t G eorgie a ctu ally bought it, and B ern ie b e lie v e s him .
G eorgie m e re ly say s she w ill w ait o utside. B ern ie te lls F ra n k th a t the
p ro b le m is th e show , that G eorgie is je a lo u s of it and h im , even so
f a r as to stoop to th is schem e; he p o u rs the cough sy ru p into the sink.
He te lls F r a n k th a t he w ants h e r b ack in New Y ork, and he w ants
F ra n k f r e s h and c le a r in the m o rn in g b e c a u se he is putting in the new
scene; he c a lls G eorgie in and le a v e s . F r a n k fe e ls guilty and a tte m p ts
to m a k e c o n v e rsa tio n , but G eorgie only w ants to go ho m e. As he is
323
d r e s s in g , she a sk s him w h ere th e "o th er b o ttle " is hidden. He d en ies
a n o th e r, but she s e a rc h e s u n til she finally gives up in d isg u st. F ra n k
say s he w ants the chance to show h e r he loves h e r , but she d e s c rib e s
it a s n e e d , not love. He c o m p lain s of w o rry , fe a r, and re s p o n s ib ility ,
but she re c o m m e n d s th at he te ll all of th a t to B ern ie. She a c c u s e s h im
of lying and ju s t getting re a d y to "go off on a b e n d e r. " F r a n k a s k s if
she re a lly is going b ack to New Y ork, and th e n he a s k s w hat m a n she
is in te re s te d in th e re . G eorgie th re a te n s to s trik e h im if he co n tin u es,
and she in s is ts th a t he h u r r y up. He a c c u s e s h e r of w anting h im to
fail and te lls h e r to leav e now if she is in such a h u rry . G eorgie s a y s ,
"Oh, the h e ll w ith i t ! " and le a v e s. F eelin g a n g ry and s o r r y fo r h im
self, F ra n k re liv e s the la s t few m in u te s aloud. He sto p s, liste n s
q u ietly at the d oor fo r a m o m e n t, opens the tru n k , b rin g s out a n o th e r
bottle of cough sy ru p and begins to d rin k it. B itte rly , he r e f e r s to
G eorgie a s , "H elpm ate! S w e eth ea rt! C ountry G i r l ! "
Scene Two is the sam e location, only tw elve h o u rs la te r. S o m e
one is knocking at F r a n k ’s d o o r. He suddenly aw ak en s, tu r n s on the
lig h ts, and it is obvious th a t he has been v e ry d ru n k u n til now. He
finally opens the door to L a r r y , Cook, and U nger who im m e d ia te ly
g u ess the tru th and send fo r B e rn ie . G eo rg ie e n te rs quietly. Cook
says th a t th is does it, and he and U nger leave. L a r r y le a v e s to get a
b r o m o - s e ltz e r . B ern ie e n te rs and a s k s w h e re and w hen G eo rg ie saw
F ra n k la st; she te lls him the tru th . He a s k s why she did not in fo rm
h im on the telephone e a r l ie r in the m o rn in g th a t F r a n k had not been
hom e a ll night, and she m e re ly re p lie s th a t she did not lie , that
F r a n k could have been out with an o th er w om an. He a ls o a s k s w h ere
324
she could have gotten h im a bottle at th a t h o u r, to w hich she only
lau g h s. He m e n tio n s to Cook th a t th e re is now only one thing to do
(m eaning to f ir e F ra n k ). Cook re p lie s that he is going rig h t out to the
box-office to do it. B e rn ie a lso a s k s G eo rg ie to leave. He s ta r t s to
b lam e G eo rg ie, but F ra n k say s it w as not h e r fault. When B ern ie
te lls h im to stop p ro te c tin g h e r , F ra n k say s he could not leave h er;
she would cut h e r w r is ts , th a t she is too w eak. B ern ie is ad am an t,
ho w ev er; G eorgie m u s t go, and F ra n k can m ove in w ith h im . He c a lls
in G eorgie who gives F r a n k a b r o m o - s e lt z e r , and he te lls h e r th a t she
m u s t leave. She a s k s F ra n k if he w ants h e r to go, and w hen he does
not a n s w e r, she say s she w ill go pack. B ern ie a s k s h e r to r e a s s u r e
F ra n k that he h as nothing to w o rry about b e c a u se he is a fra id th a t she
m ight do som ething d r a s tic , like a phony suicide a tte m p t. F ra n k tr i e s
w eakly to in te rv e n e , but G eo rg ie say s suicide a tte m p ts a r e F r a n k 's
d e p a rtm e n t. B e rn ie in s is ts upon seein g F r a n k 's w ris ts ; w hen he do es,
he r e a liz e s th e tru th , and F ra n k b re a k s down and c r ie s . B ern ie te lls
G eorgie that F ra n k m u s t have been lying to him a ll th is tim e , and she
re p lie s that F r a n k is in capable of the tru th . B ern ie a s k s if she w as a
M iss A m e ric a in the t h i r tie s , and so on; G eorgie w o n d ers why he d oes
not reco g n ize the e n tire s to ry a s one s im ila r to the plot of an old play
in w hich F ra n k s ta r r e d . She begins to c r y and to te ll h im the tru e
sto ry . She re v e a ls th a t F ra n k had a slight d rinking p ro b le m w hen she
m a r r i e d him . She fin ish e s by te llin g B e rn ie to send h im back to the
h o tel fo r r e s t. B e rn ie c a lls L a r r y , te lls h im to take F r a n k to the
h o tel, to d is m is s th e com pany, and to ch eck w ith h im a t five o 'clo c k .
G eorgie say s F r a n k 's lies a r e h is re s p e c ta b le r e a s o n fo r going to
325
pieces. B ernie tr ie s to apologize, but in vain; he tells h e r that only
she can watch and c a re for F rank. However, she refuses; she tells
Bernie that now he can m anage and c a re for Frank; she w ill even f o r
give him the past if he can keep F ra n k up long enough so that she can
get out fro m under the responsibility; she ju st wants to be alone. He
grabs h er and tells h e r that he will not take a chance on F ra n k unless
she stays. Then, im pulsively, he k is se s her. Suddenly, Cook en ters
and says he has an a cto r on the phone who could be in Boston by the
next day. B ernie says he will be right out; he asks again if Georgie
will stay, and she says yes. However, she rem inds him that the kiss
m ust not give him any ideas.
Scene T h ree is five weeks la te r, this tim e in F r a n k 's dressin g
room in a New York th eatre. Ralph (F ra n k 's d re s s e r) en ters with
clothing and te le g ra m s. Georgie is reading the te le g ra m s when
B ernie en ters. She asks how the opening is going, and B ernie is con
cerned that F ra n k is acting e rra tic a lly , she cautions him not to let
F ra n k see his long face. He says that any success shall be because of
her efforts, but she replies to the contrary. Bernie tells h e r that five
weeks ago he k issed a m a rr ie d woman and now he loves h e r and does
not know what to d o --h e m ay never see h e r again since re h e a rs a ls are
over. However, she holds him away with h e r hands upon his chest.
He a s s u r e s h e r that F ra n k will have m any offers afte r tonight and asks
if she intends to leave him , but she will not d iscu ss it. B ernie tells
h e r that he knows how m uch F ra n k m u st need her; Georgie says she
knows he is F r a n k 's friend because he is thinking of h is future, but
what of h e r s ? Suddenly, F r a n k 's voice is h eard loudly com ing fro m
326
the stage. An h y s te ric a l Nancy en ters, saying F ra n k changed the lines
and struck h e r on the stage. Georgie and B ernie r e a s s u r e and c o m
fort her; she leaves to change for the last act. Strong applause is
heard and F ra n k en ters b reath lessly ; he te lls them that he could not
help it; he felt the genuine inner predicam ent of his c h a ra c te r and he
lashed out at Nancy; how ever, now he is concerned about her feelings.
B ernie r e a s s u r e s him all is fine, and Georgie helps him to change.
F ra n k reads some of his te le g ra m s and re a c ts furtively to one from
Sue Lewis. B ernie leaves as Cook enters; Cook tells him that the
reactions in the lobby a re good, and he apologizes for his past behav
ior. F ra n k m akes him apologize to Georgie also; he also m akes him
rem ove his hat. He then tells Cook that the re a l reaso n he is there is
to offer him a ru n -o f-th e-p lay contract, and for half of what he is
actually worth, before the m orning papers appear. Cook adm its he
was thinking about different a rra n g e m e n ts and leaves. Georgie re in
forces his new confidence and self-re sp e c t; she rem in d s him that he
really does not have to be liked by everybody. He m entions again the
te le g ra m from Sue Lew is, and then says that a fte r tonight she will
n ever have to wonder why she m a rr ie d him . Georgie is not as certain
as he. B ernie en ters and L a rry calls F ra n k for the la st act. Sud
denly, F ra n k says to Georgie, and in front of B ernie, that if she has
any idea of leaving him to forget it; he ac c u se s h e r of setting up Sue
Lewis for him; and he asks that she give him a chance to love her.
Georgie replies that originally she m a rr ie d him for happiness and if
n e c e s s a ry could leave him for the same reason; she te lls him that this
is a real turning point, an elem ent of hope is p resen t, that she feels
327
u ncertain, and F ra n k will have to be strong enough to bear it. He tells
Georgie that no m a tte r what happens, she and Bernie saved him and he
feels he has a chance. He leaves and U nger enters; Unger re m a rk s
that F ran k is showing him what his play is actually about. After he
leaves, G eorgie thanks Bernie for sending so many w ire s, and she
confesses to having sent som e herself. They h ear a th ird -a c t
applause, and B ernie predicts that F ran k will "wrap up" the show and
"walk off" with the town. B ernie decides to go out front, and he tells
Georgie she will never leave F ra n k --s h e is too steadfast, loyal, and
reliable. She asks him to keep fighting, but to stay "unregenerate, "
that "life knocks the sauciness out of us soon enough. " He k isse s h e r
and leaves. She feels sad and lonely for a m om ent, then goes to the
d ressin g s h e lf, takes Sue's te leg ram and throw s it in the waste basket,
puts F ra n k 's robe over h e r a r m and walks out.
Illusion
A question for this w rite r at the outset was how an aging alc o
holic a cto r attem pting a c a r e e r com eback and his younger, m atronly,
and devoted wife could become sym pathetic and significant as c h a r a c
t e r s to a m a jo rity audience having no s im ila r experience w hatsoever.
The actual basis for illusion appeared to derive fro m the s tr u g
gles of th re e distinctively draw n and co n trasted chara cterizatio n s:
(1) a talented and reform ed alcoholic who was e x tre m ely dependent and
insecure, and whose source of strength was a symbiotic type of love
relationship with his younger wife; (2) a disillusioned, resigned, but
devoted and determ ined young wife whose youthful sp irit had been
328
overw helm ed by the g rim realities of trying to help and to live with an
alcoholic; (3) a young idealistic d ire c to r who felt that he could re s to re
talent and inspire ego strength by m anifesting confidence and an indom
itable im age him self. The m a in s tre a m struggle was essentially one of
ego strength; the conflict was p rim a rily one of will against will (along
with concom itant unconscious forces); and the p redicam ent was an
attem pted resto ratio n of an ill and defeated individual, com plicated by
a kind of love triangle. The p rim a ry basis for displacem ent, p ro je c
tion, and vicarious involvement seem ed to be essentially psychological
in n a tu re --th e inner w eaknesses, strengths, su c c e ss e s, defeats, and
final convictions of the three m ain c h a ra c te rs .
The surface story and situation was sufficiently rem oved fro m
one's ordinary and daily experiences, the nature of the struggles was
ex p ressed with a degree of subtlety, and the u n iversals p resen t w ere
im plied and e x p re sse d with enough c a re so that illusion would not
likely be disturbed but encouraged. The dialogue was not belabored
with p reachm ent nor obvious doctrine; no outside force was indicted
for the dilem m a, so that overstatem ent, overdefinition, or propaganda
did not affect illusion potential adversely. A possibility was present,
how ever, that analogizing could suffer som e slight restric tio n due to
the v ery specialized setting--the legitim ate th e atre, along with its
1 5
jargon; and one critic was outspoken in this reg ard . However, any
possible lim itation did not seem to reach such proportions that it would
disturb significantly a p ro p er aesthetic distance. Succinctly, illusion
potential did not ap p ea r to stem so m uch fro m the surface story, which
was fairly com m onplace and predictable, but ra th e r fro m the
329
recognition and the working through of the c h a r a c te r s ' inner tu rm o ils
(not unlike the type of c h a ra c te r development, the so rt of psycholog
ical Odets p o rtra itu re , which underlay the e a r lie r ch ara cterizatio n s
of C harlie C astle in The Big K nife, or Mae Wilenski in Clash by
Night) .
Identification- em pathy. The possibility for identification and
em pathy with one or m o re of the m ain c h a ra c te rs seem ed likely on the
basis of som e recognizable and very fundam ental hum an tendencies
tow ard frailty which becam e evident: e. g. , the avoidance of and the
shifting of personal responsibility, indulging in fantasy in o rd e r to
protect and to attem pt some resto ratio n of ego strength (fantasies so
enlarged upon that they becam e accepted over reality), indulging in
self-d estru ctiv e tendencies, doubting the intentions and m otives of
others, allowing one's self to becom e dependent upon another in o rd e r
to avoid the responsibility of e r r o r or blam e, accepting an o th er's
dependence and encouraging it because of one's own sensed deficien
cies and needs, reacting to the fear of a strong personal need by con
demning or rejecting it in self and in others, and so on. The sam e
m ay be said for the c h a ra c te r or ego strengths presented: both w eak
ness and strength w ere present, and they seem ed understandable,
psychologically valid and consistent with the c h ara cterizatio n s as they
w ere developed. The surface story of an alcoholic acto r, his wife,
and a d ire c to r seem ed to function m o re as the instrum ent for bringing
to play an affective configuration of positive and negative psychological
forces in a pattern of drives and conflicts which could be recognizable
330
and even identifiable, and an experience fro m which one could derive
knowledge as well. Yet, an audience would not be forced to open
acknowledgement, nor even conscious perception of all the fo rces at
play; indeed, Odets m ade audience perception and a w aren ess of the
predicam ent possible, while all could easily be disavowed by virtue of
his special situation-conflict and his som ew hat atypical c h a ra c te rs :
i. e. , one could participate in certain feared or unfulfilled asp ects of
him self, but through c h a ra c te rs that seem ed on the su rface quite
unlike him self, and in a situation v ery distanced from the ordinary.
None of the m ain c h a ra c te rs was an unworthy exam ple. C learly,
F ra n k had s e v e ra l redeem ing qualities and did gradually gain som e
ego strength, but o v e r-a ll, Georgie appeared to re p re s e n t the m ost
worthy exam ple am ong the three in te r m s of m otive, strengths, and
consistency. Also, she not only e x p re sse d and suggested d e s ire s one
could understand, but som e that one would asso ciate with struggle
(e. g. , she was packing and actually on the verge of d esertin g F ran k
when first introduced within Scene Two). The c ritic s w ere c o n tra
dictory about O dets' quality and developm ent of ch aracterization: "He
allows us to see fa r beneath the surface of his c h a ra c te rs into what is
the m a in sp rin g of our fru stra tio n s or th e ir actions";*^ the role of
Georgie is
. . . an alm o st unsym pathetic role inasm uch as th e re is
nothing of special in te re st in h e r c h a ra c te r . . . m o re a clod
than a support . . . since both m e n 's ro les a r e stereotyped in
the fa m ilia r mould of stock d ram a tic convention, they provide no
suspense. . . ^
His c h a ra c te rs a r e m u m m e r s , w hatever the nature of th e ir
roles. They act like hum an beings only when they a re not sp eak
ing, and frequently not then. When they open th e ir m ouths, what
com es out is greasepaint. 18
331
Odets was
. . . especially successful with F r a n k - - h is m o ra l w eaknesses,
superim posed a g g re s s iv e n e ss , and n atu ral talent a re blended in
a dim ensional c h a ra c te r which is not at all attractiv e, but is
com m anding because it is true. With G eorgie, the c h a ra c te r is
n ever adequately explained. Bernie is an old Odets standby:
the biting, re s tle s s egocentric . . . ^
The "ch aracteriz atio n s are uneven in quality. That of the wife is both
convincing and sym pathetic . . . that of the a cto r is m uch less so . . .
[B ern ie was] the least convincing of all . . . . . the play is
thin in ch a ra c te riz a tio n . . . Odets "has p assag es of fierce feel-
22
ing . . . and c h a ra c te rs that at m om ents a re bitingly real. "; the
"three people Odets is interested in are cre a te d with deep u n d erstan d
ing . . . [G eo rg ie's role is] a delicate balance between re stra in t and
.23
violence. "; "Odets has n ev er w ritten with so profound a knowledge of
, .. 24
people . . . ,
It is w arm ed by the subjective heat of O dets' d e s ire to explain
ce rta in of his own personal flaws and to confess his need for the
help of a patient and trusting woman, as well as for the aid of an
a rtistic a lly and hum anly loyal com panion in the th e atre. ^
The w rite r was in occasional ag ree m en t with som e of the points within
these c ritic is m s , was in d isag ree m en t with oth e rs, and was confused
by others; in all, the c ritic ism s too often seem ed to re p re se n t unsub
stantiated judgm ent or m e re opinion, and this w as judged to be the
basis for som e of the prevalent contradictions and confusions among
them . Evaluating the c h a ra c te rs on the basis of the verifiable c r i
te rio n that has been used throughout this a n a ly s is --th e c h a ra c te rs '
potential for indentification-em pathy, th e ir hubris possibilities, their
probable contributions to the strengths of illu s io n --s e e m e d to be one
m ethod of explaining ce rta in strengths and w eak n esses, and thereby
avoiding confusion.
332
The situation-conflict actually lacked much depth of significance
or magnitude except as it touched upon som e in-com m on u n iv e rsals or
sentiments: the d e sire and willingness to aid another who has s u c
cumbed to w eakness, self-destruction, o r has despaired; also, the
possibility of becoming a positive contributing factor in the building of
ego strength within an o th e r--su c c o ra n c e . (The wish, need, and d esire
to help has always p o sse sse d some u n iv e rsal appeal.) However, the
surface story po ssessed a lim itation in significance and m agnitude
because it concerned p rim a rily only these three individuals whose
p redicam ent was not as in terestin g perhaps as its settings. The c r i t
ics th e m selv es w ere as m uch in d isag ree m en t about the nature of the
illusion which Odets attem pted to c rea te as they w ere about his c h a r
acterization: com m ents ranged fro m
. . . abandons the soapbox of his e a r l ie r and m ost successful
y e a rs . . . and w rites a strictly theatrical piece . . . a simple
and forthright recording of tu rm o il backstage . . . th re e -w a y
conflict . . . as stirrin g as the best of O dets1 writing . . . the
’ 3 Odets is in terested in a re crea ted with deep under-
to the play did not always p resen t
. . . honest life, and by the end it looks footlighted and
chalky . . . the re a l s to ry . . . is a com pact little tragedy of
m isunderstanding. . . . Odets te m p o riz e s as well as blunders
. . . stages a double re tre a t fro m life into show b usiness, filling
it up with facile on-stage emotions. His talent is flowing again,
but from a faucet in dire need of a filter. It is depressing to
find so m uch shoddy in a play. . . ^
Only one critic believed the play to be "a good deal b e tte r than the c r it-
. . .. ,,28
i c s said it w as. . . .
No principal c h a ra c te r was delineated as all-good nor all-bad;
yet each could easily have been depicted as such: Georgie as long-
suffering, F ra n k as w orthless and spineless, B ernie as selfish,
333
brutal, and tyrannical. Each c h a ra c te r was indeed p o sse ssed of the
aforem entioned c h a ra c te ris tic s to som e extent, but Odets succeeded
in making th e m m uch m o re in addition: e . g . , Georgie had obvious
faults, and fu rth e r w as struggling with h e rs e lf about leaving F ran k
altogether; F ra n k did gain som e strength, was ap p reciativ e, and loved
Georgie deeply; B ernie had an unselfish m otive as well, often a p p a r
ently only o v e rre a c tin g to his own aw aren ess for te n d e rn e s s and his
needs for love; and he was e x tre m ely loyal. An audience could identify
with both the good and bad qualities within the principal c h a ra c te rs;
also, the conflict had potential for arousing audience sympathy and for
establishing some direction and purpose to the dilem m a. This w riter
did not d isc e rn any facto r in p a rtic u la r that would prevent the audience
ego from relaxing, nothing that would offend sensibilities or belabor
understanding. The story w as a sim ple one: it m a y have contained
some sentim entality and at tim es verged upon the m e lo d ra m a tic (p a r
ticu larly through the ch a ra c te riz a tio n and episodes involving Bernie
Dodd), but not so extensively as to disturb illusion; and, its obvious
faults seem ed red ee m ed by the psychological explorations and the p o s
sible analogizing potential.
H u b ris . Each of the m ain c h a ra c te rs violated a social tabu in
the sense that one m a y not indulge o r succumb to the human frailties
mentioned e a r l ie r in the discussion of Identification-em pathy. Rather,
one should striv e to build ego strength, to a ss u m e full responsibility
for self, for one's actions and decisions. Also, one m ust not adopt
God-like p re ro g a tiv e s , nor elect to direct the c o u rse of another, even
334
under the guise of help, beyond a s s is ta n c e in helping a self to help
itself. Consequently, a sense of tension was se t up e a rly within the
firs t act, as soon as B e rn ie ’s a g g re ssiv e n e ss and his decision to star
F ran k w ere revealed. Then, in Scene Two, tension and complexity
in c re a se d with the m eeting of Bernie and Georgie and the subsequent
interactions of G eorgie, B ernie, and F rank. The possibility seem ed
p resen t (assum ing som e audience understanding and sym pathetic
response) for an audience to experience tensions that would be a s s o
ciated with the d e s ire s and th e ir defenses eith er im plied or explored.
The im pulses of B ernie, F rank, and G eorgie, as they sought different
and devious ways to obtain satisfaction, w ere a p rim a ry source for
complexity.
Rebellion against authority was not so m uch a specific incident
as it w as p re se n t throughout the action: F ra n k and B ernie w ere re b e l
lious throughout; and, at som e point, both G eorgie and F ran k rebelled
against B ernie (an authority figure). An audience would doubtlessly be
concerned about the outcome of F r a n k 's decision to becom e intoxicated
on the second night of the show, and the inevitable punishment for his
sort of rebellion. Also, some d idacticism was possible by identifying
and working through the d e s ire s , defenses, satisfactions, disappoint
m e n ts, m ista k e s , and so on, of each of the m a in c h a ra c te rs , but p e r
haps of Georgie and B ernie in p articu lar; i. e. , some knowledge in
addition to the satisfaction and p le asu re derived from participation.
An audience could participate in c e rta in im p u lses which one would
n o rm ally asso ciate with re stra in t (e. g. , tyranny, self-indulgence,
loss of te m p e r or control), could participate in a tra n s g re s s io n , and
335
in the struggles between im pulse and inhibition. Consequently, certain
longings could be gratified, c e rta in d e s ire s re -e x p e rie n c e d along with
th e ir guilt, and as a result the possibility existed for th e ir m o m en tary
purge within an audience. Although F ra n k on the surface m ay have
appeared to be flexible, his inflexibility was soon betrayed by the co n
tinual excuses he m ade for him self, his blam e of others, his p r e f e r
ence for lie over truth, for im agination over reality, for dependence
ra th e r than independence. Georgie ad m in iste re d the degree of truth
which he was able to absorb; and when he could not, he re s o rte d to
m endacity. When lies failed him , he broke down. Evidence existed to
reveal that F ra n k actually p o sse sse d a violent and impetuous nature
which disdained co m p ro m ise and sensible solutions, a degree of vio
lence which was d irec ted p rim a rily in the form of silent hostility
tow ard self and only la ter tow ard others openly (e. g. , Nancy and
G eorgie).
Control of Anxiety P erception--O bjectification and Focus
Odets' cathexis seem ed p a rtic u la rly asso ciated with the
attem pted reg en eratio n of a w orthy and talented individual who con
tinually th reaten ed relap se, and one com plicated by the e m e rg en ce of
a love triangle. G eorgie had believable heroic qualities, yet was
troubled with som e d e s ire s an audience would struggle against. The
events w ere not actually large in scope but n ev erth eless cru c ia l to the
c h a ra c te rs concerned in the existential sense of m aking a g re a t p e r
sonal and individual difference th e re a fte r (a typical Odets situation).
The events w e re a ll-s e rio u s to the c h a ra c te rs , the altern ativ es w ere
336
e x tre m e , and c h a ra c te ris tic s of human n ature and a p red icam en t w ere
explored to the extent that audience anxiety could be aro u sed about
F r a n k 's possible su ccess, about the p resen ce of any genuine ego
strength gained, the outcome of the love triangle (i. e. , the rela tio n
ship between Georgie and B ernie, between Georgie and F rank, and
between F ra n k and B ernie), and finally, the ultim ate decisions and
outcome for all.
O bjectification. The d e s ire s , fe a rs , and inner conflicts which
w ere objectified seem ed so selected and a rra n g e d , and the p re d ic a
m ent was so contained and bound by controls that the situation-conflict
could be accepted by an audience as reality, yet confronted without
fe a r and without being openly acknowledged. Odets did not confuse the
predicam ent by extraneous m e ss a g e , action, o r c h a ra c te r; the a tte n
tion was directed tow ard the essentials and sustained by in terest and a
degree of suspense. The cathected issue could be explored with audi
ence detachm ent and security; the content and fo rm , which aroused and
projected the anxiety, served concom itantly as a kind of binding p r o
cess so that audience reaction would not be too intense or personal,
so that the fe a rs which the dilem m a conceivably aro u se d would in tu rn
bind the im pulses that w ere stim ulated and satisfied on stage. That
which was objectified seem ed to have the p ro p e r balance of both au d i
ence detachm ent and secu rity (a p rereq u isite for p ro p e r aesthetic d i s
tance). F o r these re a so n s, the w rite r concluded that Odets achieved
successful objectification. However, and as usual, the c ritic s w ere
in contradiction about O dets' objectification; w h ereas one believed
337
that "Odets seem s to have achieved a new kind of sp a re n e s s and self-
29
discipline"; another judged that the play was m e re ly about a m an
who could not grow up and cheated his wife of life as a woman, ". . .
Odets does not com e to grips with the ce n tra l m o ra l question: is a
m a n 's working ability worth this p a rtic u la r sacrifice W alter K e rr
com plim ented Odets' objectification by stating that Odets thought the
situation through in such careful detail that the play em erged as real,
. . was well balanced: p assag es of quiet careful motivation a re fol
lowed by inevitable and satisfying flareups; nothing is tacked on; ev ery -
31
thing m oves with easy confidence"; but Harold C lurm an was in c o m
plete contradiction with this c ritic is m when he described the play as
"confusing, " and this was due in p a rt to O dets'
. . . im m atu rity of judgm ent in reg ard to his own feeling . . .
like the conflict between his inadequate plot stru c tu re s and his
sw arm ing em otions, th e re has always been a discrepancy
between what he is and what he thinks he is, a b reac h between
his consciousness and his actual experience. ^2
Focus. Acts and scenes closed in such a m a n n er that audience
thought would likely be both d irec ted and provoked. The em otional
intensity seem ed o v er-all to be consistent and to build throughout the
play. One w as n ever certain that F ra n k would not re v e rt at any
m om ent to his fo rm e r pattern; fe a rs w ere piqued by incidents such as
the b e e r bottles and cough m edicine; the episodes involving Georgie
and B ernie w ere cathected to the extent that apprehension seem ed
established about the outcome. B e rn ie 's m isunderstanding of h e r only
heightened anxiety, as did his com plete r e v e r s a l to affection and his
d eclaration of love. Im ages succeeded one another logically and with
intensity, as an audience would be encouraged to hope fo r sufficient
338
inner strength within F ra n k for his newly found opportunity. Odets
was successful in creating the feeling that one victory could se rv e as
motivation for another, so that F ra n k would gain g re a te r confidence
and se lf-a ssu ra n c e . However, the level of anxiety was still skillfully
m aintained as Odets continually suggested an underlying hostility
between F ran k and G eorgie, each blaming the other, not only with lies
but brutal truths.
Odets seem ed to be successful in omitting the sluggishness and
irre lev an cies of life, in arranging and em phasizing the causals and
in terrelatio n sh ip s, and the e ssen tials of his m ain idea, so that the
play had a sense of beginning, m iddle, and end (a complete and m e a n
ingful action). Although development (the middle) seem ed to be the
stronger of the th r e e - - th e beginning seem ed somewhat slow, and the
ending ra th e r inconclusive. Also, one might question why Odets
bothered to trouble Georgie (or m ake such a point of doing so) with a
toothache, an infliction which did not seem to add any dim ension to the
situation-conflict. People do not com m unicate so econom ically and
directly, of course, in light of such intense affect; nor are incidents
likely to occur in life with such careful integration and significance to
a single problem ; yet no basis was found for an offense to the sen se of
reality, logic, or p erso n al sensibilities in O dets' manipulation of the
action.
Diction was very selective; one would be h a rd -p re s s e d to select
m any speeches by any of the cen tral c h a ra c te rs which did not refle ct
with im m ediacy upon the idea or im age at issu e. There w ere a few
trite or cliche expressions: e. g. , stop w hirling like a d e rv is h , nobody
339
wants to get your goat, to bite off m o re than I can chew, how did a
m an with your talents go so h a y w ire , F ran k thinks the sun r is e s and
sets in y o u , I'm a little choked u p , it's m ore than flesh and blood can
stand, everything sh ip -sh a p e . F u rth e rm o re , diction did not seem to
contain a s much im agery, as m uch figurative language, as Odets'
e a rlie s t works. However, the language was believable in the sense of
being a p p ro p ria te to c h a ra c te r, and was hardly disturbing in te rm s of
proportion or im plication. Tim e seem ed convincingly telescoped,
confusions in g en era l w ere omitted, and a whole was achieved. As a
result, a personality pattern was able to be explored, one which would
o rd in arily be obscured by daily living; also, a pattern was exposed
which underlay the hum an experience and som e intrapsychic conflicts
which d eterm in e d the co u rse of the c h a r a c te r s ' lives. The pattern
seem ed to be that of disturbed personality which found its com plem ent
and gained a sense of security; but then with the em ergence of s tr e s s ,
a new galaxy of problem s was crea ted because individual strength and
growth do not re s u lt fro m a symbiotic relationship. F r a n k 's goal
could s e e m shallow to som e, his intrapsychic conflicts unfounded--
social approval, acclaim , fe a r of offending others or of appearing
dim inutive in th e ir e y e s --b u t it was n ev erth eless apropos to m odern
man. A s a resu lt, an audience would be able to turn fro m som ething
vague, indeterm inant, and all-p e rv a siv e to a credible dynam ic outside
of self; relief could re su lt fro m having the p attern specified and
defined, and fro m working through a com passionate whole.
With the exception of the th re e cen tral c h a r a c te r s , how ever, the
others seem ed underdeveloped, if not stereotyped. Even B ernie could
340
have been strengthened with m o re developm ent and com plication (as
well as both Mr. Cook and M r. Unger). Such concentration, and the
suggestion of stereotypes, m ay on occasion have given the play a
m e lo d ra m a tic tone, but o v er-all Odets objectified and focused a tte n
tion upon his cathexis, his motif, and did not p e rm it m e ss a g e or
internal em otion to overwhelm his pred icam en t. Neither did he p e r
m it o n e ’s attention to dwell upon a single c h a r a c te r for an o v e re x
tended period of tim e. The development of his m a in ch ara cterizatio n s
seem ed consistent with a logical expectation that was based upon what
had happened before and what one could expect or anticipate - -one could
hardly expect profound personality changes in light of the incidents
involved. In the opinion of this w r ite r, nothing w as p resen t in suffi
cient strength to disturb perception and plausibility to the extent that
it would aro u se resistan c e to com passion, sustained identification -
em pathy, and participation, all of which m ake possible the experience
of a controlled, com passionate seeing of a whole.
Psychic R ew ards
Odets probed a few conflicts not ordinarily explored or examined
in such depth, he revealed some determ ining facto rs and the influences
of each, and he dignified certain im pulses one m ight ordinarily deny in
self or gratify with guilt. He objectified the re s u lts of e r r o r as well
as the consequences (though the consequences w ere not of particu la r
magnitude), and if the sense of ultim ate justice accom plished w as not
especially strong, n evertheless it w as not en tirely absent. A few
33
c ritic s objected to the m anner in which Odets concluded h is play,
341
and Odets him self confessed to having g reat difficulty in concluding the
34
w ork, but for this w rite r the conclusion--despite its somewhat
inconclusive n a tu re --w a s certainly not unjust, it w as psychologically
sound, and it was credible in light of all the events which led to it.
The opportunity for audience psychic re w a rd s and involvement
seem ed prevalent; the pleasure principle was at w ar with the reality
principle. Id fo rc e s were p articu larly identifiable within B ernie and
F ra n k , as well as superego forces. Both c h a ra c te rs seem ed to v a c il
late between them , to struggle with each. Georgie rep resen ted the
b e s t exam ple of ego strength; i.e . , she obviously had som e su ccess in
h e r efforts tow ard integrating, tow ard balancing the id and superego
fo rc e s within h er own personality, as well as having ultim ately a kind
of integrative effect upon o th e rs--b o th F ra n k and Bernie seem ed to
gain m o re ego strength as a result of working along with h e r through
the predicam ent. Though the ego seem ed to be the final victor in m any
re s p e c ts, Odets did not provide an absolute or ultim ate victory for any
fo rc e (leaving the final decision to audience imagination): in so doing,
he m ay have enhanced his final and total effect somewhat, in the sense
that audience sym pathies w ere spared any absolute final judgm ent or
extended com parison; also, the possibility was elim inated for all-good
o r all-bad c h a ra cterizatio n (the c h a ra c te rs w ere left with an additional
dim ension, a d eg ree of possibility). In light of the situation-conflict
explored, and the events of the action, an absolute victory did not
s e e m n e c e s s a ry and would likely have been less convincing from a
psychological point of view. F u rth e r, the ending helped to prevent any
too p erso n al association on the p art of the audience, any propaganda
342
p reachm ent, or the danger of contrivance, any or all of which would
have d estroyed the sense of a com passionate pattern and whole, and
the d e sire d aesthetic distance. Another possibility seem ed in t e r e s t
ing as speculation: if F ra n k and Georgie w ere to be reg ard ed as one
s p lit-c h a ra c te r, then the destructive and indulgent id could be seen in
com bat with the rigorous dem ands of the superego, and the struggle
for som e balance within this conflict would resem b le the efforts of the
ego. T h eir struggles and the goals being sought would then appear to
provide a possibility for psychological involvement within m o d ern
audiences quite ap art fro m the surface p roblem s of alcoholism ,
c a r e e r , love, m a rr ia g e , and so forth.
A m bivalence. Each of the cen tral c h a ra c te rs , as well as the
conflict, could be perceived fro m different points of view: dem ands
had som e balance, claim s and co unterclaim s w ere present, and a
poised and sustained am bivalence was crea ted to the extent that the
d ilem m a seem ed humanly real. Georgie was not an especially s y m
pathetic c h a r a c te r until one discovered that F ra n k had been lying about
h e r in o r d e r to estab lish him self as a m a rty r in the eyes of others.
Even a fte r h er strength becam e evident, Odets gave h e r additional
hum an fra iltie s so that she did not seem all good, or all strength.
F ra n k was not a com plete and habitual w astrel; he w as trying to
im prove and had believable c h a rm and worthy qualities. B ernie, lik e
w ise, had a com bination of virtu es and faults which added to the p o s s i
bilities fo r an am bivalence rew ard. The dilem m a w as m o re than
F ra n k 's regeneration; it also concerned G eorgie's happiness and
future, as well as B e rn ie 's , so that opportunity was p resen t fo r both
343
conscious and unconscious sym pathies for the m ain c h a ra c te rs .
Conditions in opposition w ere urged; for the sake of G eorgie's h ap p i
n e s s , one might wish that she would accept the love of B ernie (and
Odets subtly established some re c ip ro c a l feeling on h e r part), yet h er
profound im portance to F r a n k 's future was s tre s s e d with intensity.
No single view prevailed for an extended tim e, and value sy stem s
w ere constantly in evidence. A fluctuating participation with values
and value sy stem s was possible: each of the m ain c h a ra c te rs
espoused a slightly different value system . Consequently, due to the
degree of plausibility and psychological validity which appeared to be
present, plus the opportunity fo r fluctuating participation, an o c c a
sional and strong am bivalence rew ard seem ed v ery likely.
Confrontation. Georgie was in d ire c t contrast to F ra n k (d r a
m atic foil); i. e. , she re p re s e n te d a som ew hat constant confrontation
type of c h a ra c te r in that she did not su p p ress, lie, or deny to anyone,
but rath e r confronted the re a litie s and the abundant m endacity, and
she sought out that which F ra n k p r e fe rre d to avoid, disguise, o r lie
about. She confronted defects, m ista k e s , and th e ir fate; she acknow l
edged vulnerability, did not m inim ize suffering, faced openly the p r o s
pects of the future without evasion or false hopes. As such, h e r
c h a ra c te r could aro u se som e audience anxiety, while at the sam e tim e
exalting the ego fo rces because she p e rs iste d in testing reality and
reporting even under the m o st a d v e rse and discouraging vicissitudes;
h er ego a s sim ilated the id and superego, a s s e rte d its independence,
and p e rse v e re d at integration; it was successful as it accepted and
344
granted ex tre m e s, yet m aintained its authority. However, Georgie
was throughout consistent in general; i. e. , th e re was no sudden r e v e r
sal, no revelation and acceptance of in-depth truth about self, which
would have provided for a m o re powerful confrontation rew ard.
What these c h a ra c te rs w ere made to think, feel, and see finally
was very often what one would usually keep self fro m seeing, and thus
some degree of psychic freed o m was achieved. The audience could
see energy changing direction: each c h a ra c te r gave at least som e
indication that his en erg ies ceased in an effort to im pose his will upon
the world, and in tu rn the en erg ies becam e directed inw ardly tow ard a
psychic effort that provided som e degree of self-rev elatio n and truth.
Consequently, this w rite r was of the opinion that som e possibility
(though limited) existed for a confrontation psychic rew ard.
C atharsis. Opportunity existed for both participant and cognitive
reactions: the c h a ra cterizatio n and dilem m a seem ed psychologically
valid and plausible, and the situation-conflict was not so unique or
limited that it lacked g en eral in terest. Through the c h a r a c te r s '
d e s ire s , and th e ir punishm ent, one could derive a c e rta in degree of
p leasure from the disch arg e and control of instincts, yet at all tim es
be guaranteed safety.and freed o m from personal guilt (i. e. , not p u r
suing one's own fantasy). Also, the possibility existed fo r g ra tific a
tion fro m a p a rtic u la r identification; the th ree c h a ra c te rs w ere suffi
ciently different, and each offered som e potential for identification-
empathy. The consequences of conduct w ere sufficiently clear,
motivated, and w ell-established so that it seem ed unlikely one would
345
take issue with th e ir justice, inevitability, or im m inence. A strong
factor in favor of a c a th a rsis rew ard was the possibility for continued
identification despite the final consequences; as w ritten, any re v e rs a l
would occur very late within the final scene; and, Odets left no single
problem com pletely solved or resolved. T herefore, an established
identification-em pathy could continue until the close or even beyond.
A ssum ing the presen ce of some identification-em pathy within an audi
ence, nothing seem ed to be present within the final scenes which would
disavow or dim inish sym pathies previously aro u sed for the c h a r a c
te rs; as a result, any inspired pity-fear reaction could be purged
(i.e. , pity for the tra n s g re s s io n s and tribulations of the past, and fear
over the consequences undergone, and for the possibilities of the
future). One could feel purged of some of the d e s ire s yielded to by
the c h a ra c te rs , as well as th e ir gratification which brought about suf
fering and com plication (a sense of relief plus fulfillment, which would
relieve tension and anxiety). However, since the c h a ra c te rs and
dilem m a lacked m uch significance or magnitude, the potential degree
of purgation seem ed ra th e r limited. A cathartic response would likely
derive m o re from feelings of fulfillment (desires and their g ra tific a
tion which brought about the tension-com plexity-suffering) ra th e r than
from a stric tly p ity -fear resonse.
Finally, with such statem ents as the following, Odets concluded
the play: Georgie says, ". . . I'm sure that both o u r lives a re at
some turning point . . . th e re 's some real new elem ent of hope here
. . . I don't know w hat. " F ran k replies, ". . . no m a tte r what h ap
pens, you have saved m e Georgie . . . I think I have a chance"
346
[italics m in e]. By such statem ents Odets encouraged o ptim ism within
the minds of his audience, but wisely he did not offend logic, for
neither F ra n k nor Georgie w ere very changed, nor would they becom e
greatly so within their futures. Subtly, how ever, he im posed a degree
of optimism; F ran k would be acclaim ed for his stirring perform ance
and once again be regarded as successful by som e (his goal achieved,
and in p a rt G eorgie's). However, the audience was not actually encou
raged to speculate about the future: for exam ple, should F ran k
becom e successful and m ore s e lf-a s s e rtiv e , then what of their a d ju st
m en t and m a r r i a g e ? Would Georgie have the strength to endure the
rig o rs of his overnight acclaim and attention? N evertheless, the te n
sions which w ere set up and im posed e a r lie r within the action w ere
resolved at the conclusion: F ra n k p e rsiste d with an avowed sense of
hope and prom ise; Bernie left, acknowledging the Georgie that the
audience accepted; Georgie was aw are of som e slight change in F rank,
and she destroyed the te leg ram . An audience would be left with only
the im m ediate expectation of som e m e a s u re of success and perhaps a
heightened aw areness regarding the pred icam en t, resolved of past
tensions, purged of any p ity-fear response by the c ris e s and clim ax,
gratified by the d e s ire s explored, th e ir satisfactions and suffering,
and with only the im m ediate and future events as a concern. F ra n k
did finally grapple with that which caused him a n x ie ty --re g a rd le s s of
h is source of m otivation--and he satisfacto rily proved som e strength.
The audience would be left to contem plate F ra n k 's ability to evaluate
h is affinity for his p articu la r anxiety, the b a sis for his fears and
347
adjustm ent; and, the s o rt of adjustm ent that faced him , Georgie, and
B ernie in the future.
Conclusion
The quality and extent of illusion results p rim a rily from the
universals which Odets e x p lo re s, the recognizable inner conflicts,
d e sire s , defenses, w eak n esses, consequences, and so o n --a ll of which
are successfully distanced so as to prevent a too p erso n al audience
response. The Country G irl is one of the few of O dets' plays in which
th e re exists no obvious p reachm ent o r propaganda, in which a "S ys
te m " or the "E stablishm ent" is not indicted to some extent. Though it
approaches the sentim ental and m elo d ram atic on occasion, and the
situation-conflict could seem r e s tric te d to some by setting, and the
mundane, Odets m anages to provide an opportunity fo r working through
a dilem m a that involves some basic, easily recognizable, and in
com mon human c h a ra c te ris tic s ; the situation-conflict is not actually
so fa r removed fro m possibility that an audience m a y still displace and
project to the c h a ra c te rs ; also there is much opportunity for analogiz
ing. Due to the extent that Odets probes his c h a r a c te r s ' psychological
patterns, the surface s to ry becom es not only less im p o rtan t than the
affective configuration of psychological forces in opposition, but there
is also a broad possibility for em pathy-identification with one or m o re
of the th ree m ain c h a ra c te rs (each of whom has very w orthy qualities
which are capable of inciting an affective and sym pathetic response).
The predicam ent produces anxiety directly proportional to the extent
of audience identification-em pathy. Each c h a ra c te r a t certain tim e s is
able to re p re s e n t feared or unfulfilled aspects of an audience self.
348
Each is worthy, yet an audience can identify with the bad in the
c h a ra c te r's personality as well as with the good; each has a wish
which contains some u n iv e rsal appeal. The situation-conflict lacks
some depth of significance and m agnitude, but the possibility for a
strong sym pathetic response due to the exploration of hum an u n iv e r
sals and the in-depth psychological probing seem s to com pensate for
this deficiency to the extent that entertainm ent potential does exist.
Some tabus a re violated, which adds tension, but these are p re d o m i
nantly psychological ra th e r than social in im portance; the tensions
a ris e m ostly fro m individual will pitted against will (openly and d is
guised). The complexity derives largely fro m the d e s ire s p resent,
th e ir defenses, and th e ir struggle to gain satisfaction. Also, adding
to the com plexity is the presen ce throughout of the will to rebel
against authority or an authority figure, as well as the p resence of
certain forbidden d e s ire s and im pulses. F ra n k is silently hostile
from firs t to last, only occasionally revealing his deep anger and
resentm ent. The strength of illusion is proportional to the audience's
willingness to sym pathize, displace, project, identify, em pathize,
and vicariously participate; no single factor was discovered which
would seriously inhibit potential for illusion.
The basic anxiety seem s to revolve around an attem pted re g e n
eration of a talented alcoholic who threatens relapse the m o re he is
forced into se lf-re lia n c e and responsibility; and it is fu rth er co m p li
cated by the type of dependent-independent relationships that exist
among the th re e cen tral c h a ra c te rs , as w ell as the em erg en ce of a
love triangle. Despite e a r lie r m entioned lim itations in significance
349
and magnitude, events a re a ll-s e rio u s and altern ativ es e x tre m e , as
far as these individuals a re concerned (the extent of anxiety perceived
and aro u sed being dependent, of co u rse, upon the audience's w illing
n ess to accept the illusion, to sympathize and to identify, and to
vicariously participate). That which is objectified is done so with
such careful control of motivations and effects, without a too personal
or d octrinaire expression of ideas, and with such gradual and indivi
dual revelation of c h a ra c te r that too much anxiety could hardly be
aroused: there is a sufficient balance of sp ectato r-p articip an t
response in o rd e r to crea te p ro p er aesthetic distance, which in turn
would sustain the possibilities for entertainm ent. Likewise, focus is
consistent and strong: i.e . , the level of em otional intensity builds
throughout the play, while at the sam e tim e increasing from c ris is to
c ris is; th e re exists no real confusion as to the predicam ent or intent
of each c h a ra c te r. The p ro g re s s of the action, the development of the
plot (and the ch aracterization) is logical ov er-all. Suspense resu lts
from (1) the gradual a w aren ess of F ra n k 's m endacity, his inner te n
sions and hostility, his tenuous adjustm ent, (2) the relationship
between Georgie and B ernie, and (3) the em erg en ce of the love t r i
angle. The objectified and focused upon causals and in te rre la tio n
ships give to the play a sense of p ro g re ssiv e action undisturbed by
irrelev an cy or confusion: the play p o s se ss e s a sense of beginning,
middle, and end, with strength in p ro g ressiv e development. In all,
neither logic nor sensibility is offended. The diction is consistent
with c h a ra cterizatio n and expectation; and, it does not call attention
to itself except w here the cliches a r e so rep resen tativ e of the
350
h isto ric a l period during which the play was w ritten. Although diction
is not p articu larly figurative, it is appropriate to the c h a ra c te rs and
to the situation. Illusion supports m ost of the in te re st and involve
m ent through the exploration of personality p attern s, the intrapsychic
conflicts, and the anxieties objectified. Odets succeeds in providing
fo r his audience a controlled com passionate seeing of a whole.
Psychic rew ard s a re prevalent as a resu lt of the p le asu re p r in
ciple so continually at odds with the reality principle, the identifiable
id and superego struggles, and the integrative efforts of the ego.
Odets does not conclude with an ultim ate victory fo r any, which has
som e m e rit because of the psychology of the c h ara cterizatio n s and the
lim ited presen ce of broad significance and magnitude; although the ego
is rew arded within the course of the action, only the suggestion of its
possible victory is presented. Considering the s o rt of c h a ra c te rs and
the predicam ent Odets develops, an audience could derive m o re enjoy
m en t if encouraged to analogize (as Odets se e m s to do), ra th e r than
providing th em with the opportunity to take sides o r ra ise issue with
an absolute and final outcome. Another psychic rew ard is the p resence
of am bivalence, because throughout one is able to participate in flu c
tuating value s y ste m s, in a sustained balance between opposites. Con
frontation is not as strong: though Georgie is a confrontation type, she
r e p re s e n ts m o re of a consistent integrative force. The confrontation
rew ard would have been stro n g e r w ere F ra n k to convincingly project
m o re of a final realizatio n and acceptance of his basic w eak n esses, his
degree of contact with reality, since he had so assiduously avoided
confrontation up to this point. N evertheless, to som e degree he finally
351
grapples with the cause of his anxiety and satisfactorily derives some
strength, which would provide som e psychic rew ard for an audience.
C ath arsis is also lim ited as a rew ard: the possibility exists fo r some
d ischarge and control of the instinctual, fo r relief fro m tension and
anxiety, and even a sense of fulfillment, along with the a ssu ra n c e of
sufficient aesthetic distance (assum ing strong identification-em pathy
and some vicarious participation on the p art of the viewer); how ever,
the significance and magnitude, the nature of the tra n s g re s s io n , the
d e sire s struggled with and yielded to, and the ultim ate consequences
are m o re p erso n al than broad in implication. They do not c re a te or
support a strong c a th a rs is rew ard. Odets closes on an optim istic note
that is not encum bered by the p reachm ent or indictm ent so c h a r a c
te ristic of the conclusions to be found within his e a r l ie r plays. The
problem is essen tially a personal one among three likeable and in te r
esting people; the audience is privileged to explore a significant in t e r
lude within th e ir lives, one that as a resu lt will m ake the c h a ra c te rs
somewhat different in their futures, along with a predicam ent from
which som e knowledge, some application, and som e satisfaction can
be derived by an audience.
With The Country G irl Odets tu rn s his attention once again to the
m an who is lower on the socio-econom ic scale. F ra n k Elgin m ay not
be a project la b o re r like the c h a ra c te r of J e r r y Wilenski in Clash by
Night, but F ra n k is nev erth eless m o re on a social par with Odets'
heroes than w ere the c h a ra c te rs C harlie Castle (The Big Knife) or Dr.
Ben Stark (Rocket to the Moon). The em phasis has now turned with
g re a te r strength upon psychology: the inner workings of the
personality, its m achinations, and its daily confrontations with a
reality. The e a r lie r sociological and h istorical e m p h a se s have v i r
tually disappeared, and no type of "System " is being indicated. F ran k
re p re se n ts the usual Odets "se n sitiv e " protagonist, but instead of
F ra n k having to cope with some g re a te r "System " or organization, and
as a re su lt suffering some m e a su re of defeat or confusion, he grows
in strength during the course of the action and his struggles are with
him self and a reality understandable to virtually any audience; f r a i l
ties, strengths, and sentim ents explored a re m o re u n iv e rs a l than
atypical or p articu la r to a few. Consequently, the d ile m m a seem s
fam iliar, but in actuality the d ilem m a is not typical; it contains a
genuine potential for audience em otional response due to the extent of
in-com m on or u n iv ersal hum an concerns which a re p re se n t. The all-
im portant (or significant) existential decision, the p re s e n c e of c o m
p r o m is e —a frequent Odets m o tif--is obviously p resen t, but this p r e
dicam ent places even g re a te r em phases upon responsibility and self-
reliance , em phases which w ere also encountered with especial
strength in his play, Clash by Night, and even The Big K nife. The
conclusion of The Country G irl differs from the plays w ritten up to this
point; w h ereas, m o st of Odets' e a r l ie r plays did end on som e note of
optim ism (with the exception of Golden Boy, Clash by N ight, and p o s
sibly T h e B i^ K n if e ) , the optim ism was in som e d eg ree predicated
upon youth and change - -p a rtic u la rly so cial--and esp ecially the changes
which youth could effect. H erein, the optim ism re s ts la rg e ly upon
faith in the individual will and in the dignity of m an. B ecause of this,
and due to the inclusion of m o re u n iv e rsal and in -co m m o n concerns,
353
plus the absence of too personal e x p re s s io n s by Odets, th e re seem s
to be a basis fo r identification, participation, d idacticism , and
audience entertainm ent. As usual, how ever, one m u st accept an
Odets cathexis which is lim ited in significance and magnitude.
The Flow ering P each
Plot Sum m ary
3 5
The Flow ering P each opens in the living ro o m of Noah's home,
som etim e in the rem ote past. The hour is alm ost dawn and Noah, now
older than seventy y e a rs, has been troubled by bad d re a m s. He tells
E sth e r that God has told him the w orld is to be destro y ed by a flood,
and only their fam ily shall be saved. She tells him not to drink so
much, and to re tu rn to bed; why should they, in p a rtic u la r, be saved?
When Japheth, his favorite son, e n te rs, Noah sends him for Ham and
Shem, the older sons. Noah tells E s th e r they a re going to build an
a rk th re e sto rie s high; she leaves, convinced that he is ill. Alone,
Noah is suddenly visited by the presen ce of God; He scolds Noah for
his doubts and fears.
Scene Two is the sam e setting, but it is now late afternoon of
the sam e day. Noah is speaking; Japheth is listening, H am is r e s t
less; Shem and E sth e r are w orried. Shem questions Noah, and E sth e r
sends Shem 's wife, Leah, to the kitchen to help with the evening m eal.
As the eldest, Shem has assu m ed the head of the household and begins
to question the others. Ham would have Noah locked up, but Japheth
believes his fath er has had a vision. The elder b ro th e rs point out the
im p racticality of securing and housing a p a ir of each anim al. Shem
354
is v e ry m oney-m inded; Ham w orks for him , and Shem offers Japheth
a job also, but Japheth refuses. This wounds Shem’s pride, and he
determ ines to teach Japheth som e respect. Suddenly, Leah s c re a m s
that there is a m ouse in the kitchen; in the excitem ent it suddenly runs
into Noah's hands. Noah says it is a gitka. God has sent h im a m e s
sage via this blind anim al, which supposedly can sing the p ra is e s of
God. Japheth then enters in a la rm ; anim als, fam iliar and unfam iliar,
have begun to gather outside in pairs. The family falls on its knees
in awe. Noah then lights the Sabbath candles and prays, saying they
are h ere m e re ly to serve God.
Scene Three is som etim e la te r on a high clear hillside. The sun
is intense, and the area is parched and arid; the stern of the a rk is
visible. The sounds of wood w ork can be heard. E sth er, Leah, and
Rachel (H am 's wife) are sorting and storing fresh fruit. Noah enters;
he is am azed at the patience of the anim als. He is also dep ressed
because he cannot do a m a n 's work, he who invented the hoe and the
rake. Both he and E sth er e x p re ss w o rry about a wife for Japheth,
who has been building the a rk alm ost single-handed. Noah c o n sid ers
him strange and obstinate. Japheth enters; he is busy and p re o c c u
pied. He inquires about a rudder for the ark. Noah is scornful and
says in anger that God will s te e r. He in te rp re ts Japheth's suggestion
as obstinancy, but E sth er rem inds Noah that they cannot do without
him and that the boy is actually good--he prays for goodness every
night. Shem a g re e s with Noah, but E sth e r says Shem is only good for
making money, and Noah drinks all of the tim e. Japheth says he does
not want to m a r r y because God is about to destroy so many people. He
355
is confused about God; the deity whom he is supposed to love seem s to
him too vengeful and brutal. Noah considers this blasphem y. Japheth
says since Noah will not forgive him , he m u st leave, and so he does.
Scene F our is m uch later, and work on the ark has come to a
standstill. Ham is a slee p and Shem is r e s tle s s . Noah returns; he has
been gone since early m orning. He went into the village to buy wheat
seed, but the villagers would sell him only a little; they stoned him
because they have com e to consider him m e re ly a "lying old rum m y
Jew, " a fak er who p ra te s about the end of the world. Japheth suddenly
retu rn s; he is bruised and disheveled. He asks for Noah's blessing,
saying he cam e back for their s a k e --to w ork on the a rk --a n d not for
God. E sth e r discovers Goldie, who has accom panied Japheth from the
village; Goldie actually saved his life the night before. Japheth in tro
duces h e r to the family; she betrays that she has m et Ham before, and
E sth e r suspects the truth, that they have been intimate in the past.
Goldie tells them that the people a re superstitious, and they tried to
set fire to Japheth. She is interested in the w ork on the ark but co n
sid ers the en tire project and the fam ily unbelievable. A tax collector
en ters looking for Shem. Shem has sold all of his p ro p erties and is
now hoarding the money. He refuses to relinquish his keys, and he and
Japheth fight; Japheth overcom es him and d eliv ers the keys to Noah,
who in tu rn gives away all of Shem 's money. Shem says, "Get a
receipt, " and Noah speculates that he m u st have been saving "for a
rainy day. " Ham takes Goldie supposedly to see the anim als; and
Noah, who is discouraged because he does not seem to understand his
son, lies down to re s t for a while. Suddenly, the p resen ce of God is
356
h eard again; Noah begins to th ra sh about in his sleep. E s th e r becom es
so concerned that she sum m ons the boys. When they wake him , he
has becom e a younger m an of fifty y ears; God has given him strength.
He is again the head of the family. He m akes im m ediate plans to
finish the a rk and leaves with courage to se c u re m o re seed from the
village.
Scene Five is la te r, and now m o re of the ark can be seen.
T here is m uch industry, and the women a re weaving woolen. The
anim als a re now on board. The fam ily e x p re s s e s concern over the
aw esom e sky; also, the sun has begun to come up in the w est and to go
down in the east. Although Japheth continues to work, he refu ses to
pray, still ex p ressin g disappointm ent in God. Noah tells E s th e r that
he has becom e very w o rried about Japheth; the ark is finished and he
does not believe Japheth will join them finally. E sth e r ask s him to
try persuading him gently. Ham approaches Goldie and su rrep titio u sly
m akes plans to m eet h er that night. Rachel en ters; she also suspects
the truth about Goldie and Ham; she w arns Ham that his father m ust
never know. He tells h er that he m a r r i e d h e r only to please his
father. As he leaves, E sth e r en te rs. She asks Rachel if it is Japheth
whom she really loves, and Rachel adm its the truth; E s th e r then asks
that she try to persuade Japheth to leave with them . T hree religious
old m en enter; they want to join the fam ily on the ark. Japheth en ters
and E sth e r is angered because all he can talk about is the rudder.
When she leaves Rachel trie s to convince Japheth to re m a in with them;
one reason he cannot, he adm its, is because he actually loves h e r, and
it is too painful. Suddenly a wind begins, and Noah says the tim e is
357
now. The old m en ask to be taken, but Noah says it is God's w ord and
not the Old Law which m u st prevail; only the fam ily m u st go. Noah
tr ie s to convince Japheth, but he says only that he would rath e r die in
p rotest than to live. Noah knocks him into unconsciousness, and they
take him aboard. Goldie is reluctant to go; she wants E sth e r to know
the truth, but E sth e r replies that right now talk is a luxury they cannot
afford. Suddenly the rain begins. E sth e r re m a rk s that she has f o r
gotten a hat which she has kept for y ears, and Noah his gitka. "Must
it be?" he asks God. They lead him on board as the old m en stand
silently in the rain.
Scene Six is on board the ark at dawn, forty-one days later, and
the rain has ceased. Noah, holding the gitka in his lap, talks of his
past and his drinking problem . Japheth enters; he has refused to
m a r r y Goldie, m uch to Noah's anger. Noah e x p re s s e s a concern that
the ark is riding too low on one side. He w arns them that they m ust
float fo r alm ost a year. Ham e n te rs, drunk. Shem has been giving
him liquor as paym ent for doing his own w ork (he slipped some on
board f'for the holidays"). Shem has been planning ahead; he s p e c u
lates that they will own the world. He says he will always buy m en
like Ham, will always have something they need, will even invent it
if need be. Rachel en ters as he leaves. They think they a re alone,
but Japheth o v e rh e a rs Ham complaining that Rachel now sleeps with
E sther. Rachel tells him she will n ever re tu rn to his bed. Japheth
en ters when Ham leaves; he tells Rachel he wants to m a r r y her, but
she a s s u re s him that Noah would not p erm it it. They a re all changing,
says Japheth, and Noah m u st change also. The other women enter,
358
and E sth e r too com plains about the listing of the ark. Also, she is
unable to dry the wash without sun. Noah re tu rn s and is disgusted
because since Rachel has begun sleeping with E s th e r, he m ust sleep on
the couch. However, E sth e r will not discuss it, saying only that she
is a tire d old woman. Noah asks Ham what the problem could be.
Ham tells him that Rachel loves Japheth. At that m om ent Shem and
Japheth en ter in haste, but Noah is not interested in th e ir urgency;
he sends for his p ra y e r shawl, saying he is going to m a r r y Japheth
and Goldie im m ediately. Japheth in terrupts and explains that the a rk
is tipping because Shem has hoarded two thousand pounds of "m an u re"
in his room. Shem replies that it is dried m a n u re briquettes, for fuel;
th e re will be no dry fuel when they land except for his provisions.
Ham accu ses him of trying to sell something they will all have to buy.
Noah o rd e rs it overboard. E sth e r sees that she can turn the incident
to th e ir advantage and says it was perhaps for the family; Shem
ag re e s. Noah retu rn s to his m a rria g e plans, but Japheth refuses. He
insists upon m a rry in g Rachel, Noah replies that "rules an' re g u la
tions from way back" forbid it, but E s th e r tells him people a re chang
ing. E sth e r defends Japheth, which so enrages Noah that he alm o st
strik e s h er. He waits for the w rath of God to strike them , but in vain.
He also feels that E s th e r's spirit has d eserte d him after sixty y e a rs.
At that m om ent the sun appears. Noah leaves. Suddenly E sth e r is
stricken with a pain. Shem w arns h er that Noah has taken a whole
keg of brandy fro m his room. E sth er exits to investigate.
Scene Seven is nine weeks later; an exhausted Japheth is seated
at the new rudder. Shem and Ham appear. Noah has disappeared; the
359
ark has struck something that looked like part of a house and has
sprung a leak; and E sth e r is very sick. On the other side of the boat,
Noah ap p ears and asks God to tell the boys they a re wrong. Japheth
interrupts, and at the sam e tim e Noah discovers the new rudder. He
is angry, but Japheth tells him he has been drunk for nine w eeks, that
someone had to take charge, and besides they have hit something.
Noah refuses to accept; he says nobody loves him , and all of th e ir
m isfortunes stem from Japheth's wanting his b ro th e r's wife plus
everyone's wild ways in general. Japheth says Noah will have to
accept him for what he is, not what he wants him to be. Shem en ters
and p ra ise s Japheth, but w arns that the leak is becoming serious.
Noah is adam ant, but Shem confesses that Japheth's knowledge has
saved them; they m ust all w ork together now. Ham en ters in a la rm
because the leak has grown w orse and something m ust be done im m e
diately. However, Japheth says he will rem ove the rudder, m a r r y
Goldie, and will not re p a ir the leak: instead, he will have faith like
Noah. In the m eantim e, the a rk ap p ears to be sinking. Noah finally
tells him to use his own judgm ent, but Japheth says that he will have
to tru st him self in that case; who knows what God really wants ? "Do
you?" he asks Noah. He will not go below unless the rudder stays and
Noah m a r r i e s the four of them . Noah rem ain s im m utable. Japheth
finally relents, and Shem tells Noah that his youngest son is actually
a better m an of God than he. Noah feels lonely and d eserte d by God
and family.
Scene Eight is som etim e later, possibly autumn. Rachel and
Japheth notice that the w ater is receding and the boat is picking up
360
speed. Noah has sent out doves; he demands that Japheth adm it he
was wrong, and he has refused to talk to E sther. Everyone e n c o u r
ages Noah to visit E s th e r, but he replies that he m u st watch for his
doves. "Why not be afraid together?" they ask. However, Noah
rem ain s aloof. Suddenly, E sth e r appears with h e r hat. She calls
Noah and tells the others she w ishes to be alone with him. She asks
that he m a r r y the children for the sake of happiness and before she
goes. He still refu ses. She says she has a m y s te ry to tell him. The
a rk picks up speed, and suddenly Rachel sees a dove. The dove
alights, carrying an olive leaf. Noah calls for E s th e r, but suddenly
the gitka begins to sing mournfully. Shem tells him that E s th e r has
died, and Noah falls into Japheth's a r m s crying.
Scene Nine is A pril of the next year. The a rk is now aground,
and the land is in bloom. All of the women a re pregnant, and e v e ry
one is preparing fo r a final departure. Noah and Japheth a r e absent.
Everyone wonders with whom Noah will decide to live. Noah en ters;
he is again old but now has lost his im patience and au th o ritarian a t t i
tudes. The anim als have all left the ark. In an sw er to the children,
he says he will stay with Shem. He tells them to go forth and to m u l
tiply, and in all ways they should replenish the earth. They all leave
with m utual good w ishes; Noah, Japheth, and Rachel stay behind.
Noah inquires about a beautiful tre e nearby, and Japheth says it is a
flowering peach. Noah com m ents that it shall be a fruitful world.
They have been forced to face th em selv es, says Japheth, and have
changed; maybe God changes when m an does. They exit. Noah tells
God he will not leave the a rk without a sign that the world will not be
361
destroyed again. Suddenly he sees a rainbow. He thanks God and
says that he has learn ed to walk in humility, to listen even to him self,
and to speak softly with the voice of consolation. "Now it's in m a n 's
hands to m ake or destroy the world . . . I'll tell you a m y ste ry . "
Illusion
The illusion seem ed to be one based upon the Jew ish Noah legend
tra n s fo rm e d into co n tem p o rary middle class fam ily life and re-told
largely through the Yiddish idiom. Psychoanalytically, it m ight be
described as a kind of fam ily rom ance within a fam iliar legendary
setting. A m a jo r conflict existed between the forces of reason and
faith: the old laws or tradition w ere challenged by reason, logic, and
the d esire for change.
God gave Noah the responsibility of saving what He wished when
e v er He destroyed the world by flood; and because of Noah's advanced
y e a rs , m o rta l w eaknesses and frailties, he felt inadequate for the
task. Noah's favorite son, Japheth, had doubts about the benevolence
and justice of what seem ed to be a cruel and vengeful God. Though the
boy seem ed the m o st worthy of the so n s--S h em was an opportunist,
Ham was a p hilanderer, and lazy--and though he virtually built the a rk
single-handed for the family, he could not accept blind faith without
question. Also, out of confusion and conscience he refused his
fa th e r's dem ands to take a wife and even left the family altogether.
Noah was thrown into a dilem m a: why was his favorite son so restive
when the dem ands of God w ere so obvious to h im ? Why did God select
him and his fam ily with all of their apparent w eaknesses ? How could
36<2
he finally succeed in his task without the a ssista n c e of Japheth? In
addition, the v illagers had become increasingly suspicious and hostile
to the point of threatening the lives of the family. Japheth finally
returned for the sake of the family, and divine intervention re s to re d
youthful strength and vigor to Noah, with the re su lt that the a rk was
completed. Through God-given physical energy, Noah forced Japheth
aboard. With the deluge and the long and confined stay afloat, basic
d e s ire s within the fam ily began to em erge: e. g. , Japheth confessed
love for H am 's wife, Rachel, who in tu rn had se c re tly been in love
with him; Ham fell in love with Japheth's betrothed, Goldie, who also
loved him and not Japheth; Noah began to reg ard him self as the u lti
m ate in te rp re te r of God's will (he refused to m a r r y the children or to
accept a rudder for the a rk because he felt that he would be interfering
with the will of God). The family gradually w ithdrew from his self-
righteousness and absolutism . Consequently, Noah also re tre ated
from the family, convinced that worldly sin had accom panied them on
the ark , that God had d eserte d them and would be vengeful. Events
precipitated a final confrontation between the new faith and the old:
Japheth who had com e to believe that m a n could not fully in te rp re t God
but should help h im se lf and strive to be as happy as he could, as
opposed to Noah who adhered to the traditional, the old teachings and
laws of absolute faith. Neither would relent, but finally Japheth c o m
prom ised for the security of the family. A dove retu rn ed with an olive
leaf; but before the tr ia l cam e to a close E sth e r died of a fatal illness,
and Noah sym bolically accepted the new faith espoused by Japheth;
i. e. , perhaps God did change as m an changed. The newly benevolent
363
Noah, interpreting the rainbow as God's covenant that the world would
not be destroyed again, concluded that m an m ust be hum ble, listen to
his own conscience, and mankind itself could th e re a fte r m ake or
destro y the world.
Because Odets selected a well-known legend, and because he
provided the c h a ra c te rs with some recognizable and v ery fam iliar
hum an c h a ra c te ris tic s , som e degree of displacem ent and projection to
the c h a ra c te rs seem ed possible and likely. The degree of general
audience vicarious participation, how ever, in the sense of active p a r
ticipation so that one forgets self, might very likely be re s tric te d by
the extent to which one could com pletely accept this (1) m o st unusual
dilem m a, and (2) feel sufficiently at ease to project self without r e s e r
vation into what was actually a very p a rtic u la r fam ily group. (Indeed,
the m o re successfully an author is able to re c re a te the illusion of an
exclusively ethnic m ilieu, the g r e a te r the possibility of g en eral au d i
ence confusion, limited sym pathies, or resistan c e to the action and
response of the c h a ra c te rs within th e ir conflict because of the p resence
of the atypical or unfam iliar. F or a rew arding entertainm ent e x p e ri
ence, an audience m ust have c h a ra c te rs and a conflict to which they
can displace and project with ease; they m u st feel assu re d and secure
as a resu lt of actions which becom e recognizable, understandable, and
typical to th e m .) The conflicts which Odets sought to e x p re ss stem m ed
la rg e ly from a very p a rtic u la r and ethnic family constellation which
although laid upon the plot fra m e w o rk of a fa m ilia r Biblical legend was
3 6
n e v e rth e le ss one with which Odets took m any liberties. One critic
indicated that even though the legend was Jew ish, Odets' interpretation
364
had little relation to any Jew ish folk d ra m a , neither European nor
A m erican Yiddish; Noah was not a candidate for a folk h ero because
th e re existed no A m eric an tradition for such a hero; m ost Jews sought
37
to be a part of the A m eric an culture in all resp e c ts. The g re a te st
m ajority of c ritic s described the play as basically Jew ish d ra m a , in
38
the idiom, and having a Bronx setting. Some accused Odets of not
39
knowing what sort of illusion he set out to stru ctu re . Consequently,
the possibility of o v erstatem ent, the p resen ce of the argot, the atypi
cal behavior p atterns, and lim ited com m unity or appeal of in terests
could inhibit illusion potential for many, perhaps even to the degree
that audience intellectual participation would overw helm an emotional
one.
Identification-em pathy. As re g a rd s identification-em pathy, the
problem a ro s e as to (1) which c h a ra c te rs could re p re s e n t feared or
unfulfilled a sp ects of the spectator, (2) who could be a worthy example
having d e s ire s any audience would understand and associate with
struggle (struggles within a situation-conflict of genuine significance
and magnitude), (3) who ex p ressed wishes having universality, and
(4) who m anifested identifiable and sym pathetic good and bad c h a r a c
te ris tic s . Among the c h a ra c te rs , Noah was the m o st dominant over-
40
all; i.e . , the d ram a tic action revolved around his c h a ra c te r p r e
dominantly. The m o re conservative, the traditionally oriented
spectator would likely find som e b asis for sympathy and perhaps even
some basis for identification and empathy with his ch ara cterizatio n at
the outset; e. g. , the p atriarch , the b e a re r of weighty responsibility,
365
a m a n disappointed and confused about the different and seem ingly
revolutionary values of youth. M ore youthful people m ight find some
kindred spirit in Japheth; i. e. , the struggle between com plete obedi
ence and s e lf-relian ce , the quest for identity, ju stice, responsibility,
and reasoning, the question of logic as opposed to faith, and one's
right to seek p erso n al happiness in his own way. The m o th er, E sth e r,
seem ed to be a co m p ro m ise between the two in the sense that though
she was also conservative, she was yet realistic about th e ir dilem m a;
throughout, she was dedicated to the happiness of those whom she
loved. The strong and sustained participation which s e rv e s to m a in
tain illusion, how ever, depends upon a combination of associations
and resp o n ses, the prevalent possibility for displacem ent, projection,
and analogizing, in addition to a basis for identification-em pathy.
Noah was in m any re sp e c ts a worthy m an --G o d clarified that p o in t--
how ever, Odets did not seem to establish exactly what kind of unified
im p re s sio n his p artic u la r Noah was to effect. Though O dets' Noah
could be brave, courageous, faithful and loving, he was also peevish,
pouting, sullen, obstinate, and spiteful (often ra th e r like an o v e r
indulged child); he refused to consider any possibility beyond his own
interpretation of God's word, he would not be a part of anything in
which he was not in com plete com m and, he disappeared for a nine-
weeks binge, and he would not visit nor even speak with his fatally
ill wife because she had disagreed with him. His ethos lacked con
sistency and at tim e seem ed contradictory. Several d ra m a critics
41
found his ch ara cterizatio n to be confusing. The le sso n of humility
which Odets intended for him was a worthy one, but Noah was over
366
seventy when the action began; one m ight anticipate that a G od-selected
m an would have come to appreciate to som e extent the virtue of
hum ility by this age. An audience m ight accept Noah's initial c h a r a c
terization, but his subsequent behaviors seem ed to work at odds with
strong audience sym pathies; his actions too often seem ed adolescent,
if not senile. As a consequence, his struggles and the m e rits of the
final lesson he was intended to project seem ed diminished. In brief,
som e basic essentials which could support identification-em pathy for
the sp ectato r w ere p resen t in the ch a ra c te riz a tio n of Noah (sy m p a
thetic awe for such an ultim ate responsibility, his im pulses to avoid it,
the confusion and am bivalent feelings regarding loved ones, the m o ra l
courage to withstand abuse and derision, the tem ptation to succum b
when strength and p ersisten c e m u st prevail, and so on); how ever, the
quality of faults and frailtie s which Odets subsequently gave to him
seem ed too often ignoble and petty, too inconsistent with the stature
expected, and in addition w ere often m o re rep resen tativ e of m e re ly
an im m a tu re response, a poor adjustm ent, or tem peram ent: Noah's
m o rta l frailtie s appeared to w ork at odds with his expected strengths.
T h ere fo re , his struggles could e m e rg e as unsym pathetic, or at least
fail to aro u se strong sym pathies, because th e ir m otives w ere not
always explicit, or they seem ed too intim ately bound to c h a ra c te r
frailty or prejudice. (This plus the fact that Odets em phasized so
strongly and p ersisten tly a general overtone of bickering, m istru s t,
pride and selfishness among m o st of his c h a ra c te rs m ay have been
the combination which confused so m any of the c ritics. ) F o r the
w rite r, Japheth provided a b etter potential for identification-em pathy
367
than did Noah; one could sym pathize with his questioning of such
absolute, ru th less, and d estructive authority, with the courage that
becam e demanded of his convictions, with his conflict over devotion
and his sense of responsibility to the family, his strong m o ra l fibre,
and his belief in the dignity of m an and m a n 's reasoning. In addition,
his less noble qualities - -if one could d escribe them as su ch --w e re not
overly personal; they did not stem from wounded pride or rancor, nor
did they seem confused in te rm s of motivation. R ather, they resulted
from understandable reaction to a clearly understood cause; thereby,
they could rew ard the struggles of the ego. As a result, whether a
spectator w ere in ag ree m en t or not, the possibility existed within
Japheth's chara cterizatio n for sympathy, insight, and feeling-into
because the struggles w ere believable and worthy of the energies
expended, sensibilities w ere not offended, and the ego was not p r e
sented as perturbed by the triv ial, or by the lack of appropriate
re stra in t. H owever, as the action and conflict p ro g re ss e d , Odets
actually made Japheth's less noble qualities assu m e an au ra of virtue
as they becam e contrasted with the adam antine nature of Noah. Odets
fu rth er confirm ed this by turning the sym pathies of other c h a ra c te rs
in Japheth's favor. As a consequence, Japheth gradually assum ed an
all-good quality, one who was fighting m isunderstanding and p e rs e c u
tion with even m o re g o o d n e ss--a lm o st Christlike. (The m ajority of
the critics w ere of the opinion that O dets' c h ara cterizatio n s were
either too personal, inconsistent, confusing, or not in keeping with
42
even the type of o v e r-a ll illusion he apparently wished to project;
368
yet, a few d escrib e d the c h a ra c te rs as fre s h and endearing, m odern,
43
everyday, A m erican, w arm and good; there was no general accord. )
H u b ris. The closest approxim ation to any hubris c h a ra c te r
appeared to be Japheth. He defied his God and his father. His t r a n s
gressio n was of such a nature that sym pathetic tensions would likely
be aro u sed within an audience, not only in te rm s of his d e s ire s and
their defenses, but also their possible effects upon his adjustm ent and
the ultim ate outcome; complexity resulted from the w ays in which his
im pulses, d e s ire s , and defenses sought out satisfaction. His d i s r e
gard for m o ra l laws and im posed re s tra in ts doomed him to extrem e
choices, and the sense of ease and suddenness which surrounded his
im pulse of defiance could easily arouse some uneasiness within an
audience. Though Japheth failed in the classic hubris sense by not
being violent, passionate, reck less, inflexible, or disdainful of the
sensible, the magnitude and im plications of his initial tra n s g re s s io n
seem ed sufficient to establish some e arly hubris tension. Odets p r o
vided opportunity for the spectator to experience the fear that a c c o m
panies rebellion (audience satisfaction of the unconscious wish to rebel
against authority); unfortunately however, there was little opportunity
to pity Japheth for some suffering as a consequence (satisfaction for
the wish to experience punishment for rebelling). Lack of sympathy
with the all-bad b ro th ers (as introduced by Odets), and the subsequent
behavior of Noah gradually elevated Japheth's stature to that of the
m a rty r-ty p e h e ro , and as a result any hubris tension was reduced to
relative insignificance. Consequently, an audience could participate
only to a lim ited degree in associated and strongly re s tra in e d
im pulses, with the tra n s g re s s io n , and with the subsequent struggles
between im pulses and inhibition. F o r the sam e reaso n s, the possible
didactic values w ere re s tric te d , fo r an audience would not experience
any of the awful consequences it m ight anticipate fro m such a re b e l
lio n --ag ain st father, custom , God, and so o n --a n audience would not
be taught, for exam ple, that such rebellious im pulses m ust be
restrain ed . Actually, Japheth's overt actions and his conscience
ultim ately serv ed to make God's wish possible and cam e to re p re se n t
the faith of the new world. In brief, as a basis for his illusion, Odets
apparently intended to re - te ll in an up-to-date idiom, a Biblical legend
using c h a ra c te rs with which an audience would find som e fam iliarity.
However, (1) his em phasis upon a p a rtic u la r ethnic setting (the idiom,
hum or, fam ily dynamics); (2) his em phasis upon internal fam ily d is
putes and reactions which at tim es overpow ered the m a jo r plot; and
(3) the re s tric te d opportunity for identification-em pathy could easily
confuse m any, could seem burdened with o v erstatem en t and a too
personal ex pression, and thus in tu rn could in terfere with audience
im agination and analogizing--disturb the establishm ent and m a in te
nance of strong illusion and p ro p er aesthetic balance. S everal critic s,
even when com plim entary, felt that the illusion suffered from confu-
44
sion, am biguity, intent, ideology, and validity.
Control of Anxiety P ercep tio n --O b jectificatio n and Focus
With re sp e c t to the establishm ent and control of anxiety p e rc e p
tion, Odets' cathexis seem ed too d iv e rse and at the sam e tim e too
intim ate or personal: his concentration of psychic energy, those idea
he selected to invest with significance and feeling, though diverse,
w ere for the m o st p a rt contained within a p a rtic u la r fam ily m atrix;
e . g . , love, m a rria g e , divorce, loyalty, responsibility, tradition,
faith, and so on, and these seem ed to be considered as they pertained
specifically to this fam ily and its ethnic referen c e. The predom inant
subject m a te ria l dealt le ss with the basic a ll-s e rio u s events and
ex trem e a lte rn a tiv e s --N o a h 's great responsibility and predicam ent,
and Japheth's s tru g g le s--th a n with simple intrafam ilial dynam ics.
One critic felt Odets was attem pting to c rea te a folk d ra m a w here
none existed, i . e . , Je w ish -A m e ric a n folk d ra m a had no m o re reality
45
than M orm on, Catholic, G reek, or Italian -A m e rican folk d ram a .
What Odets objectified m a y have been w arm ly fa m iliar and c o m p a s
sionate within the m iddle class Jew ish fam ily fram ew o rk , but for
some it was confusing, som etim es in poor ta ste, and even Yiddish
vaudeville. ^
Objectification. That which Odets selected, arranged, and p r e
sented as the problem , his situation-conflict, appeared to lack co n
tro ls; e. g. , Noah m ade frequent re fe re n c e s to his like for drink, his
reluctant abstinence, and later disappeared som ew here in the a rk to
stay drunk for nine weeks; he refused to speak to his family fo r an
even longer period of tim e because they disagreed with him , ergo
God; Shem jeopardized the entire project and fam ily secu rity by hoard
ing m a n u re briquettes, Ham and Goldie had a p ro tracted affair to the
knowledge of virtually everyone but Noah; fam ily squabbles and
371
disputes predom inated from beginning to close, and often without what
seem ed to be justifiable provocation. Because sym pathies tended to
tra n s fe r fro m Noah to the others (who cam e to m anifest m o re faith
and goodness by th e ir actions and deeds), the deeply significant s tr u g
gle and problem of establishing s e lf-re s p e c t and identity (ego strength)
which Japheth m ight have provided seem ed shallow and not adequately
explored. Both his and Noah's im pulses w ere understandable, believ
able, and could have contained anxiety potential in light of the e a rlie r
c irc u m sta n c e s presented. However, Odets attem pted to objectify so
m any m in o r conflicts, and he m anipulated sym pathies so strongly in
Japheth's behalf, that the m a jo r issues seem ed obscured and to
assu m e less im portance. (V icarious audience participation in a f e a r
ful, uneasy, and apprehensive situation [anxiety perception] would
necessitate the objectification of a significant predicam ent which is
presented as having (1) believable and strong altern ativ es, (2) forces
in conflict involving m ixed sym pathies and stru g g les, and (3) a sense
of inevitability, but still p o sse sse d of some possible question r e g a r d
ing outcome. W hereas, the inner struggles of these c h a ra c te rs often
seem ed overpow ered by the m in o r conflicts. ) In the opinion of this
w rite r, th erefo re, u n iv e rsal d e s ire s , fe a rs , and inner conflicts w ere
not so m uch objectified as w ere the effects which this dilem m a had
upon this p a rtic u la r fam ily group.
F o c u s . S im ilar c ritic ism would apply to the effective em p lo y
m ent of focus. In objectifying such personal and intim ate is s u e s,
Odets seem ed to include ra th e r than omit m uch of the sluggishness
372
and m any of the irre le v a n c ie s c h a ra c te ristic of one's daily life; these
in tu rn seem ed em phasized to the disadvantage of an im portant on
going sense of d ram a tic action; i. e. , a logically developed plot
sequence. Instead of directing attention to the e ssen tials of a them atic
idea with its causals and interrelatio n sh ip s, Odets chose to em phasize
m any ideas and so disturbed the sense of a swift, coherent beginning,
m iddle, and ending. (One critic believed Odets lacked discipline
47
within subplots, and thus becam e an "idealogue.") Style also lacked
consistency; in Odets' attem pts to m ix pathos and h um or, to inject
levity into a grave situation, his style often seem ed to change abruptly
or to be not in keeping with an established or at least anticipated mood.
Several c ritic s w ere of the opinion that Odets em ployed g ro ss, inap-
48
propriate attem pts at hum or, some of which was even in poor taste.
The critics w ere in g re a t contradiction with re g a rd to diction, th e ir
49
com m ents ranging fro m "poetry of the th e a tre " to Odets "v u lg arizes"
50
and em ploys "cheapness. " This w rite r did not find the play as rich
in im agery perhaps as his e a r lie r plays, but the language was as figu
rative as that to be found within his la ter works in general. Strength
in diction seem ed to derive from the believable dialogue exchange
among the fam ily m e m b e rs , its revelation of the fam ily bonds, and
th e ir spirit as a unit. Even so, however, the dialogue frequently
seem ed to becom e too ethnic and conversational, too p ro trac ted , and
at the expense of a sense of p ro g re ssiv e and clearly purposeful action.
Since successful objectification and focus (including diction) serv e to
telescope tim e and to omit confusions so that an im portant pattern
which underlies hum an experience m ay be revealed (providing possible
373
didactic value) along with intrapsychic conflicts that determ ine the
course of life, the w rite r concluded that Odets m a y have obscured
both the pattern and significant conflict by his failure to establish
strong objectification and focus.
A fu rth er en tertainm ent value that can ste m from anxiety p e r
ception is that an anxiety m a y becom e specified and defined; both
relief and knowledge m ay th e re fo re becom e a possibility for the audi
ence via vicarious participation. Again, how ever, such a benefit is
possible only when objectification and focus a re p resen t with such
strength that they contain the anxiety within a unified, coherent, and
whole action having a c le a r beginning, m iddle, and ending. In this
play, Odets' ov erem p h ases on subplots seem ed to d etract from the
im pact of his m ain plot and to re ta rd the sense of p ro g ressiv e action.
Consequently, energies associated with in te re s t and emotional
response, instead of seem ing p ro g re ssiv e or cum ulative, appeared to
becom e fragm ented and often interrupted. F u rth e r, audience r e s i s
tance to participation could be aroused because of the somewhat m e lo
dram a tic exposition of conflict: e. g. , the opportunistic and acquisitive
Shem, along with the indulgent and wayward H am , as opposed to the
naive, youthful, and struggling spirit of Japheth; the enduring, faith
ful, and ev er-p a tie n t Rachel pitted against the calculating Leah and
sophisticated Goldie; the omnipotent, unrelenting, and traditional
positivism of Noah contrasted with the reasoning, logical, and c o m
m unal sp irit of the ever-loving young Japheth. Such em phases could
in terfere with depth of com passion because c h a r a c te r s could easily
assu m e a tra it identification ra th e r than taking on the qualities of
374
complex beings whose faults an audience would recognize as those it
too p o sse ssed and feared by degree. F o r sustained identification and
participation an audience m u st believe it too could reac t s im ilarly ,
might e r r likewise in such a predicam ent, and under such given condi
tions; anxiety is aroused because of the plausibility of the predicam ent
in conjunction with the degree of involvement that stem s fro m identifi
cation and empathy. It is sustained and participation continues because
an audience recognizes a relevance basic to the hum an predicam ent.
T herefore, a d ra m a em phasizing the all-good v e rsu s the all-bad, one
having an evident bias, or one whose point of view seem s too personal
fails to overcom e its purpose because the purpose consistently rem a in s
upperm ost and obvious to the audience; by so doing it a ro u s e s in tel
lectual resistan c e within the audience, inhibits depth of p a rtic ip a tio n --
hence em otional in v o lv e m e n t- - e m b a r r a s s e s , a m u ses, m ay even c o n
fuse, but m o st im portant, overextends p ro p er psychic or aesthetic
distance. Succinctly, the a ll-im p o rtan t on-going sense of a controlled,
com passionate seeing of a whole that is n e c e ss a ry for audience e n t e r
tainm ent seem ed disturbed in this play p rim a rily by the absence of a
sufficiently strong and established basis for objectification and focus.
Psychic Rew ards
As re g a rd s psychic re w a rd s , they accrue as a result of involve
m ent without a w aren ess of the nature, extent, or even fact of involve
ment; and they serve to com pensate for the inadequacies and d e p riv a
tions of the audience's daily experience. Consequently, audience
involvement m ust be of such a nature that it is neither disturbed
375
(proper psychic distance) nor confused by the extraneous. It proceeds
via o v e r-a ll plausibility, validity, and em otional response as one feels
se c u re and willingly projects h im se lf into the p redicam ent at issue.
R ew ards stem fro m vicariously experiencing the problem -conflict,
the predicam ent as a whole, but in a state of se c u rity as a result of
audience detachment: succinctly, an action is seen to bring about a
consequence, cau sals can be identified, in terrelationships a re p resent,
behavior patterns e m e rg e , psychic conflicts a re explored and revealed,
ju stice is effected; and im pact is heightened because the passage of
tim e , irre le v a n c ie s , accident, and so on, have not in te rfe rre d with a
problem presented in whole (through its swift opening, development,
and conclusion). F o r this reaso n an audience m a y learn from , see a
new perspective, find relief, feel fulfilled, or even derive strength
fro m working through and feeling throughout this abbreviated but
whole experience.
Odets set out to probe some w orthy conflicts that could inspire
involvement: e. g. , faith v ersu s reaso n , the fo rces of tradition oppos
ing those of change, and the striving for se lf-re a liz a tio n and fulfill
m ent. However, as indicated e a r l ie r , what was objectified in addition,
along with the lack of consistent or ap p ro p riate focus, seem ed often to
obscure the m a jo r conflicts so that th e ir determ ining factors and th e ir
exact influences did not rem ain u p p erm o st in im portance. A beh av
io ra l pattern did not seem to e m e rg e , nor w ere intrapsychic conflicts
s tre s s e d , although both Japheth and Noah could have offered such an
opportunity. F o r exam ple, Jap h eth 's e a rly decision to question the
ju stice of Noah's God seem ed overshadow ed at the tim e by the
376
argum ent among the b ro th e rs , the fact that it was supper tim e, and
la te r by the issue of the rudder. Odets dignified the strong im pulses
of Japheth fro m the outset (they aro se logically from Japheth's co n
flict), but he did not appear to do so with Noah. Noah seem ed incon
sistent: he was indulgent of self but ascetical with o thers, solicitous
yet authoritarian, insecure but dictatorial. As developed, Japheth
appeared to becom e the m o re sympathetic c h a ra c te r, w h ereas Noah
becam e less so: little sym pathy could be expected for a peevish,
pouting protagonist. Although justice prevailed ultim ately (Noah
learned humility and Japheth showed that reasoning and logic w ere not
antithetical to faith or the g race of God), perhaps so m uch of an in c i
dental nature o c c u rre d in the in terim that justice seem ed to lose its
potential for im pact. O verattention to m in o r issu e s tended to in t e r
fere with the degree of continuity which would be n e c e s s a ry for the
working through of a specific conflict, its relief, satisfaction, and
fulfillment. The p leasu re principle was in evidence throughout, but
its conflict with the reality principle did not appear to be a strong one.
The pleasure principle was m anifest within such instances as Noah's
drinking, the relationship between Ham and Goldie, the acquisitiveness
of Ham and Leah, the g eneral em phasis upon eating and drinking;
pleasure was specified and gratified. However, the consequences of
following the p leasu re principle did not seem sufficiently explored so
that an audience could be rew arded by sensing the p resen ce and the
need for g re a te r receptivity to the control of the p le asu re principle
within the future as a result. The reality principle in opposition would
probably best be rep re se n te d by the efforts and influences of E sth e r
377
and Japheth. O ver-all, how ever, an internal opposition between the
pleasure and reality principles did not seem p resen t to the extent
that m uch psychic rew ard would be provided: other concerns appeared
to receive m o re em phasis. Also, E sth e r died, and though the forces
of Japheth prevailed ultim ately, a c le a r victory for the reality p r in
ciple did not seem convincing. Noah's faith in m an and in m a n 's future
closed the play.
A m bivalence. Though am bivalence was p resen t to an extent, its
presen ce did not seem s tre s s e d to the degree that it could provide a
significant psychic rew ard. Instead of presenting c h a ra c te rs and con
flict fro m different points of view, balancing dem ands throughout, p r e
senting claim s and co u n terclaim s, so that unconscious as well as con
scious sym pathies could be activated and brought into reaction, Odets
gradually aligned the forces of right against those of wrong: Japheth
becam e right, Noah wrong. Fluctuating participation was m inim ized,
as was participation in value sy ste m s which w ere at odds with one
another (very soon Japheth's value sy stem becam e the p re fe rre d one).
Though sym pathies w ere possible for Noah's basic values and m otives
(he was afte r all chosen by God), his subsequent reaction to reason,
challenge, and self-rig h teo u sn ess appeared to dim inish the strength of
e a r lie r sym pathies aroused on his behalf. Ham and Shem w ere selfish
and troublesom e throughout, allowing good Japheth to do all of the
labor unaided (not unlike the C inderella motif). Shem underw ent some
c h a ra c te r change, which could encourage slight am bivalence; he finally
cam e to believe in Japheth's knowledge, wisdom, and his kind of faith.
378
E s th e r rem ained indomitable throughout, as adam ant in h e r own way
as Noah and Japheth w ere in th e irs. Only with h e r death did Noah
question the invincibility of his own judgm ent and word; whereupon, he
too accepted Japheth's m o re liberal faith, perm itted the divorce and
the m a rria g e of the children, and gave m an m o re responsibility for
his world. The absence of convincing am bivalence throughout the
d ram a tic action, how ever, and the overextension of ce rta in c h a ra c te r
tra its allowed a single view to dominate p ersiste n tly until the very
end: courageous and indefatigable Japheth saved the fam ily and ex p e
dition, but in the p ro c e s s was forced to struggle continually against
everything from tradition to m isunderstanding, even his own
conscience.
C onfrontation. Although seem ingly p re se n t to som e extent, con
frontation, like am bivalence, did not ap p ea r to be presen t in m uch
strength. No c h a ra c te r, with the possible exception of Japheth on
occasion, sought out what an audience would avoid, r e p r e s s or sup
p re s s , lie about or deny. (Japheth dared to question an absolute, but
he did not seek out or expose any awful tru th about him self. ) Although
defects within the c h a ra c te rs existed, no one confronted his own c h a r
a c te r openly to the extent that he acknowledged vulnerability, faced the
p rospect of annihilation, or the justice of inevitable punishm ent for
som e e r r o r without evasion or false hopes. No one rejected re p e n
tance, appeals, or refused to sue for peace in o rd e r to save him self.
Japheth could re p re s e n t a degree of confrontation only in the sense that
he refused to repent or to sue for peace in the face of destruction, but
379
not because he acknowledged and accepted full responsibility for
som ething aw esom e he had discovered within his own c h a ra c te r. F o r
exam ple, he spoke of his difference of belief in Scene Two, and he then
took a positive position for his principles in Scene Three; in Scene
Five he refused to pray and p re fe rre d to die in p ro te st ra th e r than to
live. Each instance was a type of confrontation, in that each could
have been anxiety-producing due to the m an n er in which Japheth con
fronted openly that which he was acknowledging and that which he
accepted with total responsibility. Even so, as e a rly as Jap h eth 's
initial questioning of existing values, focus seem ed to be upon le s s e r
is su e s, or the subplots--sibling riv a lry , m a rria g e , filial obedience,
a power struggle with the father, in trafam ilial love relationships - -so
that Japheth's m o ra l courage did not seem to provide the ego-exalting
rew ard that it might possibly have. Also, forced to join them on the
ark , Japheth continued his reality testing and reporting. He m a in
tained his principles. However, the em phasis upon the subplots again
dim inished the effects of his efforts and th e ir entertainm ent effects:
Noah's conflict with E sth e r, the love triangle of Ham, Rachel, and
Goldie, Noah and his absolute faith, the rudder v e rsu s absolutism ,
and so on. F o r a strong psychic re w a rd , m a n 's ego m u st f irs t of all
be clearly exalted and invincible in the face of calam ity. By a s s i m i
lating the forces of the destructive id and the ty rannical superego, the
ego a s s e r t s its independence and aligns itself with the fo rces of in te
gration; it accepts and grants the e x tre m e s but fo re v e r m aintains its
authority. No id fo rces w ere acknowledged by Japheth, in self or in
others; he did appear to a s sim ila te som e superego fo rc e s as he
380
m aintained his convictions despite the will of Noah, but then he finally
left the rudder to go below and to re p a ir the leak. The c h a ra c te r who
m ay have best rep resen ted an integrative ego force was E sther; she
accepted id -su p ereg o forces but seem ed untiring in h e r struggles for
integration. Secondly, the confrontation rew ard also depends upon
what the c h a ra c te r is m ade to see within self that one would keep self
from seeing, which gives the ego a sense of g re a te r freed o m and
strength.
Finally, a confrontation rew ard stem s from the sense of energy
change: m an c e a se s to im pose his will outwardly upon the world,
directing it inwardly tow ard a psychic effort which brings s e lf - r e v e l a
tion and truth in depth. It is this final aspect of confrontation which
Odets m ay have provided to a lim ited degree because the principal
c h a ra c te rs did ultim ately re p re s e n t som e change in energy direction,
at least tow ard the outside world; probably the best exam ple of an
inward direction of energy change was that of Noah, "To walk in
humility, I learned. " Japheth says, "We w ere forced to face o u r
self . . . " Consequently, though som e confrontation existed in the
sense that one c h a ra c te r acknowledged doubt about his absolute faith
(something m o st m en have done at som e tim e), the psychic rew ard was
lim ited because the id forces pitted against the superego fo rc e s w ere
not objectified, and because the benefits of truth in depth about self
w ere sim ply not m ade evident.
C a th a rs is . In te rm s of the final rew ard, c a th a rs is , certain
difficulties a ro s e with re sp e c t to the predicam ent which Odets set
381
forth for entertainm ent purposes: the Old T estam en t legend
rem odeled into a con tem p o rary , Jew ish, m iddle class dom estic s e t
ting. This fact, of itself, could im pose lim itations upon the p o ssib il
ity for un iv ersal participant reactions in te r m s of cognitive and
spectator response; i. e. , (1) the availability of vicarious satisfactions
for the general audience with resp ect to these c h a r a c te r s ' d e s ire s and
subsequent punishm ent, (2) the potential for p le asu re experienced as a
resu lt of the nature of the instinctual which was discharged and su b
jected to controls, and (3) ethnic fam ily life dynam ics as com pared
with the prevalence of facto rs that would have a b ro ad er appeal and
pertain to a m o re basic human predicam ent in general. The c a th a rsis
rew ard m ay be explained only on the basis of sustained and active
spectator involvement with c h a ra c te rs and a s to ry which fo r the s p e c
ta to r has had a strong affective power of appeal and involvement. A
w ell-developed illusion becom es critic a l since its p resence gu aran tees
one safety and freedom from guilt (the guilt that one is actually p u r
suing his own fantasy), while at the sam e tim e providing a sufficient
b asis within the action and conflict for audience em otional involve
ment; p resen t m u st be relevance, sympathy, and the opportunity for
the em erg en ce of strong feelings which o rd in arily m ight be su p p resse d
because of the possibility of arousing too m uch personal disco m fo rt or
conflict. P sychic distance is essen tial because an audience will then
p erm it itself intense reactions (n ece ssary for c ath arsis), secu re in
the com fort that it is being protected from d ire c t involvement by
physical and psychological distance. As brought out e a r lie r , because
of the m a n n er in which Odets sought to explore the conflict, his
em phases on the subplots and m in o r th e m es, and what he chose to
objectify in com bination with m eandering focus, neither psychic illu
sion nor distance was judged appropriate for the kind of involvement
and affective reaction which would substantiate a strong cath arsis
rew ard. Only to the extent that the following conditions w ere m et
could th e re be a c a th a rs is rew ard within this selection: (1) sustained
gratification fro m a p articu la r identification; (Z) recognition of the
consequences of the conduct (of the object fo r identification) without
questioning th e ir justice, inevitability, or im m inence; (3) an identi
fication that p e r s is ts to the very close of the action (or beyond) and
despite the consequences; (4) sym pathies for a c h a ra c te r which are
n ever disavowed but in c re ase in intensity as the action draw s to a
close. These conditions m ake possible the purging of a p ity-fear
reaction because one has been able to experience in like strength the
awful d e s ire s the c h a ra c te rs have yielded to along with th e ir g ra tifi
cation, which in tu rn brought about the suffering; the consequent
experience of relief plus fulfillment reliev es the tension and anxiety
which have been a ro u sed by the initial tr a n s g re s s io n and the s u b se
quent com plexities. On the basis of the lim itations cited e a rlie r, the
possibility that an audience could experience the aforem entioned con
ditions to a strong and sustained degree, without questioning c o n s e
quences, and to the extent that a p ity -fear reaction would occur along
with a profound sense of relief plus fulfillm ent seem ed doubtful for
this w rite r.
383
Conclusion
In conclusion, the basis for Odets' illusion is the rendering of
the Biblical Noah legend into a Jew ish fam ily life setting. The tria ls
of Noah, how ever, a r e superseded by a kind of "family ro m an ce" and
subplots p rim a rily concerned with love and m a rria g e . Odets m ay have
intended the m ain them e to be one of conflict em anating fro m a b so lu t
ism , from faith and tradition opposing change or new thought; but, he
places such strong em p h ases upon other them es - -filial obedience,
intrafam ilial power struggles, self-realiza tio n , acquisitiveness,
co m p ro m ise, hum ility, and so o n --th at illusion seem s to lack unity, a
unifying purpose, an in-depth exploration of some concern or problem
of u n iv e rsal hum an significance. The only consistent conflict is the
p ro trac ted battle of wills between Noah and Japheth, but sympathy for
Noah dim inishes e a rly within the play because he becom es p r o g r e s
sively obdurant. P rev ale n t ethnic referen c e and the Yiddish argot
could easily in terfere with the ease of audience projection and d is
placem ent by seem ing too personal, or at least typical only of this
p articu la r family; i. e. , the ethnic m ilieu could becom e confusing or
overstated to som e. The p resen ce of c h a ra c te rs who can provide a
strong identification-em pathy response is also limited; this is due
again in p art perh ap s to the ethnic m a trix , but likely m o re so to the
p resen ce of c h a ra c te r types as opposed to recognizable individuals
whose faults and v irtu es surface as a re su lt of the problem -conflict.
The m ain protagonist, Noah, is inconsistent in his behavior and has a
confusing ethos; it is difficult to inspire and to sustain strong sy m p a
thies for one who fails to ex e rc ise self-co n tro l or to assu m e at least
384
the possibility of e r r o r in judgm ent, especially w here it concerns his
fam ily's happiness and security. Japheth se e m s the b etter source for
identification-em pathy fro m v ery early within the action; his convic
tions and his battle for se lf-re a liz a tio n a re in accordance with feelings
m o st m en have experienced at som e tim e. However, the all-good au ra
which Odets p erm its him to a ssu m e by co n trast with the other c h a r a c
te r s in te rfe re s with credibility, psychological validity, and works
against strong psychic illusion. F o r the sam e reason, his potential
as a good hubris exam ple is diminished: too m uch accord is e n c o u r
aged on behalf of his struggles. He becom es too long-suffering,
reasonable, and controlled; he does not m anifest convincingly the
d e s ire s or intem perate influences that would dem and strong controls
and re stra in t, a p ro trac ted internal suffering. Consequently, psychic
illusion has definite lim itations from the standpoint of entertainm ent
for a g eneral audience.
Anxiety perception and control also appear to have lim ited
potential due to the nature of the cathexis. Odets co ncentrates m o re
psychic energy and invests m o re significance and feeling into in tra-
fam ilial dynam ics than he does upon any one basic problem with its
m a jo r issu es and possible altern ativ es. Anxiety perception is depen
dent m o re upon the extent to which one can understand and involve self
with the m achinations of this fam ily than with the ultim ate problem
which was bestowed upon Noah, its responsibility and effects, or with
the significance of the differing convictions e x p re sse d by Japheth and
Noah. Objectification lacks controls on occasion. Its absence fails to
establish detachm ent and audience security, and in g en eral it lacks
concentration upon purpose so that not only is psychic illusion d is
turbed but also psychic distance: e. g. , the presen ce of self-
indulgence is often prolonged and without serio u s consequence, and
m a jo r concerns a re obscured by m in o r p erso n al issu es. Focus is
also not strong. The absence of a clearly em phasized and cle a rly
developed them atic idea or m otif inhibits the sense of a swift begin
ning, m iddle, and end to a problem of significance. Diction is c h a r
a c te r-re v e a lin g and genuinely e x p ressiv e of the basic fam ily spirit,
but it lacks strong im ag ery and re s tra in t (w hereas in combination
with legend it could have been used v ery effectively as a distancing
factor); it is typically idiom atic, inform al, and conversational, often
at the expense of u n iv e rsal e x p re s siv e n e ss and analogizing p o ssib ili
ties. The lack of both strong objectification and focus com bines to
lim it the revelation of a behavior pattern or the intrapsychic conflicts
that specify and define an anxiety, exposing a dynamic outside of self
as it becom es embodied within a c h a ra c te r. Also, the m e lo d ram a tic
overtones, the sentim entality, and the m isunderstood struggles of the
all-good w ork against plausibility and psychological validity of both
c h a ra c te r and situation. The play could easily becom e farce. O v e r
all, anxiety perception and its control a re disturbed by the lack of
u n iv e rsal applicability and focus on serio u s u n iv e rsals of significance
obvious sentim ents distu rb com passion.
Finally, with re sp e c t to psychic rew ard s, Odets p re s e n ts som e
w orthy conflicts but does not seem to concentrate sufficiently upon
th e ir determ ining facto rs and th e ir exact influences so that an audienc
m a y le a rn fro m and participate in som e full experience. Though the
pleasure principle and reality principle a re in conflict, the pleasure
principle p redom inates, and a c le a r victory for the reality principle
is obscured by O dets' lack of investigation into the consequences of
pursuing the p le asu re principle. M issing is the rew arding sense of
bringing im pulses under g re a te r control. The play begins with the
presen ce of som e a m b iv ale n ce--e. g. , Noah and Japheth--but g ra d u
ally the c h a ra c te rs become aligned into the forces of lib eral v ersu s
those of c o n s e rv a tis m --a n d as portrayed, right v e rsu s wrong. As
such, a single view e m e rg e s and predom inates, and the conflict takes
on a m e lo d ram a tic quality. The d e s ire s and im pulses, effects and
consequences, that are presented are not worked through within a
context of am bivalence so typical of life. Likewise, confrontation is
not strong: no c h a ra c te r is presented as actually attem pting to explore
psychic tru th in depth. The conflict is m o re one of wills in opposition
ra th e r than centering upon internal struggles. Japheth suggests con
frontation as he seeks out, acknowledges, and accepts the re s p o n s i
bility for his actions; how ever, possible ego rew ard s are obfuscated
by a shifting focus fro m one m inor issue to another, one te m p e r a
m ental c h a ra c te r to another. The strongest ego force is E sth e r, in
the sense of assim ilatio n and integration of id -su p ereg o fo rces, and
also in te rm s of being a ra th e r p ersisten t integrative force. However,
Odets does not p e rm it h e r to live. H er death actually m e rg e s the two
superego fo rces, bringing them into g re a te r accord, and consequently
the superego ultim ately p r e v a ils - - a consistency with Odets. The lack
of strong psychic illusion and distance a r e considered to work against
the p resen ce of any c a th a rs is because this rew ard n e ce ssitate s a
387
p ro tra c te d involvement, and it dem ands the p resen ce of both illusion
and distance strength. G ratification fro m prolonged identification
with a single c h a ra c te r seem s unlikely because of Noah's diminishing
stature, Jap h eth 's consistent goodness, and E s th e r's lack of fa u lts --
the co n tra st among them serv es fu rth e r to exaggerate th e ir d iffe r
ences. Since the consequences of action a re not s tre s s e d , so that one
can vicariously experience punishment for a tra n s g re s s io n , this
adversely affects the ultim ate sense of justice. The play has a happy
ending because of co m prom ise in the battle of wills (those of Noah and
Japheth) which, though having certain im plications, has been p rim a rily
a personal fa th e r-so n d isag reem en t. Sympathies a r e so carefully
directed by Odets early within the play, and the eventual outcome is
so anticipated that any p ity-fear reaction is negligible. Tensions,
u n easin e ss, apprehension, fear (anxiety) a re m inim al, and c o n s e
quently a sense of relief plus fulfillment is virtually m in im a l if not
lacking for the m o s t part.
In this final play, Odets re tu rn s to the "family ro m an ce" so
c h a ra c te ristic of the plays within his e a rlie s t period, although a co n
c e rn with the fam ily, and with the hom e, has been p resen t to som e
extent within all of his plays: e. g. , the struggles of youth for in d e
pendence, individuality, suprem acy, the p arent-child relationships,
sibling riv alry , com petition, in trafam ilial dynam ics and love energies
in general. Just as with The Country G irl, con tem p o rary socio-
h isto rical em phases a re absent; though the psychological re m a in s, it
is not as convincing in this play because th e re is m in im u m opportunity
for conflicting sym pathies, fluctuating participation, and unconscious
388
response. Also, Odets appears to have retu rn e d to the m ore sen ti
m ental; i. e. , a Jew ish folk d ra m a approach, and h ere a contem porary
m iddle class Jew ish fam ily that is struggling with religious tradition.
Beneath the religious issues is a strong fa th e r-s o n -m o th e r struggle,
a p a tria rc h a l-m a tria rc h a l struggle, a concern with fa th e r-so n a c c e p
tance, and a concern with regeneration. H owever, despite such
in terest-provoking topics, and p articu la rly so from a psychoanalytic
standpoint, the action still lacks a fa m ilia rity because Odets r e s tric ts
general in te re s t via the p a rtic u la r ethnic re fe re n c e and his limited
potential for am bivalence with re sp e c t to audience response. His con
clusion is not unlike his e a r lie r "family ro m a n c e " plays; i. e. , a te s t i
m onial of faith in m a n for a b etter future. In addition, he concludes
on the sam e type of existential note that he did in The Country G irl:
viz. , it is now m a n 's decisions that m a tte r; m an m u st be responsible
for his own judgm ent and actions.
389
F o o tn o tes
^Clifford Odets, The Big Knife (New York: Random House,
1949).
^Philip T. Hartung, "The Stage and Screen, " The C om m on
w eal, IL (M arch 25, 1949), pp. 590-591.
^Joseph Wood Krutch, "D ram a, " The Nation, CLXVHI (M arch
19, 1949), pp. 340-341.
^G ilbert W. Gabriel, "Playgoing, " Theatre A r t s , XXXIII
(May, 1949), pp. 23-25.
5
Hartung, loc. c it.
^Euphem ia Van R en sselae r Wyatt, "The D ram a, " The Catholic
W orld, CLXIX (April, 1949), pp. 63-64.
^Harold C lurm an, "Theatre: Sins of Clifford O d e ts," New
R epublic, CXX (M arch 14, 1949), pp. 28-29.
g
Hartung, lo c. c it. ; Wyatt, lo c. c it. ; C lurm an, lo c. cit. ; and
John M ason Brown"! "Seeing Things! Biting the Hand, " The Saturday
R eview , XXXII (M arch 19, 1949), pp. 34-35.
9
G abriel, loc. cit. ; Krutch, loc. cit. ; C lurm an, loc. cit. ;
Editor, "T heater: Hollywood Ho-Hum , " N ew sw eek, XXXIH (M arch
7, 1949), p. 84; and Wolcott Gibbs, "The T h eatre, " New Y orker, XXV
(M arch 5, 1949), pp. 50-52.
10n 1
Brown, loc. c it.
^ H a r t u n g , lo c. c it. ; and Wyatt, lo c. c it.
^ J o h n G assn er, "The Long Journey of a Talent, " T heatre A rts,
XXXIII (July, 1949), p. 30.
13
G abriel, loc. c it. ; Krutch, lo c . c it. ; C lurm an, loc. c it.; and
Gibbs, lo c . c it.
14
Stanley Clayes and David Spencer (eds. ), C ontem porary
D ra m a (New York: C harles S crib n e r's Sons, 1962), pp. 341-3/9.
^ W o lc o tt Gibbs, "A Review of 'The Country G irl, ' " The New
Y orker, XXVI (November 18, 1950), pp. 77-79.
*^John M ason Brown, "The Man Who Cam e Back, " The Saturday
R eview , XXXIII (D ecem ber 9, 1950), pp. 26-27.
390
^ W ill ia m H. B eyer, "The State of the Theatre: The Waning
Season, " School and Society, LXXIH (April 21, 1951), pp. 249-250.
18
George Jean Nathan, "The T hinkers, " The A m eric an M e r c u r y ,
LXXII (M arch, 1951), pp. 350-353.
^ W a l t e r K e rr, "The Stage: The Country Girl, " The Comm on -
weal, LIII (D ecem ber 1, 1950), pp. 196-197.
^ M a r g a r e t M arshall, "D ram a, " The Nation, CLXXI (N ovem
ber 25, 1950), p. 493.
“ ^ H a r o l d Clurm an, "The F ir s t 15 Y ears, " New R epublic,
CXXIII (D ecem ber 11, 1950), pp. 29-30.
^ E d i t o r , "P layw right's Return, " T im e , LVI (November 20,
1950), p. 64.
^ E d i t o r , "New Plays: 'The Country G irl, ' " N ew sw eek, XXXVI
(November 20, 1950), p. 90.
^ A r m a n d Aulicino, "How 'The Country G irl' Cam e About, "
Theatre A rts M agazine, XXXVI (May 1952), pp. 54-57.
^ H a r o l d C lurm an, "D ram a, " The Nation, CCIII (October 17,
1966), p. 398.
^ ^New sweek, lo c. c it.
27
T im e , loc. c it.
2Q
A rlene Croce, "New-Old, Old-New, and New, " National
Review , XXIX (January 24, 1967), p. 99.
^ J o h n Beaufort, "On Broadway: 'A New E lem ent of Hope, ' "
C hristian Science M onitor M agazine (N ovember 18, 1950), p. 4.
■^Editor, "The Country Girl, " T heatre A rts, XXXV (January
1951), p. 14.
^ K e r r , lo c. c it.
32
C lurm an, New R epublic, lo c. c it.
33
Editor, T heatre A r t s , lo c. cit. ; Editor, "The Country Girl, "
The Catholic W orld, CLXXH~(January, 1951), p. 310; and T im e , loc.
cit.
"^Aulicino, loc. cit.
391
35
The play su m m a ry was taken fro m a photocopy of a type
w ritten production script obtained through the c o u rte sy of Mr. Paul
M yers, Acting C urator of the Theatre Collection, L ib ra ry and
M useum of the P erfo rm in g A rts, Lincoln C enter, New York, New
York. The play has thus fa r not been published. This script was
firs t produced in live perform ance by Robert Whitehead for the P r o
d u c e r's T heatre at the B elasco Theatre in New York, D ecem ber 28,
1954 (copyright date, 1954).
^^Editor, "The Theatre: New Plays in Manhattan, " Time, LXV
(January 10, 1955), p. 34; Euphem ia Van R e n s s e la e r Wyatt, HThe-
ater, 1 1 The Catholic W orld, CLXXX (F eb ru ary , 1955), p. 387; and
M aurice Zolotow, "The Season on and off Broadw ay, " Theatre A rts,
XXXIX (M arch, 1955), pp. 18, 23, 90.
37
G erald W eales, "On the Horizon: Bronx A ra ra t, 1 1 C om m en
t a r y , XX (July, 1955), pp. 74-76.
38
W eales, lo c. c it. ; John Mason Brown, "Seeing T h ings,"
Saturday Review, XXXVIII (January 15, 1955), p. 30; Wolcott Gibbs,
"The Theatre: All Sizes and Shapes, " New Y o rk e r, XXX (January 8,
1955), pp. 56-58; Editor, "Theater: The New P l a y s , " Newsweek,
XXXXV (January 10, 1955), p. 62; Wyatt, lo c . c it. ; Richard Hayes,
"The Stage: 'The Flow ering Peach, ' " The C om m onw eal, LXI (F eb
ru a ry 11, 1955), pp. 502-503; E ric Bentley, "T heatre, " New Repub
lic , CXXXII (January 10, 1955), p. 21; and Zolotow, loc. c it.
"^H arold C lurm an, "T heater, " The N ation, CLXXX (January 15,
1955), pp. 57-59; Gibbs, lo c. c it. ; and H ayes, op. c it. , p. 502.
40
Zolotow, lo c. cit. ; and Bentley, lo c . cit.
41
W eales, lo c. c it. ; C lurm an, lo c. c it. ; Gibbs, lo c. c it. ;
Wyatt, lo c . c it. ; Hayes, loc. cit. ; and T im e , loc. c it.
42
W eales, lo c. c it. ; C lurm an, lo c . c it. ; Gibbs, lo c . c it. ;
Hayes, lo c. cit. ; Tim e, lo c. c it. ; and Wyatt, lo c . c it.
43
C lurm an, lo c. c it. ; Zolotow, lo c. c it. ; and Robert Whitehead,
"Odets' Tale for Today and Our Tim e, " T heatre A r t s , XXXVIII
(October, 1954), p. 25.
44
W eales, loc. c it. ; Clurm an, lo c . c i t. ; Gibbs, loc. c it. ;
Bentley, lo c. c it. ; and Zolotow, loc. c it.
45
W eales, loc. c it.
^ W e a l e s , lo c. cit. ; Clurm an, lo c. c it. ; Brown, lo c. cit. ;
Gibbs, loc. cit. ; Bentley, loc. cit. ; and Zolotow, loc. cit.
47
Bentley, loc. c it.
48
W eales, loc. c it. ; Gibbs
Zolotow, lo c. c it.
49
Bentley, lo c. cit.
50
W eales, loc. cit.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION
The diversity of d ram atic c ritic ism which surrounds the works
of Clifford Odets and the sporadic audience acceptance which they
provoked suggested the possibility of undertaking a psychoanalytic
approach to his plays in o rd e r to explore th e ir bases for conscious
and unconscious audience response, the purpose being to identify why
his successful plays w ere indeed so, per contra those which w ere not,
and to discover some explanation for the extensive div ersity which
existed among his co n tem p o rary d ram a critics. This method of
approach n ecessitated the organization of a valid psychoanalytic c r i
te rio n which could be applied to the plays and then in turn com pared
with the extant d ram atic c ritic ism . Consequently, F reu d ian precepts
w ere assem b led and selected, these w ere enlarged upon by con trib u
tions of the N eo -F reu d ian s, and combined with the viewpoints of sc h o l
a r s p rim a rily concerned with psychic ambiguity and psychic or a e s
thetic distance. Final efforts resulted in a workable c rite rio n which
was organized into th ree broad a r e a s , each containing supporting s u b
divisions: briefly, (1) the possibilities within the play for providing
for sustained audience illusion (for selective perception); (2) its poten
tial for both arousing and controlling audience anxiety; and (3) the
psychological rew ard s that could resu lt f r o m this sustained audience
393
394
suspension of disbelief. At all tim e s , the specific purpose of the
c rite rio n was that of exploring the possible values for audience e n t e r
tainm ent. The procedure of applying the c rite rio n to each play
resulted in some conclusions which proved of in terest and value.
A com parison of the resu lts obtained by applying the c rite rio n to
the total body of existent c ritic ism proved of little significance because
of the polarity of c ritica l evaluation, and the fact that no actual basis
was found to exist for such a com parison: no identifiable standard or
c rite rio n which the c ritic s th em selves used as a basis for their ju d g
m ent. The d ram atic c ritic ism s w ere too often m e re ly play review s,
ex p ressions of subjective or em otional reaction, personal opinion, a
c o m parison with an Odets c o n te m p o ra ry --o r with Odets h im se lf--a n d
w ere often without specific evidence cited within the text to substantiate
judgm ents made; too frequently the critics neglected to set forth a
cle a rly understood basis for th e ir rationale of appraising the audience
entertainm ent possibilities or value of the work. (The excerpts of
critic a l co m m en ta ry which a re in te rs p e rse d throughout the text a re an
indication of th e ir obvious inconsistencies.) As a consequence, to
identify and m anifest some basis for a g ree m en t among the critics that
would unify all past d isag ree m en ts becam e an im possible task beyond
m e re ly broad generalizations. One method of com parison did prove
valuable, and this was the resu lt obtained fro m com paring in detail the
c rite rio n applications with specific com m ents or c ritic is m s concerning
each individual play; the disparity and inconsistencies among the d ra m a
c ritic s becam e m o re understandable as, for exam ple, when one critic
would identify a dram a tic and th e a tric a l strength which had also
395
e m erg ed as a result of applying the crite rio n , w hereas within the sam e
play another would not, or might even refute the criterio n resu lts
altogether. A critic might cite as a strength something which not only
was in contradiction with the crite rio n but also in tu rn was not su p
ported by audience acceptance. A strength found within the criterio n
was its g en eral accordance with audience response; audiences do not
support a d ra m a which does not satisfy ce rta in of th e ir needs to
becom e involved on some level, and fro m which they can derive s a t i s
faction from having become s o - - a requisite for aesthetic pleasure
(i. e. , entertainm ent). Two critics approxim ated the resu lts of the
c rite rio n the m o st consistently and em erg ed as the m o re objective of
the lot: John G assner and Joseph Wood Krutch. A clearly understood
basis for th e ir conclusions could usually be identified, one which was
predicated upon evidence cited within the plays, upon reason and logic
which concerned itself with the ideas that lay beneath the events of the
surface story, so that the re a d e r in tu rn could d isc e rn the c ritic 's
rationale (thereby deriving some p ersp ectiv e into the possible w eak
n e s s e s and strengths of the play).
Odets him self would have d isa g re e d with the criterion: e. g. , his
favorite play, P arad ise Lost (for him his g reatest play), is judged to
be one of the le ast effective for audience entertainm ent from both a
d ra m a tic and th e atrical standpoint--this is the one Odets play about
which both the critics and audience w ere in g eneral ag reem en t with the
conclusions of the criterion. Of in te re s t to this w rite r was the fact
that the plays Odets favored least were adjudged to be the strongest
with respect to the psychoanalytic criterion and were among the m ost
396
favored by audiences: Golden Boy, The Big K nife, The Country G irl.
C ritics' resp o n ses to the latter three w ere contradictory, either
among th e m selv es, with the audience, or with the criterio n .
Odets was v ery successful in being able to provoke abundant
critical response; he w as never ignored. During the approxim ate two-
decade period during which he wrote (1935-1955), his plays aroused
strong intellectual and em otional reaction. Today, this could be
explained at least in p a rt on the basis of his ability to inject re a lism
and strong em otions into his diction, his obviously subjective writing
style, his c o n tro v e rsial them es and c h a ra c te r p red ic am en ts, and the
contrast of his plays with the popular th eatre of the tim e s. He could
be described as a kind of th e atric al sociologist and ed ito rializer; he
desired to explore and to expose, to instruct, to change, and his s o c i
etal concern lay within that h isto rical period during which he w rote.
With the exception of The Country G irl and perhaps The Flow ering
P e a c h , something of co n tem p o rary social in terest was always indicted
and it exerted an influential control upon his c h a ra c te rs ; as a result,
the m ajo rity of his plays today contain m o re of an h isto ric a l m e ssa g e
than a tim e le ss one and reflect m o re upon the period ra th e r than p o s
sessing tim e le ss appeal. However, if one considers the the atric ality of
Odets' works beyond th e ir m o re obvious m e ss a g e and th e ir appeal to
strong em otions, th e ir political, econom ic, and ethnic overtones, and
so on, then they contain som e intense as well as tender love s to rie s,
some believable psychological struggles and conflicts that would appeal
to any audience. N ev erth e less, sin ce th e a tre exists for the e n te rta in
m ent of its audience, then popular and su c ce ssfu l entertainm ent
397
dem ands predom inantly u n iv e rsal as opposed to e s o teric audience
appeals.
Odets' plays w ere not a novelty afte r his three e a r lie s t works of
acclaim . Audience and critic a l response m ade this point clear.
Despite such negative resp o n se, Odets p e rs is te d with the sam e style
c h a ra c te ristic of his e a r lie r w orks. He indicated that he could subdue
his idee fixe with Golden Boy, and could even abandon it with The
Country G irl; but despite th e ir su ccess, he continually re v e rte d to his
e a r lie r m otifs and preoccupations. This preoccupation or obsession
with the w orking-class m an em broiled within an ordinary predicam ent,
plus Odets' own inability to invest his c h a r a c te r s ' d ilem m a with a
depth of significance and m agnitude, and in com bination with his
avowed or outspoken philosophical position w ere all la rg e ly re s p o n
sible for the kind of reputation he acquired e a rly as an A m eric an
dram atist: an overzealous, bum ptious, m e lo d ram a tic and sentim ental
propagandist, if not revolutionary. An interesting possibility exists
with re g a rd to the th ree aforem entioned plays which for Odets w ere
not his best, but which his audiences accepted; viz. , each might
re p re s e n t certain disguised subjective aspects of Odets' own psycho
logical concerns at the tim e they w ere written. E n tirely possible is
the fact that within these plays he was com pelled m o m e n ta rily at least
to abandon the "social m issio n , " so strongly advocated by him as well
as his Group T heatre a ss o c ia te s, in o rd e r to ex p ress his p erso n al
state of tensions or concerns; as a consequence, these plays could
possibly contain som e significant insight into Odets the p erson. A
fair evaluation of Odets' w orks should take into consideration his
398
obvious intent for both so cial-cu ltu ral co m m en tary and c ritic ism ,
while at the sam e tim e considering the possibility that his elan to
inform and to effect change resulted too often in ov erstatem en t (as in
his tendency tow ard m e lo d ra m a and propaganda) as well as over-
cathexis (the intensely personal and overly sentim ental expression).
A few broad concerns can be identified with som e consistency
within Odets' plays. His predom inant concern was with the p r o le
ta ria t, the com m on but sensitive man who becam e a h ero type as he
struggled with the la rg e r forces of his social stru c tu re in o rd e r to
gain a sense of self or individuality, a sense of personal freed o m and
%
fulfillment; Odets' plays have a strong and p e rs is te n t preoccupation
with the "hero. " So ardent was Odets' enthusiasm to dram a tiz e the
plight of h is sym pathetic plebian that the protagonist was often depicted
as a m a r t y r to the g re a te r im p erso n al social fo rces which rode rough
shod over his individuality. Odets assu m ed the role of spokesm an for
talented, confused, and fru s tra te d youth. F ru stra tio n s a re evident
throughout all of Odets' plays, especially with re s p e c t to an individ
u al's talent, his love, sense of security, self-potential and fulfillment,
and all a re coupled with an anxiety about the future and possible
d esp air (especially among the young). O dets' causals and effects are
explicitly stated, as a re his personal biases. He was a zealous
spokesm an fo r the poor and m iddle class. He was pro-individuality
and anti-organization, p ro -la b o r, an ti-cap italist, and Semitic; and,
he was unequivocal about his own philosophical position or personal
p re ju d ic e s --a ll facto rs contributing to the extent of strong c ritica l
resp o n se, reaction, and contradiction. The outspoken attacks upon
399
labor conditions, politics, governm ent, a n tisem itism , capitalism ,
m a te ria lis m , class values and m o re s understandably provoked critical
response to the position that Odets so forthrightly advocated through
his d ra m a s and c h a ra c te rs . In addition, his theses a re so imbued with
attitudes, and attitudes not always in accordance with his c h a ra c te rs '
behaviors, with conscious and unconscious c h a ra c te r struggles and
behaviors, that the plays p o s se ss a psychological q u ality--another con
tributing factor to the extent of co n tem p o rary critical response.
C ertain p e rsiste n t p erso n al preoccupations of Odets em erged
which likely reflected upon his own needs and d e s ire s , both as an indi
vidual and as a playwright; i. e. , his need to ex p ress them , to control
them within som e p red icam en t through which he could evolve a s a tis
factory outcome - -pos sibly a fo rm of ca th a rsis for him self: (1) to iden
tify and to be a spokesm an for the underdog; (2) to assum e the role of
the revolutionary; (3) to explore love and love relationships, from
rom ance, through m a rr ia g e and fam ilial love, to strife and dissolve;
(4) to deal with c h a ra c te r co m p ro m ise (ego) and m o ra l com prom ise
(superego); (5) to explore the effects that deprivation and affluence can
have upon one; (6) the effects of self-indulgence, dependence, and
addiction--the presen ce of alcoholism which began noticeably with
Rocket to the Moon and p ersisted ; (7) dominance and subm ission in
hum an relationships (or sadom asochistic overtones), am bivalence in
love, and the tyranny of one individual over another; (8) the neurotic
and self-destructive adjustm ent to reality; (9) the struggles for ego
strength, individuality, and so often in combination with the acceptance
of personal responsibility; (10) infidelity and the love triangle; (11)
hostility, brutality, and violence; (12) middle class Jew ish fam ily life;
(13) illness and death; (14) the m a te rn a l and paternal roles; (15) the
breakdown of m utual faith and tru s t am ong people (or paranoid o v e r
tones); (16) change versu s the established tradition, m ode, and custom;
(17) the hero; and, lastly, (18) F r e u d 's "family ro m an c e" (Oedipal co n
stellation). Finally, self-d estru c tiv e energies or suicide a re easily
identified in alm ost all of Odets' plays, and some fo rm of violence
occurs within each. (Interestingly, the self-destructive fo rces are
m ost evident within the protagonists of those v ery plays m entioned
e a r lie r as being the least of Odets' p erso n al fav o rite s.) The preceding
s o c ia l-p e rso n a l concerns serv ed at le a st in part as a w ellspring for
some of Odets' m o st creative ex p ressio n s. The following a re su m
m a ry reaso n s for the type of acceptance and the contradictions Odets
received fro m the d ra m a c ritic s at large: Odets' explicit social c o m
m e n ta ry and the contem porary relevance of his plots; his outspoken
indictm ents, his strong p erso n al sym pathies or subjectivity as
expressed; the sentim ental, m e lo d ra m a tic , co n tro v e rsial, and p ro p a
g a n d is ts nature of his hum an predicam ents; the th e a tric a l exploitation
of c o n te m p o ra ry attitudes surrounding such c o n tro v e rsial subjects as
prejudice, economic d e te rm in ism , and M arxism ; the p resen ce of the
psychological with resp ect to value sy ste m s, prevalent anxieties, and
th e ir effect upon an individual's h ap p in ess, behavior, and the c o n tem
plation of optim ism within h is future; and the so r ts of solu tion s and
panaceas Odets openly endorsed.
The criterio n is su fficien tly lim ited to ach ieve its pu rp ose, yet
g en eral enough to adm it additional eviden ce accruing as a resu lt of
401
future re s e a rc h . Any one of the th re e broad psychoanalytic a re a s
could serve as a basis for d ra m a analysis with interesting and thought-
provoking resu lts. Additional r e s e a r c h could undertake the ta sk of
investigating comedy from a psychoanalytic point of view, that d ra m a
whose intent is to provoke laughter and whose hero always succeeds.
Also of in terest would be the re su lts of applying the c rite rio n to the
w orks of a few of Odets' co n tem p o rary playwrights: John Howard
Lawson, A rthur M iller, T ennessee W illiams. As for the w orks of Odets
in p a rtic u la r, fu rth e r investigation and in-depth analyses within the fo l
lowing psychoanalytic a re a s would yield interesting results: (1) the
p re se n c e and strength of the victorious superego forces; (2) the " fa m
ily rom ance, " or Oedipal dynam ics; (3) the em asculating fem ale and
the em ascu lated male; (4) the o ral em phases (e. g. , food, drink,
debate) and anal em phases ( e . g ., a v arice, m oney, m a te ria lis m , and
possessions); (5) E ro s and Thanatos (love, belonging, to g e th ern ess,
v e rs u s death, violence, destruction, and especially violent death and
suicide); (6) existential decisions and th e ir subsequent effects; (7)
m a rty rd o m ; (8) the disintegrating or inadequate ego; (9) the hubris
c h a ra c te r; (10) the nature and extent of prevailing anxieties. Of ad d i
tional in terest also might be the investigation of psychoanalytic defense
m e c h a n ism s p resen t within Odets' ch ara cterizatio n s; i.e . , fro m the
standpoint of how Odets deals with ego strength within his c h a ra c te rs .
Finally, one m ight explore the presence of the "hero" myth as
expressed within Odets' works.
A p rfcis of the findings as a result of applying the c rite rio n to
the plays is im possible; the evidence is too detailed and too extensive.
However, som e succinct generalizations a re possible for purposes of
an ov er-all conclusion. O dets’ e a rlie s t plays w ere successful because
they w ere innovative th e atre in the sense of n o u v eau -rea lism e and
because they not only spoke for, but also objectified to som e degree a
quality of the co n tem p o rary psychological clim ate of the nation at the
tim e. Waiting for L efty, Till the Day I D ie, and Awake and Sing were
different and serio u s approaches to th e atric al entertainm ent despite
th e ir obvious political, m e lo d ram a tic, and sentim ental em phases. On
the strength of th e ir su ccess, Odets assum ed possibly that variations
of the sa m e opus would result in his continued acclaim , that this type
of entertainm ent would becom e the new a^ la Broadway, but audience
and critical response indicated the contrary; e. g. , P a ra d is e L o st.
After Odets retu rn e d fro m Hollywood with experience as a sc re e n
w rite r, he d em o n strated an ability to inject b ro ad er hum an interest
into his plays, to s tru c tu re a m o re tightly organized plot, a m o re
em pathetic and universally appealing predicam ent, as in Golden Boy.
Although the la tte r still contained som e of his e a r lie r societal m e s
sages, the presen ce of universals and the psychological validity of the
c h a ra c te r, m otif, and predicam ent transcended w eaknesses of the
play to establish it as successful entertainm ent, a lasting audience
favorite. However, his th re e subsequent plays (Rocket to the Moon,
Night M u sic, Clash by Night) rep resen ted variations of Odets' e a rlie r
p rotestantism , subscription, and p rescription, each lacking in uni
v e rs a ls , in significance and magnitude of dilem m a, c h a ra c te r, and
motif, and none actually tran scen d ed it*'purpose; consequently, none
was well received by eith er c ritic s or aa audience. With the production
403
of The Big Knife, a psychological c h a ra c te r study in som e depth was
reintroduced along with a genuine approach-avoidance conflict, or p re -
d ic a m e n t--c e rta in ly a dilem m a as credible as that to be found within
the e a rlie r Golden Boy. The audience supported it, but the c ritics
concluded generally that it p o sse ssed little m erit; they w ere so fa m il
ia r with, and so critica l of Odets' c h a ra c te ristic s ty le --h is "soapbox"
d r a m a s - - th a t they m ay have approached the play as m e re ly another
Odets gospel, and the play m ay have deserv ed m o re accolades than it
received, for it offers som e provocative psychological challenge and
appeals. The Country G irl, which followed, re p re se n ts a com plete
departure from Odets' p erso n al doctrines and his e a r lie r style in that
it lacks indictm ent of any "System " or "E stablishm ent"; its intent is
obviously that of audience entertainm ent per se. N ev erth eless, the
c ritics tended to deal p rim a rily with the surface concerns, the m o re
obvious mundane aspects of the story and its c h a ra c te rs , ra th e r than
with the w ell-developed psychological p o rtra itu re s , the intrapsychic
conflicts, and the in terp erso n al conflicts, which, according to the c r i
terion, w ere p rim a rily responsible for the ability of the play to sustain
audience entertainm ent. Odets' final produced play, The Flow ering
P e a c h , had contradictory critic a l acceptance. F ro m the viewpoint of
the c rite rio n it re p re se n ts basically a return to "O detsian" sentim ent,
dignified by a legendary context; it is only another too p e rso n a l e x p r e s
sion with eso teric and m e lo d ra m a tic appeal, and it contains little
attem pt at in-depth characterization or the establishm ent of a credible
predicam ent having broad audience appeal.
404
The possibility ex ists, of c o u rse , that Odets hoped to lay som e
so rt of groundw ork or to encourage the development of a type of
Jew ish folk d ra m a within the United States. If so, his efforts w ere
too often diluted by other concerns and intents, by a lack of r e s tra in t
or self-discipline as he developed his subject m a te ria l and purpose.
His plays a re too crowded with m e s s a g e , with indictm ents, with the
eso te ric and ethnic; too often they lack the n e c e ssa ry broad, u n iv e rsal
audience appeal for g en eral entertainm ent. Whether or not the B ona
p arte fam ily of Golden Boy was Jew ish (as one critic believed)* is
inconsequential--and not legitim ate d ram a tic c ritic is m --b e c a u s e th e re
exists n e v erth eless sufficient basis within the play for g eneral a u d i
ence sym pathies, for a depth of understanding of the plot, m otif, and
c h a ra c te rs which are not confused by the specifically eth n ic--th a t
which is so exclusive to a p artic u la r ethnic group that it in turn
becom es too atypical or confusing to the m a jo rity audience, as in
P a ra d is e Lost o r The Flow ering P e a c h . Odets' consistent failing as
a playwright was his inability to re fra in from expressing openly and
disguising effectively his own strongly subjective and oftentim es c o n
tr o v e r s ia l views; he neglected to take into account sufficiently the
audience need to analogize, to be able to identify in part on its own
te r m s , to be able to reflect and to participate on m any levels, and to
com e to conclusions it considers at lea st in part as those of its own.
Any influence which Odets m ay have had on the th e atre o r other
playwrights would be difficult to ascertain with exactness. He no
doubt helped to popularize the psychological type of d ram a , th e a tric a l
re a lis m , the use of the topical in subject, and the use of serio u s
405
dilem m as asso ciated with the m iddle c lass or com m on m an; e.g.,
A rthur M iller is supposed to have acknowledged an influence by
Odets, ^ and the e a rly plays of T ennessee W illiams suggest Odets
c h a ra c te ristic s; viz. , the predicam ents of com m on folk, intrafam ily
dynam ics, the psychologically disturbed and lonely individual, inner
conflicts, and the p sy c h o -re a listic approach to the objectification of
some predicam ent. O dets' co n tem p o raries w ere playwrights such as
E lm e r Rice, Sidney Kingsly, Robert Sherwood, William Saroyan,
Lillian Heilman, Sean O 'C asey, John Howard Lawson, and Thornton
Wilder. Odets him self acknowledged only one m a jo r playwright influ -
3
ence, how ever, and that was John Howard Lawson.
Finally, Odets was writing during a troubled period of A m eric an
history: his e a rlie s t plays w ere w ritten during the height of the e c o
nomic dep ressio n , which would im ply som e degree of psychological
cultural d ep ressio n as well, and the period coincided with the growth
of N azism in Europe (the m id -th irtie s , o r approxim ately 1935); his
next th ree plays spanned a period of national and international tension
which resulted from the beginnings and outbreak of World W ar II (1938
through 1941); his la te r and final plays coincided with the postw ar
decade, its disillusionm ents, its tensions of read ju stm en t and c o e x is
tence (1948 through 1954). Doubtlessly, Odets was influenced by these
prevailing tensions o r anxieties at larg e, and this influence accounted
somewhat fo r his apparent need and drive to explore and to deal with
the m o re g rim re a litie s, to speak out for the Jew, to seek out an
elixir vitae for the spiritual o r cultural ailm ents he sensed, to objec
tify fru s tra te d love, hom e life, and fam ily security, the em otional
tra u m a s of revolution, and the corrupting power of m a te ria lis m , to
deal with the troubled individual sp irit which was seeking identity,
security, and purpose. Withal, Odets was obviously and passionately
dedicated to his intent: to ex p ress his m e ssa g e forcefully. And, the
audience and c r itic s ' response was co m m en su rate in kind. R egard
less of the m e rits of Odets' intent, how ever, he too often failed to
tran scen d his own purpose within his w orks. When he failed to do so,
he interfered with audience perception and plausibility by arousing a
re s is ta n c e to com passion and to a sustained identification and p a r tic i
pation with his plays. In the final analysis, and according to the find
ings of the c riterio n , it was not Odets who cam e clo sest to being c o r
rect about the d ram a tic and th e atric al m e rits within his w orks, nor
was it the d ra m a c ritic s , but ra th e r the audience.
407
F ootnotes
^Grenville Vernon, "The Play and S creen, " The Commonweal,
XXVII (N ovem ber 19, 1937), p. 106.
2
M ichael J. Mendelsohn, "Odets at C enter Stage, " Theatre A rts
M onthly, XL,VII(June, 1963), p. 30.
3
John M cC arten, "Profiles: Revolution's N um ber One Boy, "
New Y o rk e r, XIII (January 22, 1938), p. 27; and Clifford Odets, "How
a Playw right T r iu m p h s ," H a rp e r's M agazine, CCXXXIII (Septem ber,
1966), p. 67.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
408
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Block, Maxine, and E. M ary Trow (eds. ). C u rren t Biography: Who's
News and Why. New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1941.
B rill, A. A. F re u d 's Contribution to P s y c h ia try . New York: W. W.
Norton and Company, Inc. , 1944.
C layes, Stanley, and David Spencer (eds.). C ontem porary D ra m a .
New York: S c rib n e r's Sons, 1962.
Clark, B a rre tt H. (ed.). European T heories of the D ra m a . New
York: Crown P u b lish ers, Inc. , 1965.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Biographia L i te r a r i a . London and
Toronto: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1927.
E idelberg, Ludwig (ed. ). Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis. New York:
The F re e P r e s s , 19687“ ^
Em pson, William. Seven Types of A m biguity. New York: New D ire c
tions C orporation (n. d\).
F reud, Sigmund. Collected P a p e r s . Volume 4. London: H ogarth
P r e s s , 1948.
. The Ego and the Id. T ran s. Joan Riviere. New York:
Norton L ib ra ry , I960.
G assn e r, John (ed. ). A T re a s u ry of the T h e a tre . New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1950.
H endrick, Ives. F a c ts and T heories of P sy ch o an aly sis. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1934.
Hinsie, Leland E. , and Robert J. Cam pbell. P s y ch iatric D ictionary.
Third Edition. New York: Oxford U niversity P r e s s , I960.
Hoffman, F re d e ric k J. F reu d ian ism and the L ite ra ry Mind. Second
edition. Louisiana! Louisiana State U niversity P r e s s , 1967.
K ris, E rnst. Psychoanalytic Explorations in A r t. New York: In te r
national U niversities P r e s s , Inc. , 1952.
409
410
L e s s e r, Simon O. Fiction and the U nconscious. New York: Vintage
Books, 1957.
Odets, Clifford. Clash by Night. New York: Random House, 1942.
Night M usic. New York. Random House, 1940.
. Six Plays of Clifford O dets. New York: The M odern
Library"] 1939.
. The Big Knife. New York: Random House, 1949.
R ader, Melvin (ed. ). A M odern Book of E s th e tic s . Third edition.
New York: Holt, R inehart and Winston, 1965.
Reik, Theodore. Myth and Guilt. New York: George B ra z ille r, Inc.,
1957.
Ruitenbeek, H endrik M. (ed. ). P sychoanalysis and L ite r a tu r e . New
York: Dutton and Company, Inc. , i9o4.
Schorer, M ark, Josephine M iles, and Gordon McDenzie (eds.).
C riticism : The Foundations of M odern L ite ra ry Judgment.
New York: H arco u rt B race, 1948.
Shuman, R. Baird. Clifford Odets. New York: Twayne, Inc. , 1962.
W eissm an, Philip. C reativity in the T h e a te r. New York: Basic
Books, Inc. , 1965.
B. PERIODICALS
Angoff, C harles. "D ram a, " The N orth A m eric an R eview , CCXLVII
(M arch, 1939), 157-158.
Aulicino, A rm and. "How 'The Country G irl' Cam e About, " Theatre
A rts M agazine, XXXVI (May, 1952), 54-57.
Beaufort, John. "On Broadway: 'A New E lem ent of Hope, ' "
C hristian Science Monitor M agazine (N ovember 18, 1950), 4.
Bentley, E ric . "T heatre, " New Republic, CXXXH (January 10, 1955),
21 .
Beyer, William H. "The State of the Theatre: The Waning Season, "
School and Society, LXXIH (April 21, 1951), 249-250.
Brown, John Mason. "Seeing Things: Biting the Hand, " The Saturday
Review, XXXII (M arch 19, 1949), 34-35.
411
Brown, John Mason. "Seeing Things: On the C re st of the Waves, "
The Saturday Review, XXXVIII (January 15, 1955), 30.
"Seeing Things: The Man Who Came Back, " The Saturday
R e v ie w , XXXIII (D ecem ber 9, 1950), 26-27.
B urnham , David. "The Stage and Screen, " The C om m onw eal, XXXV
(January 16, 1942), 319-320.
Bullough, Edward. "P sychical D istance As a F a c to r in Art and
A esthetic P rinciple, " B ritish Journal of Psychology, V (1912 —
1913), 87-129.
Calverton, V. F. "Cultural B a ro m e te r, " C urrent H istory, XLVIII
(April, 1938), 53-55.
Clews, Leta. "This T h e a te r ," F o ru m and Century, Cl (F eb ru ary ,
1939), 72-73.
C lurm an, Harold. "D ram a, " The Nation, CCIII (October 17, 1966),
398.
___________. " T h e a te r ," The Nation, CLXXX (January 14, 1955), 57-59.
"Theatre: Around 'Night M usic, 1 " New Republic, CXXIV
(7fpril 30, 1951), 22.
"Theatre: Sins of Clifford Odets, " New Republic, CXX
(M arch 14, 1949), 28-29.
. "The F ir s t 15 Y ears, " New Republic, CXXIII (D ecem ber
TT7 1950), 29-30.
Colum, M ary M. "The Im aginary C lass Line, " The F o ru m , XCV
(June, 1936), 347-348.
C ro ce, A rlene. "New-Old, Old-New, and New, " National Review,
XIX (January 24, 1967), 99.
E ditor. "D ram a and Music: The T heater Goes a-M aying, " L ite ra ry
D ig est, CXX (D ecem ber 21, 1935), 20.
E ditor. "E ntertainm ent, " N ew s-W eek, V (M arch 2, 1935), 31.
Editor. "E ntertainm ent, " N ew s-W eek, VI (D ecem ber 21, 1935), 39.
Editor. "New Plays: 'The Country G irl, ' " N ew sw eek, XXXVI
(November 20, 1950), 90.
Editor. "Theater: Clifford Odets' 'Golden Boy, 1 " L ite ra ry Digest,
CXXIV (November 27, 1937), 35.
412
Editor. "T heater: Hollywood Ho-Hum, " Newsweek, XXXIII (M arch
7, 1949), 84.
Editor. "T h eater R eview ," Newsweek, XXXIX (M arch 24, 1952), 100.
Editor. "T heater: The New Plays, " Newsweek, XLV (January 10,
1955), 62.
Editor. " T h e a tr e ," Tim e, XXVI (D ecem ber 23, 1935), 31-32.
Editor. " T h e a tr e ," Tim e, XXX (November 15, 1937), 25-26.
Editor. "The Country Girl, " Theatre A rts Monthly, XXXV (January,
1951), 14.
Editor. "The Country Girl, " The Catholic World, CLXXH (January,
1951), 310.
Editor. "The Theater: New Plays in Manhattan, " T im e , LXV
(January 10, 1955), 34.
Editor. "The Theater: Old Play in M anhattan, " Tim e, LIX (M arch
24, 1952), 56.
Editor. "The Theater: P layw right's R eturn, " Tim e, LVI (N ovember
20, 1950), 64.
Editor. "The T h e a tr e ," T im e , XXXIII (M arch 20, 1939), 60.
Editor. "The Theatre: New Plays in Manhattan, " Tim e, XXXV
(M arch 3, 1940), 34.
Fenichel, Otto. "On Acting, " Psychoanalytic Q uarterly, XV (1946),
44.
F reu d , Sigmund. "Psychopathic C h a ra c te rs on the Stage, " P s y c h o
analytic Q u a rte rly , XI (1942), 460.
G abriel, G ilbert W. "Playgoing, " Theatre A rts Monthly, XXXIH
(May, 1949), 23-25.
G arland, Robert. "New P lay by Odets Opens at Longacre, " T heatre
A rts Monthly, XX (June, 1936), 4b5-466.
G assn e r, John. "The Long Journey of a Talent, " T heatre A rts
Monthly, XXXIH (July, 1949), 25-30.
Gibbs, Wolcott. "T heatre: A Review of 'The Country Girl, 1 " The
New Y orker, XXVI (November 18, 1950), 77-79.
"The T heatre, " The New Y orker, XXVII (January 3, 1942),
28-29.
413
Gibbs, Wolcott. "The Theatre: All Sizes and Shapes, " The New
Y o rk e r, XXX (January 8, 1955), 56-58.
"The Theatre: Return of the Native, " The New Y orker,
XXV, (M arch 5, 1949), 50-52.
"The Theatre: The Ring and the Bow, " The New Y orker,
XXVlII (M arch 22, 1952), 54.
"The Theatre: Who Brought That Up?" The New Y orker,
X X V lI (April 21, 1951), 58-59.
G ilder, Rosamond. "Manhattan Music: Broadw ay in Review, "
T heatre A rts M onthly, XXIV (April, 1940), 230-234.
" P o rtra its and Backgrounds, " T heatre A rts M onthly,
XXIII (May, 1939), 322-324.
"Song and Dance, " T heatre A rts Monthly, XXIII (January,
T939), 11-13.
"T im e and the Rivals, " Theatre A rts Monthly, XXVI
(M arch, 1942), 150-152.
G raf, Max. "R em iniscences of P r o fe s s o r Sigmund F r e u d ,"
Psychoanalytic Q u a rte rly , VII (1942), 466.
H artung, Philip T. "The Stage and Screen, " The Comm onweal, XXXI
(M arch 8, 1940), 435.
"The Stage and Screen, " The Com m onweal, XLIX (M arch
TT, 1949), 590-591.
H ayes, R ichard. "The Stage: 'The Flow ering P each, ' " The C om m on
w eal, LXI (F e b ru a ry 11, 1955), 502-503.
H ew es, Henry. "Broadway P o stsc rip t, " Saturday Review, XXXV
(M arch 29, 1952), 26.
Isa a c s, Edith J. R. "Going Left with F ortune, " T heatre A rts Monthly,
XIX (May, 1935), 327-331.
" M e rry F e a s t of Play-Going, " T heatre A rts Monthly, XIX
(April, 1935), 254-256.
"When Good Men Get Together: Broadw ay in Review, "
T heatre A rts M onthly, XXII (January, 1938), 11-13.
K e r r , W alter. "The Stage, " The Comm onweal, LV (M arch 28, 1952),
614-615.
414
K e rr, W alter. "The Stage: 'Night M usic, ' " The C om m onw eal, LIV
(April 27, 1951), 58-59.
. "The Stage: 'The Country Girl, ' " The C om m onw eal,
EUl (D ecem ber 1, 1950), 196-197.
Krutch, Joseph Wood. "D ram a, " The Nation, CXLV (November 13,
1937), 539-540.
. "Drama, " The Nation, CLXVIH (March 19, 1949),
338-341. -----------------
"Drama: 'Awake and Sing, ' " The Nation, CXL (March 13,
PH5), 314-316.
"Drama: Could You and I Conspire, " The Nation, CL
(Eliirch 2, 1940), 316-317.
"Drama: Mr. Odets Speaks His Mind, " The Nation, CXL
CSpril 10, 1935), 427-428.
__________. "Drama: On Good Intentions, " The Nation, CXL11
(January 1, 1936), 27-28.
"Drama: 'Rocket to the Moon, ' " The Nation, CXLVII
(December 3, 1938), 600 - 601.
__________. "Drama: The Unbeautiful People, " The Nation, CLIV
(January 10, 1942), 45-46.
McCarten, John. "Profiles: Revolution's Number One Boy, "
The New Y orker. XIII (January 22, 1938), 21-27.
M arshall, M argaret. "Drama, " The Nation, CLXXI (November 25,
1950), 493.
__________. "Drama, 1 1 The Nation, CXLV (November 13, 1937), 540.
. "Drama, " The N ation, CLXXIV (M arch 22, 1952), 285.
M endelsohn, M ichael J. "Odets at Center Stage, " Theatre A rts
M onthly, XLVII (May, 1963), 16-1 9 , 74-76.
. (June, 1963), 2 8 -3 0 , 78-80.
Nathan, G eorge Jean. "Theater Week: The White Hope G ets P a ler, "
N ew sw eek, XV (M arch 4, 1940), 42.
. " T h e a tr e,1 1 S crib n er's M agazine, CIII (May, 1938), 66.
"The T hinkers, " The A m erican M ercury, LXX11 (March,
--------- T351), 350-353------------- -------------------------------------
415
Odets, Clifford. "How a Playw right T rium phs, " H a r p e r 's , CCXXXHI
(Septem ber, 1966), 64-74.
Vernon, Grenville. "The Play, " The Commonweal, XXI (M arch 15,
1935), 570.
"The P lay, " The Commonweal, XXI (April 12, 1935), 682.
"The Play and Screen, " The C om m onw eal, XXIII
(D ecem ber 27, 1935), 244.
"The Play and Screen, " The Com m o n w eal, XXVII
(November 19, 1937), 106.
"The Stage and Screen, " The Comm onweal, XXIX
(D ecem ber 16, 1938), 215.
"The Stage and Screen, " The C om m onw eal, XXIX
(D ecem ber 9, 1938), 190.
W eales, Gerald. "On the Horizon: Bronx A ra ra t, " C om m entary, XX
(July, 1955), 74-76.
Whitehead, Robert. "Odets' Tale for Today and Our Tim e, " T heatre
A rts Monthly, XXXVIII (October, 1954), 25.
Wyatt, Euphem ia Van R en sselae r. "T heater, " The Catholic World,
CLXXX (F ebruary, 1955), 387.
"The D r a m a ," The Catholic World, CLXXV (May, 1952),
res. ----------------------
"The D ram a, " The Catholic World, CXLU (F ebruary,
H 36), 600-601.
"The D ram a, " The Catholic World, CXLVI (D ecem ber,
----------T9S7), 342.----------------- ---------------------------------
"The D ram a, " The Catholic World, CXLVUI (January,
T939), 476.
"The D r a m a ," The Catholic World, CXLIX (May, 1939),
2T7-218.
"The D ram a, " The Catholic World, CXLI (April, 1935),
TT92.
"The D r a m a ," The Catholic World, CXLI (May, 1935),
m - 2 1 5 .
__________. "The D r a m a ," The Catholic W orld, CLXIX (April, 1949),
63-64.
416
Young, Stark. "Awake and Whistle at Least, " The New Republic,
LXXXH (M arch 13, 1935), 134.
"God's Golden Lads and G irls, " The New Republic,
X T lH (N ovember 17, 1937), 44-45.
"Lefty and Nazi, " The New Republic, LXXXH (April 10,
T935), 247.
__________ . "Quite Worth Your Thought, " The New R epublic, LXXXV
(D ecem ber 25, 1935), 202.
__________ . "Rockets Old and New, " The New R epublic, XCVH
(D ecem ber 14, 1938), 173.
"Two New F a ilu re s , " The New Republic, CH (M arch 18,
H 30), 377-378.
Zolotow, M aurice. "The Season on and off Broadway, " T heatre A rts
Monthly, XXXBC (M arch, 1955), 18, 23, 90.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A History Of Theatrical Activity In Fresno, California, From Its Beginnings In 1872 To The Opening Of The White Theatre In 1914

PDF

The Nature And Significance Of The Father In The Plays Of Eugene O'Neill

PDF

A Critical Analysis Of The Nature Of Plot Construction And Characterization In Representative Plays Of Harold Pinter

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Belasco Theatre In Los Angeles And The Forces That Shaped Its History: 1927-1933

PDF

A Historical Survey Of The Mise-En-Scene Employed In Shakespearean Productions From The Elizabethan Period To The Present

PDF

A Re-Evaluation Of The Major Works Of George Kelly

PDF

A Critical Study Of Murngin Dramatic Ritual Ceremonies And Their Social Function

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Origins Of The Persian Passion Plays

PDF

A Critical Study Of The Influence Of The Classical And Christian Traditions Upon The Character Of The Hero As Revealed Through The Concepts Of 'Love' And 'Honor' In Three Restoration Heroic Tragedies

PDF

The Paradox And The Grotesque In The Work Of Friedrich Duerrenmatt

PDF

A History Of The Los Angeles Greek Theatre Under The Management Of James A. Doolittle And The Los Angeles Greek Theater Association, 1952-1969: The Professional Theatre Producer As A Lessee Of C...

PDF

A History Of The Development Of Professional Theatrical Activity In Los Angeles, 1880-1895

PDF

The interaction of Los Angeles theater and society between 1895 and 1906: a case study

PDF

A Historical Study Of Oliver Morosco'S Long-Run Premiere Productions In Los Angeles, 1905-1922

PDF

"The Ramona Pageant": A Historical And Analytical Study

PDF

A Descriptive Study Of The Value Commitments Of The Principal Characters In Four Recent American Plays: 'Picnic,' 'Cat On A Hot Tin Roof,' 'Long Day'S Journey Into Night,' And 'Look Homeward, Angel'

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Characteristics Of Acting During The Restoration Period In England (1660-1710)

PDF

A Survey And Analysis Of Current Attitudes Toward Censorship Of The Legitimate Theatre In The United States

PDF

Common Sources Of Confusion In Critical Communication As Exemplified In The Criticism Of Beckett'S "Endgame"

PDF

An historical study of the legitimate theatre in Los Angeles: 1920-1929 and its relation to the national theatrical scene

Asset Metadata

Creator Wright, Donald Gene (author)

Core Title A Critical Examination Of The Works Of Clifford Odets According To A Psychoanalytic Criterion

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication (Drama)

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag mass communications,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Stahl, Herbert M. (committee chair), Butler, James H. (committee member), Harvey, Herman M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-433569

Unique identifier UC11362253

Identifier 7025075.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-433569 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7025075.pdf

Dmrecord 433569

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wright, Donald Gene

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA