University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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...

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 71-7719
KELLY, Richard Joseph, 1925-
A HISTORY OF THE LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE
UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF JAMES A. DOOLITTLE
AND THE LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE ASSOCIATION,
1952-1969! THE PROFESSIONAL THEATRE
PRODUCER AS A LESSEE OF CITY GOVERNMENT.
University of Southern California, Ph.D.,
1970
Theater
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Copyright by
RICHARD JOSEPH KELLY
1971
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
A HISTORY OF THE LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE UNDER
THE MANAGEMENT OF JAMES A. DOOLITTLE AND THE
LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE ASSOCIATION
1952-1969: THE PROFESSIONAL THEATRE
PRODUCER AS A LESSEE OF CITY
GOVERNMENT
by
Richard Joseph Kelly
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Communications-Drama)
August 1970
UNIVERSITY O F SO UTH ER N CALIFORNIA
TH E G R A D U A TE S C H O O L
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LO*~ A N G EL ES, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...... Richard.. Josejgh..Kelly..........
under the direction of h.Xs.. 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 O F P H I L O S O P H Y
e . 7 n
2
Dean
D ate Augus.t..l5.Z.O...
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
>-----------Gbairitfaj
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
i
|
The author of this study is indebted to many per
sons who assisted him with his investigation. Mr. !
, Doolittle gave large blocks of time for taped and informal j
interviews, and responded to every request for information
i on the Greek Theatre, the Greek Theatre Association, and
himself. Thanks are also due his assistants, Jaclyn
Carmichael and Cristina Parham, for their help in coordin-
1 ating the meetings with Mr. Doolittle. The writer is j
I
i
also indebted to Harry Strohmer, Comptroller at the Greek I
!
Theatre, for his instruction on the theatre account books
iand his preparation of financial statements.
John H. Ward, Parks Superintendent of the Los
I
t
I Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks gave helpful
i
iinformation on two occasions. Chief Administrative
i
'Services Officer, John Horan, extended the Department’s
icooperation to this research and set up meetings with
I Recreation and Parks accountants. Secretary to the Board
i
j
I of Recreation and Parks Commissioners, Pat Wilson,
expedited the investigation through her intimacy with
[Department records and files. Recreation and Parks
i
[accountants Ignacio Vasquez and Neil Ingram helpfully
provided the Department's financial data used in this
study.
Particular gratitude is extended for the interested1
help of Oscar Odegaard of the Los Angeles City Budget |
i i
division for his contribution of the City's cultural sub- j
sidy data. Appreciation is also owed to his counterpart
in the Los Angeles County Budget division, Ernie Morishita,:
'who prepared a long listing of the County's cultural sub- j
i !
sidles. Mrs. Hi Maruyama of the Los Angeles County Parks !
and Recreation Department allowed access to her accounts
on Hollywood Bowl. I
| I
J. Don Hanauer, General Manager of the Los Angeles j
i
Chamber of Commerce generously supplied material which j
I
was used here.
| Finally, the writer is in debt to the Greek
|
| Theatre librarian, M'Belle Dunham, who was a helpful
| companion of this study. Mrs. Dunham's knowledge of Greek
I Theatre affairs and of sources of investigation were
I
invaluable. For her contribution, and the spirit of it,
| the writer offers his deepest thanks.
iii
TO MY WIFE, HELEN
i
i
i
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................. ii
DEDICATION..................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES....................................viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................... ix
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE ST U D Y............ 3
Statement of the Problem
Background of the Problem
Significance of the Problem
Organization of the Remainder
of the Study
Review of the Literature
Definition of Terms
II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CIVIC THEATRE
FOR LOS ANGELES..................... 32
Dedication of the Greek Theatre
Make-up and Function of the Los
Angeles Department of Recrea
tion and Parks
Troublesome Early Years of the
Greek Theatre
Physical Description of the
Original Greek Theatre
Main Features of the Stage Building
and Amphitheatre
Major Refurbishments to the
Greek Theatre
v
Chapter Page
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
ASCENDING YEARS OF THE CIVIC
LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE .......... 70
Prelude to the Greek Theatre
Association
Formulation of the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre Association
Premiere Season - Greek Theatre
Association 1953
THE POLITICAL-FINANCIAL MATRIX OF THE
CIVIC LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE:
1952-1963 ........................... 137
The Lease
Capital Improvements
The Greek Theatre Association
Statement of Operations
1953-1962
Los Angeles1 County and City
Cultural Subsidy Program
Estimated Total City Investment
at the Greek Theatre 1952
Through 1963
Perspective on the Greek Theatre
in the Cultural Subsidy Spectrum
Subsidy Comparison Between the
Hollywood Bowl and the
Greek Theatre
Greek Theatre - Hollywood Bowl
Analogy
WINTER OF CONTROVERSY 1962-63 185
SUB-TEXT — PROLOGUE — ANALYSIS
OF ISSUES BEHIND THE 1962-63
DISPUTE............................. 267
vi
Chapter Page
VII. METAMORPHOSIS -- THE GREEK THEATRE
1964-69 ........................... 296
Minor Skirmishes-1964
The Los Angeles Theatre Environ
ment in the Mid-Sixties
Greek Theatre Production Finances
of Recent Years -- 1963-69
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............. 373
Summary
Conclusions
APPENDIX....................................... 392
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................... 407
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2 .
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10.
Page
City Profit or Loss from the Greek Theatre
Operation - Based on City Operating
Expenses Versus All Revenues Including
Greek Theatre Association Revenues From
Box-Office Receipts and Concession
Returns - Years 1952 Through Fiscal
Year 1962..................................146
Major City Expenditures - Greek Theatre . . 152
Greek Theatre Statement of Operations
(1953 to 1962 inclusive)................. 155
City of Los Angeles Estimated Total
Investment in Los Angeles Greek
Theatre 1952 Through 1963.............167
City Subsidies........................... 168
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Cultural Subsidies (Music Commission
1954 Through 1969-70) ................... 171
Los Angeles County Maintenance and Opera
tion and Capital Expenditure Record
at Hollywood Bowl Ten Years 1955-56 . . . l8l
Ten-Year Total of Funds for Capital Im
provements, Maintenance and Opera
tions ......................................183
1964 Greek Theatre Season Program of
Events and Attendance ................... 229
Greek Theatre - Statement of Operations
1963 Through 1969.....................327
viii
Plate Page
I. The Greek Theatre After 1968. Proscen
ium dates from the 1957 refurbish
ment ................................. 1
II. Mr. James A. Doolittle Director of the
Greek Theatre....................... 2
III. The Original Open-Staged Greek Theatre
Sometime During the 1930's .......... 48
IV. The Greek Theatre's First Proscenium
Stage ca. 1947 to 1957 .............. 49
V. The Greek Theatre Facade in 1957 -
Before the New Ticket Booths........ 50
VI. The Greek Theatre Facade in 1961 - After
the New Ticket Booths.............. 51
VII. A Perspective on the Greek Theatre's
Amphitheatre Rise in 1954 52
VIII. A Performance at the Greek Theatre
Before 1957 53
x
PLATE I.--The Greek Theatre after 1968. Proscenium dates from the
1957 refurbishment.
PLATE II.--Mr. James A. Doolittle Director of the
Greek Theatre, ca. 1969-
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The attitudes and relationships of federal,
state, county and city governments toward theatre have
become increasingly more relevant to the functioning of
professional theatre in the United States. Today, there
is growing expectation that a healthy national theatre
must rely on governmental assistance and encouragement
above and beyond the capability of the theatre industry
to perpetuate itself. Other countries such as Great
Britain, France, West Germany, and Austria offer examples
of flourishing theatre under government aid. In our own
country the value of connections and resources outside
of the theatre has been demonstrated by private foundations
which have given life to repertory, conservatory, and
resident theatres which are currently leading a transition
toward decentralization. The federal government has
already tightened its relationship to theatre by congres
sional establishment of the National Arts Council in
September, 1965- According to the New York Times, the
council's National Arts Endowment fund, administered by
3
4
former theatre-owner and producer Roger L. Stevens, has
distributed more than $20 million to individual artists
and groups of artists throughout the country.1 On county
and municipal levels the relationship to theatre exists
in local government linkage to large cultural complexes
such as New York's Lincoln Center and Los Angeles' Music
Center.
Underlying this tentative swing toward closer
coalition of government bodies and theatre are two funda
mental problematical considerations. First, there are
divergent viewpoints which, on the one hand, regard
theatre as a business, and, on the other, as an art. The
traditional American attitude toward cultural endeavors
has tended to reflect our free-enterprise business orien
tation that, like all other endeavors, art and theatre
should pay their own ways and succeed only in ratio to the
demand for their product. Opposed to this attitude is the
one which sees art and theatre as valuable for their own
sakes, and worth supporting purely for cultural benefits.
The second problematical area revolves around the question
of control over the art operation where government and
theatre are interrelated. The question becomes: what
are the ramifications and effects on a viable theatre pro
gram when it operates within this context?
1Howard Taubman, "Subsidies for Culture," The
New York Times, January 11, 1969.
5
The Los Angeles Greek Theatre, located in that
city's Griffith Park and built in 1930* offers a good
opportunity to study this relationship. This theatre has
always existed within just such a context wherein politi
cal personages and the professional theatre have converged
in theatre production. As a civic theatre, now in its
39th year, the Greek Theatre is owned by the people of
Los Angeles and administered by their City government.
For its first twenty-two years the Greek Theatre, as a
! cultural force in Los Angeles, was almost an anonymous
i
entity. In 1952 the Los Angeles Greek Theatre came under
the stewardship of a private and professional production
organization -- James A. Doolittle and the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre Association -- and an active theatre pro
gram began there which has been sustained for eighteen
summer seasons. The Greek Theatre has been credited with
enhancing Los Angeles' cultural image. In the person of
Doolittle the Los Angeles City government has dealt with
an enterprising, dynamic theatre individual. A history of
the Los Angeles Greek Theatre describes a professional
theatre functioning within a political context. This
study is intended to be a case history of a specific
theatre -- the operations and achievement of the Los
Angeles Greek Theatre within its political context --
which manifests the problems existing when city government
and professional theatre are related in a theatrical
6
endeavor. It is hoped that some insights on these
problems will result from its examination.
!
Statement of the Problem
This study is concerned with the historical
career of the outdoor civic Los Angeles Greek Theatre
with particular focus on its most functional years, 1952
through 1969* Further, it will seek to determine how
i this civic theatre's career has been affected by its
; City government's landlord-tenant relationship to the
! professional theatre producer in his creation and sustain-
i ing of a major theatre program.
i
! During the period of focus, 1952 through 1969*
| the Greek Theatre received its greatest notice under the
management of James A. Doolittle. As a consequence, this
17-year period is the best one for observing the govern-
ment-theatre relationship. However, this study is not
confined only to this era. Since the Los Angeles Greek
1 Theatre has always been influenced by its civic ownership
-- from the time of its conception through the present —
some recapitulation of the Greek Theatre's early years is
necessary.
The investigation undertaken is divided into two
areas: (1) a determination of the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre's cultural achievement, insofar as possible, by
an examination of its programming, audience attendance,
7
receipts, and critical comments on its productions; and
(2) an examination of the realities of the political-
theatrical relationship as observable through contractual
agreements and policies of the contracted parties toward
each other. Owing to the public nature of the Greek
Theatre, these avenues are pursuable by way of the public
media of press, radio, and television which have given
wide coverage to all matters concerning this civic
theatre.
To accomplish these goals this study will pro
ceed through the following objectives:
| I. An examination of the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre to determine its civic nature, and its early
career. This will involve exploring:
A. How the Greek Theatre came into existence
as the gift of Colonel Griffith J.
Griffith.
B. The Los Angeles City government's in
volvement with the Greek Theatre and
show business.
C. The early career jf the Greek Theatre --
its first twenty-two years prior to its
joining with James A. Doolittle and the
Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association.
II. Details of the Greek Theatre's physical com
plex and setting will be sought. This pursuit will touch
8
upon:
A. The outstanding features of the stage
building, the auditorium, and the huge
basement complex.
B. The Greek Theatre's history of refurbish
ment and change which entailed an evolu
tion from an open stage to a proscenium
scene building, auditorium and seating
changes, improvements in the theatre's
facade, and the addition of business
offices to the facility.
III. A comprehensive rendering of the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre's cultural achievement will be endeavored.
This examination will confine itself mainly to the
renaissance years of the Greek Theatre from 1952 through
1962 under the management of James A. Doolittle and the
Greek Theatre Association. This progression will investi
gate:
A. The circumstances of the coming together
of Doolittle and the Greek Theatre.
B. Doolittle's production experience.
C. The suitability of the Greek Theatre for
the type of program it has accommodated.
D. The change from an aura of uncertainty to
one of encouragement at the civic theatre
resulting from Doolittle's first inde
9
pendent season.
E. The establishment of the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre Association.
F. The cultural program and the public's
response to it.
G. The inventory of Doolittle and the
Association’s first ten years.
IV. Since determining the functional realities of
j the Greek Theatre Association's landlord-tenant relation-
| ship is one of the principal purposes of this study, to
accomplish it will require exploring:
A. The contractual stipulations between the
City of Los Angeles and the Greek Theatre
Association.
B. The expense of the Greek Theatre to the
City of Los Angeles.
C. The Greek Theatre Association's produc
tion costs and its profit and loss
results.
D. The Los Angeles City and County govern
ment's cultural subsidy policies.
E. Public conflicts between the Los Angeles
City government and the Greek Theatre
Association.
V. A study of the career of the Greek Theatre
from the years 1962 through 1969 will essay a synthesis
I 10
of its current condition and prospects. It will be
necessary to review:
A. The Greek Theatre Association's cultural
program for these years.
! B. The dynamics of the political-theatrical-
I
relationship in light of past problems.
C. The prohibitive costs of theatre viewed
through the Greek Theatre operation.
D. The changed Los Angeles theatrical
! environment.
i
i
|
j Background of the Problem
i
- The Los Angeles Greek Theatre came into being
I
in singularly inauspicious times. Conceived in contro
versy, born in the depression year 1930, and retarded by
the war years immediately following, the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre's early history is analagous to that of an
unwanted and disadvantaged child. It was not until its
22nd year that the Los Angeles Greek Theatre came to
maturity and asserted itself on the cultural life of Los
Angeles.
In 1912, Colonel Griffith J. Griffith bequeathed
money to the City of Los Angeles to erect a Greek Theatre
in Griffith Park. Griffith's gift of the park acreage in
1896 established him as the City's leading benefactor.
However, in 1912, Griffith's image and status in his
community were tarnished as a result of scandal and, as
a consequence, his money for the Greek Theatre was opposed
I
by the citizenry and City officials alike.2 (The Griffith
story, too digressive for these introductory pages, will
be further detailed in Chapter II.) The Los Angeles
Greek Theatre finally materialized in 1930 ending an 18-
year period of reluctance and onus on the part of Los
Angeles to fulfill Griffith's bequest. Following an
elaborate and prestigious dedication ceremony on
September 25, 1930, the Greek Theatre fell heir to both
the depression pinch on the entertainment dollar, and the
subsequent World War II years during which the nation's
concentration and energies were channeled away from pre
occupation with theatre. Then, the post-war years began
the era of television which brought its enveloping impact
to bear on live theatrical productions. The early 1950's
were the years of television's creative thrust, maturing
technical facility, and incursion of its box theatres in
most of the nation's homes as that industry confiscated
the mass audience with almost the speed of its own trans
mission. Many movie houses and legitimate theatres were
left for dead by audiences who were being entertained in
droves at home, or they suffered the ignomenious call
2Charles Hillinger, "Griffith Park -- the city's
Largest Christmas Gift," Los Angeles Times, December 26,
1967.
12
letters of makeshift, stop-gap telecasting centers
thereby nourishing the new giant which was consuming
them.
Paradoxically, the same year that the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre was completed, 1930, was also a pivotal
year which marked the end of a prolific era in Los Angeles
theatre productions and the beginning of a period of
decline. Los Angeles' theatre drought, which lasted from
approximately 1930 through i960, tended to obscure
1
! happier times when the City was a "theatre town". The
first 30 years of the century had been a creative and
active period for theatre in Los Angeles with ten theatres,
four great stock companies (notably, Oliver Morosco's)
and a once-a-week theatre-going habit was created for
3
many Los Angeles citizens. Then, legitimate theatre
retreated before the impetus of talking pictures -- the
movie industry's acquisition of extant theatres plus a
rush to construct movie houses -- and coupled with as
mentioned before, a public suffering the ravages of an
economic depression. These factors, compounded by World
War II, and further compounded by television's rise con
spired to produce a lost generation for legitimate theatre.
^Maurice Zolotow, "Land of Nod," Theatre Arts,
Vol. XL, No. 4 (April, 1956), p. 75-
^See Leonard Schoen, "An Historical Study of
Oliver Morosco's Long Run Premiere Productions in Los
Angeles 1905-1922" (dissertation in progress, the University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1969)._________________
I 13
j Thus, a survey of the theatre sections --
I innocuously entitled "Spoken Drama" — of the City's major
newspaper the Los Angeles Times during the 1950s reveals
a meager diet of legitimate theatre available. Writing in
1956 in the nation's leading theatre magazine, Theatre
Arts, Maurice Zolotow expressed his own eastern superior
ity and his frustration at the paucity of legitimate
theatre in Los Angeles. Zolotow's indictment entitled
| "Land of Nod" stated "... that there is no living
t theatre to speak of in this, the second or third or
fourth largest city in our United States. Zolotow was
j corrorborated by Dr. Abbott Kaplan, founder of the UCLA
I
Extension Theatre Group, who observed in a 1966 interview
that "... the image of this city as a theatrical road's
end was probably rather accurate 10 years ago. Except
for the Actor's Lab right after World War II there had
been no effort at serious theatre here for many years.
All we had was warmed-over Broadway . . . ." Referring
to the same period, Cecil Smith, leading theatre critic
of the Los Angeles Times, quoted an old theatrical adage
chiding the City's reputation: "... the three worst
weeks in the theatre are the week before Christmas, the
^Zolotow, op. cit., p. 82.
/ T
Joseph N. Bell, "Observing the Theater," a
column in The National Observer. A Weekly Newspaper, Vol.
5, No. 32 (Monday, August 8, 1966), p. 1.
14
J
week before Easter and the week in Los Angeles.
During this quiescent theatrical period in the
!
early 1950s, James A. Doolittle and the Greek Theatre
Association came together. The civic Greek Theatre was
under the control of the Los Angeles' Department of
i
Recreation and Parks. The lessor-lessee relationship
between City government and the professional theatre pro
ducer represented by these parties provides the context
for this history of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre -- its
cultural career within the framework of civic partnership.
Significance of the Problem
I
; The Los Angeles Greek Theatre is a theatre indi
genous to the area it serves. As a civic theatre owned
by the citizenry of Los Angeles, administered by their
city government, and operated by theatre professionals,
the Los Angeles Greek Theatre is woven into the social,
governmental, and cultural life of its city. Now in its
39th year, the Greek Theatre's career vividly reflects
the changing theatrical climate of Los Angeles from the
time of the early depression years, when theatre was in
decline here as all over the United States, to the present
era of theatrical increase. Currently in the Los Angeles
area there are no evenings of the year when theatre is dark
^Cecil Smith, "Doolittle: Slings, Arrows,
Achievements," Los Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday,
November 28, 19t>5j p. 2.
15
or out of season with the activity of the Los Angeles
Music Center, the Huntington Hartford Theatre, the Greek
Theatre, the Theatre Guild, and numerous small independent
theatres.
During the 39 years of the Greek Theatre's
existence major legitimate theatres in Los Angeles
dwindled in numbers while the Greek Theatre survived and,
in its later years, prospered. No new major theatres were
erected here until 1967 when the Los Angeles Music Center
was built with three theatres designed for the presenta
tion of a wide range of theatre productions. The period
| of the Greek Theatre's renaissance from 1952 through 1962
is an era marked by the transition of Los Angeles
theatre from a minimal to a more active period of produc
tion. It is one of the purposes of this study to gain
perspective on the Los Angeles Greek Theatre's contribu
tory role in improving Los Angeles' theatrical climate,
and to determine to what degree the Greek Theatre, the
Greek Theatre Association, and James A. Doolittle have
created hospitality for a theatre complex such as the
Los Angeles Music Center.
Since 1952, the Greek Theatre has introduced Los
Angeles to many of the celebrated dance, opera, and
foreign theatre companies of the world. Some of these
foreign visitors came to America for the first time at
the instigation of Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Associa-
16
tion, and continued their successful tours in New York
City --a reversal of the traditional route of import-
I f t
j ation. Other Doolittle innovations have featured
i
original productions of ballets and operas given at the
Greek Theatre. During the past seventeen years Doolittle,
under Greek Theatre Association aegis, has been a major
importer of theatre productions to Los Angeles. These
have been given at the Los Angeles Greek Theatre, the
Biltmore, and the Huntington Hartford theatres. In 1959>
Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Association rescued the
Los Angeles Biltmore Theatre from demolishment, and its
five closing years, until 1965> were among the most pro
ductive of the Biltmore’s long life.9 Los Angeles'
Huntington Hartford Theatre was saved in the same way
by the Greek Theatre Association which continues to pro
duce a year-round theatre program there.10 As managing
director of the Greek Theatre Association, Doolittle has
been a dominant figure on the Los Angeles theatre scene
! throughout this period, and by common consent, its most
I
controversial figure.11 A study of the Los Angeles Greek
O
"L.A. Sends Culture to Barren Broadway," Pasadena
Star-News, Monday, October, 1961, n.d.
^Cecil Smith, "The Greek Theatre — Its Miracle
and Its Turmoil," Los Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday,
June 30, 1963* P.
l0Bell, loc. clt.
11Ray Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," Los
Angeles Magazine. Vol. III. No. 6 (June 1966). pT~TH.______
17
Theatre Is, interchangeably, a treatment of the tripartite
careers of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre, James A.
Doolittle, and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association.
A further significance of the Greek Theatre lies
in its record of 17 sustaining years of presentations.
This continuity provides opportunity to examine economic
changes in Los Angeles theatre operations over that time
period as well as it affords a chance to survey audience
preferences and tastes for different forms of theatre.
Moreover, it is the Los Angeles Greek Theatre as
a phenomenon of civil government-professional theatre
interrelationship which gives a history of the Greek
Theatre its heightened interest. For seventeen years the
workability of this co-operation between city government
and the professional theatre in a cultural endeavor has
been tested. A summary of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre
offers a chance to look at the effects of city government-
theatre partnership on a theatre's total performance. In
this perspective the Greek Theatre may serve as a useful
prototype for studying future projects brought about by
the growing intimacy between government agencies and the
theatre art.
Organization of the Remainder
of1 the Study
Chapter II gives a chronological account of a
forty-year span which covers the Greek Theatre's
18
beginnings in 1912, and ends at the point where James A.
I Doolittle and the Greek Theatre came together in 1952.
| The physical theatre and its refurbishment history is
treated.
Chapter III covers the eleven-year period from
1953 through 1962 when Doolittle and the Greek Theatre
Association operated the Greek Theatre. Their record
for this period is analyzed in connection with a profile
on Doolittle. Chapter IV gives the financial context of
the Greek Theatre. The Greek Theatre Association's pro
duction costs and the City's total financial investment
in its Greek Theatre are documented. A selection of the
cultural subsidy programs of both Los Angeles City and
County is presented with an emphasis on Los Angeles City
and County subsidies to the City's Greek Theatre and the
County's Hollywood Bowl.
Chapter V details the grave 1962-63 political-
theatrical controversy between the Greek Theatre Associa
tion and all levels of the Los Angeles City and County
governments. In Chapter VI the issues underlying the
political-theatrical relationship are analyzed, and an
attempt is made to trace some of the causes of the con-
] troversy's bitterness. Chapter VII covers the careers,
| since 1963, of the Greek Theatre, Doolittle, and the Los
Angeles Greek Theatre Association.
Chapter VIII gives the investigator's own
summary and conclusions.
19
Review of the Literature
There are no studies devoted to the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre, the Greek Theatre Association, or James
A. Doolittle. Two doctoral dissertations on subsidized
theatre in other countries — Germany and England -- were
of inferential interest. Alfred Glenn Brooks' 1961
dissertation, "Subsidized Theatres in Western Germany
19^5-1960," shows the European attitude toward subsidized
theatre to be much different from the one which prevails
12
in the United States. Virtually every German municipal
ity over 20,000 population has state and municipally
operated theatres. The Western German approach to sub
sidized theatre evolved from deeply rooted theatrical
traditions commenced in the mid-l8th century with the
governing concept that theatre has intrinsic value,
independent of financial considerations, and deserves
support through public funds as a necessary cultural
institution.
Ronald Everett Sheriffs' 1964 study entitled
"A Historical Study of the Development of Governmental
Support to Theatre in Great Britain," deals with England's
12Alfred Glenn Brooks, "Subsidized Theatres in
Western Germany, 1945-1960," (unpublished Ph.D. disserta
tion, University of Illinois, 1961).
20
TQ
establishment of a subsidized theatre program. J Marvin
Abrahams’ dissertation on the "Functioning of Boards and
Commissions in The Los Angeles City Government," aided in
getting an understanding of the City's governing bodies
which directly affect the Greek Theatre.1^ " Leonard
Shoen's dissertation-in-progress, "An Historical Study of
Oliver Morosco's Long Run Premiere Productions In Los
Angeles 1905-1922," contributed background information
IS
on theatre in Los Angeles during that period. ^
The primary sources of the study include personal
interviews, numerous documents and letters, brochures,
theatre programs, and voluminous newspaper coverage.
James A. Doolittle gave both taped and informal
interviews in which he addressed himself to both general
questions of the Greek Theatre Association history, and
to specific information on all Greek Theatre matters.
Three tapes of these interviews have been requested and
released to the Oral History program of the University of
California at Los Angeles for the use of future researchers
^Ronald Everett Sheriffs, "A Historical Study of
The Development of Governmental Support to Theatre in
Great Britain," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1964).
-^Marvin Abrahams, "Functioning of Boards and
Commissions in the Los Angeles City Government," (unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation, the University of California
at Los Angeles, 1966).
IC5
^Schoen, op. clt.
21
Architectural plans and fact sheets from the
Department of Recreation and Parks provided the data for
the physical description of the Greek Theatre. The
leases between the City and the Greek Theatre Association
gave the legal contractual obligations of both parties to
the agreements. Colonel Griffith J. Griffith's Last Will
and Testament, dated February 2, 1916, gave Griffith's
own stated intentions and hopes that his gift of the
Greek Theatre would benefit the people of Los Angeles.
This study relies on letters exchanged between the Greek
Theatre Association and Los Angeles City and County
officials. Mainly, these argue the issue of contract
observances by the parties to the contract -- the City of
Los Angeles and the Greek Theatre Association. This was
a main debate of a Greek Theatre financial audit contro
versy in 1962-63. A Greek Theatre Resolution statement of
1963 stated the Association's position on the unsettling
controversy which was taking place at that time.
Three special reports from the Los Angeles
Department of Recreation and Parks staffmen -- John Horan,
George Helgesen, and William Frederickson Jr. -- are
important documents which give details of the financial
history, through the years 1952-63, between the City and
the Greek Theatre Association. These reports, submitted
to the Recreation and Parks Board of Commissioners on
December 6, 1962, also contain the staffmen1s recommenda-
| 22
tions for changed contractual policies between the City
and the Association.
Three series of theatre programs, and one
special theatre program, are important sources used here.
The special program is that of the Greek Theatre's dedica
tion ceremony which took place on September 25, 1930.
This gave the events and performers of that first pre
sentation, and the officials who participated in the
civic ceremony. The Dedicatory Program is also important
! for its reprint of the original letter that Griffith
wrote in 1912 to City officials in which he expressed his
reasons for giving the Greek Theatre to Los Angeles. The
series of theatre programs are those of Gene Mann's pro
duction venture at the Greek Theatre during 1946 through
1951, the Huntington Hartford programs, and the Greek
Theatre Magazine. The latter is the official publication
of the Greek Theatre and its practical theatre program.
The Gene Mann programs give little more than the play and
the players presented during his management. However,
the programs made it possible to discover some facts on
refurbishments which took place at the Greek Theatre
during his tenure there. The Huntington Hartford Theatre
programs supply a complete listing of all productions
done by the Greek Theatre Association since 1953*
The Greek Theatre Magazine is especially valuable
for its articles which recapitulate the dance and opera
23
events given at the Greek Theatre, and for information
on the Association's educational program. One article
of special interest is a history of the Greek Theatre
-1 /T
by Dorathi Bock Pierre. It has been reprinted in the
Greek Theatre Magazine almost seasonally since its first
appearance in 1957. This is especially valuable for its
early history of Griffith Park when it was a Spanish land
grant, through details of Colonel Griffith's ownership
and his gifts of the park and the Greek Theatre, and for
I its early career of the theatre.
Newspapers contribute the most extensive and
indispensible sources for this investigation. Since 1952
the Greek Theatre had massive newspaper coverage from
major Los Angeles metropolitan papers, suburban and
district newspapers, and show-business papers such as
Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. Newspaper writings
concerning the Greek Theatre fall into the categories of
(1) special feature articles, (2) daily news coverage,
(3) series articles on Greek Theatre affairs and (4)
critical reviews.
Many important by-line feature articles on the
Greek Theatre have been written by Cecil Smith of the Los
Angeles Times, Austin Conover of the Hollywood Cltizen-
•^Dorathi Bock Pierre, "The Greek Theatre in
Griffith Park -- A History," Greek Theatre Magazine,
Summer program, 1957> pp. 38-45.
24
News, Patterson Greene of the Los Angeles Examiner, and
Hazel Flynn of the Beverly Hills Citizen. These writers
have charted the progress of the Greek Theatre Association
throughout its expansion to the Biltmore and Huntington
Hartford Theatres, and they have evaluated all of its
theatrical endeavors.
The Greek Theatre is newsworthy for reasons
other than its theatre activities. As a civic theatre it
is public property. Therefore, the numerous controversies
which have enveloped the Greek Theatre and its producers
have sometimes been reported on a daily basis for sus
tained periods. Besides the newspapers already named,
there is extensive coverage of the Greek Theatre in the
Los Angeles Herald-Express, the Santa Monica Evening
Outlook, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, the Valley Times
Today, and innumerable local and regional newspapers. In
1961-62 the Los Angeles Herald Express and the Los Angeles
Examiner merged to become the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.
Several newspaper articles in series were
important to the study. Full coverage of the Griffith
shooting incident and its aftermath is given in the
September, October, and November, 1903 issues of the no
longer extant Los Angeles Express. The Los Angeles Times
newspapers of these same dates also carry the stories on
the Griffith shooting. The small, centrally located
newspapers of Deal Publications carried the Civic Center
25
News Agency (CCNA) byline articles of Ridgely Cummings.
This writer has been unremittingly vigilant on Greek
Theatre affairs, and he has frequently emphasized in
critical terms Doolittle’s autonomy at the civic Greek
Theatre. The Santa Mon.ica Evening Outlook series of
October through December, 1962 were significant to the
Greek Theatre history. These Evening Outlook articles
by Ron Funk and Will O'Neil began an investigation into
j the financial dealings of a politically prominent young
Los Angeles couple - Eugene and Rosalind Wyman. A
business partnership between the Wymans and Doolittle
touched off serious questions about the business affairs
of the Greek Theatre Association. As a result th'.
Recreation and Parks Department fought with the Associa
tion for a full year in 1962-63 over the issue of auditing
i
the Association's books.
Two excellent newspaper series analyzed and
synthesized the controversial issues of this 1963 City-
Association argument. These series by Art Seidenbaum of
the Los Angeles Times, and Giles Wright of the Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner give favorable assessments of the Greek
Theatre Association achievement. In his articles of
January 1, 2, and 3, 1963* Seidenbaum concludes that
there should be no reluctance on the part of the Associa
tion to give the City access to its business accounts.
Wright's articles of January 13, 14, 15, 1963 justify all
Greek Theatre Association dealings with the City of Los
Angeles as above reproach.
Early newspaper critical reviews were found in
the Los Angeles Times, the Examiner, the Herald Express,
the Mirror, the Daily News, the Valley News, and the
Hollywood Citizen-News. For critical reviews of Doolittle
first shows at the Greek Theatre in 1952, and for the
1953* and 195^ - seasons, this study relied on the
critiques of the Los Angeles Times music critic Arthur
Goldberg. Consistent critical coverage appeared in the
Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, and
the Hollywood Citizen-News. In recent years the show-
business trade papers Variety and the Hollywood Reporter
reviewed every production.
Secondary Sources
The only book which contains material for this
17
investigation is Who's Who in the American Theatre.
It contains a biographical outline on Doolittle and some
facts on his production record prior to his Greek Theatre
entries. A thirty-one page booklet, The Hollywood Bowl
Story, 1968, by John Northcutt is a colorful history of
the Bowl, and it gives a good account of the various
^Walter Rigdon, ed., "Who's Who of the American
Theatre," The Biographical Encyclopaedia (New York:
James H. HeinemanJ Inc., 1956).
27
production organizations connected with the showplace. °
| Many periodicals -- magazines and weekly news
papers -- have published feature stories on Doolittle, the
Greek Theatre and the Greek Theatre Association. Since
these articles were caused by the rejuvenation of the
Greek Theatre under the management of Doolittle, the
prevailing tone of all the feature stories is laudatory
toward the subject matter. In 1953* The Arts Magazine,
published in Los Angeles, devoted anticipatory articles
to the Greek Theatre Association's premiere season.
These articles praised the Association's intention to
concentrate on producing ballet and opera, and the
magazine judged the Greek Theatre to be an outstanding
showplace for these forms.^ In the April, 1956 issue of
Theatre Arts, Maurice Zolotow criticized the lack of
theatre in Los Angeles in his article entitled, "Land of
20
Nod." Two months later, in the June, 1956 issue of the
same magazine, Edwin Shallert answered Zolotow's criticism
| in his article, "Los Angeles: A Retarded Destiny." He
took Zolotow to task for his less-than-comprehensive
research on Los Angeles theatre. Shallert claimed that
-^John Orlando Northcutt, The Hollywood Bowl
Story, Los Angeles: Hollywood Bowl Association, (3rd
printing revised), 1968.
-^The Arts Magazine, Los Angeles, Altruistic
Artists Foundation, II (January, March, 1953).
on
Zolotow* op, Clt.
28
Zolotow's pique was based on an off-season survey of the
City's theatre activity, and he called attention to some
favorable signs of a theatre revival here which Zolotow
had failed to mention. Shallert referred to the Greek
21
Theatre summer seasons as one of them.
La Dessa Gibson Boylan's 1958 feature story in
the Los Angeles Social Service Review entitled "The
Greeks Have a Word for It," emphasized the international
acclaim which the Greek Theatre accomplished through
22
Doolittle. Patterson Greene's "the gift-bearing Greeks,"
in the July 1958 Theatre Arts issue, stressed that the
Greek Theatre had finally shed its jinx under Doolittle's
resuscitating m a n a g e r s h i p . a 1959 article in London's
Plays and Players, "Let's Go Greek," placed the same
oh
accent on Doolittle's achievement at the Greek Theatre.
In 1965j the Southern California Teachers Association
interviewed Doolittle for the special entertainment issue
of its official publication, The Valuator. The interview
21
Edwin Shallert, "Los Angeles: A Retarded Des
tiny," Theatre Arts, XL (June, 1956), pp. 72-89.
^La Dessa Gibson Boylan, "The Greeks Have A Word
For It," Social Service Review, XXI (Summer, 1958), pp.
30-48.
23patterson Greene, "The Gift-Bearing Greeks,"
Theatre Arts, XLII (July, 1958), pp. 65-67.
2^"Let's Go Greek," Plays and Players, London,
England, (May, 1959)•
29
gave Doolittle the chance to warn of the Greek Theatre's
25
current financial straits. That same summer in the
July issue of FM & Fine Arts, Hal Marienthal's article,
"Much Ado About Doolittle," gave an excellent condensa
tion of Doolittle's achievements against a background of
26
his troubles with the Los Angeles government.
The June, 1966 issue of Los Angeles Magazine
furnished two articles by theatre critic Ray Duncan which
contain comprehensive material on Doolittle and the
current Greek Theatre Association seasons at the
Huntington Hartford and Greek theatres. In his article,
"The Summer Season," Duncan appraised Los Angeles'
rejuvenated theatre environment. His appraisal enables
one to evaluate the status of the Greek and Hartford
theatres in that environment. Duncan's second article,
"Dr. Doolittle's Circus," praises Doolittle's record of
restoring the production activities of the Greek,
Biltmore, and Huntington Hartford theatres. While he
lauded Doolittle's success in ventures that others feared
to undertake, Duncan also noted Doolittle's controversial
25james M. Whitby, "'The Valuator' Interviews...
James A. Doolittle," The Valuator, the official publication
of the California Teachers Association, Southern Section,
Entertainment Issue (Summer, 1965), pp. 30-31.
“ ^Hal Marienthal, "Much Ado About Doolittle,"
FM & Fine Arts, VI (July, 1965), pp. 14-17.
30
status on the Los Angeles theatre scene.
In the August 8, 1966 issue of the National
Observer, Joseph Bell in his "Observing the Theater,"
credited Doolittle and the UCLA Theatre Group as the
28
mainsprings of Los Angeles' theatre revival.
Definition of Terms
Legitimate drama.— This term will be used in its
traditional sense of serious plays and comedies to which
music is only incidental.
Legitimate theatre.--Legitimate theatre will
refer to serious plays and comedies, musical comedy and
operetta. In its context here "legitimate theatre" is
viewed as the most common reference to forms which have
historically dominated the Broadway stage.
Theatre, Theatrical presentation.— This study
will use these terms for all forms of live presentation
which have played the Greek, Biltmore, and Huntington
Hartford theatres. These include dance, ballet, opera,
drama, operetta, musical comedy, and popular artists.
Theatre per se.--Thls usage excludes popular
artists and concerts.
27
Ray Duncan, "The Summer Season," and "Dr.
Doolittle's Circus," Los Angeles Magazine, XI (June, 1966),
pp. 40-48.
__________ 28Bell, op. cit._____________________________________
31
"Theatre" and "Theater--This study takes its
cue for the generic spelling of "theatre" from the title
j of the Greek Theatre Association. Thus, the text of the
i
study relies on this as its generic term. However, all
quoted material will retain the spelling, "theater,"
where it is originally given that way.
Subsidy.--Will denote any sum of money contributed
to a theatrical venture by city, county, state or federal
government, and private foundation. In this context
I
"subsidy" is qualified in that the amount may not be of
such quantity that it represents the life-sustaining
resource of a given theatrical venture. The "subsidy"
in this sense may be contributory, or tokens of confidence,
support, and appreciation on the part of the giver.
Subsidized theatre.--On the other hand, will apply
to that venture which needs the subsidy to support and
sustain its life--without which it could not endure
financially.
CHAPTER II
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CIVIC
THEATRE FOR LOS ANGELES
The Los Angeles Greek Theatre was created
through the philanthropy of the late Colonel Griffith J.
Griffith (d. 1919). It is probable that no theatre would
j exist today in Griffith Park if its donor had not
specified the facility as an integral part of his encom-
! passing plan of betterment for the people of Los Angeles.
A theatre and a scientific observatory were the main
stipulations contained in Griffith's second "Christmas
gift"1 to the citizens of Los Angeles.
Griffith's first "Christmas gift," offered to
the city of Los Angeles personally by him in the City
chambers on December 16, 1896, was a package of land
2
totalling 3*015 acres from his Rancho Los Feliz. The
only conditions of the gift were that the land be used
32
Griffith's own term expressed in his letter of
bequest to Los Angeles Mayor Alexander and the City Council
in December, 1912, as reprinted in the dedicatory program
of the Greek Theatre September 25, 1930.
2Los Angeles Times, December 17, 1896.
33
exclusively as a public park "for the amusement, recrea-
j tion, health, and pleasure of its inhabitants," and that
its name forever be "Griffith Park."^
By 1945* the City had added another 1,237*83
acres to the original acreage through various purchases,
4
donations, and conveyances of other city lands. The
total of 4,252.83 acres was, in turn, reduced to 4,043.7
acres as a result of freeway development in the 1950s.
Griffith Park still remains the largest park contained
within a city anywhere in the United States.
In 1912 Griffith exceeded this first generosity
with his "second Christmas gift." This supplied funds
for two additions to the park, the first "an outdoor
theatre where the people might have opportunity to
assemble in comfort for entertainment at modest cost; the
second to provide for their edification an observatory
and Hall of Science to crown Mount Hollywood, highest
point of land in Griffith Park. Griffith’s Last Will
^As finalized in an indenture from Griffith and
his wife, Mary Agnes Christina Griffith dated March 5*
1898, City Records No. D: 1226-40.
^Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
fact sheet on Griffith Park, #14,070.
^Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
Master Plan 1969-70.
^Dorathi Bock Pierre, "The Greek Theatre in
Griffith Park - A History," in Greek Theatre Magazine,
Summer Program, 1957* P* 39.
3^
and Testament dated February 8, 1916, was filed with
the Los Angeles County Clerk on July 11, 1919, five days
after his death on July 6th. His bequest for the theatre
and observatory was put in trust until the City was ready
to act on them. The trust fund amounted to approximately
three quarters of a million dollars. After the theatre
and observatory were built in 1930 and 1935 money was still
available in the trust fund for future developmental pro-
7
jects within the park.1
At the time of his second gift in 1912, Griffith
expressed the belief that "great wealth should be disposed
g
of by him who earns it and during his own lifetime."
His intent was to set an example for other rich men whom
he felt should be duty-bound to "contribute liberally
for the betterment of Los Angeles."9
Griffith's creed showed remarkable foresight in
the eventual growth of Los Angeles. Many of his observa
tions are particularly applicable today -- specifically,
his acknowledgment of the healthful release values derived
from recreation and proximity to nature.10 A passage from
^Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
fact sheet #14,070.
8Griffith J. Griffith, Letter to Mayor Alexander
and the City Council, December, 1912, in Greek Theatre
Dedicatory Program, September 25, 1930*
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
35
his Last Will and Testament referring to the theatre and
observatory reveals Griffith's perspective on both local
and more universal planes. It explains in great measure
why Griffith wanted a theatre and an observatory to be
built in his park.
When my efforts are fully known, they will
show a fixed purpose to direct and aid the con
centration of thought which lifts one above his
environment. I am anxious to have these improve
ments instructive and attractive, fully believing
that thereby many people can thus be lifted out of
the trenches of ignorance and superstition and
placed on a higher plane of intelligence. If my
efforts result in teaching such people to look up
instead of down and to count stars rather than
beads, I shall ever consider that the donation of
the Park and these improvements was not in vain.11
In his 1916 will Griffith allotted $100,000
dollars to erect the theatre. This sum was sufficient to
cover construction costs in 19i2, the year Griffith first
made known his gift. However, by 19293 when work on the
theatre actually began, the original $100,000 did not
cover construction costs which had increased over the
intervening seventeen years. During that time period,
interest on the original bequest brought the total amount
available to $124,617.70. When completed, the original
Greek Theatre cost $208,785.28. The Los Angeles Park
11Griffith J. Griffith, Last Will and Testament,
February 8, 1916, p. 7*
36
Department"^ made up the difference of $84,167.58.
A sensational episode in the life of Griffith
accounts for the great time period between his 1912
bequest and the completion of a theatre in 1930 and an
observatory in 1935*
On Thursday, September 3, 1903, Griffith shot
his wife, Mary Agnes Mesmer Griffith, in their room at
the Arcadia Hotel, Santa Monica, California. The Los
Angeles Times reported the event on Saturday, September 5,
1903, in a front-page report. Mrs. Griffith's family,
the Mesmers — prominent Los Angeles hotel owners --
reportedly speculated that the cause of the incident was
rooted in a long standing argument between the couple
concerning how their son was to be educated. Griffith,
allegedly, was strongly opposed to rearing the child in
14
the Catholic faith of the Mesmer family. The religious
attitude of Griffith manifested in the shooting case is
corroborated in the passage of his Last Will and Testament
12
The present designation of the Los Angeles
Department of Recreation and Parks dates from 1947 when
the City Park Department consolidated with the Los Angeles
Department of Recreation and Playgrounds. See: Marvin
Abrahams, "Functioning of Boards and Commissions in the
Los Angeles City Government," (unpublished Doctoral diss
ertation, the University of California at Los Angeles,
1966), p. 58.
•^Los Angeles Board of Park Commissioners Annual
Report, June 30, 1931, #13873*).
14
Los Angeles Times, September 5, 1903. Also see:
September, 1903 issues of Los Angeles Express located in
the Los Angeles Public Library._____________________________
37
where he justified his bequent of a theatre and observa
tory. His statement makes clear his hope that the theatre
and observatory will educate and edify people beyond the
bounds of parochialism.
The shooting incident resulted that same year in
Griffith's trial and sentencing to two years in San
Quentin penitentiary for the crime.^ His wife recovered
16
from her wounds and, later, divorced him.
As a result of this scandal, Griffith's gift in
1912 was greeted by public outrage. Many maintained that
it was a bribe to put Griffith back into the good graces
of his city. Citizen pressure caused the Park Commission
to reject the gift, and the Commission went so far as to
issue a court restraining order for Griffith to desist in
17
his offer. It is apparent that the issue remained a
sensitive one for the City of Los Angeles, since work on
the theatre did not begin until 1929* ten years after his
death on July 6, 1919*
Dedication of the Greek Theatre
The Greek Theatre dedication ceremony on
September 25* 1930, manifested the theatre's civic
^ Los Angeles Times, March 2 and 3* 1905*
■^Charles Hillinger, "Griffith Park -- the City's
Largest Christmas Gift," Los Angeles Times, December 26,
1967.
17Ibid.
38
character by the attendance of notable city and state
personages. Appropriately, a mixed assemblage of local
artists performed in the christening program.
The first order of business at the ceremony was
the formal establishment of the then Los Angeles Department
of Parks as the jurisdictional governing body for the
theatre. Senator L. H. Roseberry presented the theatre
on behalf of Griffith's trustee, the Security First
■ j Q
National Bank to Mayor John C. Porter who accepted for
the City. Porter then gave custory of it to the Board
of Park Commissioners. Mrs. Mable V. Socha, Park Com
mission president formally accepted it for the people of
Los Angeles.
The elaborate entertainment for the dedication
performance was arranged by L. E. Behymer, who presented
Paul Eisle of the Metropolitan Opera Company who conducted
the orchestra. Featured on the program were Madame Ellen
Beach Yaw, Georgia Starke, Alice Gentle, Don Jose Mojica,
the Smallman a Capella Choir, the Barnsdale Choral Club,
and an American Indian episode which featured basso Chief
Yowlache and the Sioux Chief Standing Bear's Indian
Dancers. Francis Josef Hickson and his company of Greek
•^Griffith's original trustee as designated in
his Last Will and Testament — The Security Trust &
Savings Bank became the Security First National Bank in
1929. It now has a new name, The Security Pacific
National Bank.
__________-^Griffith Park Greek Theatre Dedicatory Program,
39
Players presented an episode from Sophocles' Oedipus Rex,
and Norma Gould and the Greek Dancers performed. The
program closed with a work composed especially for the
occasion -- "Just California" -- with music by Homer Grun
19
and lyrics by John Steven McGroarty.
Make-up and Function of the Los
Angeles Department of
Recreation and
Parks
The immediate political body which deals with any
contractee to the Greek Theatre is the Department of
Recreation and Parks. It holds the power of lease-conces-
sion, negotiates the theatre contracts, and acts as land
lord of the Greek Theatre.
A brief description of the Los Angeles system of
government and an orientation to its departmental powers
helps to isolate the political matrix under which the
Greek Theatre operates.
The Los Angeles City Government has been described
as consisting of a weak mayor -- strong City Council, and
a strong Board -- system of government. Both the Mayor
and the City Council are elected officials; the Council
is the legislative entity in the system. The fifteen
members of the Los Angeles City Council are invested with
control of all matters pertaining to the City Charter,
•^Griffith Park Greek Theatre Dedicatory Program,
Thursday, September 25* 1930.
40
and have absolute powers of ordinance subject to mayoral
PO
veto. The City Departments are composed of five
citizen-board members, appointed as commissioners by the
Mayor, subject in both appointment and removal to the
21
approval of the City Council by majority vote. Once
approved, the departmental Boards of Commissioners are
freed from budgetary supervision by both the Mayor and
op
the Council, and are virtually autonomous. For example,
the Department of Recreation and Parks is controlled by
a five citizen-commissioners Board with each member
appointed to a five-year term. The Board elects a presi
dent and vice-president for one-year terms. In this way
the leadership revolves among the members. The only
compensation the Commissioners receive is an attendance
25
fee of ten dollars for each weekly meeting.
The Department of Recreation and Parks which acts
as landlord and arbiter of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre
lease, is not involved with the practical production and
performance aspects of the theatre. However, the
Department's control of the civic theatre creates a direct
QA
Marvin Abrahams, "Functioning of Boards and
Commissions in the Los Angeles City Government" (unpublish
ed Ph.D. dissertation, the University of California at
Los Angeles, 1966), p. 49.
21Ibid., p. 64.
22Ibid., p. 51.
23ibid., pp. 64-65.
41
political relationship for a lessee, or tenant, of the
theatre. Such a direct political relationship has been
effected over the seventeen-year tenancy of the Los
Angeles Greek Theatre Association which became the
theatre's production organization in 1953* In theory,
and in practice, a political relationship of this nature
is dynamic because of the changing membership of the
personnel on the Recreation and Parks Board. Such a
change occurred in i960 when Samuel A. Yorty replaced
Norris Poulson as Mayor of Los Angeles. A lessee of the
Greek Theatre is vulnerable to any shifting attitudes
resulting from individual changes in the make-up of the
department. This happens when a commissioner's tastes
and proclivities conflict with the cultural aims and
program of a lessee.
Troublesome Early Years of the
Greek Theatre
The echoes of the dedication ceremony had hardly
died away when arguments began to swirl around the opera
tion of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre. Almost immediately,
the basic and still timely question of cultural values
versus business advantages was polarized between entre-
peneurs eager to utilize the Greek Theatre and public
officials who viewed the Greek Theatre primarily as a
business proposition.
The first company which applied to operate the
42
Greek Theatre was the Gallo Opera Company of New York.
L. E. Behymer, who had been the impresario for the Greek
Theatre dedicatory program, was a partner with Bradford
Mills of the Gallo Opera Company which was proposing to
give eight weeks of opera at the Greek Theatre for the
?4
impending summer of 1931. Under its president, Mrs.
Mabel V. Socha, the Department of Parks took a hard-line
profit stance toward the leasing of the theatre, and,
as a result, financial negotiations stalled.
In retrospect, Mrs. Socha's remarks reveal some
of the discomfiture caused by the City government’s
marriage to show business. She was the early spokesman
for a pragmatic and mercenary approach. "Greek Theatre
movements elsewhere have not paid," Mrs. Socha said.
per
"They are not popular." She further believed that it
was a mistake to have ever built the Greek Theatre, but
since it had been built the best should be made of the
p/T
situation. To L. E. Behymer fell the distinction of
first putting the Greek Theatre in the context of a civic
theatre valuable for its cultural contributions rather
than for its potential profits. He contended that the
24
Art Seidenbaum, "Clash on Taxes Renews Greek
Theatre Turmoil," Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1963* P-
8.
25Ibid.
2^Los Angeles Times, February 25, 1931*
43
theatre was not a question of making money for the City;
it could be made to pay sufficiently to justify the City
in making up deficiencies. Any financial support for the
Greek Theatre would be repaid by the enjoyment and good
27
that it could do for Los Angeles. Behymer argued that
the City should view the theatre as a public enterprise,
and put money into it just as it does for lawn and tree
p O
maintenance.
The Department of Parks continued to be wary of
leasing the Greek Theatre to Behymer and Mills, even
after the two men agreed to financial terms of $150 rental
for the City per evening and five per cent of the gross
receipts.29 The five per cent of gross figure, however
arrived at, continued as a precedent setting amount which
remained constant through all future contracts for
operating the Greek Theatre.
Since negotiations remained stalemated into June
of 1931, a competing applicant for the Greek Theatre --
the DeWolf Hopper Operetta Company of San Francisco --
requested and received permission to schedule a week’s
engagement prior to the opening of the proposed season of
the Gallo Opera Company. Consequently, the Gallo Company
withdrew from the negotiations. When, in turn, the DeWolf
2^Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1931.
28
Los Angeles Times, February 25, 1931.
________ 29Ibid.__________________________________________
: Hopper Company learned that a third company had been
granted one evening's performance prior to its engagement,;
I
it, too, cancelled out.3° This completed the fiasco of J
; the City of Los Angeles' initiation into show business. |
i I
! The Greek Theatre's first season of 1931 was j
reduced to only five evenings of opera presented by Cabell!
j and Gentz in association with Enrico Caruso, Jr.
i
I
I According to the 1931 Annual Report of the Board of Park
j Commissioners, and to the Los Angeles Times report of this!
i
event, the Greek Theatre's first leased presentation given
i on June 26, 1931 was attended by a capacity audience.^1
j
Seats in the two sections nearest the stage sold for $1.00
; each, and the third and most distant seating section was
free. At a rental rate of $150 plus five percent of
I
gross receipts, the department received $245.20 in rental
and $8.l6 for the seat concession for a total of $253*36.
Total receipts for the evening amounted to $1,904. The
op
opera company realized a profit of $1,650.64.
i
; In the summers of 1932 and 1933 a limited number
| of concerts were presented by Ed Perkins, whose Celebrity
j Concert Season featured local artists. In 1934, a series
! of Summer Twilight Concerts was presented by the Women's
30seidenbaum, op. cit.
■^Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1931*
3^Los Angeles Board of Park Commissioners Annual
Report, June 30, 1931* #13873b.
45
Concert Orchestra Association. The most distinguished
summer of the Greek Theatre's early years followed in 1935
with the presentation of eight grand operas by the La
Scala Opera Company under the direction of Amelio Colantoni,
That same season the first legitimate theatre offerings
were brought to the Greek Theatre stage. Galt Bell
presented Peggy Wood and Rollo Peters in "The Taming of
the Shrew" on September 6, 1935. Bell's second production,
"Within the Gates," starring Mr. Peters and Peggy Converse
opened on September 11, 1935.
Two barren years followed in 1936 and 1937. Only
one concert of Russian artists presented by Mary Bran, and
a Japanese Festival coordinated by the Los Angeles
Chamber of Commerce, the California International Fiestas
and the Japanese Fiesta Association were given. Over the
next three years, during each of the 1938, 1939* and 1940
seasons, the Federal Music Project and the Federal Theatre
Project gave many performances. During World War II anti
aircraft weapons were installed in Griffith Park, and
the Greek Theatre was used as a barracks for a National
Guard Air Unit which was billeted in the spacious under
ground sections of the theatre. From 1943 through 1945
the programs given consisted chiefly of Sunday concerts
33
by local artists and orchestras.
33porathi Bock Pierce, "The Greek Theatre in
Griffith Park - A HISTORY," in Greek Theatre Magazine,
Summer Program. 1957. pp. ^8-45.____________________________
46
It is apparent from the sporadic and mixed
usage of the Greek Theatre that no policy of continuity
for its operation had been formulated in its first
fifteen years.
The first theatrical producer to operate the
Greek Theatre for a sustained period of time was Gene
Mann. He managed it for five consecutive summers from
1946 through 1951. Mann enjoyed a considerable success
with musical comedy and operetta featuring top Hollywood
personalities and singers. For the first time, the Gene
Mann operation at the Greek Theatre gave the City of Los
Angeles a reasonable return. Mann's contract stipulated
a $1,600 minimum rental per week, or five per cent of the
^4
gross -- whichever was higher. Until then, the highest
revenue received by the City from use of the Greek Theatre
35
was $3,226 covering the years 1936-37. Mann's operation
exceeded his contractual obligation. However, at the close
of his fifth season in 1951* Mann ran into trouble. In an
attempt to extend his season he gave additional perfor
mances in San Francisco. The enterprise failed and Mann
was bankrupt. Although the Department of Recreation and
Parks was forced to seize his insufficient assets owing to
3^William Fredrickson Jr., General Manager, De
partment of Recreation and Parks Special Report on the
Greek Theatre Operations, submitted to the Board of Com
missioners, December 6, 1962, p. 2.
35Ibid., p. 2.
47
rent failure following the 1951 debacle in San Francisco,
Mann's total rental return to the City for the four years
preceding amounted to a highly respectable $105,926.-^
The twenty-year old Los Angeles Greek Theatre was without
promise or project for the future.
Physical Description of the Original
Greek Theatre37
When the Department of Parks accepted the
completed Greek Theatre on July 21, 1930 the department
architects had designed it in Greek Doric style. It is a
huge outdoor theatre constructed of reinforced concrete.
Both the stage and the amphitheatre of the original
edifice were open. A glazed-tile roof covered the
original stage building which adjoined three sides of the
open stage proper. This meant that two large scenery
areas which flanked the stage on each side were covered;
the roof continued over a large office and dressing-room
complex which began at the very rear of the stage. It was
analagous to the theatres of the Greek Hellenistic era
when the stage was surrounded on all but its stage-front
side by roofed construction.
36Ibid., pp. 2-3.
3^Data on the physical aspects of the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre are derived from the Los Angeles Department
of Recreation and Parks architectural drawings of ground
plans, sections, and elevations, as supplemented by descrip
tive material from the Los Angeles Board of Commissioners
Annual Report, #13873^, June 30, 1931.
PLATE III.— The original open-staged Greek Theatre sometime during
the 1930's.
PLATE IV.— The Greek Theatre’s first proscenium stage ca. 19^-7 to 1957.
PLATE V.— The Greek Theatre Facade in 1957 - before the new ticket booths.
PLATE VI.— The Greek Theatre Facade in 1961 - after the new ticket booths.
PLATE VII.--A Perspective on the Greek Theatre's Amphitheatre
Rise in 1954.
%
%
»
r
i l
—s'
*
. r
PLATE VIII.— A Performance at the Greek Theatre Before 1957*
Fig. 1--Stage Plan Original Greek Theatre.
vn :
I
55
Main Features of the Stage Building
and Amphitheatre
The simple open stage of the original Greek
Theatre was 691 4" wide at frontstage by 46' 6" deep at
its center line. One and one-half feet of that stage depth
was taken up by a footlight trough. The original open
apron or forestage projected 16' beyond the front edges
of the side scene buildings. It resembled a platform in
style and appearance; it thrust out from between the
scene buildings, but it did not extend across their fronts.
Thus, the projected area was also 69' 4" wide. The plat
form stage had a single trap. It measured 6' by 2' 6"
and was located in the dead center of the stage.
The curved orchestra pit was 11 feet deep at its
deepest center-line point. The original pit accomodated
40 musicians and a director who was provided with an
electrically lighted stand. Stairways led from the pit to
the musicians' rooms under the stage. The pit was equipped
with a hydraulic elevator for an electric console.
Each of the two scenery buildings at either side
of the stage measured 20' 5". Added to the stage measure
ment, this made the over-all width of the stage building
110' 2". On the inside, these scenery wings measured 18'
wide by 54' long, rising to a 19-foot height. On their
inner sides alongside the stage, each of the scenery
rooms had two large swinging doors which opened onto the
56
stage. A revolving steel door between each set of these
swinging doors allowed a l6-foot opening onto the stage
from either side. A stage curtain of heavy monks cloth
was lined with sateen and weighted and was supported by a
steel track and upheld by airplane wire. Operated either
manually or electrically, the curtain drew back into
receptables on both sides of the stage.
The Greek Theatre in Griffith Park is set in a
natural amphitheatre in a canyon at the head of Vermont
Avenue. The theatre fronts on Vermont Avenue; its
lengthwise axis extends back into the canyon on an east-
west line, while its width runs north and south. The
amphitheatre originally seated 4,419 persons. From the
stage it goes back a distance of 241 feet into its natural
canyon. At its rear the amphitheatre is 136 feet wide.
It bulges outward to 158 feet at its widest point which is
located at approximately the middle, or waistline, of the
entire complex. Three transverse aisles divide the amphi
theatre into three seating sections. The lower aisle is
immediately in front of the pit, three feet below the
stage. The auditorium rise over the first two seating
sections to the third aisle which fronts the last seating
section is 20 feet; from there the rise to the top aisle
behind the last row of seats is another 24 feet. This
gives a total auditorium rise of 44 feet. Allowing three
feet for a seated human figure, a back-row patron eyes
57
the performance from a height of 47 feet. Access to the
lower two sections of seating is by ramps, while steps
gain access to the top seating section. Columns support
the sloped amphitheatre floor. Originally, there was a
parking area underneath the two lower seating sections.
It was used by performers, and held 42 cars. A fan
system changed the garage ventilation every half hour.
Automobiles entered at the south side of the huge basement
complex to gain garage access. The garage area is now
used for storage. Near the automobile entrance, which is
still functional, there is an emergency hospital room.
The large under-section of the amphitheatre also
provided a large room for ushers, cast, dining-room and
kitchen. This under-section also holds the public comfort
stations which are reached by walkways leading from the
ramps on either side of the amphitheatre’s two lower
sections.
The original amphitheatre seats were of wrought-
iron frame and wood construction. These were straight-
backed and consisted of three boards, the seats dipped
slightly at the rear and curved downward at their edges.
Seat numbers were burned into their wooden backs, and row
numbers were marked in the concrete along the aisles.
The Scene Building
The main structure -- essentially, the scene
58
building — is a three-story complex which consists of a
basement below stage level, the stage or ground level, and
an upper floor in the backstage scene building.
In the basement, a large orchestra room and
separate rooms for men and women musicians divide the area
directly under the stage apron. At far left and right of
this space are large restrooms for men and women. Under
the middle area of the stage there are two large dressing
rooms for men and women -- each 30 by 32 feet in size.
Each closely approximates a halving of that central stage
area. Branching out to each side laterally, two large
costume rooms -- 18 by 26 feet, one each for men and
women -- lie under the side scene buildings. The basement
also includes a 12’ X 31' sewing and cutting room and an
8* X 12’ laundry. A large freight elevator is accessible
to the south basement automobile entrance; it transports
scenery and properties to and from the basement and the
stage level of the left scene building.
On the floor above, at stage level, the roofed
backstage building contained four private dressing rooms
for stars as well as the original reception lobby and
executive offices.
Above these offices on the top floor were two
large rehearsal rooms. The original theatre plans
designated two additional large 15' X 14' rooms for pipe
organ installation adjacent to the rehearsal rooms. These
59
upstairs rehearsal rooms have been converted to cast
dressing rooms suitable, at one end of a corridor, for
14 women, and at the opposite end of the hallway, the
men's dressing room accommodates 13 cast members. Bath
rooms adjoin each of the rooms. One of the organ rooms
is presently allocated for the use of the orchestra conduc
tor. The roof over the organ rooms was designed to raise
by a louvre arrangement.
Lighting and Sound
The stage and amphitheatre were originally
illuminated by floodlights on six high steel towers set
at the stage corners, and at the sides and rear of the
amphitheatre. The Greek Theatre's entire lighting control
emanated from a single large resistance dimmer located at
the forward right-stage scene building.
At the rear of the last seating section is a radio
booth containing equipment for radio program reception and
a public address system. The booth also contains a mixing
panel for remote control of stage microphones. Each of
the stage wing buildings contained a power speaker facing
the audience, and controlled from the radio room. The
arrangement allows amplification of stage programs and,
if desired, radio broadcasts from any station in the city.
The building is fire-proof, the whole structure
is equipped with an automatic fire sprinkling system.
Amply lit parking areas adjoin the complex.
60
Major Refurbishments to the
Greek Theatre
The first major refurbishments to the Greek
Theatre since its opening were made in order to ready the
theatre for the 1947 season under the Gene Mann production
company. This company had changed its organizational name
from the Hollywood Starlight Theatre Association, as it
was designated for its premiere season of 1946, to Greek
Theatre Productions.3® The City allotted capital expendi
tures of $163,009 to change the Greek Theatre stage from
39
an open to a covered proscenium stage. The new roofed
proscenium encroached approximately 8 feet forward over
the formerly unrestricted jutting platform stage. This
left approximately an 8 foot forestage. The side scene
buildings were extended forward, in a box-like construction,
to flank the stage on either side all the way to its
extreme edge. (See Plate IV.) The proscenium opening
was now 48 feet wide by 16 feet high. A pair of turntable
stages, one on either side of the stage, and miscellaneous
- ^Programs, Summer Seasons 1946, 1947.
^william Fredrickson Jr., General Manager, De
partment of Recreation and Parks Special Report on the
Greek Theatre Operations, submitted to the Board of Commis
sioners, December 6, 1962, p. 3•
6l
40
lighting and sound equipment were added.
Pictures of the Greek Theatre after the 1947
refurbishments show a minimum-sized box-like construction
in the middle of the auditorium in the last row of the
first section seating. The box is non-functional and it
remains in the present theatre. Presumably, it was
installed for some purpose of inter-production control or
communication from out front during the course of per
formance. The box is important only insofar as it re
places twelve of the Greek Theatre original seats, thereby
changing the seating capacity from the original 4,419 to
4,407. The seating capacity remained at 4,407 from 1947
until 1968. At that time another major refurbishment
increased the number of seats to 4,456.
1957 Improvements
No significant changes were made to the Greek
Theatre until the winter of 1957, when major refurbish
ments were once again undertaken to enhance the stage area
for the Greek Theatre Association's upcoming fifth season.
Prior to the City's endorsement and allocation of funds
for the 1957 improvements, the Greek Theatre Association
had, according to Doolittle, invested more than $15*000
and some 3*000 man-hours of study and development working
40
Gene Mann, Managing Director, Greek Theatre Pro
ductions, in his introductory forward to the Summer
Season Program 1947.
62
with Department of Recreation and Parks architects to
arrive at a more feasible proscenium and stage arrangement
for the theatre. Based on Doolittle's study of many
theatres, his design, and modifications planned by Depart
ment architects, a detailed working model of the improved
4l
theatre was constructed. In the main, the revisions
provided for an architectural change in the proscenium
and roofed area of the stage. The strategy behind the
change consisted of two objectives: (1) to enlarge the
backstage area; this would allow a wider range of scenery
to be used and changed, and (2) to beautify the stage
housing so that it was more compatible with the Greek
Theatre's programming and physical setting.
When Doolittle took over the Greek Theatre he
inherited the first proscenium arrangement which was built
in 1947 (Plate IV). The favorable contrast which the 1957
proscenium change accomplished is shown in color Plate I.
The 1957 changes consisted of: (1) a new roof over the
stage which was six feet higher than the one it replaced;
this permitted scenery 22 feet high to be used in place of
the former 16 foot high scenery. The left and right stage
walls were elevated to meet the roof-line; this gave
unbroken side-lines. The increased stage height had a
Personal interview with James A. Doolittle,
November 24, 1969*
63
Z ip
26 foot clearance which allowed partially flown scenery.
(2) The proscenium opening was projected 7 feet forward
43
toward the audience. This proscenium opening was also
enlarged to newly created dimensions of 54 feet wide by
23 feet high -- a considerable increase over its former
48 X 16 foot measurements. The forward projection of the
proscenium created a new workable depth onstage of 42
feet when measured from the curtain to the back wall of
44
the stage. (3) Across the proscenium opening, a new
aluminum sliding door was installed to allow the stage to
be closed off during bad weather and for the off-season.^
(4) A new stage floor was installed; this did away with
the original center-stage trap and the ten-year old
46
revolving stages. (5) Part of the existing stage edge
was removed; this enlarged the orchestra pit from a former
center depth of 11 feet, to an increased depth of 14 feet,
5 inches at pit center, narrowing down to 5 feet, 10
47
inches at the pit sides. (6) The theatre's sound
42
George H. Jackson, "Major Face Lifting in Pro
cess at Greek Theater," Los Angeles Herald Express, April
22, 1957.
^3Ibid.
^Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks,
Architectural Refurbishment Plans, 1957.
^5Ibid.
i. U X u •
47Ibid.
64
projection was reorganized; six power speakers were placed
directly overhead in the center of the top proscenium
front. This arrangement did away with sound from the side
scene buildings where two power speakers were formerly
located.
The Department of Recreation and Parks reported
that capital expenditures for the 1957 refurbishment
amounted to $117,468 of contracted monies, plus an
additional $1,074 of force account funds for adding
4q
finishing touches to the contracted work. ^
Administrative Offices and Ticket Booth
Refurbishment 1959-61'
In 1959 the City of Los Angeles began a two-year
construction project at the Greek Theatre which resulted
cr0
in a capital outlay of $161,838. A new administrative
office building was constructed immediately off the south-
side entrance concourse to the theatre. The offices --
business and executive -- are used by Greek Theatre
Association staff personnel and Doolittle for the produc
tion, promotional, and accounting facets of their opera
tion.
The street facade of the theatre was also changed.
^Personal interview, Jack Reed, Production Staff,
Greek Theatre Association, November 24, 1969.
^Frederickson, op. cit., Exhibit A.
5°lbid.
65
A new ticket office with six windows was placed in the
center of the theatre front between the broad concourses
which flanked the theatre facade on its north and south
sides. (See Plates V and VI.) Formerly, there were three
individual, separated ticket booths - six in all - placed
at each of the concourse entrances. This arrangement
caused ticket buyers to interfere at times with ingress
and egress to the theatre. The change eliminated ticket
lines at the entrances by making tickets available only
at the center of the theatre, well out of the way of the
concourses.
New concession stands were erected, and the
existing stands were improved by the 1959-61 refurbishment.
Amphitheatre Seating and Dressing
Room Refurbishment 1958
In the winter of 1968, expensive improvements were
undertaken at the Greek Theatre. New seats were installed
in the amphitheatre, and the star and feature-player
dressing rooms behind the stage were reconstructed. The
original 1930 wrought-iron and wood-slab seats gave way
to more comfortable and attractive individual seats of
red all-weather plastic. The new seats increased the
capacity of the Greek Theatre from 4,407 to 4,456 -- an
increase of 449 seats.
Significantly, the 1968 refurbishment was under
taken under the auspices of the Greek Theatre Association
66
and not, as had formerly been the case, by direct City
appropriation. The 1967 contract between the Association
and the Recreation and Parks department created a new
financial arrangement for future improvements. In 1966,
the City began to charge the Association a straight rental
fee of $50,000 per year. Formerly, the lease-rental paid
5$ of gross box-office receipts and 10# of all concession
returns, save programs, to the City. In 1967* the City
granted the Association the right to apply its $50,000
yearly lease fee against repairs and refurbishments to
the theatre. This plan enabled the Greek Theatre Associa
tion to negotiate bank loans for long-range improvements,
using the $50,000 fee, not only as collateral, but also
for making progressive payments on the bank loans. The
1968 refurbishment cost the Association $161,721.35. This
figure included some $15,000 of interest charges on loans.
The total refurbishment figure covered charges of
$83,240 for the seating, $14,493 for water-proofing;
sound installation cost $31*057, and lighting additions
amounted to $5*8l8. Painting needs added $5*440 to the
expenditure, and the remainder of the total refurbishment
costs were taken up by miscellaneous repairs, consultant
52
and legal fees.
51Greek Theatre Association, Statement of 1967-68
Refurbishment.
52Ibid.
67
The City of Los Angeles modernized the backstage
dressing rooms of the Greek Theatre at a cost of
$35,502.55.-^ The City project created five new dressing
rooms where there were formerly four, 'these rooms opened
onto a passageway which crossed behind the backstage wall
on the first floor of the scene building. The improvements
to the dressing rooms consisted of air conditioning*
heated bathrooms with showers, new furnishings and general
plumbing repairs. All dressing rooms in the Greek Theatre
complex for principals, supporting company, and the
orchestra contain stage speakers and telephone communica
tion throughout.-^
Lighting 1969
In large measure, the Greek Theatre retains the
lighting system which was originally installed in 1930.
Since the Greek Theatre was open-staged at first, it
needed only a simple lighting scheme for illuminating
general areas of the stage. This was accomplished from
lights installed on six towers located at the sides and
the rear of the amphitheatre. These towers still serve
as part of the present system for lighting the Greek
Theatre productions.
^^ignacio Vasquez, Senior Auditor, Los Angeles
Department of Recreation and Parks, November 3, 19o9-
5^Reed interview, November 24, 1969.
68
The first two towers nearest to the stage flank
the sides of the amphitheatre's first seating section.
Six or more 2,000 watt spotlights on these towers illu
minate the front of the stage (ante-proscenium lighting).
The two towers placed at the middle of the amphitheatre,
and the two towers behind the middle of the last seating
section hold large spotlights — and troupers (follow-
spots for performers).
When the Greek Theatre became a proscenium stage
it needed additional lighting equipment backstage so that
it could meet the more complicated requirements of
musical comedy, opera, and ballet. Thus, the present
backstage lighting equipment includes standard arrays of
lights such as: border and strip lights for broad
general stage light; fresnels - or soft spotlights for
particular area lighting; small Lekos - or focus spot
lights for particular area lighting; and three circuits
of footlights. Each season the Greek Theatre Association
rents supplementary lighting and sound equipment which is
needed to meet the requirements of particular productions.^-’
The present lighting and sound systems of the Greek Theatre
are considered to be outdated by Doolittle, the theatre
production staff, and by lighting technicians who work at
the theatre.
55Ibid.
69
Since 1930 only one addition has been made to
the basic lighting control system of the Greek Theatre.
When the original lighting panel - a 1930 Resistance
Dimmer - lost efficiency in several of its dimmers, two
small modern dimmers (auto-transformers) were purchased
to supplement it. Each of the auto-transformers contains
six dimmers of 2,500 watts each. These allow twelve
circuits of stage lights to be dimmed.^
56information obtained from Walter Smith, Olesen
Lighting Company, Hollywood, California.
CHAPTER III
ASCENDING YEARS OF THE CIVIC
LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE
Prelude to the Greek Theatre Association
When James A. Doolittle joined the Greek Theatre
in the summer of 1952, it came about because of eventful
timing. It was highly coincidental that both this theatre
and the producer were temporarily-at large. The abrupt
halt of productions at the Greek Theatre after Gene Mann's
1951 season was largely unexpected. Doolittle was free
because, in 1951* the Hollywood Bowl stopped his production
momentum there by unexpected contract demands which
Doolittle was unwilling to meet. During 19^-9 and 1950
Doolittle scored notable successes by producing spectacular
grand operas and operettas at the Hollywood Bowl. In
addition, he was involved in several legitimate theatre
productions in Hollywood.
Doolittle's Production Career
Doolittle credits his early and sustaining interest
in theatre to his boyhood attendance at Los Angeles
theatres, and to his active involvement in stimulating
70
71
theatre programs at Los Angeles Manual Arts High School,
and later at the University of Southern California, where
he received a degree in Business Administration in 1937.1
His early career was devoted to business investments and
the construction industry. In 1945 Doolittle became a
professional theatre producer. He invested in the musical
"Song Without Words," which opened at the Los Angeles
Philharmonic Auditorium and then played an engagement at
3
the Curran Theatre in San Francisco.
Doolittle dominated the Los Angeles theatre sea
sons of 1949 and 1950 with an unprecedented surge of his
independent productions. In 1949* he produced a three-
performance engagement of the grand opera, "La Traviata,"
at Hollywood Bowl. Los Angeles County owns the Hollywood
Bowl, and the County customarily subsidizes the cultural
organizations which produce there. But Doolittle's- con
tract was a commercial one with Los Angeles County. Under
the arrangement, the County supplied the theatre and
orchestra, while Doolittle supplied the production.
4
Receipts were split down the middle. "La Traviata" brought
- ’ -Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 11, 1969.
2Patterson Greene, "The Gift-Bearing Greeks,"
Theatre Arts, Vol. XLII, No. 7, July, 1959* P* 67.
^Walter Rigdon (ed.), Who's Who of the American
Theatre, Biographia Encyclopaedia (New York: James H.
Heineman, Inc., 1966), 415.
^Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 11, 1969.
72
high praise to Doolittle, Nadine Connor and John Charles
5
Thomas, and conductor, Erich Leinsdorf. The production
was also given in San Diego and Sacramento, where it was
r
enthusiastically attended for one-night engagements.
During the 19^9-50 winter season, Doolittle con
tinued his production activity at the Las Palmas Theatre
in Los Angeles with presentations of "Strange Bedfellows,"
"Light Up The Sky," and "You Can't Take It With You."7
A production of Guonod's "Faust" at the Hollywood
Bowl in July of 1950 was Doolittle's most imposing presen
tation up to that time. Newspaper accounts reported the
O
occasion as a gala social and cultural event. The
critical reception was outstanding.9 The three-evening
run of "Faust" was spectacularly mounted. The familiar
Bowl shell was removed and replaced with a medieval street
^Alberg Goldberg, "'Traviata' Excellently Sung,
Staged at Bowl," in his column The Sounding Board of the
Los Angeles Times, August 13, 194$.
^Bruno David Usher, "Russ Packed For 'Traviata,'"
San Diego's The Tribune-Sun, October 3> 19^-9 •
7Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 11, 1969*
g
Wanda Henderson, "Fashion Stars Throng Bov/1,"
Hollywood Citlzen-News, July 8, 1950; see also Christy Fox,
"Gay Dinners Mark Bowl First Night — 10,000 Cheer Ingen
ious Bowl Production at Gala Opening," Los Angeles Times,
July 8, 1950.
^Alberg Goldberg, "Guonod's 'Faust' Ably Presented
Under the Stars," Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1950.
72
high praise to Doolittle, Nadine Connor and John Charles
5
Thomas, and conductor, Erich Leinsdorf. The production
was also given in San Diego and Sacramento, where it was
enthusiastically attended for one-night engagements.^
During the 19^9-50 winter season, Doolittle con
tinued his production activity at the Las Palmas Theatre
in Los Angeles with presentations of "Strange Bedfellows,"
"Light Up The Sky," and "You Can't Take It With You."^
A production of Guonod's "Faust" at the Hollywood
Bowl in July of 1950 was Doolittle's most imposing presen
tation up to that time. Newspaper accounts reported the
O
occasion as a gala social and cultural event. The
critical reception was outstanding.^ The three-evening
run of "Faust" was spectacularly mounted. The familiar
Bowl shell was removed and replaced with a medieval street
^Alberg Goldberg, "'Traviata' Excellently Sung,
Staged at Bowl," in his column The Sounding Board of the
Los Angeles Times, August 13, 19^-9-
^Bruno David Usher, "Russ Packed For 'Traviata,'"
San Diego's The Tribune-Sun, October 3* 19^-9 •
^Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 11, 1969.
g
Wanda Henderson, "Fashion Stars Throng Bowl,"
Hollywood Cltizen-News, July 8, 1950; see also Christy Fox,
"Gay Dinners Mark Bowl First Night -- 10,000 Cheer Ingen
ious Bowl Production at Gala Opening," Los Angeles Times,
July 8, 1950.
^Alberg Goldberg, "Guonod's 'Faust' Ably Presented
Under the Stars," Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1950.
73
setting which ranged across the entire stage framed by
the natural foothill background of Hollywood Bowl.1^
One month later in August, Doolittle’s presenta
tion of "The Vagabond King" was one of the most lavish
productions in Bowl history. Once again, the entire stage
was opened up to suggest a three-dimensional town placed
in hillside surroundings. The playing locales extended
into the hills. Critics were unanimous in praising the
unstinting expansiveness in sets, costumes, huge cast of
extras, and Doolittle was credited with setting a new
precedent for ingenious use of the Bowl.-^
The following autumn of 1950, Doolittle introduced
the operas of Gian-Carlo Menotti to the West Coast. In
his New York negotiations with Menotti, Doolittle con
vinced the composer that his productions of "The Medium"
and "The Telephone" would meet the author's exacting
demands. The thirty-six consecutive performances of these
operas represented Los Angeles' longest run of opera to
1 9
date, and, once again, the Los Angeles critics paid
10Ibid.
"^Patterson Greene, "Vagabond Is Handsome," Los
Angeles Examiner, August 16, 1950; see also Albert Gold
berg, 1 1 1 Vagabond King' Given Spectacular Staging," Los
Angeles Times, August 16, 1950; Evelyn R. Young, in her
feature article in the Beverly Hills Citizen, August 21,
1950.
12
A statement by Doolittle taken from an article
entitled "Civic Theatre for Los Angeles," in The Arts
magazine, October, 1952.
74
recognition to a standout cultural event.^ The Menotti
operas were taken to the Curran Theatre in San Francisco
after their run in Los Angeles where they were given
l4
extravagant critical acclaim.
Hollywood Bowl Incident - 1951
The network of coincidences which placed Doolittle
at the Greek Theatre in 1952 involved the reciprocal
effects of the Hollywood Bowl-Doolittle relationship of
1951. A curtailment of the Bowl’s association with Doo
little prior to the 1951 season brought a temporary halt
to his rising production career. In turn, Doolittle's
efforts at the Bowl during the 1949 and 1950 seasons
proved to be central to events in 1951 which contributed
to the closing of the Hollywood Bowl for the first time
in its 33-year history.
When Doolittle applied for permission to produce
opera for the 1951 Bowl season, the Hollywood Bowl
Association agreed. However, the Bowl Association asked
for new financial arrangements which Doolittle regarded
■^"Florabel Muir Reporting," The Mirror, Los
Angeles, October 6, 1950; see also Evelyn R. Young, "Many
Brilliant Promises Seen, Beverly Hills Citizen, n.d.
■'■^Alfred Frankenstein, "'The Medium' Is a Rare
Theatrical Achievement," San Francisco Chronicle, November
8, 1950.
75
as prohibitive. He withdrew his application. Encourag
ed by the financial success and response to Doolittle’s
1949-50 opera and operetta productions, the Hollywood
Bowl Association decided to open its 1951 season with its
own operetta production which was underwritten by its
yearly subsidy from Los Angeles County.1^ The season
opener, "Die Fleidermaus," was a critical and box-office
disaster. The operetta nearly depleted the season sub
sidy and forced a cancellation of the remainder of the
17
1951 season after only one week of operation. The
entire community reacted with cultural shock to this most
critical moment in the Bowl's history. Leading Los
Angeles citizens and civic groups hastily organized to
save the Bowl. They contributed effort and money which
allowed the Bowl to resume its season, and the tradition
of a treasured Los Angeles cultural institution was
1 f t
preserved. 0
During the crisis and the wide publicity given to
it, the Hollywood Bowl Association used the occurrence to
re-awaken the community to the customary losses incurred
-'-^Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 11, 1969.
1^"Fear of $150,000 Loss Folds Bowl," Variety,
July 18, 1951.
^Los Angeles Times, July 15> 1951-
1 Q
"The Hollywood Bowl Story," booklet published by
Hollywood Bowl Association, 3rd printing (revised), 1968.
pp. 18-25.
76
by serious musical programs. Except for Doolittle's
productions of 19^-9 and 1950} most of the Hollywood
Bowl Association programs lost money. According to
Variety, Hollywood Bowl Association President Jean
Hersholt explained the reason for choosing the ill-fated
operetta. He pointed out that the Association "made
money on 'Vagabond King' and 'Faust,' hence the decision
t.19
to tee off the season with 'Fledermaus.'
In Doolittle's personal records, a profit-loss
statement which he requested from Los Angeles County
compared the financial returns of his productions for
19^9-1950 with those of the Hollywood Bowl Association for
the same seasons. Doolittle's productions made a slight
profit for his total of twelve performance evenings over
the two seasons, while the forty-five evenings under the
Bowl management lost more than $80,000. Moreover, some
potential revenues from the Doolittle ventures were lost,
according to the County statement, because of lapses in
the Hollywood Bowl management. In one case, many program
sales were lost because of insufficient printing to cover
the third and final night's offering of "Faust." More
significantly, insufficient box-office and crowd control
personnel were on hand for the last evening of "Faust" to
cope with crowds seeking admissions. An estimated jam of
1^Variety, loc. cit.
| 2,500 persons attempted to buy tickets as late as thirty
!
minutes past curtain time, and it was also estimated that
more than 2,000 ticket sales were lost.
In retrospect, 1951 was a pivotal year for theatre
j
in Los Angeles. The Hollywood Bowl survived its most
serious crisis; the Greek Theatre productions were
! abandoned and the theatre was in need of a producer.
I
! Since Doolittle no longer had a production outlet at
; Hollywood Bowl, he was a producer in need of a theatre.
Because of the confluent and circumstantial availabilities
; of both Doolittle and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre as of
j
1952, a new period of theatrical activity for Los Angeles
; began.
j Background of the Takeover
1
j The Greek Theatre had acquired a reputation as a
j jinx. Although Gene Mann had been successful there for
(
j four seasons with stock musicals, his ultimate failure,
i added to the undistinguished former career of the theatre,
j left it under a cloud of ill-repute and bankruptcy.
| One newspaper article indicated that the skepticism which
shadowed the Greek Theatre was demonstrated by the
1
telephone company's demand for a $2,000 deposit before it
installed service for Doolittle. Even the City showed its
attitude of "no confidence" when it rented the theatre for
the 1952 short-season to Doolittle for only $1,000. The
78
Recreation and Park Commissioners attempted to cover
themselves further by putting the lease in the name of an
individual so that liability could not be escaped by means
of a corporate clause. Even long after the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre Association was formed in 1953* the lease
retained its agreement between James A. Doolittle and the
20
Department of Recreation and Parks. This practice
became a point of contention in later years.
In a Theatre Arts magazine article, Patterson
Greene dramatized Doolittle's entry onto the Greek
Theatre scene as follows: "The Wise Men of the theatre
world shook their heads. He was doomed from the start,
so they said. The haruspices grew even gloomier when
Doolittle announced, as a first experimental season, a
21
fortnight of the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo." Greene's
description accurately describes the climate of doubt in
which Doolittle took temporary possession of the Greek
Theatre and launched his cultural experiment.
"Ballet looks better in the Greek Theatre,"
22
Doolittle has said. He has frequently stated his
feeling that the Greek Theatre is the most beautiful
theatre in the United States for showcasing the dance
20Giles E. Wright, "Doolittle Defended in Row Over
Greek Theatre Lease," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, January
13* 1963* P. A-3.
2"L
Greene, op. cit., p. 66.
________22Ibid.___________________________________________
79
forms, and one of the most beautiful theatres for Dance
in the world. Although one might expect a producer to
boost his own theatre, many comments of others on the
qualities of the Greek Theatre support and surpass
Doolittle's appraisal. Patterson Greene wrote:
The circular auditorium, running up the hills,
is framed by evergreens and sycamores and shrubbery
that is flattered by the electric lightsj it takes
on the evanescent quality that a green cloud would
have. Behind the stage, the sky . . . rises as a
second backdrop. The lovely dream world of ballet
takes to this setting as rightfully as a Swan to
its Lake.23
Plays and Players magazine noted that "... the nocturnal
charm of the Greek Theatre atmosphere is perennial . . . .
The . . . theatre's Hellenic columns stand in classic
relief against a wreath of tall green pines under the
24
moonlit sky."
These tributes to the Greek Theatre's sylvan
setting explain in part why the more romantic theatrical
forms met with instant success at the Greek Theatre.
During this period under study, dance and opera had their
most successful acceptance in Los Angeles. Previously,
in Los Angeles, these forms were produced infrequently
for brief engagements. Yet, at the Greek Theatre opera
and dance enjoyed frequent success over sustained runs.
23Ibid.
2^"Let's Go Greek," Plays and Players magazine,
London, England, May, 1959*
80
This consideration of the Greek Theatre's setting re
flects favorably on Doolittle's instincts which led him
to combine the theatre to complementary and enhancing
cultural forms. A countless number of Greek Theatre
audience members have written letters of appreciation to
newspapers and to the Greek Theatre. These seldom fail to
mention the physical setting as a contributor to the
theatrical experience. In this regard, Patrick Mahony,
author of "It's Better in America," wrote the following
laudatory statement about the Greek Theatre:
An acoustical and architectural gem tucked away
from the city's swelling millions, hidden in the
solitude of purple-brown hills amid pungent odors
of pine and eucalyptus, the theatre stands as if
moulded by Nature herself for this particular place.
But it is the scene of Nature, in all her
grandeur, that brings forcibly to mind the Athenian
parallel. What cool bracing air compared to other
parts of the city, and an evening in this hallowed
spot can be a Symphony of Stars, a Cantata of Moon
beams, a Ballet of Scented Zephyrs. What doctor
possesses such curative resources as those latent
in such an atmosphere? Joy becomes the vital air of
the soul and reveals us to our selves. Temporarily,
it does away with ugliness, creating what the Greeks
called "the beauty of Beauty."25
Because of its physical setting, size, and produc
tion facilities, Doolittle had estimated that the Greek
Theatre was the ideal place to present dance companies and
operas. His record of past production testified to his
^Patrick Mahony, "A Touch of Old Athens in Los An
geles," Greek Theatre Magazine, l6th Anniversary Greek
Theatre program, June 17 through June 23* 1968, p. 11.
81
love of opera; and, at the same time, he had acquired a
reputation as a balletomane. His appreciation for ballet,
as his personal preference, and also as highly palatable
audience fare, dated back to his first theatre venture
in 19^-5 -- "Song Without Words." For both himself and
the audience, the highlights of the show were the ballet
26
interpolations of Mia Slavenska. "I have always been
concerned with the dance," Doolittle has said. "I feel
that ballet is quite possibly the most complete form of
legitimate entertainment. It encompasses the best that
27
the theatre can offer . . . ." His enthusiasm partially
explains why he began with dance programs at the Greek
Theatre and why he continued the emphasis on dance schedul
ing through successive years. Doolittle said further of
ballet, "It has beautiful music, lends itself to interest
ing scenic effects, and attracts the greatest artists and
designers in show business. It is beautiful in concept,
28
and wonderfully attuned to the American public . . . ."
As his personal production experience grew through the
years, Doolittle's penchants veered toward drama as the
most fulfilling theatre experience.
Doolittle's homework on the Greek Theatre
26
Greene, op. cit., p. 67.
2^Hal Marienthal, "Much Ado About Doolittle," Los
Angeles FM & Fine Arts, Vol. 6, No. 7j July, 1965, P- 16.
28ibid.
82
facilities had been dutiful. Before he ever produced
opera there, he wrote articulately of the suitability of
the Greek Theatre for managing large company productions
such as dance and opera. He called attention to the
Greek Theatre's adequate stage and equipment, huge scenic,
rehearsal, dressing and wardrobe rooms which could
accommodate at least 200 performers and musicians. More
over, he pointed out that a theatre for dance and opera
needed sufficient seating capacity to gain the necessary
revenue to support such huge production. Doolittle spec
ified that an ideal theatre for these forms should have
a seating capacity between 3*500 and 5,000. This size
allows the necessary financial return and, most important,
denotes a theatre which is not too large to lose the
artistic and musical integrity. His public appraisal
concluded that the one theatre in Southern California
which possessed all these requirements was the "magnificent
29
city-owned" Greek Theatre in Griffith Park.
Considering the "limbo" aura which characterized
the Greek Theatre's image -- and the improvisational
nature of Doolittle's 1952 independent short-season pre
sentations — there were few augurs of good fortune
surrounding his launching of the Ballet Russe de Monte
Carlo as the opening program. None the least of these
James A. Doolittle, "The Future of Opera in Los
Angeles," The Arts Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 1, January, 1953*
83
negative signs was the fact that this company had fallen
upon economic hard times and was, for all practical
purposes, disbanded. Coincidentally, the Ballet Russe
suffered one of its financial setbacks as a result of the
foreclosure of the 1951 Hollywood Bowl summer season.
Scheduled to appear later in the season at the Bowl, the
Ballet Russe was one of the victims of cancellation.
The company's losses were compounded when its appearance
at the Los Angeles Philharmonic Auditorium that following
BO
winter was disappointingly patronized.J
Doolittle described the rehabilitation of the
company and the Greek Theatre:
I called Sergei Denham, director of the Ballet
Russe, and told him to assemble such dancers as
were available.
Franklin, Danilova, Youskevitch and Markova were
filling other engagements. It had to be a season
without stellar names ....
I was as surprised as everyone else when we
found ourselves selling standing room for the
final performances of each week.31
The Ballet Russe attracted an average audience of just
under 3*800 persons (total attendance 30*233) for eight
performances at the Greek Theatre. There were only two
other evenings to the short season. These drew 5*2l6
spectators for ballroom dancers Veloz and Yolanda.
3°Greene, op. cit., p. 66.
^Patterson Greene, "Greek Theater 'Rises Again,'"
Los Angeles Examiner, June 24, 1956.
84
Although this was a successful response, the latter offer
ing averaged approximately a thousand fewer persons per
performance than the ballet company. It was also signifi
cant that the ballet had sustained its attraction for a
longer run. This indicated that serious cultural forms,
well-done, would be welcomed by Greek Theatre audiences.
The average night's attendance was 3 >545 for the ten
evenings.
Public appreciation spilled over into newspapers
by way of letters-to-the-editors from local citizens and
out-of-town visitors alike. Public encouragement increased
when announcements were made of the formation of the non
profit Greek Theatre Association and its intention to
establish the Greek Theatre as a home for dance, opera,
high quality theatre, and, eventually, resident dance
and opera companies. Anticipatory articles appeared in
dance, music and art magazines. These periodicals
unanimously expressed the hope that the Greek Theatre and
its producers would realize their aims. The burden of
proof was on the Greek Theatre Association and its first
summer season of 1953-
Belle Dunham, Greek Theatre librarian and
curator of records. (All attendance and receipt figures
reflect final season totals from this official source.
Numerous further references to attendance and averages in
the course of this chapter will not carry footnote
citation.)
85
Formulation of the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre Association
Public and critical response to Doolittle's 1952
short-season at the Greek Theatre generated the active
interest of civic-oriented citizens who were aware of the
need for cultural programs in Los Angeles. Doolittle had
demonstrated the potential of the Greek Theatre, and his
past production record was weighted with successes in the
prestigious forms of ballet and opera. Acting on the
impetus of interest in the Greek Theatre, Doolittle and a
small core of prominent Los Angeles citizens formed and
incorporated a non-profit producing organization -- the
Greek Theatre Association -- during the winter of 1953-
The Association declared that its purpose was to seek and
present theatrical programs of high cultural worth to the
citizenry of Los Angeles. Members of the original Board
of Directors were Nolen Allen, Lem Bailey, Dr. Laurence H.
Heacock, H. Bradley Jones, and Doolittle's revered friend
and mentor from the University of Southern California,
33
Dean Pearle Aiken-Smith. The Board appointed Doolittle
Managing Director of the organization, and in his capacity
as the executive producer, he became the only salaried
member of the non-profit corporation. The non-profit base
of the Greek Theatre Association is founded on its
^Dorathi Bock Pierre, "The Greek Theatre in
Griffith Park - A History," in Greek Theatre Magazine,
July 15-August 4, 1957* p. 43.
86
carrying out of dedicated efforts to enrich the cultural
environment of its City. The philanthropic endeavor
placed strong emphasis on the educational values of
cultural programs. The Greek Theatre Association By-Laws
stated specifically:
A specific and primary purpose for which the
corporation is formed is to further the education
of both child and adult students and the general
public in the theatre arts, including music, ballet,
dance and opera. The management shall allow students
of these arts the privilege of attending rehearsals,
taking part in auditions and various productions,
and having backstage visitation privileges to assist
them in grasping the fundamentals of operation.
Discount tickets shall be made available to students,
and seats set aside for the underprivileged, the
blind and disabled war veterans.3^
A fundamental part of the Association's non-profit
base, as stipulated in its By-Laws, is that no corporation
funds shall accrue to any of its members or any private
individual in the events of liquidation, dissolution or
abandonment of the corporation. In any of these cases,
the property of the corporation would be transferred to a
similar tax-exempt civic, non-profit organization, fund,
foundation or corporation, or to the City of Los Angeles
35
or State of California.
Shortly after the Greek Theatre Association was
formed the City granted it the lease-concession to the
Los Angeles Greek Theatre and it became the theatre's
^Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association By-Laws,
Article X, Sec. 3> p. 1^«
________ 35ibld., Article X, Sec. 2, p. 14.______________
87
production company.
Operational Basis with the City
The Department of Recreation and Parks created a
new contract with the Greek Theatre Association for its
premiere season. The general terms of the 1953 contract
have remained the prevailing agreements until the most
recent years.
The rental agreement called for a $15,000 minimum
for the season, or 5$ of gross receipts -- whichever was
higher. The City furnished the theatre as extant -- water,
lights, janitor, maintenance and repair service. The
Department also agreed to request police officers for
traffic control. The contract stipulated that there be
no charge for parking or for storage of automobiles at
any parking facility in the vicinity of the Greek Theatre.
However, parking attendants were to be provided by the
lessee, Greek Theatre Association. Revenues from ticket
sales and concessions such as programs, cushions, opera
glasses, soft drinks, candy, tobacco, sandwiches and the
like went to the production organization. From all of the
concessions, with the exception of programs, the lessor
36
derived 10% of the receipts.
^ Lease and Agreement Between the City of Los
Angeles and the Greek Theatre Association, for the Use of
the Greek Theatre, Located in the Vermont Canyon Section
of Griffith Park, 1953-l9bb.
88
The financial resources of the Greek Theatre
Association were limited to a few money gifts from its
own members and from interested friends of the group.
The private donations amounted to approximately fifteen
or twenty thousand dollars. These represented the
Association's entire beginning capitalization, and they
were good-will tokens with no strings attached. In 1953*
there was no subsidy of any kind from Los Angeles City
or County.37
Doolittle's first-season scheduling kept the
Greek Theatre Association's promise to extend itself to
bring the best cultural ensembles to Los Angeles, and to
make the Greek Theatre's name synonymous with ballet and
opera. In the Los Angeles theatre spectrum there was room
for a theatre group which could assume the programming of
these forms and other serious theatre events. The Holly
wood Bowl enjoyed the province of concert and symphony
production while the Los Angeles Civic Light Opera Company,
under Edwin Lester, had long proven itself by providing
the best in musical comedy.
The New York City Ballet Company provided an
imposing prospect as the premiere presentation of the
Greek Theatre Association. Its four-week booking at the
theatre marked the company's introduction to the west
coast.
07
__________ Interview, James A. Doolittle, August 11, 1969.
89
Premiere Season - Greek Theatre
Association 1953
Unlike the dubious presagings of the tentative
season before, the signs for the summer of 1953 turned
highly positive. Post-war years in the United States
showed a rising popularity of Ballet, and there was a peak
of enthusiasm at the time of the Association's opening
season. One example of correlating factors which caused
the surge of interest in ballet after World War II may be
extrapolated from a movie, "The Red Shoes." The film
dramatized the poetry of ballet in an imaginative and
romantic screenplay. It proved to be one of the early and
great successes of the "art-movie" movement which grew
in the post-war period. A nationwide tour of Great
Britain's Sadler's Wells ballet company — the featured
dancers of the motion picture -- during 1950 and 1951
captured immense success in America.
During this same period that the ballet became
popular in the United States the New York City Ballet
company matured from fledgling to star quality. Between
1948 and 1952 this company, under the leadership of master
dancer and choreographer George Balanchine, progressed to
international fame. Its European tours won the New York
City Ballet extravagant critical accolades and distinction
overseas. John Martin, the New York Times dean of
American dance critics, termed the company "the greatest
90
ballet in the contemporary world."3®
The four weeks scheduled for the New York City
Ballet at the Greek Theatre would be the first appearance
of the famous company on the Pacific Coast. Its visit was
a genuine cultural event.
During the month of July, the New York City Ballet
company danced 24 evenings of its repertoire to a total
audience of 85,449 — an average of 3*563 persons an
evening for the sustained run. The exclusiveness of the
Los Angeles engagement established a precedent. Hereto
fore, ballet presentations in Los Angeles had usually been
limited to a few days' availability from companies on
long tours.39 a significant feature of this dance event,
and of the opera and ballet engagements which characterized
future Greek Theatre seasons, was the unprecedented large
dose of these forms which were offered and attended at
the theatre.
Fittingly, the next attraction to be offered was
opera. This further validated the Association's announced
intention to make the Greek Theatre the principal residence
in Los Angeles for opera and dance. Again roaming far
afield, Doolittle gave his second premiere in as many
presentations when he introduced the Fujiwara Opera
3®Bill Westcott, "The New Horizons in Ballet,"
The Arts Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 3, March, 1953* p. 15*
39The Company followed its Greek Theatre run with
appearances in San Francisco and Denver.____________________
91
company of Japan for eight performances of "Madame
Butterfly." The Greek Theatre Association designed and
built elaborate scenery for "Madame Butterfly" and the
producers sent the Fujiwara Company to perform in
40
Pasadena, San Diego and the Irvine Bowl in Laguna Beach.
"Madame Butterfly" played to an audience of
24,080 at the Greek Theatre. The engagement averaged
3,010 persons for each of its eight performances.
While it was still in progress, the 1953 season
brought Doolittle the first of many commendatory citations
he would receive from City and private organizations.
During the run of the Fujiwara Opera Company, the Los
Angeles City Council formed a resolution of recognition
of achievement for bringing the foreign company to the
Los Angeles stage. Members of the City Council presented
the citation to Doolittle between acts of "Madame
Butterfly." The resolution singled out Doolittle and
Yoshie Fujiwara, the company's general director, as
follows in part:
Special commendation of the Los Angeles City
Council for initiating the first notable cultural
activities between Los Angeles and Japan in
bringing the Fujiwara Company to Los Angeles, and
therefore helping promote international good will
between our respective governments.41
40
Hollywood Citizen-News, September 11, 1953.
^-*-"City Council Praises Tokyo Opera Run Here,"
Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1953.
92
The season's third offering, "La Boheme," con
tinued the innovative quality which had characterized the
young venture thus far. It became the first presentation
to be completely assembled and produced by Doolittle and
the Greek Theatre Association. The production contained
several elements of "newness" which placed it in an almost
experimental category for the Greek Theatre. With native
Californians Nadine Conner and Brian Sullivan as nucleii,
Doolittle cast the remainder of "Madame Butterfly" from
the vast talent pool of local singers and dancers. The
Association presented Howard Dietz' adaptation in English
which he wrote for the Metropolitan Opera Company. As a
result of the distinctly national flavor of the whole
ensemble, this production was thought to be the first
major opera event produced, staged, conducted and per
formed in its entirety by Americans and, in addition, sung
42
in English as well.
"La Boheme" played six performances to 21,013
people. The audience averaged 3>502 for each performance.
Nearly 4,000 (3>909) persons patronized the
season's fourth offering — a single evening of ballet
interpretations by Alicia Markova, assisted by Oleg
Tupine. According to the Los Angeles Times review, the
performance was "flawless." In a Greek Theatre magazine
^2"200,000 Entertained at Greek Theatre,"
Hollywood Citizen-News, September 11, 1953*
93
article which recapitulated dance presentations at the
theatre, this performance by Markova ended with a prolonged
and "amazing" ovation. The article reported that bouquets
covered the stage and Markova's admirers "stormed the
theatre, preventing the beloved star from reaching her
43
dressing room for nearly an hour."
Fourteen performances of the musical comedy, "Pal
Joey," completed the first season schedule. The entire
cast of the Broadway production, including its star,
Harold Lang, performed the show. The total audience for
"Pal Joey" was 44,784, averaging 3,200 nightly.
The first season resulted in tributes from the
local press and full-page recognition in the New York
Musical Courier. Numerous letters of appreciation came
from theatre-goers. "In an era," summed up the Courier,
when television and other forms of popular entertainment
have presented a serious threat to the great traditions
of music theatre, the Greek Theatre Association deserves
recognition for its purposes and accomplishments to
date."^ Fortnight magazine praised the 1953 summer as
"the most ambitious season of opera and ballet ever
43
Ballet and the Greek Theatre Association,"
Greek Theatre Magazine, Thirteenth Season program, Septem-
ber 13, through September 18, 1965, -• 49-
^"Los Angeles Greek Theatre Has Exciting and
Successful Season," Musical Courier, Vol. CXLIX, No. 10,
May 15, 195^, P. 32.
94
45
presented in Los Angeles."
The Hollywood Citizen-News devoted two editorials
li f \
to the "great contribution" of Doolittle to his City.
Before the opening of the 1954 season, Doolittle
instituted an educational policy at the civic theatre
which has remained in effect throughout the tenure of the
Greek Theatre Association. In the interest of encouraging
the theatre habit in the young, and of giving them avail
ability to quality cultural offerings of national and
international companies, the Association began a student
discount plan which allowed entrance to the Greek Theatre
performances for as little as fifty cents a seat. In
1956 the Greek Theatre gave discount rates to area teach
ers which took two dollars off the price of a ticket.
1954 - A Season of Dance and Opera
The second season of the Greek Theatre Association
surpassed the initial summer in scope. Dance events took
up 44 of the total of 6l evening performances, and 15
evenings were divided over two operas. The season's
opening two evenings featured the Sauter-Finegan
Orchestra which played to a total of 3a531 attendees.
^Quoted from an editorial, "Merited Popularity,"
Hollywood Citizen-News, June 9, 1954.
^ Hollywood Citizen-News, Editorials, June 9 and
August 7, 1954.
95
Six consecutive weeks of the New York City Ballet
company in 36 performances followed the opening bill.
Four weeks, 24 performances, of the ballet company's
repertoire drew 74, 118 people, or 3,088 for each night.
The next 12 performances over two weeks of the New York
City Ballet Company were taken by George Balanchine's
recently created full-length version of "The Nutcracker."
An average audience of 4,289 for this event suggests that
several of these 12 evenings exceeded the capacity of the
4,407 seat house. The 51,478 total audience for "The
Nutcracker" was reported to be a record attendance for a
47
single ballet in Los Angeles. "The Nutcracker" ballet
proved to be the most popular ballet in Greek Theatre
history. It consistently attracted superior attendance
for all its future engagements.
For this presentation of "The Nutcracker," eighty
young ballet students from local schools rehearsed for
two weeks and performed nightly. Whenever possible, the
Greek Theatre Association incorporated local talent into
48
its productions.
The critiques of Arthur Goldberg in his "Sounding
Board" columns of the Los Angeles Times gave indications
of the quality of the New York City Ballet Company. When
^"Ballet and the Greek Theatre Association,"
Greek Theatre Magazine, Thirteenth Season Program, Septem-
ber 13 through September 18, 1965* p. 50*
^8Ibid.
96
he referred to the repertoire presentations of the first
four weeks, Goldberg termed the company an "eminently
superior sort," and he called its work "as finished and
refined a product as the contemporary ballet world
knows."^9 He singled out the "glittering virtuosity" of
Maria Tallchief and Andre Eglevsky for their pas de deux
from "Sylvia" as "traditional ballet at its best.""’ 0
Goldberg tested his superlatives for "The Nutcracker."
He called it "dazzling," a "brilliant spectacle" which he
51
advised everyone to see.
An introductory engagement by another dance com
pany which would become a perennial favorite -- Jose Greco
and his Spanish dancers -- followed the New York City
Ballet Company. Greco's audience numbered 4,091 for each
of six performances and a total of 24,549.
Two successive operas came after Greco and com
pany. "Carmen" played six performances. Nine performances
of "The Mikado" followed. Martyn Green, the world's
foremost performer of Gilbert and Sullivan, staged and
starred in "The Mikado." "Carmen" drew 17}305 persons for
an average audience of 2,884, and "The Mikado" attracted
^Albert Goldberg, "New York City Ballet Scores in
First Bill," Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1954.
5°Goldberg, "Ballet Evening One of Infectious
Gaiety," Los Angeles Times, July 14, 1954.
^Goldberg, "'Nutcracker' Ballet Brilliant
Spectacle," Los Angeles Times, August 5, 1954.
97
24,991 for a slightly smaller average of 2,777 per
performance.
Alicia Markova returned for two performances at
the close of the season. Her audience averaged 2,937
each night, for a total of 5*875. Critic Arthur Goldberg
admired Markova's artistry while he expressed reservations
Kp
about her program continuity.^
The 1954 season brought a total attendance of
201,847 people. The average evening turnout was 3*309.
Dance programs alone, averaged 3*545 a performance.
1955 - A "Dance" Theatre
Once again, dance forms dominated the Greek
Theatre season of 1955* The New York City Ballet returned
for its third consecutive year for 23 performances over
four performance weeks. The dance company repeated its
successful presentation of "The Nutcracker" ballet for a
full two weeks of 11 offerings. Attendance for "The Nut
cracker" was excellent. It averaged 3*800 for its first
week and increased to 4,000 persons for each of the
second week's 6 performances. The following two weeks of
the company's repertory selections drew approximately
3,000 for each of 12 evenings. The audience reception to
the New York City Ballet Company was warmer than was shown
to the musical, "Wonderful Town," starring Carol Channing.
„ -^Goldberg, "Allcia„Markoya Gives Program of
Dance," Los Angeles Times, September 9, 1954.____________
98
During the immediate two weeks preceding the New York City
Ballet, "Wonderful Town" averaged just more than 3,000
for each of 13 performances. The season had a good start
when a 7-performance week of "3 for Tonight," with Marge
and Gower Champion, averaged 4,l40 audience for each
performance.
Enthusiasm and patronage for the dance remained
at a high level for the final acts of the 1955 season.
Katherine Dunham, followed immediately after the ballet
repertoire, and averaged 3*450 persons for six perfor
mances of her modern dance program. The following week
Jose Greco closed the season and proved the top audience
attraction. Greco averaged nearly 4,200 persons over
six evenings.
Except for the musical, "Wonderful Town," the
Greek Theatre's 1955 season was given over to Dance --
more so than any other summer of its history. The range
of dance programs was noteworthy. It encompassed world
premiere performers of classical ballet, modern dance,
classical Spanish, and the American genre of the Champions.
In view of the variety and the quality of these dance
engagements, the Greek Theatre's 1955 season accomplished
a unique program for a popular theatre which appeals to a
general audience. The evenings of dance - 42 of the total
54 - averaged 3*619 persons, or 82$ of Greek Theatre
capacity. The average audience for the 54 performances
99
of 1955 was 3*^880 persons for each evening of the season.
The Greek Theatre Association's first three
seasons had been heavily weighted with high cultural
events. Fourteen of the total eighteen programs for the
first three seasons featured opera, ballet and dance.
These forms were given for 133 of the total 168 evenings.
The remaining 35 evenings gave quality offerings of a
more popular variety. These included two musicals, "Pal
Joey" and "Wonderful Town," -- the Sauter-Finegan Orches
tra, and the Champions in "3 For Tonight."
1956 - Borge and Belafonte Introduced
The five attractions of the 1956 season played 59
evenings. Doolittle brought back the Ballet Russe de
Monte Carlo with dancers Alicia Alonso and Igor Youske-
vitch. This engagement marked the return of the company
which Doolittle first presented at the Greek Theatre under
his own management in his trial season of 1952. Two
perennial operetta favorites -- "The Student Prince" and
"The Red Mill" — had two-week runs at the end of the 1956
season. Singers Brian Sullivan and Elaine Malbin starred
in "The Student Prince" with featured dancers Maria
Tallchief and Andre Eglevsky. Metropolitan Opera star
Irra Patina sang the leading role in "The Red Mill."
Box office receipts and average evening attendance
continued to rise through the 1956 season. For each of
100
the 59 evenings, an average audience of 3j686 persons
turned out.
The season Introduced two personalities who became
unfailing audience attractions at the Greek Theatre.
Victor Borge and Harry Belafonte, for their introductory
engagement and future ones at the Greek Theatre, strained
the seating capacity of the theatre. Borge*s first
appearance, a 7-performance week which opened the season,
averaged 4,420 persons each night. His engagement marked
the first occasion of this era that an average audience
exceeded the capacity of 4,407 seats. An average atten
dance greater than the theatre's potential capacity pre
supposes heavy overflow numbers on different evenings.
To meet this situation temporary seats are placed in the
transverse aisles of the Greek Theatre and chairs are
also put in the orchestra pit whenever it is a v a i l a b l e .53
The audience for Belafonte*s 13 evenings was only
slightly smaller than Borge*s. It averaged 4,172 per
performance. Belafonte proved the unqualified box-office
champion of all Greek Theatre seasons. Through the year
1968, his seven-season engagements to overflow capacity
were unequalled as audience draw. His enormous popularity
at the Greek Theatre is further demonstrated by the length
of his runs there which have varied from three to four weeks
53interview, James A. Doolittle, August 11, 1969.
101
long -- two and three times the number of performances
given by most other attractions.
In spite of his blockbusting box-office capabil
ities, Doolittle does not regard Belafonte in the
popular-attraction class. Doolittle believes the singer
54
to be one of the great artists of modern America.
1957 ~ The Ballet "Coppelia" Created
"The Greek Theatre is the rage of the Southland
this season. It is definitely on the top of everyone's
list, whether resident or visitor as 'the place to go,'
and thus localities with cultural aspirations may be
55
justly proud.
This excerpt is typical of the press enthusiasm
for the Greek Theatre Association's fifth season. The
Greek Theatre was becoming a cultural tradition in Los
Angeles. Rising attendance and receipts supported the
press claims, as the average evening audiences for 63
performances numbered 3*789 each. Overflow crowds became
the rule rather than the exception for the 1957 summer
presentations. Remarkably, the more serious art forms
matched, and even eclipsed, in audience draw the more
-^Cecil Smith, "The Greek Theater — Its Miracle
and Its Turmoil," Los Angeles Times Calendar section,
June 30, 1963.
-^Hazel Flynn, "Tribute to Greek's Mentor," The
Beverly Hills Citizen, August 2, 1957* p. 5»
102
generally considered "popular" offerings.
Victor Borge and Harry Belafonte repeated their
overflow popularity -- Belafonte over a 19-perforraance
three-week run. Jose Greco retained his appeal for an
average of approximately 4,000 persons for each of six
nights.
The Greek Theatre created two productions in
1957 -- the opera, "La Traviata," and the ballet,
"Coppelia." "La Traviata" played three evenings to over
flow numbers (average 4,467); "Coppelia" performed up to
near capacity - 4,237 average - for its 5-night engage
ment. Both of these events surpassed the 3*285 average
attendance for Judy Garland, who opened the season for
an 11-performance run. Only one engagement of the 1957
season fell below a rousing attendance mark -- the
American Ballet Theatre. It drew a respectable 2,322
persons for each of the twelve closing shows of the 1957
season.
Doolittle extended all of his production
resources for the Greek Theatre Association's creation
of "America's first full-length production of the ballet,
'Coppelia.'" He contracted three of the world's greatest
dancers — Alicia Alonso, to dance the lead and stage
the ballet, and Andre Eglevsky, of the New York City
Ballet. The third dancer was Niels Bjorn Larsen, star
of the Royal Danish Ballet, who was imported for his first
103
Los Angeles appearance. The remainder of the company was
selected from the huge reservoir of dancers in the Los
Angeles area. Miss Alonso screened approximately 250
56
dancers in a mass audition at the Greek Theatre. A part
of Doolittle's intent for the creation of a full-length
version of "Coppelia" was to demonstrate the quality and
numbers of available dancers in Los Angeles. This gave
a boost to his long-standing argument for a resident
ballet company in the City.
The large audience reception, as well as brilliant
reviews rewarded the efforts which were invested in
"Coppelia." The Los Angeles Times Music and Dance Critic,
Albert Goldberg, gave the following praise:
If the full-length "Coppelia," which was un
veiled at the Greek Theater last night in the first
of five consecutive performances, is what James A.
Doolittle has in mind for the beginning of a resi
dent ballet, then this is a brilliant start in the
right direction . . . and it cuts no corners in the
way of completeness and eye-filling lavishness,
The result is far and away the best "Coppelia"
that has ever been staged here, and if it doesn't
stir the town to excitement, nothing ever will.57
Goldberg singled out both the stars and the com
pany for recognition and he ended his review by asking:
"And wouldn't it be nice to keep them all around here in
56rbid.
^Albert Goldberg, "Best 'Coppelia' Ever Seen
Here Presented," Los Angeles Times, August 8, 1957*
104
a resident troupe? It would put Los Angeles on the
ballet map.
A national newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor,
noted the successful 1957 season at the Greek Theatre and
Implied that Los Angeles had been moved "a notch nearer
real urbanity" as a result of the summer record.
Kimmis Hendrick, Pacific News Bureau Chief of the
Christian Science Monitor, gave the general tenor of en
thusiasm and confidence which characterized the Greek
Theatre operation after its 1957 season. Hendrick
reported in part:
"I want to make the Greek Theater known as one
of the great theaters of the world," Mr. Doolittle
says. Speaking of the possibilities for developing
a theater school and a resident ballet, and looking
back over this season's success, he says in a
matter-of-fact way, "I think we have a chance of
getting everything we have dreamed of."°°
Ticket Scale
The Greek Theatre Association's first two seasons
of production -- 1953 and 195^- — sold at a single ticket
scale of $3*50 top. The bottom prices were $1.00 in 1953
and $1.50 for 195^-• In 1955* the price range for single
tickets ranged from a $4.00 top to $1.50 for the bottom
58lbid.
59
Kimmis Hendrick, "Boom in Theater Cheers Los
Angeles," The Christian Science Monitor, October 18, 1957.
6oIbid.
105
price ticket. For the 1956 and 1957 seasons, the ticket
scale varied from $4.00 to $2.00. All parking for Greek
Theatre audiences has been free throughout the 17 summer
seasons of the Greek Theatre Association tenure. There is
no free program for the events; the Greek Theatre Magazine
6l
costs twenty-five cents.
1958 - The Tradition Established
As the Greek Theatre Association entered its
sixth season anticipation and commendation became common
place in editorials of the Los Angeles metropolitan news
papers. In theatrical terms, the Greek Theatre had
"arrived." At the same time it heaped praise on the
Greek Theatre operation, the press simultaneously congrat
ulated the city of Los Angeles for its rejuvenated
cultural image. The reputation of the Greek Theatre was
attracting established stars and companies advantaged by
their playing dates during a summer season. As expressed
by one editorial writer who cited the "amazing" five-year
record of Doolittle and the Association:
The prestige resulting from this operation,
which has added immeasurably to the cultural life
of Angelenos and visitors to Los Angeles, has
become so well known throughout the concert and
entertainment world that ballet, opera companies
and internationally famous performers are anxious
Greek Theatre Association pre-season mailings,
1953-57.
106
62
to participate in the programs.
Statements from performers supported the above
newspaper's claims. In 1958, the nation's foremost
theatre publication, Theatre Arts, carried a remark of
Jose Greco to Doolittle wherein Greco is reported as
saying, "My appearances at the Greek Theatre have been the
highlight of my career." ^ Feature writer Austin Conover
of the Hollywood Citizen-News daily paper corroborated
Greco's comment when he reported the dancer's declaration
to him that "You just can't be unhappy at the Greek
Theatre."^ Conover also wrote that Victor Borge's
manager, Harry Squires, had remarked directly to Conover
that "The Greek Theatre is the finest run theatre of its
kind that we've ever seen. It's nothing short of fan-
65
tastic in its operation."
In the same vein another local newspaper columnist
Hazel Flynn, gave extravagant praise for Doolittle's
success in making the Greek Theatre internationally known.
According to Miss Flynn, Maurice Chevalier termed his
Greek Theatre engagement of 1958 "the high point of his
^2"An Artistic Triumph," an editorial in the Los
Angeles Herald Express, June 26, 1958.
^Patterson Greene, "The Gift-Bearing Greeks,"
Theatre Arts, Vol. XLII, No. 7, July, 1958, p. 66.
fill
DHAustin Conover, "Doolittle Scores at Greek
Theater," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 7, 1956.
65Ibid.
107
career, and the greatest tribute he has ever been given.
Another great performer of the 1958 season, Danny Kaye,
had, in Miss Flynn's words, "steadfastly avoided a local
appearance until the opportunity to perform in the Greek
Theatre was extended."^7 The writer attributed the per
formers' attitude toward Doolittle to "their confidence
in him, and the dignity and good taste in which they are
presented.
Local feature writers expressed their enthusiasm
by claims that, as of 1957* the Greek Theatre outgrossed
every outdoor theatre in America, regardless of s i z e ,^9
and was, perhaps, the top-grossing outdoor theatre in
the world.70
In its Greek Theatre Magazine program for the 1958
season, the Greek Theatre Association rang its own
claxons of praise in a page of self-advertisement which
featured laudatory comments of international newspaper
and magazine correspondents who had seen Greek Theatre
productions. The commendatory excerpts which were shown
^Hazel Flynn, "Salute to Greek's Doolittle, The
Beverly Hills Citizen, June 17, 1958.
67Ibid.
^Austin Conover, "Best Season Ever For Greek
Theater," Hollywood Citizen-News, June 26, 1958.
7°Flynn, loc. clt.
108
were reprints from: The London Dally Sketch; Santiago,
Chile's La Nacion; The Mainichi, Tokyo, Japan; Sweden's
Expressen; Bloemfontein, South Africa's Femlna; and
Paris’ Solr. One example quoted from the Cine Review of
Brussels, Belgium said:
Last night we saw Jeanmaire and Roland Petit
at the Greek Theatre. What a wonderful experience!
It is too bad that we cannot transport the theatre
to the Brussels world's fair, so that more Belgians
like ourselves could enjoy it . . .
The testimonies of 1958 - from performers and
press alike - have similar emphasis. It is possible that
the similarity originated out of current interviews with
Doolittle, and, thereby, filtered through his able
publicity talents. However, credibility attaches to the
statements in view of the performance of the Greek
Theatre -- its variety of international attractions,
their calibre, and their return engagements for Doolittle.
Another local newspaper editorial in anticipation
of the 1958 season, commended the Greek Theatre operation
for its achievement of "a high rank in a short time."^
The same editorial congratulated the Greek Theatre Associa
tion's "freshness of viewpoint and a regard for features
^"International Recognition for the Greek Theatre"
Greek Theatre Magazine, weekly program July 21 through
August 3, 195a, p. 38.
72
"Greek Theater," an editorial in the Los Angeles
Examiner, June 27* 1958.
109
off the beaten track, that Is all too rare nowadays."73
Average attendance for the 1958 season remained at
the high 1957 level and showed 3*760 nightly audience
patronage. A $33*000 increase in box-office receipts was
reflected in a rise in the 1958 single ticket prices.
The price went from a $4.00 top for the 1957 summer
schedule to a $4.50 top price for 1958. Popular and
international stars retained high audience appeal.
Chevalier's average nightly audience for eight shows was
3,800; Danny Kaye's fifteen performances averaged 4,163
per evening, and a seven-night run of Jerry Lewis turned
out an audience of 4,280 for each evening. Jose Greco
danced once again to 4,011 persons for each of six per
formances. In a first visit to the United States from
France, Les Ballets de Paris, starring Jeanmaire and
Roland Petit, drew 3,848 customers per show. Twelve
performances of the operetta, "La Perichole," drew the
lowest average audience — 2,800 each evening -- of any
attractions of the 1958 season. "La Perichole," starred
and staged by Cyril Ritchard, was virtually a reproduction
of the presentation in which he performed the same chores
for the Metropolitan Opera Company for its preceding
season. Featured performers of the original production
at the Metropolitan Opera joined Ritchard in the cast,
73Ibid.
110
and the original sets and costumes were transported to
7 k
the Greek Theatre for the engagement.' The creation of
another full-length ballet from the Greek Theatre added
prestige to the 1958 season. Once again, Doolittle con
tracted Ballerina Alicia Alonso to stage the first com
plete version in America of the classical ballet "Giselle."
Igor Youskevitch danced the starring male role opposite
Miss Alonso, and, again, Los Angeles dancers had the
opportunity to work with renowned dancers and to showcase
their own quality. The created ballet drew an 83$ of
capacity audience for an average 3>671 persons at each
of six presentations.
After the 1958 season, an editorial in a Los
Angeles newspaper singled out the Greek Theatre's con
tribution to increased theatrical activity in Los Angeles.
Entitled "L.A. Music Fame Spreads," the editorial read:
Los Angeles is rapidly moving to the forefront
as a center of music and is gaining worldwide fame
through its constant and enthusiastic support of
the Greek Theater, the Hollywood Bowl, and the
Civic Light Opera. Here are three major attractions
running at the same time, and all playing to sell
out houses.
This city can indeed be proud of such interest.
It is particularly gratifying to see the way
in which the Greek Theater, with its varied program
of ballet, musical comedy, opera and specialty
programs is supported. Programs second to none
^"'La Perichole1 Will Star Cyril Ritchard," Greek
Theatre Magazine, weekly program July 21 through August 3*
1958T, P. 37.
Ill
are given in a sylvan surrounding of rare beauty.
Our Greek Theater is no longer an experiment,
it is a tradition.75
1959 - The Biltmore Theatre and
Continuous Theatre Seasons
For the first time, the 1959 audiences at the
Greek Theatre averaged more than 4,000 over 54 performance
dates. The average evening attendance of 4,113 indicates
a capacity theatre more often than not. Harry Belafonte's
entire run of seventeen performances brought overflow
crowds each evening, averaging 4,467 per performance.
Victor Borge's popularity brought a seven-night average
of 4,278 to the Greek Theatre. Jack Benny's only appear
ance at the Greek Theatre held the twelve closing nights
of the season and averaged 3*576 attendance. The Greek
Theatre revived its creation of the ballet "Coppelia,"
which was first presented in 1957* A six-night audience
averaged 3*446.
The New York City Ballet Company made a triumphant
return to the Greek Theatre after a four-year absence.
An average 4,305 persons attended six performances of the
company's repertory. The welcome to the company's return
resulted in bulging attendance for six nights of the
"Nutcracker" ballet. This popular ballet produced a new
^5"L.A. Music Fame Spreads," an editorial in the
Los Angeles Herald Express, September 17* 1958.
112
high average audience for the New York company of 4,464
per evening.
The year 1959 marked the beginning of expanded
theatrical activity in Los Angeles for the Greek Theatre
Association. In the 1959 winter season, the Association
began continuous year-round presentations of major
theatre productions. Since this time the Association has
maintained a year-round production schedule. The expanded
production activity took place at the Los Angeles
Biltmore Theatre, one of the City's two remaining major
legitimate theatres dating back to the 1920 era.
In 1958* Doolittle learned through his friend,
theatre-owner Louis Lurie of San Francisco, that the Los
Angeles Biltmore Theatre was scheduled to be razed in
favor of commercial development. Lurie and Doolittle
hastily formed a corporation to buy the Biltmore and
preserve its productive life. By a natural process of
assimilation -- Doolittle's functional roles in both the
Greek Theatre Association and the Biltmore Theatre
Corporation — the Association brought its production
trademark and capacity to the Biltmore Theatre operation.
The five final seasons of the Biltmore Theatre's
existence, from 1959 through 1964 inclusive, were its
most active years. Touring New York theatre companies
earned their largest tour grosses from their Biltmore
113
l y / '
Theatre engagements. The record shows 48 major plays
and musical bookings. With the Biltmore Theatre added
to its responsibilities at the Greek Theatre, the Greek
Theatre Association actively produced year-round, and
the City of Los Angeles had continuous seasons of major
theatre available.
The Greek Theatre Association's involvement at
the Biltmore Theatre resulted in serious consequences for
it in the realm of its economic and political relationship
to the City of Los Angeles. The commercial nature of the
Biltmore Theatre operation, caused some questions to be
raised concerning the intimacy of a non-profit organiza
tion with a profit venture. During this period when the
Greek Theatre Association and Doolittle were restoring
the pulse of theatre in Los Angeles, the first ripples of
opposition to Doolittle and the Association were under
current among some parties -- official and unofficial --
in the complex of relationship to the Greek Theatre
Association. As a by-product of their success, Doolittle
and the Association were to become cynosures of intensi
fied scrutiny and controversy. Since these matters are
at the heart of this research and are treated in detail
in subsequent pages, this portion of the study will con
tinue to develop only the production achievement of the
^Patterson Greene, "Doolittle Provides Stage
Conscience," Los Angeles Examiner, June 18, 1961.
114
Greek Theatre operation through the first ten years of
its establishment as a theatrical force in the City of
Los Angeles and in the consciousness of its citizen-
audiences.
New Ticket Scales
A new price index for single tickets was effected
for the 1958 season and it carried through the summer
season of 1959* Except for the lowest priced seat which
remained $2.00, an across-the-board increase of fifty
cents was added to the ticket scale. Single ticket
prices graded downward from a top price of $4.50 to $4.00,
$3-50, $2.50 and $2.00.
For the seasons of i960 and 1961, single ticket
prices were sold for four seating locations. The prices
ranged from $5.00 downward to $4.00, $3.00 and $2.00 for
the low-price seat.
In 1962, the ticket scale evolved to its ceiling
price and to a schedule which became fixed at a top price
of $5.50 ranging down to $2.00. Ticket prices in future
seasons kept this latter scale as basic. Specific price
adjustments were made for certain individual presentations
77
on the season schedule.
^Greek Theatre Association pre-season mailings
1958-62.
115 s
; I960 - The Year of the Grand Kabuki
One of the most prestigious theatrical events in
Greek Theatre Association history opened its eighth
summer season. Under Association auspices, Japan's Grand
i
' Kabuki Theatre left its homeland for the first time
since it became a theatrical form in the latter 17th ’
! century. In a reversal of procedure, the Greek Theatre
I
' Association, in a complex series of negotiations, imported
the Grand Kabuki for a resoundingly successful bow in
New York City. Its premiere at the Greek Theatre followed.
During his 1959 visit to Japan, Doolittle won the
confidence of Takejiro Otani, ancestral chief of Shochiku
j Enterprists Ltd., parent of the Grand Kabuki company, and i
i an associate, Kunizo Matsuo, president of the Sentochi !
| Theatrical Company. Sparked by Doolittle's initiative,
j
j the Grand Kabuki visit became one of intercontinental
collaboration. First, Doolittle enlisted the aid of
Lincoln Kirstein of the New York Center of Music and
i
j Drama. Then the two American entrepreneurs cleared
I
| necessary channels through Kikuji Yonezawa, Managing
j Director of the Society of International Cultural Rela-
! tions, the officers and directors of the New York City
Center of Music and Drama, and the Honorable Mitsuo
Tanaka, Consul General of Japan in New York City.
Finally, official support and blessings for the
r 116 !
I enterprise were secured from the Japanese G o v e r n m e n t.78
Thirteen performances of the Grand Kabuki at the Greek j
Theatre played to an average nightly audience of 3*372 |
i
; persons. j
! Following the engagement of the Japanese company,
Carol Channing's Show Business review played to an |
| average of 3,187 spectators for six performances. Twelve
I performances of the New York City Ballet Company repertoire
j averaged 2,957 audience. This represents healthy patron
age but, on a comparative basis it was the lightest
average attendance for all engagements of the New York
City Ballet Company at the Greek Theatre. The lighter
i
| patronage could have meant that local balletomanes were
i
i
i reserving their priority for the premiere later the same
j
season of a ballet company never seen before in Los
Angeles — the Royal Danish Ballet Company. Under the
patronage of King Frederick IX of Denmark, the Royal
Danish Ballet's three centuries of continuity marked it
I as the world's oldest ballet company in terms of such
79
continuous history. * The company's fifteen performances
were attended by an average audience of 3*697 persons.
^^Douglas Crane, "After Fifty-Years -- How the
First Authentic Kabuki Came to America," Greek Theatre
Magazine, weekly program June 27 through July 10, 1980,
P. 13.
^"Ballet, Song, and Comedy Highlight Greek Thea
tre Season," Greek Theatre Magazine, weekly program June
27 through July 10, 1980, p. 49.
117
Two presentations in a more popular category,
George Burns and Johnny Mathis, completed the 59-perfor-
mance i960 summer season. George Burns drew an evening
average of 3*020 audience. Johnny Mathis, then in the
height of his career, drew overflow capacity audiences
numbering 4,468 nightly for seven performances in the
first of his many appearances at the Greek Theatre.
Mathis would continue as an outstanding audience attrac
tion in future seasons.
Although i960 was successful, the average nightly
audience of 3*448 persons fell below the averages of the
past five years.
1961 - Record Attendance and Receipts
The ninth season of the Greek Theatre Association
eclipsed all previous season attendance and receipts at
the Greek Theatre. Teeming audiences for the 60 perfor
mances of the 1961 summer showed an average for each
night of 4,275 persons. Box-office receipts escalated
more than one-quarter of a million dollars over the
immediately preceding i960 season. These established a
new high of more than one hundred thousand dollars over
the previous top season of 1958* which presented the same
number of performances. In keeping with his past engage
ments, the 4,407 seats of the Greek Theatre proved inade
quate for Harry Belafonte's average audience of 4,468
which turned out for his large block of nineteen performance
118
evenings. Other name performers who had become favorites
continued to enthuse their audiences which attended by
averages of 4,254 for eight performances of Victor Borge,
4,132 for each of Jose Greco's six evenings, and an over
flow 4,446 for each of Nat "King" Cole's seven nights.
A new production, introduced to Greek Theatre audiences
for the 1961 season — "Music for Tonight" -- drew average
audiences of 4,137 persons. "Music for Tonight" featured
the master trumpeter, A1 Hirt, pianist Roger Williams,
and the Belafonte Folk Singers.
For a third consecutive seasonal engagement and
the company's sixth appearance, the New York City Ballet
Company returned to Greek Theatre audiences which wel
comed the company's nine performances. The ever-popular
"Nutcracker" Ballet drew 4,295 persons to each of six
presentations, while an average of 4,050 persons saw the
New York company's three evenings of repertory.
With his final adventuresome program of the 1961
season, Doolittle won a cultural gamble by way of another
theatrical "first" for Los Angeles audiences. The success
of Doolittle's i960 importation of Japan's Grand Kabuki
was repeated when he arranged for the national theatre
of Greece to visit America for a premiere occasion with
their presentations of classic forms in the original
tongue. For the five final performances of the 1961
season, the Greek Tragedy Theatre of Athens presented
119
Sophocles' "Electra" to an average audience of 3*788
persons.
Doolittle1s Introduction of the Greek Tragedy
Theatre of Athens carried on Its success after Its per
formances In Los Angeles. The Greek Theatre Association
underwrote, not only the Los Angeles engagement, but also
a tour of the foreign company which began by campus
appearances at the University of Redlands and the Univer
sity of California at Berkeley. Both institutions have
8o
facilities designed as Greek theatres. In Chicago,
the troupe reportedly drew capacity crowds at the city's
Opera House where it earned critical approval. The high
light of the tour was the New York engagement of the
Greek Tragedy Theatre of Athens, where the foreign company
gained a week's box-office receipt of $5^,000 -- reported
ly the highest gross of any play in New York for that
O - i
same week.x According to the prideful tone of one news
paper in the Los Angeles area, several Broadway critics
agreed that the Greek troupe created more theatrical
stimulus in Manhattan than any production since the
82
Japanese Kabuki Theatre -- both imported to the United
States by the Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association.
80
L. A. Sends Culture to Barren Broadway,"
Pasadena Star News, October, 1961, n.d.
8libid.
82Ibid.
120
1962 - Tenth Anniversary Season
Three premiere events distinguished the tenth
anniversary season of the Greek Theatre Association in
the summer of 1962. For the fourth consecutive year, the
New York City Ballet Company presented repertoire and
the average audience for six evenings numbered 3*611.
The outstanding feature of the company's visit was the
Los Angeles premiere of Company Artistic Director George
Balanchine's recent creation of a full-length ballet
version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream." Seven performances
of the spectacular production averaged a nightly atten
dance of 3*897 persons.
For the third consecutive year, Doolittle imported
another of the world's great foreign national theatre
companies for a first appearance in Los Angeles. The
Comedie Francaise, the world's oldest national repertory
company dating back to its institutionalization by King
Louis XIV in 1680, presented Moliere's comedy-ballet,
"Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme." Nine performances of the
French company played to an average evening audience of
2,733 persons.
The third premiere event was the importation, in
its entirety, of the triumphant London production of
Gilbert and Sullivan's "H.M.S. Pinafore." This production
originated as a royal performance at England's Stratford
Festival. Directed by Tyrone Guthrie, the operetta drew
121
a maximum response at the Greek Theatre. An overflow
average audience of 4,451 attended the production.
Popular name personalities made up the remainder
of the 1962 tenth anniversary season. In their second
appearances at the Greek Theatre since their premieres
in 1959, Maurice Chevalier and Danny Kaye drew large
audience responses. Seven performances by Chevalier
averaged 4,290 persons. Kaye's thirteen evenings brought
nightly turnouts of 4,398. Johnny Mathis' second engage
ment of seven concerts brought nearly the exact number of
people which had attended his first seven performances in
i960 -- 31,277 in i960, as compared to 31,271 in 1962.
Mathis' average audience numbered an overflow 4,467
persons. Nat "King" Cole, returned for his second
engagement in as many years. His ten concerts drew an
average attendance of 3,967. Another long-time favorite,
Victor Borge, repeated his comedy to music specialty for
4,289 persons for each of three evenings.
Until 1962, the Greek Theatre summer seasons had
not scheduled more than the 63 performances of 1957. In
1962, the season ran 75 performances to an average atten
dance of 3,964 persons for each night of the tenth
anniversary expanded schedule.
122
Ten-Year Inventory - The Greek
Theatre Association and
Doolittle
At the close of its tenth anniversary year at
the Los Angeles Greek Theatre, the Greek Theatre Associa
tion had accomplished a rejuvenation of a lost theatrical
tradition in Los Angeles, while at the same time it com
pelled a resurgence of the City's somnolent theatre
audience. More than 2,229,629 total audience made up of
local citizens and domestic and foreign visitors had
participated in the vitality of the civic Los Angeles
Greek Theatre which had, as one theatre commentator
put it, "the birds and the bees" as its principal occu
pants for about two decades after its construction.^
Due credit must be given to the Gene Mann enter
prise which first broke the torpid tradition of the
Greek Theatre through his 1946-51 seasons only to have
the civic theatre resume its aura of lassitude when this
musical comedy and operetta enterprise failed. Mann's
operation with its praiseworthy, though traditional,
offerings of standard light summer fare became a prologue
to a higher cultural aim which was to contest Los Angeles'
reputation as a locus of theatrical deprivation. James
A. Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Association broke with
the long-observed practice of light summer fare. A new
®3patterson Greene, "Greek Theatre 'Rises Again,'"
Los Angeles Examiner, June 24, 1956.
123
definition of "civic theatre" came about through a more
catholic program of theatre art at the Greek Theatre which
met the wide range of cultural tastes and standards across
the community. The industry and investment of Doolittle
and the Association in actively seeking out the world's
premiere theatre and dance companies, consummate artists
-- foreign and domestic — was matched by no other produc
ing organization in the United States. The concept of
"civic theatre" became enlarged through the Greek Theatre's
importation of great foreign national companies with the
derivative values of such inter-cultural exchange. The
advantages -- aesthetic and educational — of the civic
enterprise were enjoyed at considerable discount rates
by Los Angeles students and teachers, who were given as
much as two or three dollars off the price of a ticket.
The numbers of teachers and students who availed them
selves of the Greek Theatre programs can only be estimated,
but the California Teachers Association recorded that,
through the first eight years of the educational program,
tickets numbered more than 150,000. As many as 30,000
O h
attending during the season of 1963-
Doolittle once expressed the guiding philosophy
of the Greek Theatre Association as "not simply to provide
^Letter from the California Teachers Association—
Southern Section to Chairman, Recreation and Parks Com
mission, Leonard Shane, October 24, 19^3*
124
amusement for a given period each summer but to leave
within everyone who attends something of real and lasting
value.The almost evangelical tone of the statement
is supporting accompaniment to a practice which met its
preaching over the first ten years of production at the
Greek Theatre.
Just as the great foreign companies enhanced their
fame in our country by way of their art, so, too, the
Greek Theatre acquired an international reputation as a
showplace. By virtue of his nearly annual visits to
foreign countries, including Russia, for the purpose of
negotiating cultural contracts, Doolittle gained inter
national stature as an entrepreneur. One Los Angeles
theatre writer reported that, according to Theodore Kritas,
producer of the Greek Tragedy Theatre of Athens, it was
Kritas' confidence in Doolittle's ability which caused
him to accept an engagement at the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre. "If anyone can make a success of them in America,
it is James Doolittle," Kritas told the Los Angeles
critic.®^
Much of the reason for Kritas' remark is grounded
in Doolittle's personal attention to quality control, and
'Greek' Showing Way for Plays," Hollywood
Cltlzen-News, July 29, 19o3.
^Austin Conover, "Theatergoers Appreciate the
Best," Hollywood Citizen-News, September 6, 1961.
125
in his encompassing grasp and command of every detail of
the Greek Theatre operation. Possessed of prodigious
energy, Doolittle's fifteen-hour working days during
Greek Theatre seasons manifest his capacity for carrying
every facet of the operation in his head, and his personal
involvement in every aspect of it. Many recorded in
stances support his preoccupation with high standards of
presentation which he insists upon as suitable to the
Greek Theatre and its audiences. In 1961, the New York
City Ballet was scheduled to perform the "Nutcracker"
ballet for the fourth time dating back to the Greek
Theatre Association's second season of 195^-. A nationally-
known theatre columnist wrote that Doolittle ordered an
early arrival in Los Angeles for the entire New York City
Ballet Company in order to insure technical perfection
for the complicated work. This meant that four nights
of box-office revenue were sacrificed for the sake of
rehearsals. Lighting rehearsals can only be perfected
at night in the outdoor Greek Theatre, and the New York
company's engagement was scheduled at mid-season. The
writer quoted Doolittle:
The last time this company gave "The Nutcracker"
here, it was agreed that two days of preparation
were enough. But things went wrong, and the Greek
Theater had its first clumsy opening night. I want
to make sure that this first clumsy night will also
126
be Its last. A few thousand dollars in gate
receipts can't offset a bad impression.
A second feature article gave a droll account on
Doolittle's authority and particularity. It told how a
Doolittle telephone conversation with Katherine Dunham
caused an "electrical" transformation in below-standard
performances of the great dancer's troupe. In a further
witty account, the same article recounted an occasion
when prima ballerina Tanaquil LeClerq was wasting rehearsal
time with a dance parody which wildly amused the rest of
the New York City Ballet Company including, perhaps, her
husband, George Balanchine, the company's artistic direc
tor. Making an uncharacteristic mid-day appearance at
the theatre and an entrance on the stage, Doolittle "froze
the company" with a few remarks which restored the com
pany's working attitude and insured performances of its
88
customary brilliance.
Doolittle's remonstrations in these instances
leaned heavily on his own respectful inclinations and re
sponsibilities toward his Los Angeles audiences. He pro
vides early and frequent pronouncements counter to the
negative opinions on Los Angeles audiences which prevailed
in theatre circles at the time he entered his Greek
®7patterson Greene, "Doolittle Provides Stage Con
science," Los Angeles Examiner, June 18, 1961.
go
°"Miniature Bowl, Giant Impresario," Los Angeles
Canyon Crier, June 21, 1956.
127
Theatre phase -- during the era when Los Angeles was in a
theatre doldrum. He believes the theatre decline in Los
Angeles, dating back to the nineteen-forties and early
fifties, stemmed from shoddy production, makeshift manage
ment, and the depressing quality of the road-show products
which played Los A n g e l e s . The following statement of
Doolittle's typifies his many expressions of fealty to
his home-town theatre audience and must partially explain
the requiting throngs which have responded to his cultural
choices. In the vein that the Los Angeles audience is
"the most discriminating in the country,"9° Doolittle
observed:
Many people have said that Los Angeles is one
of the poorest theatre towns in the world. I
absolutely do not agree. There are so many people
here who in one way or another make their living
from entertainment that it's a very sophisticated
audience. Therefore, a bad show doesn't last two
performances, but the success of a good show is
unlimited.91
Based on its first ten-years of achievement, the
Greek Theatre Association kept its high promise to seek
out the best available theatre for the Los Angeles civic
theatre and its citizenry. Consistent with this purpose,
®9cecil Smith, "Doolittle: Slings, Arrows,
Achievements," Los Angeles Times, Calendar section,
November 28, 1965-
9°Smith, "'Five Fingers' New Laurel for Biltmore,"
Los Angeles Times, Calendar section, February 19* 1961.
^Marienthal, loc. cit.
128
programming costs were placed secondary to the derivative
cultural values of desired presentations. The ruling
policy became one in which every effort was made to bring
to the Greek Theatre events which "Los Angeles should
see,"9^ regardless of negative economic potential. In
one of his many statements of this policy, Doolittle said:
We know some of the things we present are
going to lose money -- even a lot of it --
beforehand, but we'll bring them here or produce
them ourselves if we feel they're important.93
As an example of this production philosophy,
Doolittle cited the 1958 presentation of "La Perichole"
with Cyril Ritchard, which he pre-figured to run at a
deficit of $30,000. The interview source of this report
added that, "incidentally, it lost more than that,"9^ and,
elsewhere, Doolittle named a loss-figure of $50,000.^5
In a later interview which looked toward the
eleventh season of 1963* Doolittle offered an example of
the impending production of the opera, "Madame Butterfly."
For a three-performance run, cost estimates approximated
$85,000. At sold-out houses, the highest possible box-
92Smith, "Doolittle Giving Biltmore Lift," Los
Angeles Times Entertainment Section, Sunday, March 29,
1959.
9^Geoff Miller, "The Practical Impresario," Los
Angeles & Southern California Prompter, Vol. 2, No. 4,
May 1961, P* 40.
9^Smith, loc. cit.
^Miller, loc. cit.
129
office revenues which could result amounted to under
$50,000.9^ This engagement in 1963 actually realized
$49,680 from its overflow audiences which represented
three of the largest audiences in Greek Theatre Associa
tion history -- an average, nightly, of 4,464 persons.
It would be an incomplete portrait of Doolittle
that composed him as some rarefied theatrical visionary
without stressing his practical business sense and show
manship. Written accounts of Doolittle universally
celebrate his consummate embrace of all the requirements
of a theatre producer. One feature writer, alluding to
Doolittle's impressive physical dimensions -- 6' 3" tall
by some 230 pounds figuratively looming over the entire
Greek Theatre operation, described his duality as en
joined in "a man who has the artist's shy naivete, and a
97
fur trader's knowledge of barter." Another account
which seconded this perspective of Doolittle said:
Yet the imposing figure of Doolittle the patron
of the arts fails to obscure the acute business
acumen of Doolittle, the complete showman. He is
referred to in theatrical circles as "The Greek,"
as much in deference to his shrewd gambling sense, ~
apparently, as to the association for which he works.^
^Smith, "The Greek Theater — Its Miracle and Its
Turmoil," Los Angeles Times, Calendar section, June 30,
1963.
9?La Dessa Gibson Boylan, "The Greeks Have a Word
for It," Social Service Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, Summer,
1958, p. 31.
98Miller, loc. cit.
130
It is self-evident that the demands of theatre
do not subsidize or perpetuate producers who lack these
rounded character elements. It is further observable that
these practical qualities of Doolittle's have been advan
tageously levered against his program policy at the Greek
Theatre. Featuring an admixture of distinguished cultural
events and pre-sold popular artists, he struck a balance
which enabled him to underwrite the costs of cultural
triumphs with the remuneration from popular shows. How
ever, no fair appraisal of the first ten years of Greek
Theatre Association history could conclude that a safety-
first profit consciousness dictated in favor of popular
presentation at the expense of the more unusual theatrical
event.
When the Biltmore Theatre was added to the roster
of the Greek Theatre Association production responsibili
ties in 1959j Doolittle took on the logistics of arranging
continuous theatre seasons. The processes of negotiation
became multiplied by the necessities of programming one
theatre while another theatre's playing season was
actively in progress. As the nerve-center of the entire
Greek Theatre Association operation, Doolittle was the
ubiquitous "god-of-the-machine." He sought the properties
and productions, scheduled them, negotiated each contract,
and was overseer of every aspect of the finished products.
One feature article on the subject of Doolittle observed
131
his total engrossment and control of operations, and
unequivocally termed the Greek Theatre operation a "one-
man s h o w ."99 a second article in the national Theatre
Arts magazine assayed Doolittle's comprehensive powers
and dramatized his "proselytical zeal" which is manifested,
according to the writer, from "black eyes in which the
fire of almost fanatical enthusiasm rarely dims."100
This latter article, in its comment on Doolittle's energy
and focus, said:
He drives assistants to the point of exhaus
tion, but works harder than any of them. He keeps
an eye on everything: backstage crews, performers,
ushering staffs, box offices — even the parking m
losts. "A theatre," he vows, "should be personal."
Perhaps the most singular evaluation of Doolittle
and his Greek Theatre career came from an unknown associate
of his as quoted in one article of a 1963 feature series
on the Greek Theatre in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.
He probably has the most profound education
in practical theater in the world. His whole life
is completely dedicated to the theater, and he's
probably the only man who could have taken the
theater under the cloud that existed in 1952 and
try to build something.102
99]3oylan, loc. cit.
100Greene, "The Gift-Bearing Greeks," Theatre Arts,
Vol. XLII, No. 7, July, 1958, p. 67.
101 Ibid.
102Giles Wright, "Greek Theater Prestige Hit by
Row Over Audit," Los Angeles Herald Examiner, January 15,
1963.
132
A fair assessment of his virtuosity and cumulative
reputation, acquired through the ten-year renaissance of
the Los Angeles Greek Theatre, finds Doolittle as the
"star" of Los Angeles theatre production. Doolittle
absorbed, defined, and identified the Greek Theatre
Association into his own public personna. He often indi
cated that he cast his own self-image after such autono
mous past rulers of theatrical production as Max Reinhardt,
103
Ziegfeld and Morris Gest. It requires small extension
to confer on Doolittle the qualities of ego and arbi
trariness which adhere to one of his driving force and
position. However, these qualities -- frequently noted in
published accounts of Doolittle -- are almost universally
the necessary attributes of the "doer." Without them, it
is dubious that Doolittle's customary swim against the
tide of expert opinion could have realized a success at
the Greek Theatre upward of the most extravagant hopes of
the most optimistic. Although he propagandized grandi
loquently, Doolittle eclipsed his pronouncements by his
deeds.
It is inevitable that the path of such an executive
office as Doolittle's should not lie untrammeled by dis
harmonious relationships. Doolittle detractors are
numerous. Two leading Los Angeles theatre writers, while
10%arienthal, loc. cit.
133
lauding Doolittle's achievements, developed an exact
parallel in prefacing paragraphs which set forth Doo
little's controversial nature. Ray Duncan in Los Angeles
magazine, while referring to Doolittle as the "most con
troversial man by far in the Southern California theatre
scene,"10^ said further:
His detractors begin their attacks by admitting
his many achievements and merits, while his support
ers begin their praises with, "You can say what you
like against Jimmy, but . . . "105
Almost identically, Cecil Smith of the Los
Angeles Times said in the lead of his article:
Doolittle detractors could fill his Huntington
Hartford and possibly spill over into his Greek
Theater. Former associates murmur with a sigh:
"Don't get me started on Jimmy." Too many tales
exist of the difficulties of working with him to
disbelieve them all.l°6
Smith's parting sentence alluded to common reports
that some of the entrepreneur's former associates and
staff members are not Doolittle's outspoken admirers. It
is easily conceived that the personal rhythms of all
individuals who have been associated with Doolittle have
not always matched his own aggressive and dedicated tempo.
When confronted by questions in reference to these
-^^Ray Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," Ix>s
Angeles magazine, Vol. II, No. 6, June 1966, p.
1Q5lbld.
1 a /T
Smith, "Doolittle, Slings, Arrows, Achievements,'
Los Angeles Times, Calendar section, November 28, 1965.
134
ruptured past associations, Doolittle is succinct.
"I’m running a theatre here, not an Academy, not a tea-
party. "107 When he has addressed himself to accusations
that he is a "slave driver,"10® Doolittle, in effect,
delivers his own manifesto:
The theatre is not a nine to five proposition.
It demands the best the individual can give, and
all that he can give. You can always improve what
ever you're doing. The theatre changes from
matinee to evening performance. It’s not like
finishing a motion picture or a painting. For the
last 25 or 30 years, I have thought of little else
than the theatre, what shows to produce, how to
finance and sell them, all phases of it. It’s an
endless job but the most stimulating activity I
know. I’m very difficult with most of those assoc
iated with me and the words ’slave driver’ do apply.
It’s the only way I know of to eliminate those who
are not dedicated to our operation.109
"I live the theater 24 hours a day,"110 he told
another interviewer.
Conversely, Doolittle has paid extravagant tribute
to his long-term staff, calling it the most competent
theatre staff in the world. When he reflects back on the
aura of excitement and purpose of the first ten building
years of the civic Greek Theatre program, Doolittle speaks
of an esprit which was shared by all who gave their
10^Duncan, loc. cit.
108
Marienthal, op. cit., p. 15.
109Ibid.
110Mike Jackson, "Proper Title," Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, August 5, 1966.
135
efforts to the civic enterprise. He notes, especially,
the young students who worked at the Greek Theatre during
their summer vacations and who literally grew up in an
atmosphere of worthwhile endeavorIn this vein,
Doolittle speaks of the Greek Theatre in a context removed
from his infinite involvement in production logistics
and other practicalities. From the following may be
extracted the high feeling of confidence and accomplish
ment which permeated at the close of the Greek Theatre
Association's tenth anniversary at the civic theatre.
Doolittle said in part:
Such a theater has an ethereal quality. It
embodies faith and respect, which must be built
over years in dealing with the public and artists.
Tradition and the theater are synonymous.112
The years 1953 through 1962 witnessed the importation of
many of the world's outstanding theatre, dance, and opera
companies. Productions of opera had originated at the
Greek Theatre, and full-length ballets had been created
there. These dance creations supplemented the repertoire
of ballet for presentation on other stages of the world
theatre. Left unaccomplished were the often-stated
ambitions for the establishment of performing academies
at the Greek Theatre from which repertory dance and opera
companies would be forthcoming. Los Angeles as a
111Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 24, 1969.
112Wright, loc. cit.
136
creative producing center was the ultimate aim of
Doolittle.
The achievement of the Greek Theatre's first ten
years under the Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association
encouraged the promise that still greater projects would
be delivered.
CHAPTER IV
THE POLITICAL-FINANCIAL MATRIX OF THE CIVIC
LOS ANGELES GREEK THEATRE: 1952-1963
As the Los Angeles Greek Theatre entered the
decade of the 1960*s it was a proven quantity — a peer
of the Hollywood Bowl and the Los Angeles Civic Light
Opera Company in the Los Angeles theatre establishment.
It is essential to recognize the dual nature of the Greek
Theatre as a professional theatre which also retains the
character of a political entity. Thus, a lesee-producer
at a civic theatre confronts not only the challenges of
theatrical success but also the incumbencies of maintaining
favor with governmental directors. That the Greek Theatre
Association had met the tests of theatrical performance
through the years 1953-62 was a fact of history. As a
contracted concessionaire to the City, the Greek Theatre
Association had greatly exceeded its minimum financial
obligations. It is its business relationship to the
Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks which forms
the connective tissue of the partnership between the non
137
138
profit theatre group and City government. A presentation
of the business realities of this financial adhesion pro
vides the context of the Greek Theatre Association's poli
tical life and the framework of disciplines within which
it operates.
The Lease
The basic financial terms between the City Recrea
tion and Parks Department and lessees at the Greek Theatre
has always been that the contractee guarantees a certain
rental sum, or 5$ of his gross receipts, whichever is
higher. This was true of the Gene Mann operation for which
the rental guarantee was $1,600 per week, and the Los
Angeles Greek Theatre Association, whose rental minimum in
1953 was $15,000 for the season. Because of increased
attendance, both of these operations exceeded in each year
the minimum rental figure and, until Mann's foreclosure
in 1951, each returned greater rental sums to the City
from the 5$ of their gross receipts. The single excep
tion to the percentage pattern occurred for Doolittle's
short-season of 1952 which was carried on under his own
independent banner. It will be remembered that the Mann
operation was defunct, the Greek Theatre had no prospects,
and it is safe to conjecture that Doolittle's bid for the
theatre was taken by the City with alacrity, and some
relief. For all practical purposes, the 1952 short-season
139
lease to Doolittle was an alliance of opportunity on the
City's part* and the season rental to Doolittle was a
set $1,000 for the ten performances.1
The lease agreement between the City and the Greek
Theatre Association is best understood in terms of a
typical landlord-tenant relationship. As landlord, the
City lets the property, as is, and maintains it. As
tenant, the Greek Theatre Association bears all the expen
ses of its theatre production -- its staff, and the cost
of every aspect of production and promotion. The Associa
tion also benefits by its permitted year-round use of
office space at the Theatre for no rental fee during the
off-season.
In the contract, the City supplies . . . "the
Greek Theatre, as it is presently equipped and furnished,
and water, lights, janitor, maintenance and repair
service."2 These represent the City's operating expenses
at the Greek Theatre, and are maintained year-round. The
Greek Theatre Association receives full use of the
facilities and derives its main revenues from ticket sales
and supplementary income from concessions. The long-stand
ing agreement on concession revenues also returns a 10$
•^Giles E. Wright, "Culture at Crossroads?" Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, Sunday, January 13* 1963, P. A-3.
2lease and agreement between the city OP LOS
ANGELES AND THE GREEK THEATRE ASSOCIATION.
l4o
across-the-board cut of concession receipts to the City,
and reads as follows:
The Lessee shall also have the right to operate
concessions for the sale of cushions, soft drinks,
candy, tobacco, sandwiches and the like, or may
grant such concession rights and will pay to the
Lessor ten percent (10$) of the gross receipts
resulting from the operation of said concessions.3
Doolittle's original lease in 1952 allowed him two
additional years of option which he exercised through the
successful 1953 and 195^- summers as general director of
the Greek Theatre Association. An important factor of
the City-Greek Theatre contract was that the contracted
party on the theatre side was an individual -- James A.
Doolittle. Even though Doolittle was a salaried employee
of the Greek Theatre Association since its formation in
1953> his name, appeared on the contracts for a full ten
years. When the City first contracted with Doolittle in
1952, its intention was to avoid the error which resulted
in forfeiture of revenues following the bankruptcy of the
prior tenant, Gene Mann. At the time of the 1951 bankrupt
cy of the company for which Mann was general director --
Greek Theatre Productions, Inc., -- no one was accountable
for unpaid monies due the City since the contract was in a
corporate name. As a consequence, the City contracts with
Doolittle through 1963 technically held him individually
3LEASE AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES AND JAMES A. DOOLITTLE.
l4l
responsible for any debts incurred by the Greek Theatre
operation. This technicality became a controversial
matter in the 1926-63 disruptions between the Greek Theatre
Association and the Department of Recreation and Parks.
The first three-year lease expired at the end of
the 1954 season. It was renewed for another three years
through the year 1957 by a unanimous vote of the Department
of Recreation and Park Board of Commissioners on
December 2, 1954. The letter of renewal signed by Ruth
Knight, secretary to the Board of Commissioners, is note
worthy for its spirit of commendation to Doolittle. The
letter is also pertinent to the prevailing contract policy
toward the Greek Theatre Association. Paragraphs two and
three of the letter read:
The Board regrets that it is unable, under the
authority granted it by the City Charter, to extend
this lease for a period longer than three years.
The City Charter provides In Section 39^* tha: E"~no
department of the city government may make any con
tract for a period of time longer than three years.
It is the expressed intention of the Board, however,
to extend your lease an additional year at the con
clusion of each season subject of course to the
continuation of the high standard of public enter
tainment which you have brought to the citizens of
Los Angeles at the Greek Theatre throughout the
three years of your tenancy heretofore.4 (my emphasis)
The letter closes as follows:
Letter from Ruth Knight, Secretary to the Los
Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Board of Com
missioners, addressed to James A. Doolittle, December 2,
1954.
142
i The Board wishes me to express appreciation
i for the splendid program which you have developed
and its best wishes for continued success in our ;
mutual endeavor. You may be assured of our full ;
cooperation.5
The three-year lease span has been a sensitive j
; I
area of confrontation between the Greek Theatre Associa- i
tion and the Recreation and Park Commissioners. Doolittle ■
I wanted to extend it further and was making overtures for
! a long-term contract as early as 1954. By 1958 his
I
! requests for a contract, preferably for ten years, were
frequently appealed to the Recreation and Parks Commis- j
' sion.^ The intention behind his continuing request was i
I I
the permanency and security that a long contract gives }
to a theatre operation. Mainly, it provides insurance ■
I
; for attractions which may need to be negotiated over five
I
| or six-year time spans. In the case of the Grand Kabuki
!
i presentation in i960, Doolittle said that he worked for
1 •
I six years to bring about that company's visit to Los
i Angeles."^ The same sense of permanency would, according
to Doolittle and the Association’s frequently stated
I ambition, allow them to establish performing arts schools
i
iand resident dance and opera companies at the Greek
i
I Theatre. The long-range contracts have never come about.
5Ibid.
^"Greek Theatre Lease Under Study," Los Angeles
Times, Sunday, October 12, 1958.
"^Interview, James A. Doolittle, March 26, 19^9•
143
i On the City's side of the issue the letter above makes
it clear that departmental commissions are restricted by
City Charter from granting contracts longer than three- ;
years to concessionaires. The practical ramifications of j
I
this policy were articulated by John Ward of the Depart- j
ment of Recreation and Parks administrative office. Ward 1
! cited a rule-of-thumb that too much security from contract i
|
i renewal can lead to a relaxation of standards on the part
1 of a lessee who has the luxury of many years of operation !
i
g
with pressures of renewal off in the distant future.
i Long-range contracts also entail a lessening of control on
I
the lessor's part, If the Greek Theatre Association were
to receive a contract longer than three years in advance,
j j
: by virtue of City Charter Section 390, control of the |
I Greek Theatre would automatically pass out of the domain
I
i of the Department of Recreation and Parks. The factors
j of the Department's loss of control over the theatre as
I well as automatic relinquishment of some Departmental
i
power have militated against a long-range contract.
i
I
I Financial Operation of the Greek
j Theatre 1953 Through 19^3
I
j The City of Los Angeles derives all but a small
part of its Greek Theatre revenue from its tenant, the
j Greek Theatre Association. Peripheral uses of the civic
O
°Interview, John Ward, Administrator, Los Angeles
Department of Recreation and Parks, Winter, 19^9•
; 144
i theatre for infrequent graduation ceremonies and the like
j
furnish very little revenue. Upkeep and maintenance are
! year-round operations for the City, notwithstanding the
fact that the theatre is seldom used between October and |
; July. The year-round factor also applies to the Greek \
Theatre Association. Its administrative and office staff '
| use the Greek Theatre offices during the winter months.
I The figures used in the following description are mainly
| applicable to the year-round operation at the Greek Theatre
on the parts of both the City and the Greek Theatre
i
j Association. This portion of the study will present the
I
costs of the Greek Theatre operation on the parts of the J
; lessor and the lessee through the years 1953-1962. These j
: l
: provide the background for various attitudes which have !
i been taken toward the Greek Theatre, and for the major
|
| political dispute of 1962-63.
1
i The City operating expenses at the Greek Theatre
reflect the Department of Recreation and Parks1 expenses
for year-round maintenance. This includes items such as
i maintenance salaries, supplies, insecticides, electricity,
i
j repairs and replacements, fertilizer, fuel and gas, etc.
1
! Maintenance salaries represent from 80 to 85$ of the
operational funds.
From a financial viewpoint, the most critical
figure for the City is the one which describes whether
the Greek Theatre operates at either a yearly profit or
145
loss. The answer to this results mainly from balancing
the City's yearly operating expenses for maintenance
I
against its yearly revenue from the Greek Theatre Associa-
; tion. The Association revenue is based on 5^-of- |
receipts and 10$ of concession (food, soft drink, etc.) I
I
income. !
t
! The following figures presented in Table 1
!
I originate with the accounting records of the Los Angeles
| Department of Recreation and Parks. These figures
received wide circulation in published accounts of a |
1 i
report by the Recreation and Parks Department General i
j
Manager William Fredrickson, Jr. A copy of this report -- j
; dated and submitted to the Department Commissioners on j
j
: December 6, 1962 — forms the official source, verified
! by accounting records, for a 10-year synthesis of the
I
i Greek Theatre operation as recorded by the City.
I
I Inexplicably, the financial figures are contradic-
j tory in two instances. In one section of his report,
: Fredrickson gave the City's total yearly incomes from
I the Greek Theatre. These would include some minor
i
!
I revenues in addition to its revenue derived from the
1
I q
j Greek Theatre Association.^ Yet, where the report lists
the Association revenues alone in the two fiscal years
^William Fredrickson, Jr., General Manager, De
partment of Recreation and Parks Special Report on the
Greek Theatre Operation, submitted to the Board of Commis
sioners, December b, 19o2, Exhibit B.
TABLE 1
City Profit or Loss from the Greek 'Hieatre Operation - Based on City Operating
Expenses Versus All Revenues Including Greek Theatre Association Revenues from
Box-Office Receipts and Concession Returns - Years 1952 Through Fiscal Year 1962
Fiscal Year City Operating
Expenses, Main
tenance, etc.
Greek Theatre
Association
Revenues to
City
Total Yearly
Greek Theatre
Revenue to
City
Yearly
Operating
Result
1952-53
$ 17,264
$ 3,339* $13,925
1953-54 21,440
$ 17,290 20,894 -546
1954-55
25,362 22,210 25,896 534
1955-56 25,298
23,579
26,848 1,550
1956-57
30,508
28,073 26,030+(2,043) -2,435
1957-58 49,468
38,171
39,108 -10,360
1958-59
36,881
39,951
40,934
4,053
1959-60
28,889 38,849 38,958 10,069
1960-61 46,592 34,615 36,905 -9,687
1961-62 46,609
41,133
39,047+(2,086) -5,476
Totals
$328,311 $283,871 $297,959+(4,129)-$26,223
TABLE 1--Continued
Ten-Year
Computations
Total City Operating Expenses
$328,311
Total Greek Theatre Association
Revenue
283,871
Total City Revenue from Greek Theatre 302,088
Total Corrected City Operating
Result 1952-62
-$ 26,223
*Includes returns from Doolittle's 1952 short-season.
H i
4^ I
—J ;
j
I
i
148
1956-57 and 1961-62 the Greek Theatre Association's
return is higher than all revenues for those years.10
Table 1 presents a total operational account which
, includes the corrected figures. Table 1 shows that during
the Association's first ten years, the City lost money
on its yearly upkeep of the Greek Theatre despite healthy
| returns to the City from the Greek Theatre Association's
! summer seasons.
1 The net corrected operating result for the City,
balanced against monies received from its main tenant
plus peripheral revenues, shows a final deficit of
|
$26,223 through the years 1952-62. This would count
ten payments by James A. Doolittle (1952) and the Greek
Theatre Association (1953-62).
| The City report on Greek Theatre operations lists
i
; further expenditures for unspecified equipment during the
j five consecutive years 1953-1958 inclusive.11 These
I additional City expenses for equipment are:
' 1953-54 $ 7,538
i 1954-55 3,654
| 1955-56 3,999
1956-57 114
1957-58 4,866
$20,171
1QIbid., p. 3.
i:LIbid.. Exhibit B.
149
These additional expenses brought Los Angeles'
City costs up to $46,394 over the ten-year span for
maintenance of the Greek Theatre In the face of large j
revenues received from theatre production. Compensation !
to the City from peripheral uses of the Greek Theatre !
represented an insignificant part of this operational *
' amount -- $14,028 divided over ten years. j
I I
i Capital Improvements j
The City of Los Angeles made major capital im-
1 provements to the Greek Theatre during the decade 1952
I
| to 1962. Refurbishments to the Los Angeles Greek Theatre I
followed the recognized needs on the parts of its produc-
J ers and City commissioners to adapt the playhouse for
: the presentation of up-to-date theatre forms.
!
i Two major refurbishments to the Greek Theatre
| were undertaken during the Association's first decade of
j tenure -- the 1957 enhancement of stage, roof and
i proscenium -- and the 1959-61 construction of the business j
i and administrative office complex. The limited capabilit-
!
| ies of the Greek Theatre's original uncovered stage were
j
j remedied after the 1947 season of the Gene Mann operation.
j
Scarcely ten years later, after using the facility for
five seasons, the Greek Theatre Association sought general
improvements for the stage area. City cooperation pro
vided a more satisfactory working stage and a better
; 150
■ looking stage cover and proscenium. Plate IV shows that
the 1947 stage roof was a somewhat crude super-imposition
which did little to complement either the theatre’s !
architectural style or its setting. j
| 1
The excellent office facility, which was built i
during 1959-61, included in its general refurbishment
j plan a face-lift of the theatre's Vermont Avenue facade, j
i 1
1 and new ticket-booths and concession stands. Formerly, |
the business and administrative offices had been adapted '
from available space in the basement of the Greek Theatre. J
; For certain items of improvement in the administrative I
12 '
offices, Doolittle contributed $5,000 of his own money.
In the fiscal year 1960-61, the Department of
: Recreation and Parks, on its own initiative, improved the |
1 Greek Theatre's basement fire exits at an approximate
i
| cost of $12,296. Fredrickson's report specifies that this
| measure had nothing to do with the Greek Theatre Associa-
I tion operation.^
1 |
One added City expenditure for the year 1961 was
I a $7»951 land improvement cost.1^
The year 1961 marks the cut-off point of major
expenditures to improve and modernize the entire Greek
12Ibid., p. 4.
13Ibid., Exhibit B.
li[Ibid.
151
1 Theatre facility. By using all the municipal figures for
the Greek Theatre operating and equipment expenses,
capital and land improvements, a probable comprehensive
total of the City's over-all investment in its Greek !
■
Theatre can be reckoned. Table 2 shows that, after j
nine seasons of Greek Theatre Association-City collabora-
' tion, Los Angeles' total costs for its enhanced real
I
! property amounted to $347,0 2 1 .^ j
i _
The costs history for the decade 1952-61 indicates
the improbability that the City of Los Angeles can operate J
its Greek Theatre at a profit or, more accurately, I
| j
without a loss. This imbalance is not so striking in j
i
i light of the brief time during the year in which the I
: i
Greek Theatre can operate. Seldom is there a paying !
| season of more than ten weeks in any year. Throughout
j the ten seasons 1952-61 of the Greek Theatre operation,
; the theatre was enjoying great success and a maximum
j
! revenue. If, for example, a theatrical tenant had paid
i
back to the City a minimum rental return based on $15,000
i per year, the total City operational expense of the Greek
j
Theatre would be approximately five times greater than the
i actual ten-year operational expense sum of $26,223.
Figured on this basis, rental and concession revenues from
the Greek Theatre Association, based on its percentage
■^capital Improvement figures derive from
Fredrickson's Special Report, Exhibit A.
152
TABLE 2
Major City Expenditures - Greek Theatre
Statement of Capital Improvements
First 10 seasons of Doolittle-Greek Theatre Association
Contract 1952-1961 - City Statements
Fiscal
Year Expenditures Description
1956-57
$117,468 remodeled entire stage,
raised proscenium arch;
pulled stage forward; in
stalled aluminum door
across front; installed
stage floor
1957-58 1,074 various force account
charges to supplement
above work which was due
on contract
1959-61 161,838 construct ticket office;
concession stands;
theatre general adminis
trative offices; relocate
stairway
1960-61 12,296 improvement of fire exits
in theatre basement
Grand Total
Capital Improve
ments 1952-1961 $292,676
153
TABLE 2--continued
Total Costs of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre to
City of Los Angeles 1952 - 1961
Capital Improvements (1956-57)* (1959-61),
(1960-61) $292,676
Land Improvement Cost (1961)
7,951
Net Greek Theatre Operating Costs
(Fig. 1) 26,223
Equipment Costs
20,171
Total City Costs 1952-61 $3^7,021
154
i agreements, exceeded by $133*871 its obligatory minimum
of $150,000 for those ten years.
The extensive capital improvements to the Los ;
Angeles Greek Theatre represent the City's investment in !
! i
1 its own real property, of permanent benefit, prodded by
1
the need to keep the Greek Theatre competitive and capable 1
! of housing a viable theatre program. j
i I
1 |
! The Greek Theatre Association Statement 1
' of Operations 1953-1952 j
The statement of the Greek Theatre Association's
operations gives an account of the Association's expenses
j
for operating the Greek Theatre over its first ten years
j there from 1953 through 1962. The non-profit Association
| was created within the year that Doolittle gave his 1952 |
j
i summer season of ten performance evenings. Therefore,
the Greek Theatre Association records begin with the year
1953- Since Doolittle's 1952 short-season was a venture
personally undertaken by him prior to his incorporation
1
into the non-profit company, his figures for 1952 are
i not included in Association accounts. The following
| breakdown of the Greek Theatre Association's financial
j record at the Greek Theatre shows the Association's
expenses, and its profits or losses from the production
operation.
This financial record (Table 3) gives the season
or yearly money totals under main categories such as
TABLE 3
Greek Theatre Statement of Operations (1953 to 1962 inclusive)
1962 1961 i960
1959
1958
1957
Total Audience
Number of Performan
ces
297,283
75
256,511
60
203,298
59
222,091
54
225,575
60
238,699
63
1. Box-Office
Receipts
2. Miscellaneous
Revenue
3. Total Revenues
932,281
16,098
948,379
819,360
14,825
834,185
594,222
11,120
605,342
685,103
21,624
706,727
710,848
7,196
718,044
681,502
7,246
688,748
Expenses
4. Production Costs
5. Theatre Opera
tions
6. Rent
7. Ticket Department
8. Publicity-Pro-
motion
9. Administrative
10. Total Expenses
11. Net Gain or Loss
625,401
19,497
46,820
34,810
138,274
98,278
963,080
-14,701
502,576
17,794
41,133
35,895
97,213
74,909
769,520
64,665
425,624
24,085
29,873
28,978
102,549
66,111
677,220
-71,878
461,636
11,161
34,404
22,782
95,277
76,799
702,059
4,668
440,769
13,430
35,844
21,634
83,384
81,030
676,091
41,953
449,909
12,964
33,933
23,574
62,962
62,597
645,939
42,809
VJ1
TABLE 3--continued
1956 1955 1954 1953
Total Audiences
Number of Performances
217,486
59
188,499
54
201,847
61
178,330
53
1. Box-Office Receipts
2. Miscellaneous Revenue
3. Total Revenues
540,742
5,685
546,427
411,264
5,239
416,503
386,822
4,500
391,322
345.759
345.759
Expenses
4. Production Costs
5. Theatre Operations
6. Rent
7. Ticket Department
8. Publicity-Promotion
9. Administrative
10. Total Expenses
11. Net Gain or Loss
339,586
11,678
24,714
20,634
48,868
45,864
491,344
55,083
284,743
8,895
20,682
14,261
50,000
31,813
410,394
6,109
283,402
9,033
19,210
13,465
48,155
31,104
404,369
-13,047
249,409
7,439
15,000
13,103
51,495
18,479
354,925
-9,166
12. Years of Gain
13. Years of Loss
14. Total Gains
1955-56-57-58-59-61
1953-54-60-62
215,287
108,792
106,495
UI
157
"Productions" and "Theatre Operations." Many sub-items
of expense contribute to the result figure under, for
example, a main heading of "Theatre Operations." There
fore, the figure listed in Table 3 under this category
includes season totals for several operational elements |
j
such as ushers, parking attendants, maintenance, supplies,
• and others. Table 3* then, Also represents the Associa-
1 tion's yearly fiscal report at the Greek Theatre -- not
t
to be considered as any part of the Association's other
theatrical ventures at the Biltmore Theatre (1959-64) and
Huntington Hartford Theatre (1964-). j
; ! i
16 !
Items of Account |
The main financial categories in Table 3 count the j
: following sub-items of expense in their yearly sums.
|
I 1. BOX-OFFICE RECEIPTS - Season Totals
| 2. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES - Concessions (food,
| beverage, opera glasses, cushions, etc.)
I
i 3. TOTAL REVENUES - (sum of 1 and 2)
| 4. PRODUCTION COSTS - (sum of sub-items A and B
| below)
j
j A. Attractions - season total costs of star
i
i performers and performing companies
B. Supplementary Performance Costs - season
totals for the following sub-items:
Greek Theatre, Revenue and Expense Statements by
Harry Strohmer, Accountant, Greek Theatre Association.
158
(1)
Orchestra
(9)
Rentals
(2)
Music (10) Lighting
(3)
Transportation
(11)
Hauling
(*0
Production Staff (12) Supplies
(5)
Stage Hands
(13)
Payroll Taxes
(6)
Wardrobe (14) Union Tax
(7)
Property
(15)
Sound
(8)
Scenery (16) Royalties
THEATRE OPERATIONS include season totals of
all the listed sub-items below:
(1) Ushers j
(2) Parking (payment to attendants; no parking j
charge to Greek Theatre-goers) |
|
(3) Payroll Tax
(4) Maintenance
(5) Supplies
(6) Union Tax
(7) Insurance
6. RENT - 5$ of net box-office receipts after
ticket agency commissions -- plus 10$ of con
cession revenues
7. TICKET DEPARTMENT
8. PUBLICITY & PROMOTION
9. ADMINISTRATIVE - salaries of James A.
Doolittle and permanent staff of the Greek
Theatre Association (librarian, accountant,
; 159
secretaries)
10. TOTAL EXPENSES - sum of all categories
11. NET GAIN OR (LOSS) TO THE GREEK THEATRE
ASSOCIATION |
!
! It will be noticed that the Greek Theatre Associa- ;
1 j
tion statements of yearly rentals (Table 3) are conserva-
I
I tive when compared to the amounts given by the Recreation j
I I
i i
j and Parks Department (Table 1). Since the figures cited |
| in this research are official source figures from each ]
agency, the two statements of costs are presented inde-
i pendently with no attempt to reconcile the separate rental j
declarations. The amounts involved do not alter the j
; larger financial realities which relate to the Greek j
; i
; Theatre. 1
|
j The ten-season statement (Table 3) of the Greek
i
j Theatre Association production and theatre operation shows
!
! that the four seasons 1953* 1954, i960 and 1962 were
!
| deficit years. Countering those years of loss, the six
1
I seasons 1955* 1956* 1957* 1958* 1959 and 1961 were profit-
I able. Over the ten years 1953 through 1962, the Los
i
j Angeles Greek Theatre'Association's theatre program
! gained for it a net amount of $106,495 at the Greek
Theatre. This figure represents the Association's theo
retical production capital available to the Greek Theatre
as it entered its eleventh season in 1963* Profit
balances from the Association's successful Biltmore
l6o
i Theatre operation, irrelevant to Greek Theatre monies,
would be incremental to this account, and, together with
; the sum given here, would represent the Association's
: total financial resources at that time.
I
Los Angeles' County and City-
Cultural Subsidy Program
| Los Angeles County and City governments are
! separate and autonomous administrative bodies. Each of
; these elected administrations -- the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council--
provide subsidies to a wide spectrum of non-profit cul-
!
tural and community projects. Large amounts of money,
| City and County, are spread yearly over as many as thirty
■ to forty projects which serve the greater Los Angeles
I community in some cultural or promotional endeavor. Under
I
I
j this County and City grant program, sustaining organiza-
! tions such as the Hollywood Bowl, the Los Angeles Phil-
i
I
| harmonic Orchestra and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre have
i
; received yearly stipends to prime their cultural operations
j The various kinds of organizations which come under these
|
funds includes Elks conventions and local celebrations
such as the Venice Surf Festival. At times the Surf
Festival received $3*000 as encouragement from Los
Angeles City. The City gave $10,000 to a Fisherman's
Fiesta in some years. Since many projects combine as an
enhancement to City and County alike -- considered as
; l6l
contributing to the image of Greater Los Angeles -- these
more comprehensive organizations receive endowments from
1
both governing bodies. Los Angeles County, by reason of !
its more inclusive territorial jurisdiction, is by far j
; the larger contributor to cultural endeavors. j
A good example of the cross-over of subsidies lies <
1 in the subsidies given to two of the nation's major
i outdoor theatres -- the Hollywood Bowl and the Los Angeles
Greek Theatre -- only a few miles away from each other.
Both theatres have received yearly support from Los
, Angeles County and City budgets. In the complicated j
i |
territorial boundaries of Los Angeles City as compared i
to Los Angeles County the Hollywood Bowl is owned by, and
' is under, County jurisdiction, while, as already est- j
| ablished, the Greek Theatre is City property. Just as
I
' the County of Los Angeles has rewarded the cultural
i contribution of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre, so has
I
i the City of Los Angeles paid monetary tribute to the
County's Hollywood Bowl.
I In the annual Los Angeles City General Government
j Budget, money is channeled to cultural and community
| endeavors from the "General City Purposes" fund which the
City justifies under the heading of "Advertising, Publicity,
and Patriotic Purposes." Therefore, the Greek Theatre
advertises and publicizes its City subsidy in its
theatre programs, the Greek Theatre Magazine. Here, a
162
page is given which expresses appreciation for the
cooperation and encouragement of the Los Angeles City
government. The tribute names the Mayor and the City
; Council, and the Department of Recreation and Parks
Board of Commissioners. In the Greek Theatre Magazine
the same appreciation is given to the Los Angeles County
I Board of Supervisors. It names the Board members and
!
I the appointed members of the Los Angeles County Music
Commission which arbitrates the County's cultural sub
sidies .
! Los Angeles County and City Record
of Subsidies to the Greek Theatrel?
From the years 1953 through 1969 Los Angeles City
and County gave the following subsidies to the Greek
■ Theatre:
Los Angeles County
Year Los Angeles City Council Music Commission
1952-53
1953-54
I 1954-55
$ 2,500
5,000
10,000
11955-56
11956-57
$ 10,000
15.000
10.000
10,000
1957-58
1958-59
15,000
10,000
^Figures derived from the Los Angeles County and
the Los Angeles City annual budgets for the fiscal years
listed.
163
Los Angeles County
Year Los Angeles City Council Music Commis
1959-60 9,800
1960-61 10,000 10,000
1961-62 12,500 10,000
1962-63
12,500 10,000
1963-64 10,000 10,000
1964-65
10,000
1965-66 10,000
1966-67
10,000
1967-68 10,000
1968-69
10,000
1969-70 30,000
TOTALS $87,500 $174,800
I The City cut off Its subsidy to the Los Angeles
i
I
i Greek Theatre after the 1 9 6 3 season. From late 1 9 6 2
1
j through 1963* the City Department of Recreation and Parks
| and the Greek Theatre Association were engaged in a public
1
; controversy over Greek Theatre Association finances. The
| argument was unresolved by the time of the 1963 summer
season, and the Greek Theatre subsidy was included in the
1963-64 City budget drawn up for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1963 and ending June 30* 1964. From that time on
the City curtailed its subsidy to the Greek Theatre. The
temper of the year 1963 was such that, although barely
discernible, the 1963 Greek Theatre program did not
164
J mention the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
or the commissioners' names, in its customary page-tribute
: to cooperating City and County personages. However, in
1963 is the Department of Recreation and Parks' sole I
J j
credits exclusion from Greek Theatre Magazines. Beginning j
in 1964, the prevailing more tranquil, though still
1
| strained, climate between the parties led to a yearly
I
! resumption of the magazine recognition. The list of sub-
1 sidles shows that despite the fact that the Greek Theatre
operation is a City property and operation, it has
t
i received more subsidies from Los Angeles County. Since j
i I
the County first recognized the Greek Theatre's cultural
j status in 1955* its grants have been unwavering for
I fifteen years, and the subsidy was tripled to $30,000
j in the most recent, and current, County budget of 1969-70.
!
| Los Angeles City’s nine-year total subsidization
| of the Greek Theatre amounts to $87,500; the Los Angeles
I County subsidies to the Greek Theatre over fifteen years
i
amount to $174,800 -- lacking $200 of being twice the
!City gratuity.
i
1
1
j Estimated Total City Investment at the
! Greek Theatre 1952 Through 1963
This schedule of subsidies completes the listing
of all major monies that the City of Los Angeles directed
to its Los Angeles Greek Theatre though the year 1963
which covered eleven playing seasons of the Greek Theatre
165
1 Association. It was shortly after the completion of the
Association's tenth season that the financial aspects of
the Greek Theatre operation led to a public dispute
between the Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department
and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association. The issues
became reconciled only after a full year of argument,
| following the completion of the Association's eleventh
I
1 performance-season of 1963. In order to complete the
financial background for these years, only one further
reckoning is needed to arrive at a reasonable estimate
: of total City monies involved with the Greek Theatre
through the years 1952-63. By once again computing the
; operational results of the fiscal years 1962 and 1963*
and combining them to expenditures previously stated
I
j (Tables 1 and 2) -- including the subsidy record -- an
!
| estimate of Los Angeles City's total investment is
j possible.
I 18
i Greek Theatre Operational Results 1962 and 1963
Fiscal Year
1962-63
1963-64
TOTALS
City Operating
Expenses
$34,938
47,674
$82,612
Greek Theatre
Association
Revenues
$46,820
51,312
$98,132
Operating
Result
+$11,882
+3,638
+$15,520
l8r
The Operational Result figures are balanced from
accounting figures of the Greek Theatre Association, and
City Operating Expenses derived from Ignacio Vasquez, Sr.
Accountant for the L.Af Department of Recreation and Parks.
166
Table 4 illustrates an estimated sum of the City
of Los Angeles' total investment in the Greek Theatre
through the years 1952-63. The total is based on City
statements of outstanding expenditures for capital and !
; !
land improvements, net operating results, equipment costs
-- and outright subsidies which ended after 1963. Through !
j the years 1952-62, Los Angeles' estimated net investment
1 at the Greek Theatre amounted to $412,639. At the close
; i
of the 1963-eleventh performance season of the Greek j
Theatre Association tenure -- the City's total investment
in the Greek Theatre was an estimated $419,001.
Perspective on the Greek Theatre
in tne Cultural Subsidy Spectrum
I
It is important to isolate the Greek Theatre's ;
1
j position in the cultural subsidy programs of its area.
i
i The Greek Theatre's subsidized status may be seen through
| a selection of Los Angeles County and City subsidies given
I to several cultural and community projects.
: City Subsidies
j Table 5 gives the City of Los Angeles' yearly
j
j contributions from its General City Purposes Fund to the
following selected organizations: Southern California
Symphonies, Hollywood Bowl, Pilgrimage Play, the Los
1
1
| Angeles Greek Theatre, the Rose Parade, and the Fisher-
167
TABLE 4
City of Los Angeles Estimated Total Investment
In Los Angeles Greek Theatre 1952
Through 1963
i Capital Improvements through 1961 $292,676
(Table 2)
1 Greek Theatre Net Operating Costs
1 through 1961 (Table 1)
! Equipment Costs
Land Improvement - 1961
26,223
20,171
7,951
Sub-Total
1
$347,021
: Subsidies - 1954 through 1962
Sub-Total
Operating Result - 1962
(a plus Income to City)
77,500
424,521
-11,882
TOTAL City Investment through 1962
$412,639
!
1963
i Subsidy - 1963
Sub-Total
1 Operating Result - 1963
1 (a plus income to City)
10,000
422,639
-3,638
i GRAND TOTAL City Investment through 1963
1
$419,001
i
!
1
i
TABLE 5
City Subsidies
General City Purposes Fund: Advertising, Publicity and Patriotic Purposes (selected
list of some main Los Angeles City contributions to cultural and community projects)
Southern
California
Symphonies
Hollywood
Bowl
Association
Pilgrimage
Play
Los Angeles
Greek
Theatre
Rose
Parade
Fisher
man' s
Fiesta
Mayor: Norris
Poulson
1954-55
5,000 5,000 2,500 4,000 5,000
1955-56 20,000 10,000 — 5,000 6,000 5,000
1956-57
25,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 6,000 10,000
1957-58 25,000 15,000 5,000 15,000 6,000 10,000
1958-59
25,000 15,000 5,000 10,000 6,000 —
1959-60 25,000 15,000 5,000 — 6,000 —
1960-61 25,000 15,000 5,000 10,000 6,000
H
Ch
1961-62 35,000 15,000 5,000 12,500 6,000
CO
168
TABLE 5--continued
Southern Hollywood Pilgrimage Los Angeles Rose Fisher
California Bowl Play Greek Parade man' s
Symphonies Association Theatre Fiesta
i
Mayor: Sam
Yorty
1962-63 35,000 15,000 5,000 12,500 6,000 5,000
1963-64 35,000 15,000 — 10,000 6,000 5,000
1964-65 50,000 15,000 — — 6,000 5,000
1965-66 60,000 15,000 — — 6,000 7,500
1966-67 75,000 25,000 — — 12,000 7,500
1967-68 75,000 25,000 — — 12,000 7,500
1968-69 75,000 25,000 — -- 12,000 7,500
1969-70 75,000 25,000 -- -- 12,000 7,500
TOTALS 665,000 260,000 35,000 87,500 118,000 80,500
H .
OV :
VO ;
; 170
j This schedule shows that in the fiscal budget for
1956-57, the City revised one of its subsidy headings, j
j
changing it from "Southern California Symphonies" to the
, "Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra." This represents !
! I
no change in the direction of the contribution, since the |
I
Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra is sponsored by the
| Southern California Symphony Association. The orchestra
1
i
1 is a mainstay of the Hollywood Bowl seasons. Therefore,
j
the Hollywood Bowl Association benefits from the
orchestra's subsidy.
The Pilgrimage Theatre is also a Hollywood Bowl J
Association operation. The Association administers the j
; Pilgrimage Theatre for the theatre1s owner — Los Angeles j
County. The Pilgrimage has been used periodically for i
1 i
i 1
! concerts and, in some years, for a children's theatre
j
| festival sponsored by the American National Theatre and
| Academy (ANTA). In the summer of 1964, Morris Carnovsky
I
I
! had a notable run of King Lear at the Pilgrimage.
i
I County Subsidies
t
i The total perspective on the Los Angeles Greek
i
I
j Theatre's subsidization is brought into focus by a similar
1
listing of selected associations which receive contribu
tions from Los Angeles County. Table 6 presents the
recent history of Los Angeles County subsidies from 1954
through 1969 to the Hollywood Bowl Association, the
TABLE 6
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Cultural Subsidies
(Music Commission 195^ Through 1969-70)
Fiscal
Year
Budget
Hollywood
Bowl
Association
So. Calif.
Symphony
Assoc.
Symphonies
Under the
Stars
Pilgrimage
Play
Theatre
L.A. Civic
Light Opera
Company
L.A.
Greek
Theatre
1954-55 286,775
65,000 65,000 -- 2,500 —
1955-56 — 65,000 100,000 12,000 2,500 10,000
1956-57
— 65,000 90,000 15,000 10,000 15,000
1957-58 -- 65,000 90,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
1958-59
-- 65,000 90,000 18,000 9,000 10,000
1959-60 — 63,700 88,200 19,600 9,800 9,800
1960-61 -- 65,000 90,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
1961-62 -- 100,000 90,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
1962-63 — 100,000 90,000 -- 10,000 10,000
1963-64 “ — 100,000 90,000 — — 10,000 10,000 h
TABLE 6--continued
Fiscal
Year
Budget
Hollywood
Bowl
Association
So. Calif.
Symphony
Assoc.
Symphonies
Under the
Stars
Pilgrimage L.A. Civic
Play Light Opera
Theatre Company
L.A.
Greek
Theatre
1964-65 — 125,000 90,000 — 10,000 10,000
1965-66 -- 125,000 90,000 — -- 10,000
1966-67
SCSHB
125,000 90,000 — — 10,000
1967-68 215,000 -- -- — — 10,000
1968-69 215,000 — — — — 10,000
1969-70 250,000 — — — — 30,000
TOTALS
966,775
1128,700 1153,200 124,600 93,800 174,800
*The odd figures of the 1959-60 allotments represent last-minute
2% cuts in the original budget reflecting an austerity program
exercised by Los Angeles County Supervisors on all cultural aid.
Beverly Hills Citizen July 7, 1959 '
H :
- <1 •
ro i
: 173
I Southern California Symphony Association, Symphonies Under
the Stars, the Pilgrimage Play Theatre, the Los Angeles j
Civic Light Opera Company and the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre. j
I I
Complex of Hollywood Bowl
Subsidies Explained
' A brief explanation of the Hollywood Bowl Associa-
j
! tion will aid an interpretation of the channeling of Los
1 Angeles County subsidies which are represented in Table 6.
Hollywood Bowl was originally owned by the Holly- j
i wood Bowl Association. This corporation evolved from a
group of dedicated citizens who found the Bowl site in j
i
; 1919* and became its owners in 1923. The following year, j
| 1
I on October 16, 1924, the deed to the property was issued :
! to the County of Los Angeles subject to a long-term
! 19
j lease to the Hollywood Bowl Association. The end result
1
j of this transaction is that the Hollywood Bowl Association
i pays one dollar ($1) per year rental for use of the Bowl
i
; under this long-term lease agreement with Los Angeles
County.
The concert series presented by the Hollywood Bowl
Association -- which is called "Symphonies Under the
Stars" — originated in the summer of 1922 at Hollywood
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-*-9John Orlando Northcutt, The Hollywood Bowl Story
(third printing revised) Los Angeles: Hollywood Bowl
Association, 1968, p. 12.
! 174
! Bowl. Ninety percent of the Symphonies Under the Stars
concerts,20 Including the first one on July 11, 1922,21 .
!
have been played by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra :
which was founded in 1919 by a prominent Los Angeles art !
22 ^
I patron William Andrews Clark, Jr. Clark personally !
j I
supported the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra for
j fifteen years until his death in June of 1944.23 That j
i i
1 same year after Clark's death the Southern California |
I I
, Symphony Association was formed for the purpose of pre
serving the orchestra, and it became the sponsor of the
; Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. On July 11, 1966, the I
| ]
Southern California Symphony Association and the Hollywood j
1
I Bowl Organization merged to become the present Southern j
24 i
I California Symphony-Hollywood Bowl Association. :
Table 6 illustrates, by a record of subsidies,
! this short capsule history which culminated in the
i
j amalgamation of the two large organizations. From 1955
! through 1966, the Hollywood Bowl Association received its
i
County subsidy for its Symphonies Under the Stars program.
j The County stipend to the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orches-
j
tra went to the orchestra's sponsor -- the Southern
1 California Symphony Association. After 1966, the chart
shows that the exact amount of the two grants to the
2°Ibid., p. 25. 21Ibid., p. 11.
PP 2? 24
Ibid., p. 7. “Ibid., 14. Ibid., p. 30.
175
! Symphonies Under the Stars and the Southern California
Symphony Association -- $2153000 -- (Line 13) was trans- j
|
ferred in a single sum to the merged Southern California 1
Symphony-Hollywood Bowl Association. Since the Pilgrimage j
i
Play Theatre is also under the Hollywood Bowl Association j
as of 1946,25 the subsidy for the Pilgrimage Theatre also *
' represents funds which are funneled into the Hollywood
Bowl Association.
I
Subsidy Comparison Between the Hollywood
Bowl and the Greek Theatre
I
i These presentations of City and County subsidies
(Tables 5 and 6) illustrate sharp differences in the |
monies allotted by these government bodies to two of the j
I
nation's leading outdoor theatre enterprises -- the |
j Hollywood Bowl and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre. The
!
| sums appropriated for the Hollywood Bowl program are
! vastly greater than those directed to the Greek Theatre
i
I operation. There is a great difference in size between
i
; the two theatres; the Hollywood Bowl seats nearly four
i times the Greek Theatre maximum. The Greek Theatre seats
| 4,456 compared to the Bowl's 17*200. There are also
1 differences in the type of programs which are traditional
to each theatre. The Hollywood Bowl serves a musical
25ibid., p. 29.
26
Ibid., p. 31.
176
| scheme of, primarily, concerts — symphonic, vocal and
"pop" -- ballet and infrequent opera. The Greek Theatre
has presented a more variegated theatrical program of
, dance, opera, ballet, legitimate drama, musical comedy
|
' and operetta, and popular performing stars. The Greek
Theatre productions are more complex and costly to mount
I than those of the Hollywood Bowl.
I
! The subsidy situation may be best comprehended
i
i by looking at the three most recent appropriations for
, Hollywood Bowl and the Greek Theatre for the years 1967
I through the 1969-70 fiscal year. As shown in the Los
j
Angeles County Budget (Table 6), the separate appropria
tions for the Southern California Symphony Association
1
and the traditional Hollywood Bowl concert series --
I
! Symphonies Under the Stars -- became merged into a single
!
j subsidy given to the newly amalgamated -- as of 1966 --
j Southern California Symphony-Hollywood Bowl Association.
I
! For the years 1967 and 1968, the Hollywood Bowl appro-
| priation from Los Angeles County alone amounted to
j $215,000. In 1969 the County raised its Bowl appropria-
|
tion to $250,000. For these same years the City of Los
Angeles (Table 5)» under its separate stipends to the
Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra and the Hollywood Bowl
Association, directed a total of $100,000 to the
Southern California Symphony-Hollywood Bowl Association
for each of those years. Taking the most recent appro-
: 177
! prlations for the fiscal year 1969-70, the Hollywood Bowl
j
organization received a combined subsidy each year of
$350,000 from Los Angeles County and City governments.
These subsidies cover yearly operations since the Southern !
1 i
! California Symphony-Hollywood Bowl Association adminis- j
! I
ters the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra over a yearly
j program of concerts from which revenue is also derived. j
j The Los Angeles Times reports an annual wage of $10,350 |
' to Los Angeles Philharmonic orchestra members over a 46- j
week season.2^ j
! The subsidy program to the Los Angeles Greek j
j j
; Theatre presents a sharp contrast. The City of Los j
i
t
; Angeles has cut off appropriations to its own Greek ;
I Theatre since 1964, while the County of Los Angeles has
| continued its recognition of the Greek Theatre. In each
j
| of the past four years since 1966, the yearly City appro-
ipriation of $100,000 to Hollywood Bowl has exceeded by
$12,500 the total of subsidies — $87,500 -- (Table 5) the
;City allotted to its Greek Theatre over a period of nine
! years. At no time in its history has the Greek Theatre's
j combined subsidy from both Los Angeles County and City
1 amounted to more than $30,000 yearly and that in the most
recent 1969-70 fiscal year given by the County of Los
Angeles alone. Since 1967> all subsidies to the Hollywood
2^Martin Bernheimer, "Top Orchestra Pay in Phila
delphia," Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1969.
178 ;
: Bowl Association have amounted to just under a million
I ’
dollars ($980,000), while the Los Angeles Greek Theatre
; has received a total of $50,000 since 1967. This came
from the County alone. !
! i
It can be deduced that these subsidy monies re- j
present production capital or underwriting -- as signifi- ■
I
cant or insignificant as they may be -- for the respective
i seasons of the two outdoor theatre projects. It appears
i
| from this examination that the yearly underwriting of
$350,000 to the Hollywood Bowl for its musical program,
versus the Greek Theatre's $30,000 subsidy for its
theatrical program, implies an unequal plane of security
| between the two theatres as they enter their playing j
; I
‘ seasons. Another source of revenue to the Southern !
| California Symphony-Hollywood Bowl Association comes from
j
| its parking fees. The Greek Theatre Association does not
! charge a parking fee, but does pay its parking attendants.
The most revealing commentary on the economic con-
| trast between the two theatres is provided by the fact
I that the Southern California Symphony-Hollywood Bowl
|
Associations pays a rental of one dollar per year to the
1 County of Los Angeles. Since 1963* the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre Association has averaged more than a $50,000
annual rental payment to the City of Los Angeles.
179
| Greek Theatre - Hollywood Bowl Analogy
The Greek Theatre's situation of government en
dowment can be more fully perceived by continuing its
comparison to the Hollywood Bowl. The Greek Theatre's
financial context and local governments'policies toward
the Greek Theatre become even more sharply defined when
! set off against Los Angeles County's programs of capital
i improvements at the Hollywood Bowl.
| An analogy of the two theatres begins in their
common community character; both are owned by the greater
i Los Angeles citizenry under the stewardship of local
government administration. Both the Hollywood Bowl and
; the Greek Theatre are leased and managed by non-profit
; organizations. Each of the two outdoor facilities have
I
! attained international fame for reasons of their natural
I
!
| settings and cultural programs of inestimable value.
| During the 1950s and early 1960s the Greek Theatre Associa-
| tion and the Hollywood Bowl Association, together with the
| musical comedy contribution of the Los Angeles Civic Light
! Opera Company, encompassed the major share of the cultural
programming for Los Angeles. Together with its
Biltmore Theatre productions, the Greek Theatre Association
contributed the most diversified theatre presentations.
; i8o
i
; Financial Record of Los Angeles
County at Hollywood Bowl ,
On March 1, 1956, the Los Angeles County Depart- :
ment of Parks and Recreation assumed the financial care- j
I
taking of the Hollywood Bowl facility. This left the j
Hollywood Bowl Association responsible only for program- '
| ming at the Bowl. Table 7 illustrates Los Angeles County's
I
! maintenance and capital expenditure investment at Holly-
1 wood Bowl for the ten fiscal years of County responsibility
dating from 1955-56 through 1964-65. j
! Financial Summary
This chapter has endeavored to provide a per-
I
; spective on the economic realities of the Greek Theatre j
i I
| and its producing organization during a period when the
i
I Greek Theatre Association became the commanding source
of theatre, per se, in Los Angeles. The profit balance
of the Greek Theatre Association's ascending years de-
i clares not only the success of its management, but also
| the complex dynamics of theatre finances - the dimensions
j
j of which always involve large amounts of money. A
reasonable estimate of Los Angeles City's total invest
ment at the Greek Theatre over this developmental period
was shown as based on its record of major allocations of
funds for capital improvements, subsidies and theatre
operations. The selected sampling of Los Angeles County
l8l
TABLE 7
Los Angeles County Maintenance and Operation,
and Capital Expenditure Record at
Hollywood Bowl Ten Years
— — ijgjj-qg---------
Year Salaries
&
Wages
Capital
Expenditures
Maintenance
&
Operation
Yearly
Total
1955-56 $29,814.26 $715,630.54 $32,610.58 $778,055.38
1956-57 135,371.99 314,444.75 41,9^5.59 491,762.33
1957-58
182,976.31
243,534.48
44,285.71 470,796.50
1958-59
183,902.81 80,391.10 45,336.42
309,630.33
.1959-60 200,484.36 54,165.94 62,408.96 317,059.26
1960-61
199,395.09 193,074.41 67,602.74 460,072.24
1961-62 168,730.80 211,090.61
54,105.13
433,926.54
1962-63 180,232.76 53,580.47 57,238.03 291,051.26
1963-64
192,356.91
7.50 60,711.68
253,076.09
1964-65 177,642.25 65,268.65 59,675.10 302,586.00
10-Year $1,931,188.45 $4,108,015.93
TOTALS $1,650,907.54 $525,919.94
and City cultural subsidies gave the broad base of local
governmental support to community promotions and cultural
projects. In the specific instances of the Greek Theatre
and the Hollywood Bowl, it has been possible to juxtapose
cross-currencies between two major community theatres
and the local government agencies which are the executors
of the properties. Within that context it has been
possible to closely approximate the total contribution
and investment of Los Angeles City and County toward two
of the world's outstanding outdoor theatres.
The following summary (Table 8) of the most
significant figures relative to both subsidized theatres
illustrates that the Greek Theatre's status in the support
spectrum is inferior. It further articulates the
stringencies of the Greek Theatre Association's economic
operation.
TABLE 8
Ten-Year Total of Funds for Capital Improvements, Maintenance and Operations
Los Angeles County to
Hollywood Bowl (1955-65) $4,108,016
Los Angeles City to
Greek Theatre (1952-62) $ 347,021
Los Angeles County and City Subsidies to
Hollywood Bowl and the Greek Theatre
Los Angeles County Hollywood
Bowl
Greek
Theatre
Average Yearly (since 1965)
(1969-70)
$215,000
250,000
$10,000
30,000
Los Angeles City (since 1965) Yearly 100,000 0 (since 1963)
Total Subsidy (1954 through 1969-70)
Los Angeles County $3,248,675 $174,800
Los Angeles City 925,000 87,500
H
Combined City and County Subsidies
(1954 through 1969-70)
$4,173,675
$262,300
CD
CO
i
J
TABLE 8--continued
Yearly Lease Rentals Paid by
Hollywood Bowl Association
Hollywood Greek
and the Greek Theatre Association Bowl Theatre
Yearly 0 $50,000
Total Rents Paid 1953 through 1968-69 0 $608,890
184
CHAPTER V
WINTER OF CONTROVERSY 1962-63
In the winter of 1962-63 the relationship --
political and personal -- between the Los Angeles Depart
ment of Recreation and Parks and the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre Association erupted into public dispute. The
Greek Theatre became a cynosure of controversy which
touched the upper chamber of City government -- the Los
Angeles City Council -- and cast shadows over not only
the operations of Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Associa
tion, but also the Department of Recreation and Parks as
well. The public argument exposed the fault-lines of
past sensitivities between the Department of Recreation
and Parks and the Greek Theatre Association, and was a
harbinger of a disruptive future in store for the
Recreation and Parks Department. This agency had a
troubled history of its own since 1962, and a coverage of
it is relevant to a discussion of the Los Angeles Greek
Theatre as an institution operating in the middle of a
political network.
185
; 186 ;
! The Greek Theatre Association -- Residual
I Target of Controversy
The Greek Theatre controversy of 1962-63 grew out j
of a massive investigation and report conducted in the j
iautumn of 1962 by the Santa Monica Evening Outlook news- I
i
paper. The feature story centered on the financial status j
of a young prominent political couple in the City of Los
1
‘Angeles. Eugene L. Wyman, state Democratic party Central
|
jCommittee Chairman, and his wife, Los Angeles City Council-
woman, Rosalind Wyman, were the subjects of the expose.
In the first four of the articles, the Santa Monica
j Evening Outlook gave great amounts of space and newsprint
to the financial affluence of the Wymans acquired since
| I
their modest means and marriage of only eight years. At j
|the time of their wedding, Eugene was a recent graduate of
1
jHarvard Law School and Rosalind recently of the University
|of Southern California. At the age of twenty-two, Rosalind
became the only woman member of the Los Angeles City
!Council, the first woman on the Council in four decades,
1
■and the youngest person ever to win such office. The
|
newspaper stated that in only eight years, the Wymans had
"jumped the gap" to riches. The Santa Monica Evening
Outlook offered as supporting evidence a newly purchased
1Ron Funk and Will O'Neill, "Wymans' Success 'Spec
tacular, ' Santa Monica Evening Outlook, October 29, 1962,
pp. 1, 7-
2Ibid.
187
i $156,000 Beverly Hills home which, in addition, was being
| 1
expensively remodeled at an estimated $60,000 before the
3 !
; Wymans moved in. Eugene was partner in a law firm which
: was prospering as specialists in defending insurance com-
; panies against claims and suits.
' The Los Angeles Greek Theatre controversy of 1962- ■
| 63 began as a result of the fifth article of the Wyman
1
I
! series published in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook on
; November 13, 1962. The article began:
Any broad survey of the complicated, diverse
financial activities of Eugene Wyman, state Demo
cratic party chieftan, and his wife, Los Angeles
I Councilwoman Rosalind Wyman, inevitably comes to
the unusual former business connection between
the Wymans and James A. Doolittle, manager of the
city-owned Greek Theatre.
This connection, which began in 1958 and ended [
| late in i960, was unusual in that it raised the
j question of a possible conflict of interest on the
j part of Mrs. Wyman.
1
1
j The conflict-of-interest question officially
! died when Mrs. Wyman sought, and obtained, an
| opinion from City Atty. (sic.) Roger Arnebergh
I on the propriety of her actions. Arnebergh, by
i a lengthy and hard-to-understand process of
; reasoning, concluded that there was no conflict
S of interest.^-
!
| The question of Rosalind Wyman's conflict of
i
| interest is framed against a complicated background. A
!
1 recital of the facts of the matter bears directly on
3Ibid.
^Funk and O'Neil, "Wyman Theatre Connection Aired,"
1 Santa Monica Evening Outlook, November 13* 1962, p. 8.
188
j Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Association which became
the targets of extensive coverage in future Santa Monica
Evening Outlook articles. As a consequence of the com-
; plicated involvement with the Wymans, Doolittle and the
Greek Theatre operation were also called into question.
The Doolittle-Wyman Partnership
! in the Biltmore Theatre
i
The business connection between the Wymans and
| Doolittle existed to the degree that they were shareholders
in a company incorporated as the Biltmore Theatre Corpora-
! tion. In 1958, the Biltmore Theatre in Los Angeles was
reputedly in danger of being torn down in order to make
way for a commercial development. Doolittle and a wealthy
j San Francisco financier, Louis Lurie, owner of San
i
\ Francisco's Geary and Curran theatres, combined to save
I
the Biltmore Theatre and thereby preserve Los Angeles'
remaining theatrical landmark from the 1920 era. Since
its opening in 1924, the Biltmore Theatre had never
1
changed its character from that of a legitimate theatre,
t
i as had the Huntington Hartford Theatre, which originally,
I
i in 1926, was a legitimate theatre, then transformed into
i a movie house in the early 1930's, and once again restored
as a legitimate theatre by Huntington Hartford, who
5
bought it in 1953 and remodeled it at great expense.
-^Jack Smith, "Biltmore Theatre Again Appears to
be Doomed," Los Angeles Times, May 3* 19°4, Sec. C, p. 7*
I 189
! With Lurie as the key and essential figure in the
i ;
enterprise, Doolittle recruited his then friends for ,
several years, the Wymans, in the Biltmore venture along
, with the prominent Los Angeles restaurateurs Ruth and j
i
Paul Cummins. The Wyman connection was thickened by the ;
fact that the law firm of Wyman, Finnell and Rothman did
' the legal work for the incorporation of the Biltmore j
! Theatre Corporation. Finnell also became a stockholder,
! while Rothman was installed as a non-stockholding president
of the new theatre corporation. A total of 2,500 shares
of stock were spread over the investors as follows: j
| j
Lurie owned 62% of the company with 1,550 shares, the j
! Cummins were 18$ holders with 450 shares, Doolittle had j
; !
10% with 250 shares, the Wymans together owned 5$ with !
i .
! 125 shares, while Finnell's 125 shares a 5% investment
|
j completed the company. With the shares of the property
i
| so divided, Doolittle became managing director of the
I Biltmore Theatre, and henceforth productions given at
i
; the Biltmore were presented under the production company
; g
1 banner of the Greek Theatre Association.
i
1
The introduction of the Greek Theatre Association
1 into the Biltmore operation as the production organization
for its shows placed Rosalind Wyman in a sensitive posi
tion. As a Los Angeles City Council member, Mrs. Wyman
£
Santa Monica Evening Outlook, November 13, 1962,
p. 8.
190
: had been an early and consistent champion of the Greek
; Theatre cause. The political reputation of both Wymans j
showed a leaning to liberal and cultural enterprises, and !
it was Mrs. Wyman who made the motion in the City Council |
| j
: in 1953 to draft a tribute to Doolittle for the inter- j
cultural achievement of his "Madame Butterfly" production
! at the Greek Theatre that same year. Mrs. Wyman personally
1 presented the commending plaque to Doolittle between acts
' of "Madame Butterfly.
There was another factor of Mrs. Wyman's political
1 office which tended to make acute her 1959 relationship
j
to the Biltmore Theatre Corporation. This factor was her
position as the Los Angeles City Council's Chairman of
the Recreation and Park Committee. Analagous to the houses1
| of Congress, the elected City Council members divide them-
j
| selves over many committees which watch over and assist
| the affairs of the various city commissions -- such as
i the Department of Recreation and Parks -- so that the
City Council and Mayor are always current with departmental
! business. In this capacity, Mrs. Wyman was the most
i
1
immediate City administrator in contact with the Recrea
tion and Parks affairs. The record of Mrs. Wyman on
Greek Theatre matters was one of a vociferous supporter
of the City subsidy to the theatre and of all the capital
^Los Angeles Daily News, August 10, 1953s P* 16.
191
! 8
I improvements proposed and carried out.
However, the Greek Theatre Association at the '
I
Biltmore was no longer a City project; it was a purely 1
. commercial endeavor. The question of conflicts of interestj
! I
; began to stand out in bold relief since any recommendation j
: on behalf of the Greek Theatre Association could be con-
| strued as an umbrella endorsement which covered both a
! City-serving project and, at the same time, a private com-
j i
mercial one. Even more problematical was Mrs. Wyman's I
position as a business associate of a private theatrical
venture. It ultimately appeared as if she was in the
!
theoretical position of being able to vote monies to
herself and derive profits therefrom.
! i
: i
i Councilwoman Wyman's Confiict-
I of-Interest Question
i
| Taking cognizance of her possible predicament and
the propriety of her connection to the Biltmore Theatre,
Mrs. Wyman sought the opinion of Los Angeles City Attorney
i
; Roger Arnebergh, in a letter dated May 20, 1959* Based on
Mrs. Wyman's inquiry, Arnebergh framed the issue as a
question and delivered a written opinion on June 11, 1959.^
®Ridgely Cummings, "City Attorney OK's theatre
stock holdings by Mrs. Wyman," Civic Center News Agency
article in the Eagle Rock California Sentinel, July 12,
1959, PP. 1-2.
9Ibid.
192
Question: Where a party to a transaction with
1 the city, or an officer of employee or a corporation
which is a party to such a transaction, is the owner
of stock in another corporation, does the mere J
ownership of stock in such second corporation by a
member of the council constitute a financial or other
conflicting interest in such transaction on the part j
of the council member? j
Answer: No.10 I
; i
The opinion explained that* ■
i
| It has always been a policy of the law that a
1 public officer may not have a personal interest,
; direct or indirect, in any action taken by him
in his official capacity, and that any contract
made in violation of this principle is voidable
and unenforceable.11
In his treatment of Mrs. Wyman’s inquiry, ArneberghI
l |
posed the following pertinent question: "Does the officer
have such an interest in the subject matter or anything
! connected with it that he may be tempted to serve his !
| personal interests to the prejudice of those for whom
!
| the law authorizes and requires him to act in his
! official capacity?"12 Arnebergh ventured that Mrs. Wyman's
chairmanship of the City council's recreation and park
; committee which passes on some of Doolittle's problems
i was not relevant. He said:
i
If your stock ownership gave rise to a possible
conflict of interest, you would be bound as a member
of the council to dispose of the stock without
reference to your committee assignments ....
No suggestion of any conflicting interest arises
from the mere fact of ownership of stock in the same
corporation by a member of the council and by another
10Ibid. 11Ibid. 12Ibid.
; 193
who is concerned directly or indirectly in a
1 transaction with the city, or who is employed
by or owns stock in a second corporation which
is so concerned.13
The opinion said, "If the mile were otherwise,
as by some statutory declaration, it would again amount
practically to a prohibition against any stock ownership
by a member of the council."1^
City Attorney Arnebergh's favorable opinion in
I
j 1959 on Mrs. Wyman's ethical status did not put to rest
the suspicions aroused by her business association with
Doolittle. The 1962 articles which appeared three years
i later in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook reasserted, at
great length, the entire matter in its series devoted to
1
; reporting on the Wyman's financial status. The implica-
; tions of the Wymans' 5$ interest in the Biltmore Theatre
i
j arising out of a newspaper investigation of querulous tone
| opened a pandora's box on the operation of the Greek
Theatre. The focus of the conflict-of-interest questions
1 shifted to Doolittle, the Greek Theatre Association, and
I
| the Greek Theatre almost as if these subjects were inten-
I
i tionally placed center-stage.
i Expose Ramifications to the Greek
Theatre Association
The entanglement of Doolittle and the Greek
Theatre Association with the Biltmore Theatre prompted
^Ibid. l4Ibid.
; 19^
1 the Santa Monica Evening Outlook to ask several questions
regarding the Los Angeles Greek Theatre. One hypothetical
: question raised was that of Doolittle's possible conflict- 1
of-interest in the selection of attractions for both the I
; i
i
Los Angeles Greek Theatre and the Biltmore Theatre. Was
there, for Doolittle, an inherent temptation to favor !
' a profit-making theatre over a non-profit one?1^ j
i |
! Doolittle's holding of 10$ in the Biltmore venture gave I
■ this question a surface validity. The newspaper articles j
suggest that the producer was activating a theatre business
| in order to profit a theatre holding company and, I
i !
ultimately, himself as a member of that company.
The most serious concern was aroused by the fact
i
: that all the business affairs and accounting of the Greek
i
! Theatre operation and the Biltmore Theatre operation were
!
j recorded in one set of books. Thus, the question arose of
j
j a possible co-mingling of funds divided over the Greek
I Theatre operation and the Biltmore Theatre. Were City
t
; monies — subsidy and office space — being used to assist
I a commercial and profit-making theatre enterprise at the
i
I
Biltmore Theatre? As the Outlook stated the issue:
Baffled city recreation and parks department
auditors report that Doolittle and his association
commingle the funds received for tickets to its
presentations at the city-owned Greek and the
1^Funk and O'Neil, "All Facts in Wyman 'Case' Told,'
Santa Monica Evening Outlook, November 14, 1962, p. 2.
; 195
privately owned Biltmore to an extent that makes
i it impossible to determine what is going on there.1° '
Complicating the entire network of interconnection I
was the fact that the City contract was with an individual ,
i
i
— Doolittle — and not the non-profit Greek Theatre i
Association. On a purely legal technicality, the City ,
had no jurisdiction over Greek Theatre Association fi-
! nancial accounting. !
i j
j . . . Doolittle personally holds the lease on j
the city's Greek Theatre where he maintains year- j
around offices in generous office space provided
by Los Angeles tax-payers while serving as both
the $30,000-a-year managing director of the Greek j
Theatre Association and director of the Biltmore j
• • • 1
i
Because of Doolittle's personal contract with the |
City, his personal stock in the Biltmore Theatre Corpora- i
:
| tion, his position as managing director of the Greek
!
| Theatre Association, an interpretation was invited that
I
j all the agencies concerned were sponsoring the enterprises
I
of a single individual.
! In one section of the Outlook report which stressed
i Doolittle's connection to Rosalind Wyman, an implication
|
I was made that Mrs. Wyman's position of influence played a
part in Doolittle's securing the original contract to
i
operate the Greek Theatre. This same paragraph, quoted
below, strengthens its innuendo by a reference to Gene
Mann, prior tenant of the Greek Theatre. It offers an
l6Ibid. 1^Ibid.
! 196
! example of highly selective and incomplete reporting.
Juxtaposing a reference to Councilwoman Wyman as chairman
of the City Council’s Recreation and Park Committee which !
"recommended whatever appropriations might have been made j
! to the Greek Theatre by the council," the paragraph reads: i
The story of Doolittle's and the Wymans'
business connection actually begins back in ;
! 1952 -- some six years before. It was in that
i year that Doolittle first obtained the lease
I to operate the Greek Theatre from the Board of
j Recreation and Park Commissioners. The previous
lessee had been Gene Mann who had been doing a
successful job -- from all indications on
financial records -- of operating the theatre
for the city since 19^6.1°
I
! Omitting the complete facts of the Mann operation
-- its ultimate collapse and bankruptcy -- the loss of city
i revenue due to the failure of the company for which Mann
| was the producer, and the absence of any prospects for
1
| the Greek Theatre in 1952 makes this insert blatantly
| incomplete, and damaging. A suggestion of complicity and
I
| "influence peddling" is clearly raised,
i The Outlook articles also presented some of the
financial history of the City-Doolittle coupling dating
from 1952. Striking its theme that "taxpayers' monies
have been poured into the Greek Theater, the Santa
!
Monica newspaper listed several of the rental fees returned
•^-^Funk and O'Neil, Santa Monica Evening Outlook,
November 13, 1962, p. 8.
^Funk and O'Neil, Santa Monica Evening Outlook,
November 19, 1962, p. 6.
197
! to the city by the Greek Theatre Association.
But the cost to the taxpayers of the Greek
Theatre during Doolittle's management has been
much higher than his rental fees to the city.
Total revenues to the city since he took it
over are $258,91^. (See Table 1.)
Total monies paid into the theatre by the
city for improvements, operating expenses, equip
ment and buildings during his management come
j to $577,276.
1 That's a "loss" difference of $318,362. Of
j this amount, $161,838 came from 1957 bond monies
| that were approved by the voters on the basis
that they would be used for new parks.20
The Santa Monica Evening Outlook continued its
! motif of taxpayers-monies-paid-the-Greek-Theatre by
elaborating the subsidies which the Greek Theatre opera
tion had received from City and County.
| The following excerpts from the Evening Outlook
!
| presentation on this matter provided the material which
j formed the basis of the shock waves which followed in Los
I
j Angeles City offices. Under its sub-headline, "'Subsidizes'
‘ Culture" the Santa Monica Evening Outlook continued:
j But the $577,276 isn't all the money the city
j has paid into the Greek Theatre. Every year, the
I Los Angeles City Council has appropriated funds
j from its general fund on the premise it should
j help "subsidize" culture. Since the 195^-55 season,
1 a total of 77,5°0 has been appropriated, in amounts
ranging upward from $2,500 in 195^-55 to 12,500
in the last two years.
20Funk and O'Neil, Santa Monica Evening Outlook,
November 13, 1962, p. 8.
198
In only one year -- 1959-60 -- did the city
not allocate a subsidy. But in that year, the
Recreation and Parks Commission appropriated
$112,472 out of 1957 bond monies for new buildings.
(The next year, even as the council appropriated
$10,000 as a subsidy, the commission appropriated
another $49,367 for new b u i l d i n g s.)21
Turning its focus away from City grants, to
subsidies granted to the Greek Theatre by Los Angeles
County, the Outlook proceeded, "It is interesting to note,
too, that Los Angeles County ’subsidizes' culture at the
22
Greek Theatre." This mention of the county donations
cited the $10,000 county appropriation for the fiscal
year 1960-61. This line or reportage culminated in a
statement of the Greek Theatre Association's financial
position and a reference to Doolittle:
Meanwhile, Doolittle's management has resulted
in a large bank account which he ways is a needed
reserve in the event of a "flop" at the theatre.
As of the year ending September 30, 1961 he listed
assets of $357*000 most of it in cash.
This was after Doolittle had drawn his annual
salary of $30,000 and charged off an additional
$11,255.31 in expenses.
Most of his expenses, it should be noted, are
the result of his having to travel throughout the
country to contact and book s h o w s .23
Expose Inferences Enumerated
The broadly-based Santa Monica Evening Outlook
articles contributed a picture story of personal and
21Ibid. 2 2 Ibid. 2 3ibid.
I 199 !
I political entanglement which involved the Eugene Wymans,
i ’
the Los Angeles City government, and James A. Doolittle
; and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre operation. A summary
of the newspaper series' main inferences included: 1) |
! !
the fact that the prominent politically-connected young j
couple — the Wymans -- had, through diversified financial ■
! dealings, risen to a position of wealth in the short
i
i
1 eight years of their marriage union; 2) there remained an
| unresolved question of Mrs. Rosalind Wyman's conflict-of-
interest due to her political relationships to the City
of Los Angeles Greek Theatre operation and, at the same
I
time, her personal and business relationship to Doolittle
; in a commercial theatre operation at the Biltmore Theatre; j
! 3) that Mrs. Wyman's dual position of influence on the
| Los Angeles City Council and as chairman of the Council's
I
j Recreation and Parks Committee may have played a part in
Doolittle's obtaining the Greek Theatre contract and
maintaining consistent political favor since then; 4)
j that taxpayers' money had been directed to the Greek
I Theatre operation in inordinate amounts; 5) that a possible
i
conflict-of-interest existed in the non-profit Greek
Theatre Association's involvement in a profit venture
at the Biltmore Theatre; 6) that the City of Los Angeles
was, by extension, sponsoring this profit venture of the
Greek Theatre Association -- Doolittle and the Wymans
by way of a possible co-mingling of funds between the
200
| civic Greek Theatre and the private Biltmore Theatre
operations; 7) that inordinate City and County financial ,
i
consideration was given to a non-profit organization which :
, showed a large bank balance; 8) that the private interests
of a highly-paid theatre executive -- Doolittle -- were
being enhanced by his having the advantages of a non-profit^
I |
I status. Yet the City had no legal connection with the
I
! Greek Theatre Association because the concession contract
S
; was between the City and Doolittle himself.
City Reaction
! Articles five and six of the Santa Monica Evening
, I
Outlook which expounded on the City tie to Doolittle and j
| the Greek Theatre Association, and the circuitous linkage |
’ I
I
j of Rosalind Wyman to Doolittle in their mutual capacity
j
! as minor owners in the Biltmore Theatre, were published
on Tuesday, November 13, and Wednesday, November 14, 1962.
On the next day, Thursday, November 15, 1962, the City
i Department of Recreation and Parks met in session and
j ordered an immediate investigation into the fiscal policies
j and operations of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre. Los
j Angeles newspapers of November 16, 1962, reported the City
reaction in lead coverage best exemplified by the widely-
read Hollywood Cltizen-News. Its broad headline took a
quarter-page space and was worded "GREEK THEATRE PROBE
ORDERED."
201
5 The make-up of the Board of Commissioners for the
| ;
; Department of Recreation and Parks had recently undergone !
personnel changes. These were a result of the new mayoral !
: administration dating from Samuel W. Yorty's election in
I
! i960. In 1962, four new appointees of Mayor Yorty were j
seated on the Board of Recreation and Parks. The new S
| commissioners were Mel Pierson, Leonard Shane, A. E.
1
I
1 England and Stanley E. Fox. The fifth member of the
; Board was Mrs. Harold C. Morton, a holdover retained from
the previous administration of Norris C. Poulson who had
' become a commissioner in 1956 and held the position of
I
Board President for the year 1961-62, an office which
[ alternates yearly among the commissioners by their own
; I
; election. Pierson was president of the Board of Recrea- |
j tion and Parks Commissioners in late 1962, the time under
o h
consideration here.
In its November 15 "Probe" article the Hollywood
! Cltizen-News carried the report of the Recreation and
1
| Parks Commission's active response to the Santa Monica
1
Evening Outlook articles. According to the Citizen-News,
Commission President Mel Pierson "spearheaded the move to
get 'hard facts' about tax subsidies to the Griffith Park
facility." Pierson expressed special concern about the
$161,538 spent on the 1959-61 Greek Theatre offices and
oh.
Greek Theatre Magazine, Comedie Francaise pro
gram for week of August 17 through August 25, 1962, p. 9»
202
ticket booth refurbishment. This money came from park
bond funds which had been approved by voters in 1957 for
recreational and park purposes. "This to me represents
; a breach of faith with the people who worked for the bonds
I
| with the understanding the money would be used for parks
and playgrounds," Pierson said.2^ jn his context,
| Pierson made it clear that the Greek Theatre allocations
i
I
! had been made by previous Recreation and Park commissions.
The allocations were not only, in his opinion, an over
subscription of funds in view of City and County subsidies
! to the theatre, but also a misdirection of funds.
|
Pierson added that "... charges made by the
; newspaper about 'commingling' of funds of the non-profit
I Greek Theatre Corporation and the Biltmore Theatre opera-
j tion should also be clarified."2^ At the Thursday,
i
November 15, meeting, Commissioner Leonard Shane supported
Pierson on the need for an inquiry into Greek Theatre
financial affairs. "I'm not going to get into the
| politics of it," Shane said, "but I feel these are ques-
|
I tions that need answers."2^
I
Doolittle was not without a defender at the meet
ing. Commissioner A. E. England, according to one press
25"Greek Theatre Probe Ordered," Hollywood Citizen-
News, November 15, 1962.
26Ibid.
27ibid.
; 203
I report, "... made it clear he would not stand for anyone
i
'picking on' Doolittle and praised him for his manage-
pO
ment." u England disagreed that the money for the theatre
, improvements had been ill-spent, and stated that in his
opinion the improvements had been badly needed. In his
ameliorating statement, England also sounded a note of
! disruption which reflected on the Commission itself. "I
I
i
! think this matter is one that has gotten out of hand,"
; England said. "I think it's politics."29
During the meeting, a telegram from Doolittle was
handed the commission. Out of town on theatre business
i
on the date — November 15, 1962 — Doolittle's wire was
; a request to postpone the discussion until his return.
| In the prevailing atmosphere of acrimony which character-
i
j ized future proceedings, Doolittle was later to state that
j
I the public turbulence was deliberately timed during his
j absence from the City in order to place the Greek Theatre
(Association, and himself, in a more defensive position.3°
1
At the meeting, in his stead, was Doolittle's
(assistant, Mrs. Alice Taylor, who offered full cooperation
j
jin the inquiry. She said, "These charges cannot be
P A
Finance Study Ordered for L.A. Greek Theater,"
Valley Times TODAY, November 16, 1962, p. 2.
^ Hollywood Citizen-News, November 15* 1962.
^^Cecil Smith, "The Greek Theater -- Its Miracle
and Its Turmoil," Los Angeles Times Calendar, June 30,
1963.
204 ;
substantiated and they are rather vague, floating charges
which we are prepared to meet. We welcome the most
Q ] j
minute inspection."J
An outcome of the meeting was that the commission I
i !
1 requested their general manager, William Fredrickson, Jr. ;
— who functions as chief administrator of Recreation
| and Parks affairs directly under the Board -- to bring
i
! a complete report of the Greek Theatre operation back to
i op
the board three weeks hence.J I
Rundberg Calls for City Council
Audit of Greek Theatre
f
The week following, reverberations of the unani- |
; mous vote for financial inquiry by Recreation and Parks j
; commissioners echoed resoundingly in the upper chamber !
of the Los Angeles City government. On November 21, 1962,
| City Councilman Karl Rundberg, Chairman of the City's
| finance committee, demanded a Council investigation
justified by the fact that the Council annually appropria-
| ted funds to the Greek Theatre. Rundberg suggested a
joint Recreation and Parks, and Finance committees'
•^Hollywood Citizen-News, November 15, 1962.
(Among a myriad of confusing figures supplied by all news
media during their running reportage was a misrepresenta
tion of the Los Angeles Times of November 16, 1962, that
put the annual Greek Theatre losses at $300,000 per year.)
32Ibid.
205 j
1 i
| hearing with full power of subpoena.33 Rundberg's motion
* was unanimously passed by the City Council. When asked
i
■ the same day about the resolution, Mayor Yorty told his !
press conference that, while declining to take sides, "I j
i I
! think that whenever city funds and city property are in- j
oh |
volved, an investigation is always in order."3
| The Los Angeles newspapers of December 6 , 1 9 ^ 2 , j
I |
! reported the next development on the Greek Theatre matter j
| which took place at the Department of Recreation and Parks j
meeting that same day. In a hearing room, described by
i the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner as "packed with spectators j
three-deep in the halls outside," Commissioner Pierson j
called for a complete audit and disclosure of all financialj
oc I
' operations of the Greek Theatre.-1 ^ The commission unani- j
! mously adopted Commissioner Leonard Shane's motion for an
I
j outside, independent auditing firm to review Greek
i
Theatre financial matters and report to the commission
by February 1, 1963.^ Pierson announced that commission
1
staff reports indicated a persistent refusal over the
1 years on Doolittle's part to permit City auditors to make
a complete check on financial operations. "On the basis
3^"Council Backs Public Quiz on Greek Theater,"
Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1962.
35"City Asks Financial Statement," Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, December 6, 1962.
36lbid.
206
j of preliminary reports," Pierson said, "it seems to me
I '
that in the public interest we must request a full audit
‘ of the Greek Theater operations. Nothing less than dis- !
; closure of all the financial data will serve the public j
i interest.Present at the hearing was Walter Danielson, ;
; l
attorney for the Greek Theatre Association, who agreed
| to the financial investigation. Danielson emphasized,
I
I
however, that the check-up should seek to determine only
I the facts pertinent to the signing of a new contract by •
the City for Doolittle’s continued operation of the j
i theatre.38 Danielson was referring to the long-term ten- j
i i
year lease which had been an issue between Doolittle and j
|
the Department since 1958. During the December 6 meeting, j
j
: Commissioner England relayed a message from Mayor Yorty
!
I to the effect that the audit "was just good business"
I QQ I
! and did not reflect on Doolittle personally.^ This note I
I
I of impartiality was agreed on by the entire Board of
Commissioners. Pierson asked that it be made clear that
the commission "has no desire to embarrass Mr. Doolittle"
! and is "determined to maintain the fine reputation of the
Greek Theatre."^0 Recreation and Parks general manager
William Fredrickson submitted the report to the commission
37Ibld. 38Ibld<
39james E. Bylin, "L.A. Board Orders Audit for
Books of Greek Theater," Valley Times TODAY, December 6,
1962.
40 ,
__________ Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, December 6, 1962.
207
J he had been asked for on November 15. Separate staff
1 reports were also tendered by Department Superintendent
of Administration L. W. Helgesen, and the secretary to
; the commission, John Horan.These reports by the trio i
I j
of Recreation and Parks staffmen would play an important i
part in future newspaper reports of the continuing public
| argument.
|
i City’s Right to Audit
Shortly before its December 6 public call for
audit of the Greek Theatre accounts, the Department of
! Recreation and Parks, through Commissioner A. E. England,
sought counsel on their legal right to audit from City j
I Attorney Roger Arnebergh. In a document dated December 4, j
j 1962, Arnebergh addressed to England his opinion entitled:
|
| "EXTENT OF CITY'S RIGHT TO AUDIT AND EXAMINE BUSINESS
i
| RECORDS OF MR. JAMES A. DOOLITTLE." In his letter of
j inquiry to Arnebergh dated November 27, 1962, England
i asked the question, "What is the present extent of the
I City's right to examine and audit the business records of
i
Mr. Doolittle?" Mr. Arnebergh's answer was, "Under its
present agreement with Mr. Doolittle, the City may examine
i
and audit any and all of Mr. Doolittle's business records
2j _2
to determine and ascertain the sum of money due it.
^ Valley Times TODAY, December 6, 1962.
ho
Los Angeles City Attorney Roger Arnebergh,
208
1 City Attorney Arnebergh's "Comment" reviewed the original
1 City-Doolittle agreement which he identified as Lease
t
No. 68 dated September 29* 1952. The "Comment" reiterated
; the basic rental terms and the 10$ of miscellaneous
j
I revenues agreements contained in Doolittle's concession
; !
contract. Arnebergh quoted paragraph 9 of the basic
I
| agreement as the provision which was most pertinent to
I
! his opinion.
| 'The lessee (Doolittle) further covenants and i
agrees that the Lessor (City) shall have the right j
to have representatives at the theater at all times |
for the purpose of checking tickets and receipts,
and that said Lessor (City) shall have full and
I unhampered access to all the books, records, con-
; cession agreements and sales records, ticket stubs,
and unsold tickets of the Lessee (Doolittle) all j
j for the purpose of determining and ascertaining the j
j exact sum of money due it from the Lessee (Doolittle.) I
under the provisions of the foregoing stated rental.^3
Arnebergh further explained that Doolittle's
| contract also required that he "render each week an
i
! accounting of all admissions sold, taxes collected and
refunds made during the preceding week. In order to permit
i
| the City to verify such accountings, Paragraph 2 of the
| agreement provides, in part:"
|
'. . . (the City) . . . shall have the right
at all reasonable times to inspect and examine the
Opinion "Extent of City's Right to Audit and Examine
Business Records of Mr. James A. Doolittle," December 4,
1962. Arnebergh's Opinion in reply to letter of inquiry
from Department of Recreation and Parks Commissioner,
A. E. England, dated November 27, 1962.
^3Ibid., p. 2.
209
Lessee's (Doolittle's) records for the purpose ..
of checking the corrections of said accounting.'^
The closing paragraph of Arnebergh's "Opinion"
clarified the boundaries of the audit items with which
i
1 the City had specific rights of concern. Contained within !
; the summation paragraph is the implication that the City j
is admissible to only those figures which assure its
j
proper returns as formulated by gross box-office and con-
I
j cession receipts. City returns are payments "off-the-
top" of Greek Theatre total returns. The paragraph also
implies that the City should not be traffic to financial j
! matters within Doolittle's producing organization, its i
! i
net revenues or to economic arrangements between the pro- j
I
: ducer and contracted performers. This latter area was J
| one of Doolittle's most nettling concerns, and a recurring
!
j point of conflict between him and the City. The closing
I
! paragraph of Arnebergh's written opinion reads:
I
[ The right of inspection incorporated in the
I present agreement was for the purpose of assuring
the City of proper payment by Mr. Doolittle.
This payment, both as to ticket and concession
! sales, is on a "gross" rather than a "net"
I revenue basis. Therefore the City receives its
j percentage of such revenue regardless of whether
Mr. Doolittle sustains a loss or realizes a pro
fit from his operations. Consequently, the
present contract contains no express provision
permitting the City to examine into questions
such as the profits realized by Mr. Doolittle
or the salaries he pays to performers or his~
employees. However, there is no legal impedi
ment which would militate against the inclusion
hh
Ibid., pp. 2-3.
210
of such a provision in subsequent contracts, if
? such be the desire of your Board.^5 (my emphasis)
Santa Monica Evening Outlook
Follow-up
I The Greek Theatre story continued to garner news-
space. On December 10, 1962, only a few days after the
Recreation and Parks Commission called for its audit of
I
| Greek Theatre finances, the instigating newspaper — the
I
j Santa Monica Evening Outlook — devoted extraordinary
space to its continued coverage of Greek Theatre affairs.
Drawing on the staff reports of Recreation and Parks
I administrators Horan, Helgeson and Fredrickson, the
Evening Outlook presentation of December 10 was an almost
' complete recapitulation of all three reports. It utilized
! extensive verbatim excerpts. As Helgeson1s and
!
I Fredrickson’s reports had done, the Evening Outlook began
| with Griffith’s gift of the Greek Theatre and presented
| the highlights of the theatre's history through the Gene
iMann operation and throughout Doolittle’s tenancy from
! 1952 through 1962. Laudable for its completeness, the
j Evening Outlook covered, in detail, City financial data
i
| on the Greek Theatre operation. Several charts lifted
|
from Fredrickson's report were prominent in the story.
These detailed City operating expenses of the Greek
Theatre, revenue returns stretching through the Mann and
45Ibid., p. 3.
211
Doolittle operations, and City expenditures for capital
improvements.
These Recreation and Parks staff reports of
superintendant of Administration L. W. Helgeson, dated
' November 30, 1962, and from Secretary to the Commission,
John Horan, and General Manager William Fredrickson, Jr.
j -- all reports submitted on December 6, 1962 — are com-
I
! plementary and similar in their recommendations to the
; Recreation and Parks Commission. Both Fredrickson and
Helgeson used identical figures of past Greek Theatre ex-
1 penses and receipts. Horan dealt mainly with the claimed
1
accounting problems encountered by the City at the Greek
; Theatre. Helgeson's recommendations are absorbed in the
; recommendations of Horan and Fredrickson which are the
! same, and, in large part, identically worded. In all
i
j cases, the staff reports paid homage to the public benefits
derived from Doolittle's presentations at the Greek
Theatre. A synthesis of the staff recommendations are
i
i as follows:
j 1. The percentage of rent, currently 5^ on
| gross, should be doubled. The financial data dis
closes an excess of expenditures over revenue year
by year for the Greek Theatre operation, exclusive
of capital improvements. It is only equitable that
the City raise its percentage so that a concession
will be as nominally self-sustaining as possible.
1 i . The Greek Theatre subsidy is one wnich should
212
be closely questioned and scrutinized.^ (my
emphasis)
2. Prohibit any possible conflict of interest.
The lease should stipulate that the Greek Theatre
is a public property and only public business is
to be conducted thereon. Any conflict of public
interest by the carrying on of private enterprise
on a City property should be prohibited. It is
probably illegal, but definitely unethical and
immoral to allow a private citizen to base his
private operations in a public facility.4?
3. Capital improvements.
In line with current concession policy, it is only
equitable that the concessionaire should participate
in whole or in part in any captial improvements to
the plant: especially if he is to have a long-term
contract.48
4. Department's audit privilege.
To obviate any rumpus, such as the Department had
with current lessee, the audit privilege should be
spelled out in detail and, in addition,49
5. Annual audit.
The lease should definitely stipulate that an audit
be made annually by a qualified firm of Certified
Public Accountants.50
46 „
John Horan, Greek Theatre - Comments on Account-
: ing and Auditing," a report submitted to the Department of
iRecreation and Parks Commission by Secretary Horan on
| December 6, 1962, p. 4.
1 47
'ibid.
^^William Fredrickson Jr., "Special Report on the
Greek Theatre Operations," Department of Recreation and
Parks General Manager's report to his Commissioners, Dec
ember 6, 1962, p. 9.
^%oran, Report, December 6, 1962, p. 4.
5°Ibid.
; 213 ;
! On the subject of "Admission Charges," Fredrickson
advised, "In order that the Theatre may be enjoyed by the
i
i
largest possible number of citizens of the community, the
Board should have a right to approve the prices of ad- j
' 51 ■
mission." In his comment on this subject, Horan said, :
"This is no province of the auditor perhaps, but a high 1
| of $5.50 is pretty steep for the average citizen.
!
! Recommended reduction, after study."52
i
! Horan added a final personal enjoinder in paren
theses :
i (Comment: Too, it has always been a question
! in my mind: the Greek Theatre is serving what per
cent of Los Angeles residents in a season? I'm
sure no one knows how many out-of-City people there
; are in the audiences, but out of a total, say, 1
! 300*000 in 1962, suppose half were residents of i
the City -- we then ask, is it right or just to !
I subsidize a theatre to serve 150,000 residents
j when we might better spend the money for the,
j say, 11,000,000 beach users in a year? Qr some
| other millions of our playground users?)53
| Fredrickson reiterated the City's dilemma arising
! out of the individual contract with Doolittle. He sug-
i
| gested that, in view of Doolittle's dominant role in the
1
j Greek Theatre Association, the organization should develop
a wider base of citizen participation and control.^
^Fredrickson, Report, December 6, 1962, p. 9*
52Horan, loc. clt.
53
-^Horan, op. cit., p. 5.
54
Fredrickson, op. cit., p. 10.
214
Of particular significance was the mention by both
Horan and Fredrickson that, "It is_ a fact that there is no
"mixing" of monies belonging to different e n t e r p r i s e s . " ^
Horan and Fredrickson stressed that, although it is common-i
! j
place and proper that a single set of accounts cover all i
; I
enterprises of a corporation, the difficulty lay in deter-
! mining the financial operating results of the Greek
! Theatre alone. "This is what has concerned the Department
| auditors from the start," summarized Fredrickson. "in
short, from a situation that contained, in their judgment,
: very inadequate accounting procedures to begin with, the
; lessee has compounded it by using one set of accounting
i records for his entire business enterprise." Fredrick- ,
; I
: son's final remark on this particular matter is particu- i
j larly revealing. He said, "A review of the records
!
j reveals that the differences of opinion between Mr.
j Doolittle and the Department auditors had not been force-
| fully called to his attention by the Board.
This last statement can only be evaluated as
imeaning that, despite the current alleged difficulties
|
and confusion over Doolittle's accounts, there had been
i no expressed dissatisfaction with Doolittle's records.
There was no question of inaccurate returns from his
^^Horan, p. 2 and Fredrickson, p. 6.
•^Fredrickson, op. cit., p. 6.
215
! operation, and, in fact, Doolittle's accounting had never
been a point of contention until the public conflagration
of 1962.
One further result of these reports warrants
comment. This is in regards to the criticism of the
Greek Theatre's "very inadequate accounting procedures."
J As was stated, the figures used in these City staff
i papers are common to all three reports. There is a
1 discrepancy in two instances of the City accounts. On
page 3 of Fredrickson's report (page 2 of Helgeson's),
i Greek Theatre rental payments to the City are listed
beside their separate years of payment. For the year 1956,
j the Greek Theatre Association is listed as paying
$28,073 to the City; in 1961, the listed return is
]
I $41,133. The following pages of each report (p. 3 of
!
| Helgeson's, p.4 of Fredrickson's) then list the income to
j the City from the Greek Theatre for the whole year. It
! must be remembered, and both reports stipulate, that the
1
j "income" figure represents all returns from use of the
I Greek Theatre for a year -- peripheral uses such as gradua-
i
j tions, art exhibits in the Greek Theatre basement, and
! the like are included -- the Greek Theatre Association
rental return being almost the entire income of the
theatre.
Both Fredrickson's and Helgeson's reports gave
total income figures of $26,030 in 1956, and $39>047 in
3. 961. Seen in the following juxtaposition -
216
Year GTA Rental Total Income Difference
1956 $28,073 $26,030 $2,043
i
1961 $41,133 $39,047 $2,086 j
$4,129 |
| -- the Greek Theatre revenues by themselves are higher
J j
I than total yearly revenues of these years returned to the j
1 theatre. Despite wide dissemination of these figures -- j
I
the Santa Monica Evening Outlook reported them fully --
i no one from the City, no news reporter, and none of the
interested parties has ever called attention to this im-
i
; possibility. This study does not question the integrity
of either the City or its staffmen with these widely
j
! circulated figures. Despite their incongruity, the figures
j
| show a lost quantity of only $4,129 — inconsiderable when
I taken in the perspective of amounts involved. However,
! the implausible figures do perform an ironic turnabout
i
of the specific criticism leveled at Doolittle and the
Greek Theatre Association. They reflect back on the
accusing party. It appears that the "very inadequate
accounting procedures" -- only alleged to the Greek
Theatre Association and Doolittle -- were not theirs as
a monopoly.
217
j The Attrition Continues
Succeeding developments in the Greek Theatre dia
lectic continued to "make the papers" in almost serial !
form. Newspapers reporting on the December 13 meeting of j
1 the Recreation and Parks Commission revealed that the |
Commission called a temporary moratorium on audit plans ;
| because of a new point of disagreement between Doolittle
! and the Department. Recreation and Parks General Manager
1 William Fredrickson told the commissioners at this
December 13 meeting that, "In my opinion, I do not think
Mr. Doolittle intends to open his books.The following
|
day, when contacted by the Los Angeles Times, Doolittle’s
attorney Walter Danielson, expressed "amazement" at
| Fredrickson’s statement. "As we told the commission a
I
j week ago," Danielson said, "our books and records will be
: open and available for an audit so long as that audit is
! part of the basis for a new contract."-^8 Danielson sub-
I
| sequently wrote the Commission reaffirming the Greek
i
; Theatre Association position regarding the audit of its
j records.59 At the next commission meeting on December 20,
I
| _____ _ _ _ _ _ _
57"Greek Theatre Negotiations Called to Halt," Los
Angeles Times, December 14, 19^2, part 11.
5 8 l b i d .
59william Danielson, "Comments on Audit Reports,"
a report by Greek Theatre Association Attorney Danielson
on past audits of Greek Theatre operations on the part of
City auditors, January 4, 1963*
218
Mrs. Harold Morton objected to any terms which implied
I
1 that the study be based on renegotiation of a contract
; with Doolittle. This meeting pointed up interdepartmental
; disunity when Leonard Shane protested that someone had
' given Danielson "provocative" reports of Commission
decisions.^0 Shane charged that "someone on the staff
f \ “ \
| had discussed the lease improperly with the attorney."
I
i
\ Mrs. Alice Taylor, Doolittle's chief aide, denied that
this ever happened and explained that Danielson's first
knowledge of commission action came when the Los Angeles
! Times contacted him for a statement that past Thursday,
i
| December 13. Before the December 20 meeting adjourned,
6?
j the commissioners ordered their audit resumed.
I
! The City Council Aborts its Probe
i
| While the bitter exchanges between the Recreation
and Parks commissioners and the Greek Theatre administra
tion were accelerating, the Los Angeles City Council was
i becoming less resolute on their own motion to probe Greek
j Theatre finances. City Councilman Karl Rundberg's
November 21st call for a City Council probe had been
forwarded to the Council's recreation and parks committee
i_______________________
60"Greek Theatre Talks Ordered to Resume" Los
Angeles Times, December 21, 1962.
^"City Again Tries to Audit Greek Theatre," Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, December 21, 1962.
Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1962.
219
i chaired at that time by Councilman Everett Burkhalter.
On December 10, Burkhalter's committee moved to kill the
proposed probe, ordering Rundberg's resolution received
and filed. Both Burkhalter and Councilman Gordon Hahn
; commended the cultural contributions of the Greek Theatre
at this meeting.on December 26, the City Council
' formally dropped any plans to act further on the Rundberg
1 resolution. According to one newspaper account:
There's no reason to investigate impresario
James Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Association
as far as the Los Angeles City Council is con
cerned.
1 The council Wednesday adopted a recommenda
tion from its recreation and park committee to
kill Councilman Karl Rundberg's proposal for a
; full-scale probe into the city-owned theatre
leased to Doolittle.
! . . . Valley Councilman Everett Burkhalter,
j chairman of the council committee, said, "Your
i committee has heard nothing but good of the
j Greek Theater.
j In the voting to file the request without taking
I 65
i any action, Burkhalter was joined by Rundberg. The City
j Council thus removed itself from further involvement with
j the Greek Theatre financial argument. The Council left
^3"Council Kills Motion to Probe Theater," Valley
Times TODAY, December 12, 1962, p. 18.
^"Council Drops Move to Probe Greek Theater,"
Valley Times TODAY, December 27, 1962.
^"council Gives Greek Theater Clean Slate," Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, December 27* 19^2.
220
I the issue to its Department of Recreation and Parks which,
by the end of December, had hired a team of three inde
pendent auditing firms to report on Greek Theatre account-
; ing at a proposed cost to the city of $5*000.
]
■ Intensified Actions and Reactions
The year 1963 opened with new intensity in what
1
1
| was commonly referred to in the Los Angeles press as the
I
: "running battle" between the City Department of Recrea
tion and Parks and the Greek Theatre Association. On the
first Thursday of 1963 -- January 3 -- the audit again
! came to an impasse when the hired independent accounting
firms, in a joint letter read at the Commission meeting,
! reported that Doolittle again refused them access to his
] records. The auditors said Doolittle informed them that
he could not open his books to them because he had not
received permission from his board of directors to do
so.6? Further, Doolittle told the auditors that he wanted
i assurances that "certain disclosures" would not be in-
| 68
| eluded In the final audit report. "He was further of
I the opinion," the auditors reported, "there should be at
_______________________
6^"Recreation Board OKs Audit for Greek Theatre,"
Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1962, Part II, p. 2.
6?"New Snag on Greek Theater," Los Angeles Herald-
Examiner, January 3* 1963*
66"Doolittle Hits Board's Threat," Valley Times
TODAY, January 4, 1963.
221
I least a gentleman's agreement as to the general terms of
I |
the proposed lease extension prior to having the records
open to e x a m i n a t i o n ."^9 The result of this auditor's
■ report was that the Department of Recreation and Parks j
Commission, before the meeting adjourned, threatened to !
impound the Greek Theatre Association books. Doolittle's ‘
' reaction to this threat the next day was a charge that the j
1 Commission was "conducting a smear campaign in an appar-
* ent effort to destroy the association."^
j
On this same date, January 3, 1963, the Greek
; Theatre Association was reacting to the current controversyj
in an important meeting of its own. The meeting brought j
; forth a lengthy resolution from the Association which
: served notice of its temporary unilateral withdrawal from
i further negotiations with the City of Los Angeles, and
I
| from further contributing to the climate of bitterness.
! By withdrawing, the resolution stated that the Association
i
I
I could get on with their business of fulfilling their pre-
1
I sent obligations and assuring their, presently threatened,
I season of 1963.
i
I
i The prevailing bone of contention between the
Association and the City Commission, and the reason for
Doolittle and the Association's objection to the independent
audit, needs to be commented on. What was at stake for
69ibid. 7°Ibid.
222
1 I
i the Greek Theatre Association -- and all of its reactions
! I
! were consistent from the first moment the audit was called !
: for on December 6, 1962 -- was the principle on which the j
examination rested. The audit demand was tantamount to !
i j
: impugning the past operation of the Greek Theatre Associa- j
i
i tion. This was especially true since the audit call came !
| out of the air of suspicion which billowed from the Santa
I
! Monica Evening Outlook expose articles. Now that the
J affair was public, in a prevailing atmosphere of indict
ment, the Greek Theatre Association had little choice but
: to adopt a posture of propriety. Had the affair been
|
handled in a climate of trust, much bitter exchange could
; have been avoided. The premise of Doolittle and the Greek
; Theatre Association's stand was that their past record
I
j was not suspect, and that it was one in which they had
!
| pride. Until the current dispute there had never been
i any formal suggestion of irregularities in Association
financial dealings with the City. Auditors from the City
1
; had been given yearly access to Association accounts and
i had satisfactorily verified proper returns to the City
apropos of contract stipulations. Thus, by refusing an
audit which was purely for its own sake, the Greek Theatre
Association showed its public resentment to the indictment
of its past record. At the same time it resisted paying
homage to the climate of accusation currently in force.
This reasoning lay behind the Association's agreeing to
; 223
! any full audit which would form the basis for a new
i |
1 negotiation of contract between the Association and the ,
City. Doolittle’s request for a "gentleman's agreement" j
|
was precisely geared to the fact that the Greek Theatre i
Association had no secrets. An examination of past opera- j
tional records should be used only to form new constructive'
J financial bases beneficial to continued operation.
i
1 Implied in the "gentleman's agreement" was a vote of con-
| fidence on the part of the City in the past performances
of the Greek Theatre Association. The agreement meant
i that the City was openly continuing its contract with a
lessee it fully endorsed. The question of "certain dis-
; closures" which Doolittle felt should be kept privileged
information will be discussed subsequently in this chapter.
I
t
I
j The Greek Theatre Association
i Resolution
! -----------
! The "RESOLUTION" drafted by the Greek Theatre
|
! Association at its January 3, 1963* meeting became the
i
; first move on the part of either of the conflicting
I parties to halt the open war which had developed. The
I
resolution statement served as an explanation of policy
and as a "position paper" for the Greek Theatre Associa-
I
tion.
The main purpose of the Association resolution
was to remove the cause for the audit by a formal state
ment and, at the same time, to declare the reasons for the
; 224
! audit as groundless. The audit issue between the Recrea
tion and Parks Commission and the Greek Theatre Associa
tion was being fought from diametrically opposed stand
points. The Commission wanted an independent audit into j
' past Association accounts; the theatre organization could
: !
not agree to this "unnecessary" and superfluous examina-
! tion. The Greek Theatre Association, by alluding to the
! audit as unnecessary, was underlining its past observances
I
i
; of its contract with the City, its past cooperation with j
City auditors, and its integrity in past payments. An
: Association agreement to the present independent audit !
j I
; would be, in fact, to allow the City to intrude beyond j
j
; the City's rights of contract. Consequently, the Associa- j
; I
| tion would agree to discuss all ramifications of the pre- j
! sent contract, and every item of bookkeeping connected
|
j with the present contract and past records, only if this
I
I
j discussion were being used as the basis of a better,
i
| more operable future contract. The Greek Theatre Associa-
i
: tion's stance amounted to its declaration that past
i
! records were proper past history. Since the Association
1
j felt that an independent audit was only proper to nego- I
i tiation for the future, the Association resolved that,
under the current conditions, it would remove itself from
future contract negotiations beyond the tenure of its
present lease. By this collective action, the Association,
from its standpoint, nullified and voided the unnecessary
225
i independent City audit. The Association's withdrawal from
future negotiation of contract rejected its being subject
: to arbitrary action on the part of the City, while at the
same time it backed up the Association's image of
: integrity.
In essence, the January 3, 1963* Greek Theatre
| Association "RESOLUTION" compressed into the following
i
! two excerpts:
1 WHEREAS, by the Recreation and Park Department's
own statement, contained in General Manager William
Fredrickson's Report, there is no formal request for
a lease on the Greek Theatre, either a renewal or
a long term contract, before the Commission, . . .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board
of Directors of the Greek Theatre Association and
its General Director, James A. Doolittle, make no
request for, and desist from, any discussion of
any extension or modification of the existing con
tract beyond the termination date in 1964. Since
the sole purpose of an outside audit, as stated in
the Recreation and Park Commission was as follows:
"In order that this Commission may evaluate the
economic and operational facts in"relation to Mr.
Doolittle's request for an extension" (a quote
from Commissioner Leonard Shane at the meeting of
December 6, 1962) this Association's motion will
remove the necessity for expending the taxpayers' 1
money for an unnecessary independent audit; the
Association hereby welcomes and requests tne
Recreation and Park Department, as we have~~on pre
vious occasions this year, to proceed at any time
with their own audit authorized under terms of "the
existing lease.7l (parenthesis and emphasis mine)
The next statement of the resolution contained an
^RESOLUTION," Greek Theatre Association, January
3> 1963* a position paper resulting from the Greek Theatre
I Association meeting of January 3, 1963.
226
Association reaction to the staff reports of Fredrickson,
Helgeson and Horan which had formed the basis of the huge
coverage in the December 10, 1962, issue of the Santa
Monica Evening Outlook.
The Outlook1s reiteration of staff assertions
such as "very inadequate accounting procedures" was un-
■ favorable to the Greek Theatre Association. However, the
! Association alluded only to the unanimous recommendation
1 of the staff reports, reprinted in the Santa Monica news
paper, which suggested higher rates of rental for future
; continuances of the Association at the Greek Theatre. The
resolution’s second statement reads:
WHEREAS, contained in the Reports widely
distributed by the Department are recommended
terms and restrictions for future tenancy of
j the Theatre by the Association under which the
I Association sincerely believes it would be im-
j possible to continue to operate for the purposes
i for which it was formed — to bring theatre of
j the finest quality and highest cultural value to
! the people of Los Angeles — as it has endeavored
| to do during the past ten years, . . .72
i The resolution then stated the Association's
| policy of agreement to the outside audit providing "that
!
|a preliminary discussion with the Commission establish
|that a mutually acceptable agreement was possible and that
basic working terms would be operable."73 jn explaining
the reason for its provision, the Association statement
said, "This earnest of good faith on both sides, being
72Ibid. 73Ibid.
227
| protective good business practice, would establish that
no unnecessary expenditure would be made on an audit
I
leading nowhere and resulting in a deadlock."^ The state-'
ment went on to express the Association's doubt upon the |
i I
' Commission's intent to reach any acceptable agreement in j
i
view of its continued ignoring of said provision. 1
! In a direct statement of the untenable position
I
1 in which the Greek Theatre Association found itself as a
result of the current cause celebre, the premises of the
|
resolution went on:
WHEREAS, the current prolonged controversy,
i initiated and perpetuated by the Recreation and
Parks Department, and the many irresponsible, j
incorrect and slanted statements emanating from j
; said Department, has already adversely affected j
i all phases of the theatre operation and has j
placed the forthcoming Greek Theatre season in \
j serious jeopardy, and
!
j WHEREAS, further controversy and argument
i would only compound the difficulties and perhaps
j imperil the Association itself, and
t
j WHEREAS, at this point there is no way of
I estimating the full extent of the financial and
! artistic damage this controversy will have on the
forthcoming season, and
I WHEREAS, the Association feels it imperative
| that all energies and interest immediately be
i directed to the preparation of a 19^3 season,
There followed the resolution to discontinue
further discussion of the matter of future contract within
its current context of unrest.
7^ibid. 75ibid.
; 228
I In a furtherance to the main resolution, the Greek
i
Theatre Association offered a proposal for future dis- j
cussion. This consisted of a flat-fee rental basis for i
their continuance at the Greek Theatre. The Association |
| |
made future negotiation on this proposal conditional on ;
their weathering the present conflict and finishing the 1
| forthcoming 1963 season in relatively sound financial
i
I
! condition. The justification for the future proposal was
i
; worded:
. . . We have strongly advocated for many
years a flat-fee instead of a percentage pay-
; ment for the use of the theatre in order to
! eliminate any possible question of rental due, !
with the attendant incalculable savings to
taxpayers and the Association in probing,
j checking, rechecking and auditing.To
i i
In closing, the Greek Theatre Association resolu- :
!
tion pledged itself to continued dedication for the re-
I mainder of its current lease, whatever the outcome of the
1
! "unfortunate and costly controversy." The resolution
cited the Association's ten-year achievement which brought
1
Los Angeles' own Greek Theatre from obscurity to signifi-
! cance throughout the world.
|
Finally, the position paper stated the Associa
tion's pride in upgrading the City's Greek Theatre returns
from Doolittle's $1,000 season rental in 1952 to the 1962
payment from the Greek Theatre Association of more than
229
5 $5^^000 -- "The highest rental ever paid for an outdoor
i
77 i
theatre, regardless of size."''
The contents of the Greek Theatre Association !
"RESOLUTION" dominated the discussion at the following !
! I
I
; week’s Recreation and Parks Commission meeting of
January 10, 1963. In a brief appearance at the session,
]
| Doolittle produced rich quotes for newspapers of the
i
1 following day. "We can’t stand the continual harassment
■ and embarrassment," Doolittle said, "in this six-week
attack, the commission has tried to destroy everything
; we've built up over the last 10 years. This great smear I
! yQ |
can affect our whole operation."' Doolittle elucidated
; the effects of the controversy on the production organiza-
! I
I tion, asserting that three projected shows for the 1963 !
| season -- "Electra," "Medea," and "The Pirates of Pen-
!
zance" — had been lost. He indicated that concentration
on defending itself left the Association too little time
to negotiate with concert groups. "This has cost us
thousands of dollars," Doolittle added.79
i In a 1969 interview connected with this study,
i
Doolittle could employ the advantages of distance in some
reflective comments on this unfortunate period. He
77Ibld.
f^Gene Hunter, "Greek Theatre Threatens to Disband
in Lease Row," Los Angeles Times, January 11, 1963.
79ibid.
: 230
! remembered that many regretful things were said by him
because of the unreasonable atmosphere which prevailed in
: 1962-63.
A few days later, in its lead editorial entitled
' "Mr. Doolittle's Smoke Screen," the Santa Monica Evening
Outlook continued to heat public suspicion regarding the
| Greek Theatre Association's, and especially Doolittle's,
1
! attitude toward the audit by asking "what in the world is
! he trying to hide?"80
It is the judgment of this researcher that, on
i the basis of evidence, Doolittle was "trying to hide"
j
; nothing -- especially as implied by the tone of the
| Evening Outlook's question. The Greek Theatre Association,
I as will be presented here in succeeding pages, could make
i
j a strong case for their compliance with past City audits,
rendering information even beyond its obligations of con
tract. Recall, that the independent auditing firms had
reported in their joint letter to the Recreation and Parks
j
| Commission meeting of January 3* 1963* that Doolittle
requested that "certain disclosures" of the Greek Theatre
operation be kept private information. The information
to which Doolittle referred was the actual money arrange
ment settled on between performer and producer. Doolittle
claimed that this item is usually considered privileged
Mr. Doolittle's Smoke Screen," an editorial in
The Santa Monica Evening Outlook, January 14, 1963.
231
information between the business parties and that per
formers generally request that the financial terms of
! their contracts not be revealed. Further, according to
, Doolittle, the confidential nature of this information
On
is a standard rule of procedure in Equity contracts.
The situation is analagous to the private individual who
j regards his salary or income as one of the more jealously
! guarded precincts of his own business. Accordingly,
Doolittle's position on the "certain disclosures" was that
they were particularities of trust, and that to reveal
them would be to directly affect the theatre operation.
This matter was another issue of the January 11, 1963*
; meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission when Doo-
i little protested that the Commission had released this
| confidential information in an overt attempt to embarrass
! 82
him. His statement was supported by an article in a
local publication which released and commented on details
of financial agreements between Doolittle and famous
1 8?
j performers. ^
| ^Remarks accompanying a Greek Theatre Association
release defining the City's permissible areas of audit as
stipulated by contract, May 9* 1963.
James E. Bylin, "All's Quiet in Greek Theater
Controversy — for the Moment," Valley Times TODAY,
January 25, 1963.
^^Ridgely Cummings, "Civic Center Spotlight,"
Eagle Rock, California News-Herald, December 23, 1962.
232
i The Greek Theatre Association Sub-
1 stantiates Its Audit Record'
The Greek Theatre resolution caused a temporary |
lull in the public salvos between the Greek Theatre Assoc- :
i iation and the Recreation and Parks Commission even while j
; the undercurrent of private hostilities remained. During ;
the time when the public exchanges were at their zenith,
I
i the President of the Greek Theatre Association, Nolen
i Allen, directed a letter to the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors requesting a statement of the County's
experience with an audit into the Greek Theatre Associa-
j tion books and records as conducted by the County in i960.
Nolen's request, dated December 13* 1962, asked: j
| i
Will you be kind enough to inform us what j
the findings were, if the audit was completely \
| satisfactory to the County and what cooperation
i was given by our General Director, our Compt-
I roller and all members of our staff.W
I
I The reply from Warren Dorn, Chairman of the Los
1
j Angeles County Board of Supervisors, was dated as of the
I next day, December 14, 1962. Dorn's response, in part,
! read as follows:
i
Our primary interest in making this audit was
to determine the financial results of cultural
programs which were scheduled in connection with
a payment made by the County of Los Angeles to
the Association.
^Letter from Greek Theatre Association President,
Nolen Allen, to Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
requesting information on the County's past experience
with Greek Theatre audit examinations, December 13* 1962.
; 233
j The Auditor-Comptroller has informed me that
Mr. Doolittle and other members of his staff were
cooperative during the entire course of the audit.
All books and records which he wished to examine
were made available to him and he was able to
satisfactorily report on the results of the County's
contract with the Association.
I, among many, have greatly enjoyed your
cultural and variety programs. These have been a
benefit to the community and a contribution to
its cultural atmosphere.
I
i
I
! Los Angeles County Affirmation of the
I Greek Theatre Association
It is noteworthy that the agency which was respon
sible for Los Angeles County's award of cultural sub-
I sidles -- the County Music Commission — volunteered its
own resolution of praise for the Greek Theatre operation.
■ As reported in the January 18, 1963* issue of the Los
; Angeles Times, Music Commission President Paul Fisher,
i
j and Executive Secretary John te Groen signed the resolution
i
requesting that the County Board of Supervisors continue
its annual $10,000 support to the Greek Theatre. The
i resolution lauded the theatre's cultural contributions and
pointed out that the operation was not successful until
Q/T
Doolittle took over the directorship. The votes of
confidence which emanated from the upper chambers of both
8r
-^Letter of reply from Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors Chairman, Warren Dorn, describing favorable
County experience with past County audits of the Greek
Theatre operation, December 14, 1962.
Q /T
D"Greek Theatre Operation Lauded by Music Board,"
Los Angeles Times, January 18, 1963* Part II, p. 2.
; 234
| Los Angeles' County and City governments were exonera-
: tlons which isolated the City Department of Recreation and |
I Parks as the sole government body warring its dissatisfac-
; tion with the Greek Theatre Association. J
; Regarding Past City Audits
The Greek Theatre Association provided the Depart-
I
| ment of Recreation and Parks Commission with a more com-
j plete substantiation of its past record with regard to
Los Angeles City audits. Greek Theatre Association
Attorney Walter G. Danielson submitted to the Commission
| his own personal research into all past City audits of
: the Greek Theatre operation. Danielson's written report
I
| is dated January 4, 1963. His report of "Comments on
j Audit Reports" was based on records residing with the
General Manager of the Recreation and Parks Commission,
William Fredrickson, Jr. and it began:
Accepting the suggestion of Commissioner
Shane at the meeting on December 6, 1962 to
comment on the audit reports on file in the
office of the General Manager of the Commis-
I sion, I respectfully submit the following:°7
I
Danielson then enumerated the extensive break
downs of accounts included in the audit files. Included
^^William Danielson, "Comments on Audit Reports,"
a report submitted by Greek Theatre Association Attorney
Danielson to the Department of Recreation and Parks Com
mission regarding satisfactory comments of the City's own
auditors in past Greek Theatre examinations, January 4,
1963.
235
! were: comparisons of over-all operating results for each
year since 1952, detailed analyses of operations produc
tion by production, detailed breakdowns of concession
; operations at the Greek Theatre, and supplementary sched
ules which indicated that Fredrickson's files contained
comprehensive accounts of the entire operation of the
| Greek Theatre Association. This applied also to the
I
1 Biltmore Theatre operations. Danielson's report noted:
i
In only one year was there any suggested
reported shortage of rent due the City. This
was the year 1956 when $0.06 (six cents) was
reported. In that year the total rent paid the
! City was in excess of $2 6 , 0 0 0 .00°8
The report then presented a succession of quoted
comments on the filed audits as made by City auditors of
; the yearly accounts. These comments of City personnel
! negate the criticism against Association accounting which
| had been so definitely stated in the reports of Horan,
Fredrickson and Helgeson, and which had been repeated so
widely in press coverage. This is especially true of the
i
| extensive and pointed renderings in the Santa Monica
j Evening Outlook. The comments of City auditors as listed
|
by Danielson read, in part:
AUDIT 1959 (9 pages of Comment):
'Accounting for all tickets sold is adequately
recorded and reported.'
88Ibid., p. 2.
’The accounting records were found to be in
good condition and are maintained by Mr. Berst,
Accountant and Secretary Treasurer of the Associa
tion. '
AUDIT 1956 (4 pages of Comment):
'Audit was performed by Mr. Claude Lowdermilk,
Senior Accountant, who compiled extensive figures
and data to construct schedules and reports por
traying the season's activities and the financial
condition of the Association.'
'After making a few minor adjustments, under
signed is confident that the facts submitted by
Mr. Lowdermilk constitute a comprehensive and
accurate audit of the association^ records.'
AUDIT 1957 (3 pages of Comment):
'The records maintained by Mr. Berst, account
ant, are well kept.'
AUDIT 1958 (3 pages of Comment):
'. . .No significant errors of clerical
accounts were noted in the audit.'
| AUDIT i960 (3 pages of Comment):
I
j '. . . The financial records as maintained
I are in good order and no errors were noted.'°9
j Danielson's summarizing remarks, based upon his
documented report, puts the conduct of the Greek Theatre
!Association, as regards the entire audit issue, in clear
i
jperspective. The following extracts articulate the
j"ground-rules" which apply to the formal contract between
the City and the Association. Danielson's closing points
reiterated and corroborated the opinion which City Attorney
^jbid., p. 4.
237
Arnebergh handed down to the Recreation and Parks Commis
sion as reviewed earlier in this chapter of the study.
In view of the formal terms of the existent City-Greek
Theatre Association contract, it appears that the Associa
tion had, contrary to charges, been extrovertish with its
books. Danielson wrote that "The City, of course, has
an absolute right to check all records relating to the
sales of admissions and of concessionaires to verify
that the City is receiving all of the rent due it."-^ !
However, it is submitted that records relating
to the many schedules attached to the reports, j
such as balance sheets, cost of productions, pro- I
fits and losses from individual productions, etc., !
relate to matters outside the area of the contract |
and also of the Commission's principles and Opera- j
ting Rules. (These provide in Paragraph 14 that ,
city staff members shall have reasonable access to j
the premises and "records of account" of all i
licensees.) Nevertheless, the records relating to
all operational features of the association have
been made available to the auditors who have care-
fully studied and prepared very comprehensive
schedules, as if t!he City were participating in a
n--m — j--1—r-j*— a * i i --~ - ttttt
underline and parenthesis mine)
In the past, then, the City audits had proceeded
well beyond accounts which were "none of its business,"
in lieu of the contract terms. The depth and detail of
the audits that the City had were justified only if the
contract had been based on a rental return resulting after
all expenses of the theatre operation were tabulated.
By strict interpretation of contract, these "net" figures
90ibld. 91jbid.
; 238
I were the rightful property of the Greek Theatre Association
i
; alone. Danielson's succeeding paragraph to the one above
; elaborated this assertion as follows:
It is to be noted that inquiry into some areas
! outside the scope of the contract was made because
! the auditor "was curious" about these matters.
Curiosity, of course, is no justifiable basis for
examining records completely outside the scope of
the "Operating Rules, which limit rights of access
] to "records of account." This same curiosity
j extended over into an even more unrelated area;
I namely, as to how the Greek Theatre Association
j selects shows to be performed at the Greek Theatre
and also at the Biltmore Theatre. A question such
as this is completely outside the realm of an
audit which is to verify that the City is in fact
receiving its full 5$.92
I
j In a final admonishment of the Recreation and
Parks Commission's handling of the public argument,
I
| Danielson dealt with the Commission's violation of con-
| fidence with private information:
i
j If there has been any hesitancy on the part
i of the Greek Theatre Management in ever giving
access to all information requested by your audi
tor, outside the areas permitted by the contract
and not in any way required to determine the
rental due, it was based on the assurance from
your department that this specific information
; would not be made public and, unfortunately,
i your department repeatedly violated this assurance,
| as it is still doing. Often this information has
| been given to those who have distorted these facts
and have deliberately used them to detriment of the
Association and Mr. Doolittle, thereby complicating
the operation of the Theatre . . . .93
The "Doolittle" Contract
The Department of Parks and Recreation Commission
92ibid. 93ibid., p. 5.
239 |
1 persisted through the winter of 1963 with its plans for
an audit in the face of exonerations and praise from |
i
I
upper chambers of City and County government, and the !
, weltering substantiation of past proper deportment of
the Greek Theatre Association's financial dealings with j
; ^ I
the City. In March of 1963* the Commission fastened onto
| a matter which became its final concerted point-of-attack
I
! in the department's extended, ultimately collapsible,
i
case against the Greek Theatre Association. j
The issue came to a head at the March 7* 1963*
meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission. The
Department's audit of Greek Theatre Association records
; was in progress during this time. At the March 7 meeting,
; i
; Commissioner Mrs. Harold C. Morton brought the Commission's!
[ own audit proceedings to a halt with a point of legal
j
I technicality which she had raised before. The most
■ recent occasion was at the January 17 meeting when the
Greek Theatre Association's resolution announced its
; temporary hiatus from its own public defense. The point
I raised was the fact that the Commission was in process of
I
examining the books of an organization with which it had
no contract. "Our lease is with Mr. Doolittle. If Mr.
Doolittle allows the Association to run his business,
he's vitiating his contract with us,"9^ Mrs. Morton pro-
^"Parks Commissioner Hits Doolittle's Audit
Stand," Valley Times TODAY, March 9, 1963-
240
1 posed. Commissioner Stanley Fox, a lawyer, agreed with
the dubious legality of the Department's audit. He sug
gested that the Greek Theatre Association may be an
"interloper" in the dispute. Commissioner Fox further
stated:
If the Greek Theatre Association has the
records of the receipts, then the Association
is operating the theater and this may be the
vice. An association is operating a conces-
1 sion instead of the person with whom the city
j has the contract.95
Commissioner Leonard Shane voiced his own im
patience with the Department's dilemma. "What are we
! doing here?" Shane began,
I have a feeling we're being put in an
I untenable legal position, possibly violating
our public trust and not fulfilling the con
tract properly by failing to audit the ten-
| ant's books, but auditing instead the books
j of a group designated by the tenant.9°
!
| Shane emphasized his concern that the City "may
| be doing wrong" if an audit is continued "of a group we
I have no relationship with in lieu of the tenant's books."
: Shane also pointed out that Doolittle and the Association
| had continually held that the lease had, in effect, been
shifted to the organization. However, the Los Angeles
City Attorney had ruled that the assignment had to be in
writing.97
At this juncture, the Recreation and Parks
95ihid. 96Ibld # 97ibid.
241
I ;
! Commission appeared to be grabbing at straws in an effort
i
' to further the embarrassment of Doolittle and the Greek
: Theatre Association. Yet, paradoxically, the issue was ;
relevant in content, however spurious its form. j
1 i
! I
; Reviewed in the context of the past decade, the j
too-much protestation and bluster on this issue illuminate 1
' the untenability of the Commission's stance. For ten
! years, the Department of Recreation and Parks and the
' City of Los Angeles had been allied with the Greek Theatre
I
Association in a cultural project. Official correspon-
i dence and negotiations, subsidies from Los Angeles City
|
and County, were specifically addressed to the Association j
I for all that time. The entire premise of the theatrical j
: program and the Greek Theatre operation was that of a 1
j
I civic project appropriately conceded to a non-profit,
I
| civic-oriented organization whose only vested interest
i
was the cultural betterment of the City. It must be
judged preposterous that the Commission would suggest in
i
j March of 1963 that Doolittle's personal accounts were the
| only ones relevant to a Greek Theatre audit, implying that
he was, in fact, a private corporation within a non
profit corporation, and that he, and not the Greek Theatre
Association, was the responsible party of account. If
this improbable reality was true, then the Recreation and
Parks Department had been auditing and accepting the wrong
accounts for ten years. Carrying the illogic to its
242
<
! extreme, the City department had, as it suggested, improp-
i
: erly done business with an "interloper" at the Greek
; Theatre for a decade. This suggestion that the Greek
Theatre Association books were not the relevant records j
! |
amounted to sham and pretense. In that event, the case j
was one of an inept City agency so incompetent at business 1
! that its right hand was innocent of the doings of its left.j
I j
! The issue revolved on a technicality -- Doolittle as per-
' sonal contractee -- a certain irregularity, but one which j
might have had facile resolution in a less emotional
i
i atmosphere and descent into personality considerations |
! I
| fostered by the continuing conflict. j
It is even more curious that the Commission's pro- j
; testations, at that late date, on the matter of Doolittle's!
!
j personal contract should contain the note of sudden aware-
!
ness of the actualities involved. At a Commission meet
ing on January 24, Commissioner Shane himself had moved
to postpone a request from the Greek Theatre Association
i
j that the contract for the Greek Theatre be transferred
I immediately to the Association, thereby removing Doolittle's
i
name as the formally contracted party. On this matter,
i Commissioner A. E. England strongly advocated that the
Commission resolve the technicality, saying, "... this
has come up before the commission numerous times and I
can't understand why we can't do business on this matter."
England said further that the Greek Theatre Association
243
I was composed of "unimpeachable people and I'm in favor
1 of adopting them as the theater's legal tenant. I don't j
know why we're holding this up."98
Commissioner Shane had given his reason on
! January 24 for delaying any action on the Greek Theatre j
! I
Association request. At that time he said he wanted to
! postpone open controversy because of the Association's
I
j request in its resolution of January 3» 1963. Yet, two j
S !
months later, the Recreation and Parks Commissioners re- j
discovered and belabored the same issue at their March 7
| meeting. This issue was for all purposes the final one I
j i
raised by the Commission, and it provided a way out of the
; highly publicized audit which, at that time, (March) was
j apparently unpromising for the Department of Recreation !
I
and Parks. At the same time, in the opinion here, the
resolution of Doolittle's personal contract with the City
was the most relevant and constructive measure to come
out of the unfortunate controversy. It was long overdue.
i
Commentary on the Personal
Contract Issue’
j In retrospect, it is puzzling that the legal and
i business minds which make up the City-Theatre relationship
under study here could have allowed the technical entrap
ment which became fundamental to Greek Theatre controver-
9811 Theater Contract Delayed," Los Angeles Herald-
Examiner, January 24, 1963*
2 44
j sies. On purely technical grounds, the fact that Doo
little's name on the City-Theatre contract signified him i
as the sole lessee of the Greek Theatre worked to the
detriment of all concerned. The basic contract when
‘ created in 1952 had valid logic in naming a single indi- j
: i
vidual as lessee since Doolittle was at the time venturing ;
I on his own at the Greek Theatre. But even after the Greek
1 Theatre Association formed around Doolittle, the City per-
| petuated the personal contract by yearly extensions of
the original lease. Based on its unhappy past experiences
t
-- the bankruptcy and foreclosure of the former corporate |
! I
tenant at the Greek Theatre -- the City apparently wished j
; to retain a single lessee as liable for the operation. j
! I
' It is the opinion here that all parties confluent to the !
I
! agreement were remiss in not rearranging the lease shortly
j
| after the establishment of the non-profit Greek Theatre
! Association. For ten years, the contract was at odds
with the system effectuating it.
i
By strictest legal interpretation, the Department
! of Recreation and Parks Commission was right that it had
I
no contract with the Greek Theatre Association and, as a
consequence, Association accounts were irrelevant to the
City's contract with Doolittle. The argument, however,
was specious in light of the de facto set-up and activation
of the Association and Doolittle in the Greek Theatre
operation. Unfortunately, the facts of the contract did
245
|allow the Commission to perpetuate Doolittle as a paper
tiger who continually refused his books to the City for ,
examination. The unfortunate implications of this genre
;of publicity on this issue continued throughout the
■ spring, summer and autumn of 19^3•
In the view here, the ramifications of Doolittle's
! being personal signatory to the lease had many disad-
I
vantages to him. Of prime consideration is the practical
fact that he was, in the strict sense of the contract,
!
vulnerable to financial liability for the Greek Theatre
: operation. Contained within the situation were disadvan-
tages beyond this merely practical one. The fact that j
:Doolittle was the personal contractee to the Greek Theatre j
; I
attached too many suggestions to him personally that he 1
|
| was the individual benefactor of all considerations --
j
I subsidies, capital expenditures and the like -- tendered
| to the Greek Theatre. There was much press publicity,
! particularly from Ridgely Cummings writing for the Civic
i
Center News Agency as released in the Eagle Rock, Calif-
i
I ornia Sentinel and other small local weeklies, which con
structed, in frequent attention to Greek Theatre affairs,
i the image of "Doolittle's empire,"99 fn Griffith Park.
The articles in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, which
proved incendiary to the 1962-63 audit controversy, carry
99"Theater Probe Called Overdue," Santa Monica
Evening Outlook, November 21, 1962.
; 246
! much the same weight on Doolittle's personal role as
recipient' of over-subscription and underwriting from
City and County governments. One could interpret Doo
little as an individual sheltered by a non-profit organ
ization in a position of advantage for his own business
i j
pursuits. It is unavoidable that the powerful personality
! of Doolittle would make him a stellar candidate for atten-
i
! tion and criticism. His all-encompassing executive capa-
i
; cities at the Greek Theatre made him the public personna
I
of the Greek Theatre and the Greek Theatre Association. |
t
These factors, added to the appearance that the Greek
Theatre was Doolittle's operation, provided the Achilles
; heel for those who took aim at Doolittle and the Associa- J
; !
I tion. !
An example of the kind of speculation raised by
Doolittle's theoretical contract leverage was expressed
by Commissioner Mrs. Harold C. Morton at one Department
jof Recreation and Parks meeting (November 7, 1963)* Com-
I
| missioner Morton questioned whether Doolittle could with-
j draw surplus Greek Theatre Association monies for his own
use. She was assured that he could not.^® The point
was not well raised, but it is simply answered by the fact
that Doolittle could in no way, as could no other salaried
employee, embezzle funds from his employer. Past
100mGreek Theatre Contract Set; Long Fight Ended,"
Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1963.
247
references to Doolittle's personal power, considerable as
j
: it may be from the viewpoint of his executive record,
tend to cloud the fact that he is and was subject to the
Greek Theatre Association as its chief salaried employee.
Because of this reality and the assumption of the actual
responsibility by the Greek Theatre Association for the
! Greek Theatre, the Association accounts are the record of
i
1 the theatre operation. The issue of calling for Doo-
i
!little's books was specious and contrived in light of
actuality. Yet, the legal grounds for the call were in
:the Commission's favor. The confusion of this state of
!
affairs should have been, long since, unnecessary. For
;all the adverse comment directed at Doolittle's hypothe-
tical position of aggrandizement at the Greek Theatre,
I it remained for a small local newspaper to place his situa-
!
|tion in another perspective seldom mentioned so forth-
|rightly.
I The Greek Theater might well have continued
i as just another outdoor arena used spasmodically
for cultural promotions of a sort had not Jimmy
j Doolittle come along with a happy combination of
j vision and guts. Yes, guts; because had his idea
j flopped, it would have been the Doolittle bank
j account which suffered; the city would have been
| no worse off than before.101
i
It is not surprising that the situation of Doo
little as personal signee to the City contract could remain
101Sam Stewart, "The Price of Success is High in
Los Angeles," Redondo Beach, California Daily Breeze,
July 30, 1963.
248
status quo and undisturbed through the early period of
relative harmony when the Greek Theatre was establishing j
its cultural worth. However, the reality of the lease ■
agreement focused on Doolittle as an individual in a too-
! commanding position in his personal contract relationship j
with the City of Los Angeles. The Civic Center News ■
! Agency articles of Ridgely Cummings in the Eagle Rock
! Sentinel are unremitting in their reminders that Doolittle,
' himself, was the repository for all the considerations of
I
City and County governments. The personal contract j
i matter reflected badly on all parties -- Doolittle, the j
Greek Theatre Association, and the City. The contract I
factor of Doolittle as the central and major figure in
; the entire system did not reflect the real degree of j
j authority and responsibility the non-profit theatre cor-
!
j poration exercised in the Greek Theatre operation. It is
! ironic that the Department of Recreation and Parks Com
mission would use an issue which it had insisted upon
i
| originally — that of an individual liable for a
i financial operation -- against Doolittle and the Greek
i
I
Theatre Association. It is the opinion here that this
inherently problematical situation should have been
negotiated away, at the insistence of any of the parties
involved, long before 1962. It seems sound business
practice to cover all exigencies which protect all con
tract participants from anything prejudicial to each
; 249
: other, or from whatever could be construed as censurable
from outside parties. It appears doubly necessary that j
civic and government agencies functioning under public ;
. and mass-communication scrutiny should be so protected. |
1 It is probable that some of the bitterness which eventua- j
ted in 1962-63 could have been minimized by some fore- *
! sight in this matter.
1
j Added Petty Disputations
As the controversy simmered through the spring,
siammer, and fall of 1963* the Recreation and Parks Depart-
! ment raised further petty objections to the Greek Theatre
operation. In a letter dated August 26, 1963* Commissioneri
i
! Leonard Shane informed Doolittle that, according to }
; 1
| reports received by Shane from personnel of the Recreation
| and Parks Department, the producer was in probable vio-
! lation of the Greek Theatre lease on two accounts. The
charges were directed against a planned recording of a
! Harry Belafonte performance, and Shane also claimed that
j portions of Belafonte's program contained political over-
j
| tones which possible violated the lease. Shane's letter
was answered by James C. Maupin, then the attorney for
the Greek Theatre Association, on August 30, 1963* Maupin
explained:
. . . Taping of actual performances by the
artists themselves at the Greek Theatre has been
an accepted practice for many years, and neither
the Association nor Mr. Doolittle has ever object-
ed so long as the artist obtained clearances from______
250
all labor unions involved. Neither the Theater
nor Mr. Doolittle has any financial or other
interest in the possible use of such tapes, it ,
being the thought that any resulting publicity
could only benefit the Theater.102
Maupin dismissed Shane's charge of "political i
; I
' I
ramifications" as without basis since no specific refer- I
! I
ences were mentioned and because no other source aware
1 of such content could be found. The matter received j
i i
I little attention beyond these exchanges. j
; In October of 1963, Maupin by-passed the Recrea- ^
tion and Parks Commission in a letter to Deputy City
I
Attorney Elliot E. Stanford. Maupin answered further
questions which had been addressed to the attorney's
!
1
: office by the Recreation and Parks Commission. The issues j
; 1
’ which compelled Maupin's answer were mainly two: charit- !
| able performances allegedly given by the Greek Theatre
j Association and the "dual pricing of tickets;" and City
’ participation in profits from the sale of programs at
Greek Theatre performances. Regarding the first matter of
i
: charitable performances, the lease contract forbid the
I lessee to sub-let the Greek Theatre premises or to trans-
j
j fer rights of the lease to any other party except by
I written consent of the board (Article 16). Charitable
performances or philanthropic events also required prior
1 OP
James C. Maupin, Letter of reply from Greek
Theatre Association Attorney, James C. Maupin, to Depart
ment of Recreation and Parks Commissioner Leonard Shane,
August 30, 1963.
251
j written consent of the City (Article 19)* Greek Theatre
Association Attorney James C. Maupin cleared the issue of
charitable performances by stating that there had never
; been any during the terms of Doolittle's contract.
; However, as Maupin qualified:
. . . It is true that charitable, educational,
and fraternal organizations have purchased tickets
| to regularly scheduled performances on a group dis-
i count basis. These tickets have always been sold
t outright to such organizations (such as the Child-
; ren's Aid Society . . .) or to the members thereof
; (such as California Teachers Association) and
neither Mr. Doolittle nor the Greek Theatre Associa
tion has been concerned with the resale of such
tickets by the organizations or individuals pur-
i chasing them. Thus, it would seem that the two
I questions raised in the Board minutes of July 18,
1963 as to charity performances and alleged dual
pricing" of tickets connected with any such per
formances are adequately answered. The records
concerning group ticket sales remain available to
the City, should further inquiry be deemed
| desirable.103
1
1 On the issue of program revenue participation,
Maupin served the reminder that the issue had been fully
discussed and covered in the earliest contract clauses
1 dating back to 1953. Further, Maupin stated that all
I Interested parties in the City had been aware of the pro-
!
j gram policy and this matter had never been questioned up
j until the current era of conflict.
i
Doolittle had dealt with the same question of the
program policy when it was raised by the Recreation and
l^Maupin, Letter to Los Angeles Deputy City
Attorney Elliot E. Stanford, October 15, 19°3*
: 252
Parks Commission in early January, 19^3• Both his letter
and Maupin's ten months later cited a City auditor's
comment from the auditor's report of November 8, 195^-*
; which called attention to this matter specifically. It
j
| read, "According to the terms of our contract the revenue
from programs is not mentioned as being subject to our
| rental fee."^®^
! In view of Doolittle's earlier instruction, and
i
; Maupin's reiteration ten months later, it appears that
the Recreation and Park Commission's attempts to substan
tiate improper practices and skeletons in the closet of
|
the Greek Theatre operation were becoming progressively
| more ill-advised and less productive.
j Independent Investigation of the
| Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
|
| During 1963 the Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce, acting on its own initiative conducted an
investigation into the Greek Theatre controversy. In
1
i late September of 19^3, Chamber of Commerce President,
| Francis Wilcox, wrote a letter to Mayor Yorty which
|
reported the findings of his investigating committee.
The Chamber of Commerce cleared the Greek Theatre
Association of any irregularities in its past operation.
10^James A. Doolittle, Letter to Los Angeles De
partment of Recreation and Parks, General Manager William
Fredrickson Jr., January 7, 1963.
253
1 Wilcox wrote that the difficulty at the Greek Theatre, if
there were difficulties, appeared to center on whether
I
the lease was granted to an individual rather than to an
association.
The draft report of the investigation -- dated
early September, 1963 -- contains further recommendations
' made by the committee. It pointed out Los Angeles' long
1
1 record of outstanding successful operations with cultural
. associations such as the Hollywood Bowl Association, the
Southern California Symphony Association, and the Los
1
i Angeles Civic Light Opera Company. Then, by implication, j
the Chamber of Commerce committee took up the cudgel of j
the Greek Theatre Association on the long-contract matter, j
I
■ It suggested that any lessee, be he an individual or an !
! association, have as part of their agreement the protection
i
i of a reasonably long lease agreement sufficient to permit
I
j forward bookings with outstanding talent, personalities
i
! and organizations. The committee went on to recommend
I
that any and all misunderstandings which may have existed
j in the past could sensibly and permanently be resolved
|
| if such a lease would be negotiated with an association
!
i of the type and stature of the other three successful
105
associations mentioned. ^
10^Letter from J. Don Hanauer, General Manager,
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce personally addressed to
the writer of this study, September 22, 1969. Mr.
Hanauer graciously responded to my letter of inquiry con-
; 254
• Summer and Autumn Seasons of Triumph
The 1963 season at the Greek Theatre was the most
successful in its history up to that time. Indications
of public confidence became apparent by late June when
sales for tickets ran 20$ ahead of the previously very
successful 1962 summer. The advance sales registered
| more than $100,000 in box-office cash. Doolittle did
1
not sign his new first engagement contract until the late
, date of March 5, 1963. Three of the five offerings
. for the summer -- "My Fair Lady," "A Man For All Seasons,"
| and "Madame Butterfly" -- were outstanding successes. The
sixty-five performances of the 1963 season grossed more
j than a million dollars. This represented the Greek
I Theatre's highest average audience attendance 4,340 for
i
| each evening.
Following the 1963 summer season, the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors drafted a motion for a special
resolution of commendation praising the accomplishments
1 107
j of the Greek Theatre Association and Doolittle. Praise
from County Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Warren
Dorn, was extravagant as he said:
cerning the Chamber of Commerce investigation about which
I had prior knowledge.
^Austin Conover, "Doolittle Wins Confidence
Vote," Hollywood Cltlzen-News, June 22, 1963.
107"Greek Theatre Manager Praised For Best Season,"
Los Angeles Times, October 9, 19^3 > Part I, p. 25.
; 255
! The 1963 season was the most successful in
1 the history of the Greek Theater and established
a new world's attendance record for outdoor
theater -- enjoying 98 per cent capacity for
the season.10o
Dorn's motion came nine days before the lease
extension for the Greek Theatre was scheduled to be dis
cussed by the City Department of Recreation and Parks
; Commission. On the day of that meeting -- October 17,
i
1
1 1963 -- the Greek Theatre Association was congratulated
| by the Los Angeles City Council for "inestimably enhancing
the prestige and reputation of the City as a center of
cultural achievement."109 ^ the hearing, which was
I
■ scheduled to discuss bids, several of which competed with
; the Greek Theatre Association for the lease of the Greek
| Theatre, Commissioner Mrs. Harold C. Morton played the
| most prominent role. She also demonstrated her unrelenting
!
| hostility to the Greek Theatre Association and its cul-
| tural program. "Maybe I'm just a lowbrow," Mrs. Morton
I
I said; her objection was based on the fact that she felt
i
City money should not be used to help subsidize the
|bringing of cultural shows to the Greek Theatre.110
Commissioner Morton repeatedly questioned the advisability
1°®"Supervisors Praise Greek Theatre Run," Valley
Times, October 9, 1963, P- 17.
109"6 Greek Theatre Lease Bids Studied by Board,"
Los Angeles Times, October 18, 1963, Part I, p. 32.
110Ibid.
; 256
I of voting City funds for capital improvements for the
Greek Theatre when other recreational activities and parks ,
!
: needed these funds. She also noted that the City operating
costs had been higher than revenues received from the
i
! Greek Theatre during the past ten years. Attorney Arthur
; !
Groman, representing Doolittle at the meeting, answered
I that cultural events brought to the theatre could not be
i
! "measured in cold dollars and cents. You have to consider
| the cultural benefit to the city.1,111 Mrs. Morton count
ered Groman with the argument that the Commission was not j
; t
I set up to bring culture to Los Angeles residents and j
; asked, "Are we being idiots for keeping this up? Couldn't
; they do the same job in presenting cultural events in
I
! private theaters and let us use the Greek Theatre for 1
| graduations?"112
j On November 8, 1963 — only one week short of a
year since the public argument had begun on November 15,
1962 -- the long and bitter controversy was officially
i
i ended. The Greek Theatre Association was chosen over
other applicants to retain the lease to the Greek Theatre
by a Recreation and Parks Commission vote of 4 to 0, Mrs.
Morton abstained. Commissioner Leonard Shane, expressed
his satisfaction; maintained that the Greek Theatre Assoc
iation was a non-profit, charitable organization, and
i;L1Ibid. 112Ibid.
; 257
! led the recommendation to retain the Greek Theatre Assoc-
; iation as lessee. Shane moved that Doolittle's request
to transfer the lease from himself to the Association as
designate on the contract be effected. The Commissioners
I
! passed the motion unanimously 5 to 0. Commissioner Mrs.
Morton fought the recommendation in favor of the Greek
I
' Theatre Association, charging that the organization piled
i
! up unreasonable profits. Mrs. Morton asked her fellow
| members on the Commission if it were not policy to award
concessions to the highest bidder. She was informed that
the policy was to award to the highest and best bidder.-*-13
I
After a year of sound and fury, the Department
; of Parks and Recreation could signify nothing that was
I off center with Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Associa-
i
j tion. The audit issue faded into a "white-wash" for the
!
jAssociation and became a dissipated and abandoned cause.
| The footnote to the furore came a short time later when
I
| the Los Angeles City Council made a formal citation pre-
i
j sentation in council chambers, to Doolittle and three
attending members of the Greek Theatre Association Board
of Directors. The Association members were Donald
Witherbee, Howard Taylor, and former Association president
| Nolen Allen. The scroll of honor and resolution of appre-
I
J elation congratulated the Greek Theatre Association for
I H3"Greek Theatre Contract Set; Long Fight Ended,"
Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1963.
; 258
! bringing to the people of Los Angeles "such superb and
unique works of the performing arts."11^ (
|
Post-Script on Internal Problems
; Within the Department of Recrea-
! tion and Parks
The year 1962 was a contentious and troublesome j
one for the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, j
i
! During the same time that the year-long public controversy
I
| which militated to discredit the Greek Theatre Association
and Doolittle was evolving to abject failure, the Depart
ment was also embroiled in its own internecine strife.
I Once again, Recreation and Parks Commissioners Shane and
Pierson played paramount roles in an audit call -- this
; time on their own department.
| The trouble grew out of a private investigation
1
j Shane and Pierson conducted into the Recreation and Parks
I
jaccounts. They were trying to determine what use was being
jmade of monies from a 1957 recreation bond issue which
I amounted to 39-5 million dollars. When Pierson and Shane
1
|stated that they desired a complete check of department
j
|records in order to determine if any department funds had
{been "juggled," City Administrative Officer C. Erwin Piper
115
impounded the Department’s books.
•^-■^"L.A. City Citations Given Doolittle, Greek
Theatre Assn.," Variety, November 29, 1963.
115''FUii_scaie Probe of Part Dept. Accounting,"
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, June 29, 1962, p. A-3.
; 259
: Fighting and heated verbal exchanges on this same
issue took place among the Commissioners at their meeting i
j
three months before Piper impounded the Department's books.!
, At the March 29, 1962, meeting four of the Commissioners j
-- Pierson, Shane, Fox, and England united against their j
: I
president, Mrs. Morton. The men of the Commission were !
jbitterly opposed to a letter which Mrs. Morton had written
! to Mayor Yorty which they claimed misrepresented a recent
i
, Commission action. Commissioner Morton opposed a consensus
. action of her fellows which had transferred the last
! remaining 14.5 million dollars of the 1957 voter's bond
|
| issue into a "land and contingency account." According
; to Pierson the transfer was intended to consolidate funds
; so that the money would become available for future parks 1
i
and playgrounds. Mrs. Morton, on her own initiative,
iwrote Mayor Yorty that "the effect of this action was to
| wipe out all the remaining contemplated bond fund pro-
| gram." The four other Commissioners were irate over what
: they considered to be Mrs. Morton's "distortion of facts"
j "i “I
I to Mayor Yorty.
|
Shane and Pierson's preoccupation with the land
i fund account, and their dissatisfaction by way of their
preliminary investigation into records of the fund's past
dispersal led to an unpleasant confrontation with
-*--^Gene Hunter, "Bitter Row Splits Park Commission,'
Los Angeles Times, March 30* 1962.
260
Recreation and Parks Department's chief auditor, Charles
S. McCormick Jr. Shane and Pierson were aggressively
critical of the 33-year veteran of City service. In a
Commission session they claimed that McCormick's books i
i i
were undecipherable. The auditor vehemently defended him- !
self. He explained that the books which were examined
!and criticized were merely work books — not intended to j
I
'be the real books of the Department. McCormick's superior,)
Recreation and Parks General Manager George Hjelte j
defended his chief auditor. Hjelte also introduced his |
i own report asking for an apology from the Commission for I
I I
impugning his own integrity through public allegations j
; of "misappropriation" and "juggling" on the part of the ;
| j
I department he s u p e r v i s e d . 1 - ^ !
j Within three months of this confrontation in June
I
|of 1962, Hjelte, McCormick, and the Department's public
j
|relations director, Guy Bushby, resigned their City
I n n f t
)jobs. The City of Los Angeles, with Mayor Yorty's
approval, contracted an outside consulting firm to run an
I efficiency study of the Recreation and Parks Department
at a reported cost of $250,000.Charges that this
I
1]-7los Angeles Herald-Examiner, June 29, 1962.
Il8"city Council to Probe Rash of Resignations,"
Los Angeles Times, September 13, 1962, Part II, p. 2.
H9worker Says L.A. Parks Dept. Demoralized and
Inefficient," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 17, 1963-
1 study was demoralizing the entire Department were made in
a letter of resignation addressed to the Los Angeles City
Council and the Civil Service Commission. This letter
came from Eugene D. Dodd, a five-year employee of the
12n
Department’s planning section. Dodd corrorborated
earlier complaints of Department employees that their
! duties were being taken away in order to justify abolish-
' 121
I ing their positions. Mayor Yorty had endorsed these
' abolishments when he said, "Employees simply will not be
replaced when they quit. It would be wrong to continue
1PP
; inefficient methods." Exerpts from Dodd's letter
I
describe the consternation felt among Recreation and Parks
; Department employees as a result of the efficiency inves-
:tigation. Dodd wrote in part:
| Qualified men and women with years of dedicated
j service to the public have been forced, through one
j means and another, to leave the department.
! Most of those who are still with the department
have, through apparent psuedo investigation by an
outside firm, had their morale and spirit broken to
j a new low.
| Many of these good employees have a vested
| interest in city service, ranging from one to
j 40 years of service, and cannot afford to leave,
as I, with only five years, am doing.
It appears that if they would stay, they must
conform to an illogical, confused condition which
120Ibid.
■^•^"Is There Discontent in Park Dept." Personnel
Problem Suggests Yes," Los Feliz Hills News, April 18,
1963
262 :
breaks the will and spirit of many qualified
persons.123
Dodd also asserted that City Administrative I
Officer C. Erwin Piper should have saved the City the
12 4
! $250,000 efficiency fee by making the survey himself.
In the opinion here, an examination of the turmoil j
within the Recreation and Parks Department during the same
1
i year of the Greek Theatre controversy helps one gain a
I
, fuller understanding of the Greek Theatre's political
matrix. It is evident that the predispositions and the
actions of the Commissioners directly affect the Greek
I
! Theatre. This study has shown the tenacity of the Re- J
: i
creation and Parks Commission concerning the Wyman-Doo-
little conflict-of-interest question. It has also shown
1
I that the Commission endured alone in its indictments of
i
| the Greek Theatre Association even though the issues
I
| distilled down to a minor fallibility of contract form --
1
Doolittle as individual contractee. The Association
i emerged from its disruptive year with its reputation en-
; dorsed by all official agencies including, finally, the
1
Recreation and Parks Commission which ultimately renewed
the Association's contract. But public confrontations,
j accusations, and remonstrations between contending parties
seldom leave their relationships unscathed. The
123Hoiiywood Citizen-News, July 17? 1963•
12^Ibid.
; 263
! repository disaffections which grew out of the 1962-63
arguments need to be dealt with.
The Greek Theatre Association's direct City
; relationship has been carried out with a commission which
i
has been, since i960, perhaps the most controversial
agency in the Los Angeles City government. Since that
j time, the history of the Recreation and Parks Commission
1
I
I chronicles not only antagonisms among the Commissioners
■ themselves, but also instances of serious malpractices
’ in public office.
1 In the two Department strifes considered here --
; the internal one described above and the Greek Theatre
| controversy -- Commissioners Shane and Pierson played
I
! dominant roles as watchmen of public funds. In 1964,
I
[ Shane resigned from the Commission under circumstances
!
which, according to newspaper reports, suggested a con
flict-of-interest. Shane and Pierson held commanding
shares with a Los Angeles architect, Stanley Shapiro, in
1
: a new bank that the three men incorporated. Pierson and
j Shane were instrumental in Shapiro's selection as archi-
!
tect for a large Recreation and Parks project. Current
with this, Shane's public relations firm created and
disseminated brochures which played up Shapiro as a
director in the new bank venture. The interconnection
caused some comments to be raised concerning a possible
; 264
125
! conflict-of-interest for Shane.
In March of 1968, Mayor Yorty announced the
resignation of another of his appointees', Pierson, from
; the Recreation and Parks Commission. On April 10, 1970,
■ Pierson was sentenced to a one-to-fourteen year term for
t 1 of\
bribery.Pierson's trial and conviction resulted from
| a 1968 Los Angeles Times investigation into Los Angeles
! City government. The resulting series of articles in the
; Times shook the City's governmental foundations and won
for the newspaper a Pulitzer prize. Among the several
I City politicians who fell before the Times probe was
|
; Councilman Karl Rundberg who had initiated the Los Angeles
; City Council probe of the Greek Theatre Association in
| 1962. Rundberg was convicted of selling his approval,
for $6,500 worth of furniture, to a developer who had
proposals before Rundberg's Los Angeles Harbor Commis
sion.1^
Pierson's many uses of his influence during his
i
| term as a Recreation and Parks Commissioner are too
numerous to cover completely. Among the occasions on
12^Art Berman and George Reasons, "Ex-Officials
i Linked to City Contract Winner," Los Angeles Times, June
11, 1968.
-*-^Ron Einstoss, "Pierson Receives l-to-l4 Year
Term," Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1970.
12^Dial Torgerson, "Rundberg, Starr Convicted on
One Count of Bribery," Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 14,
1968. -----------
265
1 which he misused his position the Los Angeles Times report
ed that he secured the gross food concession at Rancho
Golf Course for the father of a close friend of his.
Pierson and the man's son were business partners and co-
l ?8
owners of a private boat. On another occasion the
Recreation and Parks Commission acted on Pierson's recom-
1 mendation and gave a $302,000 contract to an architect to
1 design the Sepulveda Dam Basin and Hansen Dam golf com
plex. The firm that Pierson recommended had scanty
credentials — no established office or past City con
tracts, and had no accomplished work of any considerable
dimension in the past.12^ Finally, Pierson was convicted
; on three counts of receiving $4500 in bribes and one of
! soliciting a $25,000 bribe in the awarding of lucrative
| City contracts. Five other counts of conspiracy and
i
! bribery, involving $61,000 in payoffs allegedly given to
! him in connection with two San Fernando Valley zoning
! cases were dropped .-*-30
The record of the Recreation and Parks Commission
i was such that in 1968 a local radio station was motivated
to carry an editorial which called for the resignations
1 Pfl
Art Berman and George Reasons. "Pierson's Use
of Influence in Contract Aware Reported, Los Angeles
Times, June 10, 1968.
129grwin Baker, "Councilman Says He Told Yorty
of Park Board," Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1968.
130
J Einstoss, loc. cit.
; 266
j of Commissioners Mrs. Morton and England. Although
I
1 Radio Station KFWB acknowledged that Mrs. Morton and |
; England had committed no malpractices, the station main-
; tained that they should resign on general principles. The |
! {
logic was that Mrs. Morton had been a Board member for j
thirteen years and England for eight years during an
j
I inefficient era when the Department had wasted money for |
I i
I i
S expensive architectural plans which were never used, and |
; several commissioners resigned under fire.'*'^"1 ' However, j
these two commissioners currently retain their appoint-
i ments from Mayor Yorty.
!
Stability has not been the prevailing character-
j istic of the Greek Theatre Association's City partner.
I It is impossible to tell the degree to which the Greek
j
Theatre has been affected by the disunity and the special
| interest activities which characterized much of the
! Recreation and Parks Board's recent history. It is clear,
however, that the Greek Theatre and the Greek Theatre
i
iAssociation function within a dynamic and contentious
context.
-^loordon Davis, Radio editorial, Station KFWB,
December 9j 1968.
CHAPTER VI
SUB-TEXT -- PROLOGUE -- ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
BEHIND THE 1962-63 DISPUTE
I
I
i In the judgment of this researcher, the Los
I
!
1 Angeles City Government and, particularly, the Department
!
1 of Recreation and Parks, could not avoid resolving the
; many questions raised by the Santa Monica Evening Outlook
I articles regarding the Los Angeles City-Greek Theatre
Association financial partnership. What had begun in
I
! the newspaper series to be a quizzical examination of
I the personal financial structure of the Eugene Wymans,
alleging their meteoric elevation to affluence, veered
into the Wymans’ financial and political connections to
Doolittle in the Biltmore and Greek Theatre projects.
; The focus fell on Doolittle and the Greek Theatre and
i raised the issues of questionable practices of the civic
1
theatre operation, and whether the County and City govern
ments were getting a fair return on their past investments
at the Greek Theatre. Once raised so starkly, the matter
had to be cleared for public satisfaction by the government
agencies involved. What remains puzzling about the
; 268
! unfortunate 1962-63 controversy is not so much the ques-
1
tions themselves, but, more, the climate of hostility
which characterized the year-long proceedings, mainly
engendered by the Department of Recreation and Parks
Commission. In retrospect, there seemed extant a readiness
to be seduced by the twin temptations of suspicion and
! indictment as opposed to attitudes of reason which would
1
! have better served all the agents involved. It is the
; contention here that, had these negative presentiments
not already existed the public argument could have been
explained in a satisfactory and less disruptive way. It
!
is understandable that, especially, the Department of
; Recreation and Parks Commission was "on-the-spot" to
' satisfy questions raised about the financial structure of
i the City-Greek Theatre relationship. It must be conceded
! that the Department Commissioners are, generally, respon-
!
i sible public servants, and as stewards of tax-payers1
!
| monies must fit the Greek Theatre, as only one facility,
i
; into their entire spectrum of Recreation and Park neces-
| sities and responsibilities. However, on the questions
1
I
j concerning the Greek Theatre operation, the missing
! ingredient, at the time the audit probe was first raised,
appeared to be the element of good will, or trust, toward
the Greek Theatre Association and Doolittle on the part
of the Department of Recreation and Parks. The absence
of good will looms more prominently when considered
269
> against the background of the Greek Theatre Association
and Doolittle's cultural accomplishment, the public
confidence and response to the Greek Theatre operation,
exoneration and praise from the ruling bodies of County
and City governments, and the progressively diminishing
validity of the Department of Recreation and Parks' own
! claims against the Greek Theatre lessee.
i
! In sum, the stormy controversy did not develop
| out of thin air. The succeeding pages of this study will
attempt to trace contentious issues in the past City-
Greek Theatre relationship which were probable causes for
the volatile environment of the 1962-63 public controversy.
This pursuit is deemed not only pertinent to this year-
■ long disruption, but also to a central consideration of
!
| this study which is concerned with the orientations of
|
j governmental directors toward theatre and other cultural
|endeavors. In the case of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre,
j official attitudes are exercised from a position of
j
direct control over the civic theatre.
i
!
j CCNA Watch-Dog Campaign
i
| The most detailed criticism of the Greek Theater
i
operation and the City-Theatre relationship emanated
from the news reports of the Civic Center News Agency.
In the form of a newsletter reporting on civic matters,
the CCNA by-line releases are circulated throughout City
270
! offices and reprinted in small neighborhood newspapers in
; the central Los Angeles area. The articles surveyed here
i
I
are mainly the work of CCNA writer, Ridgely Cummings, j
whose continuity indicates a preoccupation with Greek
Theatre affairs, especially Doolittle's relationship to j
the City, and the City and County governments' financial 1
• policies toward the Greek Theatre. In his running j
I accounts of Greek Theatre affairs, Cummings was unfailing
1 in his reminders that Doolittle was the personal lessee
of the Greek Theatre, and Cummings leaves no doubts about
! his conservatism toward solicitations and concessions |
! !
granted the Greek Theatre by City and County alike. How- j
; ever, it is through Cummings that an examination of
earlier quarrels than the major upheaval of 1962-63 is
I
| made possible.
!
I In two CCNA articles in late 1958 (presumably,
j both written by Cummings although only one bears his by-
| line), it was reported in characteristic terminology that
1
: word had "leaked out" that Doolittle was seeking from the
! City a new ten-year lease for exclusive rights to the
j Greek Theatre facility.1 The emphasis of these and all
! of Cummings' CCNA articles on the Greek Theatre dwelt on
the dominance of Doolittle over the Greek Theatre premises,
^Ridgely Cummings, "Greek Theatre Lease Viewed,"
Civic Center News Agency article in Griffith Park News,
September 4, 1958, and Los Feliz Hills News, October 2,
1958.
| the City's gift of free office space, the cultural sub
sidies from City and County for a mere exchange of adver
tising mention in the Greek Theatre program, and the fact
: that the City had invested more money in the Greek
Theatre than it had received in return. Doolittle, because
of the repeated mention of his personal contract with the
! City, was pictured as benefitting from a most favorable
i
deal. None of Cummings' articles considered the Greek
' Theatre a cultural endeavor above the plane of a business
proposition. The two articles of mention cited the pro-
i posed year-round control of Doolittle at the Greek
Theatre as jeopardizing the outlet for artistic groups
; who had customarily held art exhibits in the spacious
; basement of the theatre during the off-season winter
I
I months. A further objection -- one often used in the
i
| context of the Greek Theatre operation -- was in the nature
j of questioning that Colonel Griffith J. Griffith's
I original intent for the Greek Theatre had ever meant that
!
it should be used for "commercial and profit-making
j Q
I purposes." Cummings suggested:
i
j Students of early city history insist that
| Col. Griffith, who gave the city the theatre as
I well as Griffith Park, intended the Greek Theatre
to be used for free attendance at historical
pageants and civic events.3
^"Doolittle Seeks Exclusive Lease of Greek
Theatre," CCNA article in Los Feliz Hills News, October 2,
1958.
3
_________ Cummings, CCNA article in Griffith Park News.
272
1 Department of Recreation and Parks Commissioner
Mrs. Morton was the most frequently praised personage in
Cummings' CCNA pieces because of her consistent restraint
i and objections in all matters pertaining to Doolittle and
I
: the Greek Theatre program. Mrs. Morton also asked what
would be the attitude of Van Griffith, son of Colonel
j Griffith, on a long-term theatre lease? The current
I
! general manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks,
George Hjelte, noted that Van Griffith "has not been
noticeably cordial to rebuilding the theater or using it
for anything except the classical performances intended
; by his father."^
j It is the opinion here that Griffith's original
; intent for his Greek Theatre towered above the pedestrian
i
| objection raised by Mrs. Morton, Cummings and Hjelte.
|
It must be presumed that the donor intended his theater,
first of all, to be used -- to function as a sustaining
source of benefit to the citizens of Los Angeles. The
j early history of the Greek Theatre belies that intent
during the time the theatre was left to the generating
forces of the community, local artistic groups, or the
City itself. The Greek Theatre languished -- undistin-
September 4, 1958.
^"Cummings, "Civic Center Spotlight," CCNA article
in Los Angeles, California Northeast Star Review,
August 23, 1959-
; 273
i guished and unfulfilled -- until the professional theatre
inserted its aggressive organization and know-how into
I
its confines. To insist that the Greek Theatre should
house only pageants, community shows or classical per- j
! I
' formances is to think along limited and archaic lines. i
It is highly conjectural that a modern audience will 1
| support or sustain a steady diet of these forms. It was
! only through the leadership of modern professional
' theatre people that the Greek Theatre and its program of !
offerings was upgraded, updated, and made contemporary and
: suitable for its audience. It seems a fair judgment that j
; j
a huge audience responds better to a varied program of the j
i
; performing arts; in this way the Greek Theatre was ful- j
filling Griffith's desire that the theatre be more than ;
!
! a casual appendage to its community — that it be used.
i
I Theatrical performances cannot be anachronistic to an
t
! audience. Nostalgic regrets that the Greek Theatre had
not remained in its pristine state are ignorant of
i
, theatrical realities and can be more suitably applied to
| monuments or statues than to a theatre. At the same time,
I these sentiments are contrary to Griffith's more en-
i
| lightened intent. There is a feeling here that,
throughout the City's history of defining the Greek
Theatre for itself and its policies toward it, the letter
of Griffith's will has been observed more closely than
its spirit. Seldom emphasized is the City's responsibility
274
i to generate and maintain the performing life at the
Greek Theatre. i
Griffith's gift of the theatre was no idle or !
, offhand gesture. Once having accepted stewardship of
the Greek Theatre, the City, like it or not, and whether
or not set up for theatrical attachment, needed to use *
| the theatre in the spirit stated by Griffith. His own
1 description of the intent of the Greek Theatre and the
| observatory -- "a fixed purpose to direct and aid the
concentration of thought which lifts one above his en
vironment . . . fully believing that thereby many people
can thus be lifted out of the trenches of ignorance and
; superstitution and placed on a higher plane of
intelligence . . . . bespeaks more insight on the nature
| of theatre art than has been possessed by many who have
|
| administrated his trust. Griffith's words also imply that
! a high standard should characterize the use of the Greek
Theatre. This appears to invalidate any policy which
i
allows the Greek Theatre to be leased to only the highest
bidder or to be viewed as a purely business or income
j proposition. Too often, the argument has leaned on the
!tangible issue of money rather than the intangible values
underlying Griffith's intent -- at least as expressed in
his last will and testament. Therefore, Commissioner
^Griffith J. Griffith, Last Will and Testament,
February 8, 1916, p. 7.
; 275
i
| Mrs. Morton's plaint that the Greek Theatre be "used for
graduations" rather than for cultural events becomes an
. j
abnegation of responsibility and a contradiction in terms j
; of Griffith's stated purpose for the Greek Theatre. The
j City itself stuttered for many years on its responsibility
to foster the Greek Theatre. To the argument that the !
| City is not organized for theatre operation, we must agree.
i
I It was not until professionals provided sustaining pro-
| grams at the Greek Theatre that it became an asset, not
a liability, and the source of edification hoped for by
! Colonel Griffith. The Greek Theatre experience provides
i
strong evidence that running a successful theatre program
; requires highly specialized, even rare, abilities. The
: Greek Theatre experience also suggests the strong recip-
! rocal and mutual need which exists between the lessor and
I
!
the lessee of the Greek Theatre.
The observations and interpretations that are
given in this study regarding Colonel Griffith's wishes
i
: and desires are not favored by having been privy to
j
j everything he may have written or said about his intentions
for the possible use of the Greek Theatre. However, it
i is felt that, in light of his last will and testament,
the changes and reorganizations which have contributed
a pragmatic and constructive use of the Greek Theatre are
consistent with his final words on the subject.
Doolittle's proposal for a long-term, ten-year
276
i contract was intrinsic to the ambitions and a vision he
expressed for the Greek Theatre from the time he first
: entered onto its scene. As one writer described Doo
little's prospectus in 1958:
i
His ambitions include a resident school of the
ballet, a permanent school of the theatre, and a
centre where singers and dancers may be trained
throughout the year. He hopes to make the Greek
| Theatre a world renowned source of great theatre
| with the diversification of opera, ballet and all
! forms of musical interest within one season. It
has taken a large place in the cultural life of
Los Angeles, and under the regime of Doolittle is
rapidly becoming a tradition comparable to the
finest in Europe . . . .6
! Doolittle had often expressed his dissatisfaction
I
with the mere booking of shows for the consumption of
; audiences, and, on the same avenue of thought, expressed
! his hopes that Los Angeles could be a procreator of its
|
| own original productions. "We want to let the world
|
I know we're open to creative ideas," Doolittle said.
1
! We would like to create as much theater as we
| can, be an active, vital organization. This city
| has been too much of a spectator, not enough of
i a doer. I don't think we can take our position as
a great theater center unless we create the en-
! vironment -- not just (to) book and (to) play
I productions.7 (additions mine)
i
During Recreation and Park Commission discussions
r
La Dessa Gibson Boylan, "The Greeks Have a Word
for It," Social Service Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, Summer,
1958, p. w.
^Jack Smith, "Biltmore Theater Again Appears to
Be Doomed," Los Angeles Times, May 3» 1964, Sec. C, p. 7.
i of Doolittle's tentative long-term contract proposal in
1959> CCNA writer Ridgely Cummings reported the proposal's
: main opponents to be Commissioner Mrs. Morton and Depart
ment General Manager George Hjelte. Cummings editorial
ized his report of Doolittle by observing that whenever
i
i Commissioner Morton or Hjelte spoke, "Doolittle twitched
| his legs nervously," but "leaned back and seemingly
! „ Q
I relaxed when other commissioners held the floor. u When
; he referred to the proposed performing academies at the
civic theatre, Hjelte objected that it would be illegal
for Doolittle to "train people for the Biltmore theatre,"
I
and also illegal to "build scenery for the Biltmore
I theatre" in the scenery loft at the Greek Theatre. To
I
| this, Doolittle replied that he had helped out produc-
i
j tions at the Los Angeles Sports Arena and Hollywood Bowl
i and he asked for time to study these areas of conflict.9
| Hjelte's objections were an obvious warning that the
j resources of the Greek Theatre should not be comingled
i
j with the Biltmore Theatre, with which the City had no
connection. On the possibility that wholesale deployment
of scenery from the Greek Theatre to a private operation
needed an inbuilt control factor, Hjelte's point is, per
haps, well taken. However, Hjelte's objection to a
^Cummings, CCNA article in Los Angeles Northeast
Star Review, August 23, 1959-
9Ibid.
278
• generalized training program — which would benefit per
formers themselves and the entire cultural environment
: alike -- on the grounds that only a single theatre might
possibly benefit was muddled and parochial thinking. Such
myopia is the kind of nit-picking which has hampered
larger concepts and efforts to raise the general health
| of artistic endeavors.
i
I
! Cummings' reports on the Greek Theatre long-term
| contract dialogue of 1958-59 devoted much space to per
sonal criticisms of Doolittle made by members of the
Recreation and Parks Department. Department General
i
Manager Hjelte blamed Doolittle for references to the
; "bankrupt" Greek Theatre.'1 ' 0 The term had become common
! in reportage of Doolittle's turning the Greek Theatre into
| a solvent and successful operation. Hjelte's point was
j technically correct. The Greek Theatre, being a civic
J City-owned facility, could not be viewed as bankrupt
| unless the City, too, was bankrupt. Although the refer-
j
; ence grew out of the bankruptcy of the Greek Theatre's
j former production company, the description carried an
unfortunate connotation for the City.
Hjelte also objected to Doolittle allegedly apply
ing to himself the title of "Greek Theatre Director,"
giving the false impression that Doolittle was a City
10Ibid.
; 279
! director of a City facility. Commissioners Herm Alber
and Mrs. Morton observed that Doolittle's use of the term i
! was for the purpose of his own self-perpetuation in the |
theatrical world and in his "other outside activities."11
During that summer of 1959* Ridgely Cummings
i
took Doolittle to task for a newspaper feature article
' which, in its presentation, had identified Doolittle as
I
! responsible for recent improvements to the Greek Theatre.
' The article in question (Austin Conover, "Roaming Around,"
Hollywood Citizen-News, June 4, 1959) included a picture
i of Doolittle exhibiting a model of the Greek Theatre in
I
which past and proposed refurbishments were included,
j The picture caption, which stirred Cummings to a rebuttal,
‘ reads:
| James A. Doolittle, director of the Greek
j Theatre Association, shows in this model of the
outdoor theater improvements that he has made in
the city-owned property in Griffith Park and those
he proposes to make. He has improved the stage.
He would like to erect office and rehearsal areas,
as shown in the foreground
; Although Doolittle had, in fact, figured prominent-
| ly in all refurbishment designs at the Greek Theatre during
i
his eighteen-year tenure, the article and caption was
^"Commission studies new theatre lease," CCNA
article in Los Angeles Northeast Star Review, August 23,
1959-
■^Austin Conover, "Doolittle Amazes With Greek
Theater," in his feature column "Roaming Around" in The
Citizen-News, June 4, 1959* p. 13-
280 :
'over-zealous in a singular emphasis on him. On the basis
of this one-dimensional and, unfortunately, misrepresent-
I
ative caption, Cummings remonstrated against Doolittle for !
1 O I
"taking bows" for improvements paid by the City. J |
i I
Contrary to the charge of egocentricity in the \
above quoted passage, Doolittle has a well-known habit,
!noted and commented on by many who have interviewed him,
i
iof employing the editorial "we," seldom using "I" when
i 14
referring to any past action of his Greek Theatre tenure.
The continuous coverage of Cummings1 CCNA articles
preliminary to the public audit fracas of 1962-63 provided
a build-up for the personal resentments and hostilities
against Doolittle which nourished the unfruitful year
long controversy. Cummings' articles, strongly biased 1
i
|toward "personality" reporting, created a bogey image of
| the Greek Theatre entrepreneur, and the personality factor
1
I was retained as a powerful underlying influence in the
! audit year of 1962-63. The thread of Doolittle as a
i
; dominating figurehead was drawn tautly through the Santa
i Monica Evening Outlook series which touched off the
i
I
controversy. It must be remembered that the censurable
^Cummings, CCNA article, June 11, 1959*
■^Ray Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," in "The
Summer Season," Los Angeles Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 6, June
1966, p. 48, and in La Dessa Gibson Boylan's "The Greeks
Have a Word for It," Social Service Review, Summer 1958,
p. 31i and in all interviews connected with this study.
; 281 :
! i
I attitude toward Doolittle was highly exclusive, and was
finally restricted to only certain members of the five-
|
! member commission of the Department of Recreation and j
Parks. In summary, the campaign of Cummings was of a
! "watch-dog" variety, defensible on grounds of guarding
the City's end of the Greek Theatre deal with an entre- !
j preneur whom Cummings regarded as gaining disproportionate
!
I power and recognition through overindulgence on the parts
■ of Los Angeles City and County. It is understandable
that Doolittle's personal flair for publicity propagand-
I
i izing the Greek Theatre cause -- a desirable and necessary |
i !
; ingredient for successful theatrical entrepreneurs --
; could contribute to narrow foci of envy and prejudice which
i l
; saw the trees but not the forest. The combination of j
j Doolittle's powerful personal traits and his aggressive
!
ambitions at the Greek Theatre, plus his personal contract
with the City composed an apparent monolith in need of
an equalizing critique. Cummings answered the call, and
; his consistent advocations to throw the Greek Theatre
i
| open to bidding ignore not only Doolittle's and the
I
Greek Theatre Association's past achievement, but also
assume that equally meritorious production would be
easily come by. The pragmatism of Cummings' viewpoint
is exemplified in an opinion of Commissioner Mrs. Morton
who gave her position on the Greek Theatre operation when
she said, "It hasn't been too profitable for the city
282
i
considering our maintenance and construction costs."1^
This polarity of attitude which regarded the civic Greek
Theatre operation from mainly a business perspective was
, the dominant characteristic of Cummings' Civic Center News
Agency reports. !
! i
The Biltmore Theatre Issue
1 — ' ■ i. i ■ ■ ■ . .ii -
I
j Perhaps more than any other, the Biltmore Theatre
i issue had prompted most of the skepticism surrounding
i
Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Association theatre ac
tivities. The factors in the Biltmore Theatre issue which
I I
1 contributed to suspicions regarding it were, in review: j
(1) Rosalind Wyman's position of political influence in J
j I
! the appropriation of City funds to the civic Greek |
| Theatre; (2) her personal friendship and current associa-
i
(tions with Doolittle in a commercial theatre venture;
|(3) the seeming contradiction of the non-profit Greek
I
Theatre Association functioning as the main production
i organization in a theatre set up for commercial profits;
|(4) the possibility of the co-minglement of funds from the
jcivic Greek Theatre operation and the private Biltmore
I , X
j Theatre venture; (5) and the possibility of prejudice in
j
favor of a private theatre operation in which Doolittle had
a profit motive. Thus, the Biltmore Theatre issue raised
15
Doolittle Balks at Guarantee of Greek Theatre's
Rent," CCNA article in Griffith Park News, September 3,
1959.
283 |
! 1
i the spectre of conflicts-of-interests on the parts of a
I :
City official and a City-contracted theatre entrepreneur, !
i
: and the possible corruption of their civic responsibilit- j
: ies through a supposed huge, and shared, profit motive.
|
! The consolidation of Wyman and Doolittle in both City
and private commercial endeavors was too close for com-
| fort in view of their civic positions. The situation was
1 a natural one for doubts on the parts of a few public
' servants, and for a press personality such as Cummings,
who took a dim view of Doolittle's partnership with the
I City. Although Cummings had a limited public readership,
j
his circulation throughout government agencies and the
; Griffith Park area cannot be discounted.
It will be remembered that the 1962-63 controversy
j grew out of the interconnection of Doolittle and the
!
Wymans, from which the main issue of possible co-mingling
of funds between the Greek and Biltmore Theatres became
the springboard of the call for an accounting audit.
i
This charge of co-mingling of funds faded into an absolve-
| ment of Doolittle and the Greek Theatre Association. In
j
j the extensive reporting of the Santa Monica Evening Out-
! look, and Cummings' articles dating from a few years prior
to the audit controversy the questions raised concerning
the Greek Theatre operation and the Doolittle-Wyman
connection received full presentation. Yet, nowhere has
this been treated from the perspective of the individuals
284
i under question.
, Reasons for the Biltmore Theatre i
1 Acquisition |
The reason given by the Biltmore Theatre Corpora-
; tion -- Lurie, Doolittle, the Paul Cummins, Wyman and
Finell -- for their purchase of the Biltmore Theatre was !
j to save the historical showplace for the City of Los I
j Angeles. Doolittle gives credit to wealthy San Francisco
financier and theatre-owner, Louis Lurie, for first making
him aware that the Biltmore Theatre was up for auction.1^
Doolittle, in recalling Lurie’s phone call, said that he
I
chided him about the City of Los Angeles letting a theatre i
> landmark fall by the wayside, and, at the close of the |
[ I
! conversation, Lurie suggested that they "take a crack at j
| saving the legitimate house. During the interval
|
| between Lurie's phone call and the formation of a corpora-
j tion to purchase the Biltmore, Doolittle recalls that he
j had, in one of his many speeches brought up the Biltmore
I
; matter, and suggested that civic officials and citizens
I
I should unite in an effort to save the venerable play
house. As a result of his importunings, Eugene and
Rosalind Wyman declared their interest and willingness to
■^Cecil Smith, "Doolittle Giving Biltmore Lift,"
Los Angeles Times, March 29, 1959* Entertainment Section,
PP. 1-2.
^Interview, James A. Doolittle, August 11, 1969.
; 285
support Doolittle. Although the Wymans’ financial invest
ment in revitalizing the Biltmore Theatre was only a token j
i
; 5$ of the purchasing capital, Doolittle made it clear to
, all investors that commercial theatre was a most unpromis-
! ing financial venture. If successful, the Biltmore
Theatre Corporation could hope to break even. Five years
I later, in 1964, Doolittle explained the Greek Theatre
1 Association's purchase of the Huntington Hartford Theatre
i
; by directly comparing the similar conditions which
: applied to the earlier acquisition of the Biltmore
!
Theatre.
j
We were motivated when we found out it was on
the public market for sale. It was to be sold for
a commercial development. The legitimate theatre
j today is a totally impractical economic venture.
Our whole thought was to save this theater for the !
| benefit of the community. It would be a real
j tragedy if we lost this magnificent theater pro-
j perty, because I don't think it would ever be
I duplicated.19
t
I
J Production Accomplishment at the
j Biltmore'
i
Through the five theatrical seasons at the
i Biltmore Theatre 1959-1963 inclusive, the Greek Theatre
|
j Association presented nearly an average of one major
! theatrical production per month. For Doolittle, it meant
year-round continuity. It sustained Los Angeles' only
l8Ibid.
■^Jack Smith, Los Angeles Times, May 3* 1964,
Sec. C, p. 7.
; 286 ;
! importation of major theatre attractions -- except for
i
the successful musical comedy programs of the Los Angeles j
j
I Civic Light Opera Company. During these years, the !
i Greek Theatre Association took its position of singular I
j j
! influence in keeping the continuity of legitimate theatre j
i |
in Los Angeles alive. This period witnessed the summer
I
! seasons at the Greek Theatre at their most productive I
I I
I j
! peak; and the winter seasons at the Biltmore made that |
; theatre the City's only active major legitimate house.
The Biltmore Theatre was not aided by the exis-
; tence of a healthy "road" theatre which, in the past,
j
; allowed touring productions to insure tours across
, country by city-to-city booking. In 1959* Doolittle said
that the Biltmore Theatre operation would need to be a
i
| creative one, producing its own road shows. We can't
i
book road shows," he said; "there is no road. Even an
established hit like 'Sunrise at Campobello' died on
po
the road." Cecil Smith, theatre critic of the Los
[Angeles Times, corroborated Doolittle's observation by
|his own graphic metaphor which reads: "... the road
j across the nation from Broadway was a shambles with the
i whitened bones of collapsed road companies all through
the Midwest."2^- The absence of an established "road"
_______________________
20Cecil Smith, loc. cit.
2^-Cecil Smith, "Biltmore Brightens L.A. Stage Out
look for '60," Los Angeles Times Entertainment Section,
January 10. 196T7." Part V.'TVP.^T 5._________________________
; 287
; meant that Biltmore Theatre expenses were increased by the
need to pay trans-continental travelling expenses for
i
! desired shows, rather than the graduated expense which
formerly were shared by producers at intermittent points j
: along the "road." An instance from 1962 illustrates the J
described situation while at the same time it demonstrates '
! Doolittle's opportunism. Los Angeles Times theatre column-
I
! ist Dick Williams described how Doolittle booked Lillian
' Heilman's "Toys in the Attic" for the Biltmore Theatre.
: I
Once again that perennial defender of the
legitimate stage, James A. Doolittle has come
to the rescue to save a major play for Los
! Angeles viewers. Lillian Heilman's long-running
success "Toys in the Attic," which played 456
performances in New York, was scheduled to fold
; in Chicago Saturday night, canceling out the
balance of a lengthy road tour. j
!
j Doolittle got wind of the sudden road can-
| cellation and got on the horn in a matter of
j minutes to producer Kermit Bloomgarden in New
York. When he guaranteed the railroading costs
I (approximately $10,000) from Chicago to L.A.
! and back to New York, the deal was quickly made.22
1
I Los Angeles Times theatre critic Cecil Smith
praised the renewed production activity at the Biltmore
1
i Theatre which, in 1959, he called "the first flutter of
major theatrical activity here after one of the bleakest
winters in history."23 Appraising the Biltmore record
Dick Williams, "'Toys in the Attic' Salvaged for
Run on Biltmore Stage," Los Angeles Times Calendar,
January 21, 1962, p. 1.
23cecil Smith, "Doolittle Giving Biltmore Lift,"
Los Angeles Times, March 29, 1959* Entertainment Section,
-l-g. _________________________________________________
288
after its first season of eleven major productions, Smith
wrote:
If there was an equivalent of the Academy
Award to present for theater here, the nominee
for 1959 would have to be Doolittle and his
Greek Theater organization. Somewhere, some
how, they swept the cobwebs out of the Biltmore
and produced in one short year a theatrical
miracle there.24
! Examination of the Wyman-
! Doolittle Partnership
The busines^connection of Rosalind Wyman and
: Doolittle as part owners of the private theatre venture
: caused great concern among City officials and ultimately
raised the question of conflicts-of-interest on the parts
I of City Councilwoman Wyman and Doolittle. The conflicts-
: of-interest question grew naturally out of, not only the
! personal friendship of Rosalind Wyman and Doolittle, but,
I
j more particularly, from their complex interrelationship
with the civic Greek Theatre and the Greek Theatre Assoc
iation. On the surface, Rosalind Wyman's chairmanship
1
: of the City Council's Department of Recreation and Parks
| Committee gave the appearance that any favorable action
|
j of hers toward the Greek Theatre was to her own personal
! benefit. Theoretically, her endorsement of anything
favorable to the Greek Theatre was directed to a friend
and business partner -- Doolittle — who depended on City
24
Cecil Smith, Los Angeles Times, January 10,
i960, Part V, pp. 1, 5.
; 289
j support as personal lessee and director of the Greek
Theatre program. Doolittle's circuitry of function made J
I
: the situation more complicated. He produced at the Greek |
i Theatre for the non-profit Greek Theatre Association, and
i
; also at the Biltmore Theatre on the same non-profit basis, j
I At the same time, Doolittle partially owned The Biltmore ■
J Theatre -- a property set up as a commercial, profit ven-
I
I
I ture. The question which evolves from this situation
1 becomes -- where do the public and civic interests of
Wyman-Doolittle at the Greek Theatre end, and their pri-
; vate and business interests at the Biltmore Theatre begin?
This question could have relevance and be damaging
: only if there had ever been any co-mingling of funds
! i
| between the Greek Theatre operation and the Biltmore |
j Theatre operation. If that were the case, then it could
i
be construed that City monies were being used partially
to support a theatrical operation unconnected to the City.
Although co-mingling of Greek Theatre-Biltmore funds was
i
| alleged, the charge was disreputed and groundless.
I The question of Doolittle's possible conflict-of-
i
I
interest in being tempted to select a more favorable
theatrical program for the private Biltmore venture over
his choice for the civic Greek Theatre is vitiated by the
virtues of the Greek Theatre programs which comprised,
during this period, some of the most prestigious cultural
events in Los Angeles' theatrical history. To question
; 290
! the integrity of City Councilwoman Wyman's endorsement
of the Greek Theatre program at the late date of 1959
: was to impute her long and consistent history of endorse-
; ment and belief in the Greek Theatre cultural program
I
i for six years prior to the Biltmore Theatre situation,
i It must be allowed that Councilwoman Wyman was acting
| within an ethical tradition when she initiated her own
I
I
I question to Los Angeles City Attorney, Roger Arnebergh,
; regarding the propriety of her status as a City adminis
trative officer. Arnebergh replied that no conflict-of-
I interest existed. Mrs. Wyman's inquiry to Arnebergh
]
; followed after-the-fact of her corporate membership with
; Doolittle. It seems that Mrs. Wyman and Doolittle would
I foresee the inherent vulnerability of their circuitous
I
J linkage from Mrs. Wyman's city chair — through Doolittle
! and the Greek Theatre -- to their mutual interests at
i
the Biltmore Theatre. It must be speculated that sophis
ticated people, bent to a pure profit endeavor, would
!
| calculate the negatives of such a pregnant situation,
iYet, these obvious factors did not deter the corporate
{partnership of Wyman and Doolittle, nor did Mrs. Wyman
! question the delicacy of her position until some months
after the Biltmore Theatre Corporation was formed. Out
of this situation, the disadvantages to Mrs. Wyman appear
to outweigh any advantages of Mrs. Wyman's 5$ financial
interest in the Biltmore Theatre Corporation and Doo-
; 291
; little's 10$ investment, If a predominant profit motive
can be measured against Doolittle and Mrs. Wyman on the
: basis of their past records regarding the Greek Theatre
; and their minor partnership in the private theatre venture,
: then an opposite proposition is also true. It must be
allowed that Lurie, Doolittle and the Wymans backed their
! cultural stances with their own capital and saved, by
/
1 quick action, an endangered theatre and a venerable Los
| Angeles cultural outlet. To the questions raised sur
rounding alleged conflicts-of-interest on the parts of
Doolittle and Rosalind Wyman, one further rhetorical
question arises: Why would persons of such prominence
jeopardize reputation and position for a tenuous and
j
: public business enterprise in which their investment and
|
| potential gain were minimal?
I
! Lines of Definition Between the Biltmore
I Theatre and the Greek Theatre Association
I-------------------------------------------------------------------
I An analysis of the business and production phase
i
: of the Biltmore Theatre operation is served better by
making a clean separation between the Biltmore Theatre
Corporation and the Greek Theatre Association. The
Biltmore Theatre Corporation as owner of that theatre
property had no active involvement with the production
function of the Greek Theatre Association. Any possible
profits for the owning company could be derived from
only two sources — rental or lease payments or sale of
292 ;
' the Biltmore Theatre property. According to Doolittle,
the Greek Theatre Association, when producing at the
i
Biltmore, paid a rental to the Biltmore Theatre Corpora- !
tion that amounted to a normal lessor-lessee business
* fee. On September 9> I960, the Biltmore Theatre Corpora- j
tion sold the property to Los Angeles developer, David I
! Karno, with the stipulation that the Biltmore Theatre
1 continue to be leased to the Greek Theatre Association.
; Doolittle maintains that the Biltmore Theatre Corporation
I
kept the theatre productive and that all shareholders j
got back their original investment and very little more.2^
Some questions concerning the definition of the j
; non-profit status of the Greek Theatre Association arose j
; in connection with the operation of the Biltmore Theatre. !
I
! Doubts were expressed about the propriety of a non-profit
j
I association's working directly with a profit enterprise.
t
i The "non-profit" motif caused a great deal of debate dur-
i
! ing the 1962-63 controversy. It centered around the
1
; alleged more than $300,000 bank balance of the non-profit
! Greek Theatre Association which it had derived from its
i
j various theatre functions.
! The Greek Theatre Association enjoys tax advan
tages because it is a non-profit organization; this
status is primarily based on its educational program which
^interview, Doolittle, August 11, 1969.
; 293
J is one of the most important aspects of its civic purpose
of obtaining the best possible theatre for the City of j
; Los Angeles. The student-teacher discount program has i
been a huge and broadly-based part of the Association's
management at the civic Greek Theatre. In i960, Doolittle ;
; spoke of the Greek Theatre Association's effort in this •
! regard, and he concluded his context with a reference to
1
I
1 the theatrical indoctrination of, especially, the young.
S We produced this year to keep the Biltmore
lighted -- because a theater must be lighted --
you cannot build a theatre-going audience with
out theater.
Great audiences make great theater. One of
our most vital moves has been to work with stu-
; dents, to speak at colleges and high schools
! about the theater, to provide special rates for
students. We had more than 10,000 students at
! Biltmore plays last year.
|
j With the students we're building for the
i future. Once you learn to love theater, you're
| hooked for life.26
I
j The question of the Greek Theatre Association's
i 1962 surplus bank account which was eschewed during the
controversy was linked to the confusion over the Associa
tion's "non-profit" status. The Greek Theatre Association
as a progenitor of theatrical activity is a viable pro
duction organization which may underwrite theatre wherever
it is feasible. Once having satisfied its contract with
2^Smith, Los Angeles Times, January 10, i960,
Part V, pp. 1, 5»
294
the City, by way of performance competence and payment of
i
lease-rental, there is no reason why the Greek Theatre ,
i
Association can not engage in commercial theatrical pro-
, jects. Neither is there any stipulation, implied or de j
' |
! facto, that states that a non-profit producing organiza- i
: I
tion cannot increase its revenues and capital from enter-
| prises born of its own capital. However it is stipulated j
I I
I i
1 that no individual or corporate group of individuals may j
i I
profit from the operating of a non-profit organization.
By definition, such profit by individuals would be con-
| sidered extra-legal. Section 6 amended to Article VIII of I
| !
the Greek Theatre Association By-Laws covers the control |
i
; of monies which may be amassed by the non-profit organiza- I
: I
tion: !
i I
j Should the corporation be dissolved, it shall
! be the duty of the Members and Directors to trans-
| fer the assets of the corporation to:
j (1) A similar civic, non-profit organization
: also exempt under Section 501 (c) (3) of the
I Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
i
(2) The City of Los Angeles, or
(3) The State of California.
The argument surrounding Greek Theatre Association
i surpluses, which represent a cushion of production under
writing capital, reduces itself to a damned-if-they-do-
damned-if-they-don't category of debate emanating from
both sides of some critics' mouths. The inconsistency
is apparent in the viewpoints of those persons who regard
; 295
the Greek Theatre as primarily a commercial proposition.
These personalities have criticized the fact that the
Greek Theatre does not make a large profit for the City.
, Consistent with their profit-consciousness, they have
j looked with disfavor on the many instances when Doolittle
and the Association booked and underwrote, with Associa-
] tion capital, productions in the certain-loss category
I
I
i even when these productions were prefigured at capacity
' attendance. The Association consistently acted on a
| philosophy of securing for Los Angeles shows it should
! see, regardless of loss. Yet, the 1962 crisis featured
these same complainants' suspicions at the seeming con-
j tradiction of the "non-profit" Greek Theatre Association
j showing a healthy bank balance as a result of its
| successful management and performance. These opponents
i of the Greek Theatre Association have charted a contradic-
!
! tory course to success for an organization which cannot
win by losing -- and which can only lose by winning.
CHAPTER VII
METAMORPHOSIS -- THE GREEK THEATRE 1964-69
: The single constructive measure which came out
! of the 1962-63 year of public controversy was the formal
transfer of the civic Greek Theatre lease from Doolittle
to the Greek Theatre Association. On August 13, 1964,
during the Association's twelfth performance season at
the Greek Theatre, the Los Angeles Recreation and Parks
; Commission approved a new contract effective to June 30,
1 1967.1
I
| The gratifying 1963 season which was planned and
1
launched during the height of the previous unsettling
year won a still-standing highest average audience of
I 4,340 persons for each of the 65 performances. The City
I
j received $51,312 rental — its largest return to date —
! and the Greek Theatre Association made $26,160 off its
first million-dollar ($1,041,507) receipt season.2
1, 13-Year Lease for Greek Theatre OK'd," Los
Angeles Times, August 14, 1964, Part 1.
2Greek Theatre Statement of Operations, see
Table 10.
; 297
1964 - Patent Program
The 1964 season gives a patent example of the
diversified programming which had become the Greek Theatre
Association's trademark. The schedule ranged through
I
' grand opera, operetta, ballet, national and ethnic
dance, and classical tragedy. It contained a strong
' international flavor which was complemented by major
1
! popular American artists. Among the most prestigious
' events were the grand opera, "La Tosca," and the foreign
language version of "Medea" -- the latter by the Greek
; Tragedy Theatre Company of Athens, which played its
second engagement at the civic theatre. For its eighth
yearly appearance out of a total twelve Association
I seasons, the New York City Ballet company returned to its
| "second home"3 — a term used by artistic director,
j
j George Balanchine -- to repeat its acclaimed "Midsummer
’Night's Dream" and other repertoire selections,
j The 1964 season, which was presaged on an "inter
national fiesta" concept, introduced Harald Hoeller's
Viennese production of Johann Strauss' final operetta,
"Wiener Blut." The show featured principal artists from
i the Vienna theatre and a corps de ballet numbering sixty-
five. The National Company of Korea represented the
Orient. Its "Arirang" presentation featured more than
^Greek Theatre Magazine, weekly program June 27
through July 3, 1964, p. 71.
298
fifty dancers, singers and musicians. Other foreign
companies engaged were Jose Greco and his Spanish troupe,
and a French company starring Zizi Jeanmaire in "La
Revue Parisienne."^
Acquisition of the Huntington
Hartford Theatre by the Greelt
' Theatre Association
I ■■■ .....................
i The most significant happening of the 1964
I theatrical year was the Greek Theatre Association's pur
chase of the downtown Hollywood Huntington Hartford
Theatre. The circumstances of the acquisition were the
i same as those which led to the saving of the Biltmore
Theatre in 1959- Doolittle said of the 1964 Hartford
i
i
purchase:
| . . . It would have been a tragedy that
j while we're building new theatres in one area,
! we should let one of the most perfect theatres
in the country be torn down. We thought it
was essential for the community to have this
theatre. If Los Angeles wants theatres, here's
one that we'll maintain as long as we can . . .
here is a quality theatre that I don't think
i could be replaced for 4 million dollars in that
location, so I'm convinced it must be saved for
| our community.5
| The shift of the Association's production activity
to the Huntington Hartford sounded the death knell of the
i
older Biltmore Theatre. The Association's yearly leasing
^Ibid., pp. 56, 57.
^Hal Marienthal, "Much Ado About Doolittle," Los
Angeles FM & Fine Arts, Vol. 6, No. 7, July, 1965* P* 17.
TABLE 9
1964 Greek Theatre Season Program of
Events and Attendance
Total
Performance/
Average
Number of Evening Attendance
Performances Performer Attendance Total
4 La Tosca 3,882 15,528
6 Jose Greco 3,676
22,053
6 Nat King Cole 3,862 23,174
7
Johnny Mathis
4,423 Young Americans 30,960
6 Henry Maneini
Christy Minstrels 4,456
26,736
6 Wiener Blut
4,075
24,452
6 New York City
Ballet Company
3,914 Reportory 23,487
6 New York City
Ballet Company
"A Midsummer
Night’s Dream" 4,066
24,399
10 Zizi Jeanmaire
3,017 30,172
5
National Company
of Korea’s
"Arirang"
14,498 Christy Minstrels 2,900
6 Greek Tragedy
Theatre of
Athens
"Medea" 1,756 10,536
7
Johnny Mathis
3,318 23,228 Young Americans
75
Season
Average
3,590 269,223
300
i of it from the Biltmore Associates, a parking-lot syndicate
I
headed by David Karno, had been, in effect, the Biltmore
! Theatre’s "lease on life." A major reason for phasing out
■ the Biltmore was that it would be superfluous once the
i
! downtown Los Angeles Music Center was built. Other con
siderations of size, location and modernization favored
I a move to the Huntington Hartford Theatre. Doolittle
i
I
! explained the practicalities of the switch:
! The Biltmore has served its purpose. Until
they built the Music Center there wasn't another
theater in that central area. But it cannot
possibly compete with the new facility. It is
needed no longer. It is antiquated and has
! acoustical problems.6
The main virtues and drawbacks of the Huntington
; Hartford Theatre are directly related to its size.
I
| Seating only 1,032 audience, the Hartford offers, at best,
!
j only marginal solvency for a modern theatre operation.
On the other hand, its minimum size, and its physical
attractiveness make it a very desirable theatre. Shortly
iafter the Association purchased the Huntington Hartford
jTheatre for $1 million in the spring of 1964, Doolittle
|described it as "culturally perfect for plays, music,
opera, ballet. It is the perfect framework. No amplifica-
tion is necessary. There's no distortion. Every person
g
Jack Smith, "Biltmore Theater Again Appears to
Be Doomed," Los Angeles Times, Section C, May 3* 1964,
p. 1.
301
7
| gets the full impact of production."
Minor Skirmishes-1964
The absorption of the Huntington Hartford Theatre
■ by the Greek Theatre Association provided further rumblings
! j
, of discontent from the Department of Recreation and Parks |
commissioners. The incident reflects the repository of
i
! disaffection which remained from the 1962-63 fracas,
j Recent history repeated itself when Commissioner
Pierson voiced his wariness of the non-profit Association's
projected reign at the newly-acquired commercial play-
! house. Pierson said that he wanted ". . .to know how
i
much money the association will spend on its Huntington J
! Hartford productions and on its other commitments."^ j
| Pierson's officious remark, containing its unfavorable
|
| suggestion, appears to be confounding following the many
points of controversy which were belabored during 1962-63.
His statement implied that a definition of the Recreation
i and Parks Commission's jurisdiction over the Greek
j Theatre Association was still amorphous and confused.
1
Briefly reiterated, the Commission in its contract rela
tionship had no rights of declaration, or any business
1
whatever in mixing in matters concerning the non-profit
7Ibid., p. 7.
O
Park Commissioner Says Greek Theater Reneging
on Deal," Hollywood Citizen-News, August 7* 1964.
j 302 ;
| association which are unrelated to the fulfillment of its
contractual obligations at the civic Greek Theatre. j
|
Pierson's pugnacious assertion on the Huntington Hartford ;
I Theatre acquisition appears to indicate that a chip-on-
! the-shoulder attitude toward the Greek Theatre Association
; i
still fermented within the Recreation and Parks Commission. j
| Doolittle later commented that the uncertain and
I
I
1 waning relationship after 19^3 between the Department
! and the Association — the withdrawal of City subsidy as
/
one concrete indication -- was strongly instrumental in
j the Association's assuring itself of perpetuation at the
! 9
; Huntington Hartford Theatre.
I
| The Organization and Patron Plan
i at the Huntington Hartford
! Theater - 1964
i --------------
i
! The Association's rescue of the Huntington Hart-
ford Theatre came at a time when no definite plans for
production and production financing could be instituted.
| In the spring months, Doolittle is always engrossed in
j preparations for the coming Greek Theatre season.
When he announced the Hartford acquisition,
Doolittle gave the Greek Theatre Association's approach
to the new venture.
We have no plans but to save this theater.
We'll be operating at a deficit, but it won't
be staggering. After all, it would cost $3 or
^Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 24, 1969.
303
1 $4 million dollars to build the building. This
i is not a factor.
We've had too much experience even to be too
optimistic. We're well aware of the problems
inherent in this. But we feel it is worthy of
our best efforts.10
The Huntington Hartford Theatre operation resulted
in the formation of a new production adjunct called the
I Hollywood Wing of the Greek Theatre Association. Although
I
I
1 the entire production authority and responsibility re
mained with Doolittle, the Hollywood Wing was composed of
an impressive list of cinema and theatre personalities,
j Listed as members of the Advisory Board were: Ralph
Bellamy, Robert Cummings, Greer Garson, Ross Hunter,
; Mervyn LeRoy, Andrew Morgan Maree III, Edward G. Robinson,
! George Sidney, George Stevens, Meredith Willson and
j Robert Young.11 The strategy for implementing production
| costs was furnished by a broadly-based patron plan. Each
j patron contributed one hundred dollars which helped to
finance the importation and production of shows. The
' 12
j plan began with about 400 patrons in 1964, and since
I then it has reached a high of 900 contributors.1- ^ While
! ____________________
10Smith, op. clt., p. 7.
11Greek Theatre Magazine, weekly program September
13 through September lb, 1965* P* 61.
■^Marienthal, loc. cit.
1-^John Dooley, "Trojan Horse in Doolittle's Row
With City Over Greek Could Be Another Tenant," Variety,
February 9, 1967* p. 14.
; 304
I this potential of $40,000 to $90,000 for seasonal under
writing has made the Huntington Hartford Theatre seasons
| possible, the amounts are not sufficient to support a
; box-office "disaster." Doolittle operates under the
incumbency of filling the 1,032-seat house, and making
few mistakes.
I
I
I The Resident Ballet Company
! Squabble - 196%
| The spring of 1964 also gave rise to a further
minor controversy — unrelated, this time, to the serial
| episodes incurred by the City-Association relationship.
; This one involved only Los Angeles art organizations. The
j issue revolved around Doolittle's longstanding ambition
; to found a resident ballet company in Los Angeles. From
j
the beginning of the Greek Theatre Association, its long-
range plans included the establishment of resident opera
and dance companies for the City of Los Angeles. Doolittle
consistently promoted the idea that Los Angeles should
|
| create its own theatrical art. The 1964 visit of the New
I York City Ballet Company gave Doolittle the opportunity
i
I
to rekindle enthusiasm for a City ballet corps. Largely
through the dance record of the Greek Theatre seasons,
Los Angeles had shown its hospitality to ballet. Local
dancers had demonstrated their quality in Greek Theatre
productions which presented the best of the world's dance
ensembles. Two examples of this happened when the Greek
; 305 , ;
! Theatre Association incorporated Los Angeles dancers in
its creations of "Coppelia" in 1957* and "Giselle" in ,
; 1958. Once again Balanchine created, for the New York j
; City Ballet repertoire evenings of the 1964 season, a |
; "Serenade" to be danced by Los Angeles artists.^ The pre-
: i
season situation caused one local newspaper writer to
' frame the resident ballet question in these terms:
1
! If Doolittle has persuaded our numerous
j excellent ballet studios to pool their resources
for three ingenious productions and for the New
York City Ballet, why should these talents other
wise be dissipated in aimless rivalries? Why
not one major endeavor instead of a dozen minor
1 ones?15
|
According to Dance Magazine the following autumn,
; the current "eager anticipation" for a civic dance com-
; pany did not result in unity among competing elements of j
the Los Angeles dance community. The article explained
Doolittle's plan to take advantage of the New York City
jBallet's Ford Foundation grant which required the company
I to assist the propagation of ballet around the country.
I
I However* his alliance to what he considered the strongest
!
i ballet force in the United States caused vexation to
other interested dance factions in the City. As reported
in the magazine, reaction took the following form:
-^"In The News — Controversy: New Los Angeles
Co.," Dance Magazine, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 11, November, 1964,
p. 38.
•'■^Patterson Greene, "Stepping Right In," Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, Section F, May 17, 1964, p. F-5.
306
| . . . Expressing fears of an invasion of New
; York dancers5 choreographers, designers, etc., and
an extension into their territory of what has been ,
called the "Balanchine monopoly, some forty teachers |
have banded together in the Southern California
Guild of Dance Teachers. With Eugene Loring as
temporary chairman, the Guild has held two protest
! meetings and is working toward the founding of a
"genuinely civic" company by supporting a continua- j
tion of the plans of the Los Angeles Ballet Theatre, j
Inc., an organization begun three years ago with
! Mrs. Hal C. Millstone as president. The L. A. j
! Ballet Theatre has received the endorsement of,
j and a promise of fund-raising from, the Los Angeles
j Junior Chamber of Commerce, which is making the
j establishment of a permanent company, "truly
representative of the area," as its major cultural
project.16
Doolittle's reply to the consternation and oppo-
I sition was that his plans had been seemingly misunderstood.I
I
Balanchine was only to help get things started; there I
1
! was no intention of making the Los Angeles company a j
|"branch of the NYC Ballet."1^
I
I A resident dance company for the City of Los
Angeles has yet to materialize. As recently as the week
of this writing, the Los Angeles Times reports a new
!energetic attempt to accomplish the often-aborted establish-
! ment of a resident civic dance company. This latest
j
i enterprise, organized under Los Angeles businessman
Richard Schottland, will have the above mentioned Eugene
i
Loring as artistic director of the newly-named Los Angeles
l6n^ The News-Controversy: New Los Angeles Co.,"
loc. cit.
^ibid.
307
: Dance Theater. Shottland's statement that -- "The other
Los Angeles companies fell Into the hands of society
l8 ■
women, who played with them like toys . . . appears
to be reflective of the 1964 splintering controversy.
: Between the parties to this confrontation concerning
: the establishment of a resident dance company, the combina-:
! tion of Doolittle and Balanchine gave, at least, reason-
1 able odds for success. Their collaboration brought to-
1 gether the formidable capacities needed for such a venture.
Doolittle contributed professional administrative and
i producing abilities; he also had year-round theatres as
1
performing outlets. Balanchine’s renown and creativity i
gave high potentiality to the artistic requirements of
the proposed company. !
;
i
i The Greek Theatre Association
Theatrical Year of 19^5
The variegated offerings of the 1964 Greek
Theatre season realized an audience average of 82$-of-
1
capacity. More than half of the season's performance
| evenings had been occupied by theatrical events, with the
| remaining evenings taken up by favorite popular artists.
I
| The season resulted in a loss of $186,720 for the Greek
Theatre Association.
Unlike 1964, the 1965 program was heavily
■ I Q
John Rockwell, "A Business Basis for L. A.
Ballet," Los Angeles Times, Part IV, February 11, 1970.
; 308
| weighted with a preponderance of popular "showbiz" enter
tainment. Except for a program of the American Ballet
Theatre -- and a ballet insert in the Judy Garland
; evenings featuring Los Angeles dancers in "Pas de Dix" --
the 1965 season relied on the tried and proven talents
: of Maurice Chevalier, Harry Belafonte, and on the magnet-
' ism of current acts from the popular music field. A
I
! first-rate production of the Broadway musical, "How to
j Succeed in Business Without Really Trying," was followed
by Henry Mancini and the Young Americans, the New Christy
I Minstrels, the Kingston Trio and Roger Miller, and the
: stars already mentioned. The phenomenon of Belafonte's
; ability to draw audiences at the Greek Theatre is, again,
; noteworthy. For each of the 24 evenings of his engagement
i
j Belafonte's audience exceeded the capacity of the Greek
!
Theatre by more than 100 persons. The receipts from
Belafonte1s engagement amounted to more than 40$ of the
Greek Theatre's 1965 season total returns. This pre-
i
| dominantly "popular" season of offerings made a profit
1
of $23,287 for the Greek Theatre Association.
In 1965, it became evident that the Greek Theatre
had entered a period of change. Since the 1965 season
adjustments have had to be made at the Greek Theatre
because of: (1) the increased costs of presenting its
major theatrical program, (2) a restive, unsolicitous
relationship with its City partner, and (3) a changed
; 309
I theatrical environment in the greater Los Angeles area.
: In an effective sense, the "present era" of the Los
| Angeles Greek Theatre dates from the year 19^5•
, Doolittle spoke of the current problems of the
i
j Greek Theatre in an interview which appeared in the
i Valuator magazine, the official publication of the Southern
I
| section of the California Teachers Association. The
i
! approach of the magazine article revealed an attempt on
| its part to clarify the current condition of the Greek
Theatre, and to seek out the methods of the Greek Theatre
Association's cultural operation. The Valuator admitted
j
the "close personal ties" Doolittle had developed with
; CTA-SS educators over a 13-year discount program which
j
j had encouraged "over a million students" and thousands
of teachers to attend his productions. In the interview,
Doolittle also mentioned a long-standing Greek Theatre
program which entertained approximately 3,000 under
privileged children a year at free performances and at
; special sessions with such stars as Danny Kaye. The
Valuator article compared the operations of several Los
Angeles non-profit theatre organizations. It commented
that despite Hollywood Bowl's huge subsidization and lack
of rental obligation -- versus the Greek Theatre's token
subsidy and large annual rent payments -- the Bowl gave
only a fifty-cent discount to teachers and students as
compared to the Greek Theatre's two-dollar discount. The
; 310
article, undisguisedly favoring these Greek Theatre Assoc
iation practices, was mainly significant where Doolittle
told of the financial problems besetting the Greek Theatre.
, Here, Doolittle warned that the Greek Theatre would have
I
to change its traditional cultural programming approach
: unless the Greek Theatre received some forms of economic
■ assistance. This part of the interview went as follows:
i
( Q. Why does your current Summer season,
although highly entertaining, lack some of
| the cultural luster of previous years.
A. The economics of production are such
that we may not be able to do as many programs
as culturally satisfying and as expensive as
I the popular "Madame Butterfly" or "Tosca."
Although thousands were turned away, we had
operational deficits of approximately $40,000
; on each opera.19
Doolittle’s reference to "thousands turned away"
I
j is supportable in terms of the high average audience for
1
I
both these operas. The 1963 production of "Madame
Butterfly" averaged 4,464 persons for each of three per
formances, more than 400 per evening over seated capacity
i
. (4,407). This meant that many ticket requests could not
be accommodated. The same may be assumed for the 4-per-
formance run of "Tosca" in 1964. Although the average
audience, numbering 3,882, was under capacity, all large
attendances presuppose that many ticket buyers might be
^James W. Whitby, "’The Valuator’ Interviews . . .
James A. Doolittle," The Valuator, the official publication
of the California Teachers Association, Southern Section,
Entertainment Issue, Summer, 1965* P* 31*
311
turned away on preferred evenings.
The Valuator question series continued:
Q. Is the Greek Theatre in danger financially.
A. A change in the format, I'm afraid, will be
necessary. We cannot continue to do as many ex
pensive productions of ballet and operas. We must
be more careful in our programming, reaching a more
"popular" and less risky entertainment level. Last
year (1964) we enjoyed the third largest attendance
' and gross business in the history of the theatre,
yet the operational deficit was around $200,000.
! ($186,720) On our present financial arrangement,
1 we can't risk such major productions as we did in
the past. In addition, the theatre's facilities
are greatly in need of improvement. (Parenthetical
additions mine)
Q. What physical improvements are necessary
at the Greek?
A. The Theatre needs a tremendous physical
refurbishing. It is no longer a particularly
attractive place. The parking is inadequate; we
have 300 less parking spaces than were available
| two years ago. The theatre is certainly not re-
| presentative of the great city of Los Angeles,
j If it was a beautifully equipped theatre, it could
| restimulate civic and public interest . .. .20
j Before 1965 ended, there were encouraging echoes
I
I from the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
J
that the physical needs of the Greek Theatre were recog-
| nized. The Department began exploratory discussions on
|
i possible ways to modernize the original unwieldy lighting
i
i towers, the original wooden seating, and to refurbish the
dressing rooms. The parking space and lighting for it
20Ibid.
312
21
I were considered to be inadequate. A recently completed
golf course installed very near to the theatre, had usurped
22 !
: a critically needed parking area.
! The Los Angeles Theatre Environment
in the Mid-Sixties
The years 1965 and 1966 offer a good vantage point 1
I
| to survey the changed theatrical environment in greater
j
i Los Angeles. Compared to 1952, and in comparison to other
| major cities in the United States, Los Angeles could, by I
1965, be qualified again as a "theatre town." Until the
J Greek Theatre Association assumed its role of sustaining
1
; year-round major legitimate theatre in 1959 -- by contigu-
; ous seasons at the Greek Theatre and the old Biltmore
' Theatre -- no such continuity of theatre was available !
j I
! to the theatre-going public. Dark theatre evenings in
j
| Los Angeles had been the rule rather than the exception.
1
! The City's two remaining legitimate houses — the Biltmore
and the Huntington Hartford Theatres -- were lit by
1
; infrequent importations of touring New York shows. Sporad-
i ic visitations of ballet and opera companies periodically
j vitalized the Los Angeles Shrine and Philharmonic
! auditoriums. The most successful theatre enterprise in
21"ls Greek To Get a New Look?" Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, September 12, 1965*
22Austin Conover, "Mounting Costs Peril Role of
Greek Theatre," Hollywood Citizen-News, June 22, 1965•
313
Los Angeles was the popular musical comedy operation --
the Los Angeles Civic Light Opera, which has flourished
through all of its thirty-two seasons to date. In the
small theatre movement, only the Hollywood Players' Ring
Theatre under Paul Levitt and Ted Thorpe could claim a
continued theatre program and a sustaining audience
through several years during the fifties.
By comparison with that era, Los Angeles was
experiencing a "boom" condition in legitimate theatre
presentations in the 1965-66 theatre year. Beside the
serious musical and dance offerings at the Shrine Auditor
ium and Hollywood Bowl, the legitimate theatre seasons of
the Greek Theatre Association, and Theatre Guild subscrip
tion seasons at the Los Angeles Lindy Opera House, the
huge tent-theatres were at the peak of their short-lived
careers in the Los Angeles area. These large, semi
permanent theatres-in-the-round seated approximately
3,300 per theatre.23 They proliferated a rapid-fire of
star-stock musical comedy revivals, light comedy fare and
celebrity concerts. The theatres were widely separated
from one another; they stretched to the far reaches of
the greater Los Angeles area. Melodyland, the first of
the three theatres, was strategically located opposite
Disneyland in Anaheim. In 1964, the Valley Music Theatre
23The Valuator Magazine, Entertainment Issue,
Summer, 1965* P- ^3-
314 ;
' under producers Nick Mayo and Randolph Hale, opened its
1 first season to the tremendous audience potential in the
oh.
; San Fernando Valley. Encouraged by the success of
: Melodyland, producers Sammy Lewis and Danny Dare opened
their second enterprise — The Carousel Theatre -- in
1 25 i
West Covina in the late summer of 1965• The round
' theatres were popular for about five years. As of 19693
I
I
! the Carousel Theatre was razed giving way to a motel, and
‘ the Valley Music Theatre had become a headquarters for
fight promotions. Melodyland, in Anaheim, is currently
| used as a church, and is called the Melodyland Christian
j
Center Church. Several factors contributed to the demise
j of these theatres: (1) their novelty dissipated, (2)
; the extremely large theatres-in-the-round never satis-
|
I factorily solved their problem of sound distribution, (3)
!
competition from the new modern downtown Los Angeles Music
Center which became a production factor in 1965* (4) the
theatres performed the same shows repeatedly owing to the
1
I limited number of good shows suitable for revival.
I Numerous small theatres became activated by i960,
j The off-Broadway trend which became part of the theatrical
! scene in New York gained impetus in Los Angeles by an
increase in the number of actors who had formerly made
New York their operational base. During the late 1950s,
2^Ibld., p. 38. 25Ibid., p. 43.
315
television changed its format from live performances of
drama to filmed or canned shows. As a result, the produc- ,
tion and casting center of the television industry shifted !
; to the world’s film capital, and the actors followed.
Commuting from coast-to-coast between the legitimate |
I
theatre and television became standard for actors. The
j preponderance of bread-and-butter work on the west coast
I
1 lured an unprecedented talent pool to Los Angeles. The
i j
, kinetics of a large creative community are such that out- !
lets are sought for creative energies, and considerable
adjunct theatrical activity was generated in the Los j
I !
Angeles area by newly-formed acting companies, workshops !
: and small production companies. j
It was largely from this talent influx that an
!
| important development in Los Angeles theatre resulted.
I
In 1959* Dr. Abbott Kaplan of UCLA formed the UCLA Exten
sion Theatre Group, which drew heavily from the newly crea
ted pool of New York actors. A compatible relationship
i
|with UCLA lasted through eight seasons of producing
I
i seldom-seen plays by world-renowned playwrights, and
!
j experimental and new works. An enviable 8,000 season sub-*
1
! scribers endorsed the group's endeavors. In 1966, the
Theatre Group ended its association with UCLA. Because
of the successful reputation that the UCLA Extension
Theatre Group had gained, the Los Angeles Music Center
offered the group a chance to be the resident company in
; 3 i 6
! one of its three new theatres -- the Mark Taper Forum.
Thus, in 1966, the Music Center contracted the UCLA
j Theatre Group’s founder, Dr. Abbott Kaplan, and its pro-
: ducer-director, Gordon Davidson, to establish at the
I
Forum a program of contemporary drama, experimental, and
: new plays. The Mark Taper Forum had been created to be
! the Center's experimental facility in the hopes that a
I
I
1 stimulating modern program there would generate new plays
I of
[and playwrights.
' The Los Angeles Music Center
! The most commanding aspect of the changed Los
Angeles theatre environment was the new cultural complex
! the Los Angeles Music Center. Under the province and
| jurisdiction of Los Angeles County, three ultra-modern
1
I and imposing theatres arose — the Dorothy Chandler
j Pavilion, the Ahmanson Theatre and the Mark Taper Forum.
I
jErected at a cost of $16,500*000, or $5,384 per seat
I(cost includes restaurant equipment and furnishings), the
3,250-seat Dorothy Chandler Pavilion2^ was designed to
house the larger presentations of opera, ballet, symphon
ies and the musical comedies of the Los Angeles City
Ray Duncan, "Tempest Over a Trip Downtown," Los
Angeles Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 6, June, 1966, pp. 45, 48.
^American Educational Theatre Association, Theatre
News, as reported in "Letters To The Editor" from a letter
by John C. Knight of Welton Becket and Associates, archi-
texts of the Los Angeles Music Center, April, 1969.
; 317
! Light Opera Company which made its new headquarters there.
i
1 The 2,100-seat Ahmanson Theatre, which cost $5*386,360,
28
; at a breakdown cost of $2,570 per seat, was intended
I to house the importations of legitimate theatre and musi
cals from the commercial world-theatre. Each of the two
large theatres is a conventional proscenium theatre. The
| third theatre -- the Mark Taper Forum -- is a smaller
I
I
! house of rounded exterior and 750 seats with a flexible
, stage. Built at a cost of $1,954,450, or a cost per seat
of $2,600,29 the Forum was to be the home of the experi-
! mental theatre and drama. Each of the theatres relies on
j
its own subscription series and box office supplement.
Presentations began in 1964 at the Pavilion, and by 1966,
i
| both the Ahmanson and Forum were preparing their premiere
i
j seasons of 1967.
j
j The theatrical ferment in Los Angeles during the
| mid-1960s brought a correspondingly uplifting critical
! tone to assessments of the theatrical scene. Self-efface-
i
j ment and apology were no longer the dominant colors of
Los Angeles' theatrical commentators. Much of the favor
able comment gravitated to the rejuvenating effects of
the Huntington Hartford Theatre operation in the quickened
tempo of Los Angeles theatre.
It became cliche to read of Doolittle in necro-
28Ibid. 2%bid.
318
| mantic terms of life-giver to the City's "white marble
elephants" — a familiar metaphor for the theatres which
he had put back in business.
James A. Doolittle, doctor of theatres, has
! just saved his third major patient among the sick
show-houses of this city.
The Huntington Hartford Theatre has never
1 looked healthier, or busier, or less like a
| parking-lot, which is the humiliating fate of
j Los Angeles theatres when they die.30
i
j ... if you have a flair for theatrical excite
ment, you can start your juices flowing simply by
driving past the revitalized Huntington Hartford
on Vine Street, for example -- a playhouse snatched
from the wrecking crews in a last-minute rescue
! that made its own stage happenings look tame.31
j
In a span of two years, the Huntington Hartford
j Theatre became Los Angeles' most vital showcase of theatre.
i Critical assessment lauded the "creative management" of
i
| the Hartford, and praised, particularly, its venturesome
programming.^2 The comments were identical to those which
recorded the renaissance of the Greek Theatre and its
audience years before. Los Angeles theatre critic Cecil
i
j Smith gave credit to the Greek Theatre Association policy
j
of underwriting, regardless of risk, plays that Los Angeles
^°Ray Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," Los Angeles
Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 6, June, 1966, p. 44.
31-Duncan, "The Summer Season," Los Angeles Maga
zine, Vol. 11, No. 6, June 1966, p. 41.
32Cecil Smith, "Doolittle: Slings, Arrows,
Achievements," Los Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday, November
28, 1965, p. 2.
319
| theatregoers "should have an opportunity to see." Smith
cited many examples of plays which would never have toured,
j
but which were transported to the Hartford because the
Association felt they were important. Among these were
Eugene O'Neill's "Hughie," which presented Jason Robards,
Jr. to Los Angeles audiences for the first time. The !
| Hartford successes of "Hughie" and another risk-taking
! importation, "The Sign in Sidney Brustein's Window," were
; the more noteworthy since both had been considered flops
on B r o a d w a y .33 a second Los Angeles theatre critic
i
| celebrated Doolittle's current management with the folow-
I
ing salute:
; . . . His fame rests not only on his therapy
for ailing stages (the Greek Theatre, the old
Biltmore), but on his really spectacular ability |
j to initiate action which seems contrary to common
I sense,
j
j As general director of the Greek Theatre
j Association, and of its new Hollywood Wing, he has
! demonstrated a flair for enticing capacity audiences
j into the Greek and Hartford on unlikely pretexts such
I as showing them a worthy serious contemporary drama
I which has just flopped in New York. Such a one was
"Hughie," a resounding hit here, even if for a time
it did seem to cast doubt on the sanity of the man
| who sponsored its westward flight.34
| The thriving success of the Hartford prompted the
! statement that the "lines of supplicants begging for
tickets" at the Huntington Hartford Theatre "have made it
33
Ibid.
3^Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," p. 44.
: 320
I the most talked-about theatre in America today. "3^
According to the same writer, the reverberations of the
I Hartford success had created impact on New York theatre |
; to the extent that New York planned productions with the
' Hartford in mind. "Many Broadway hits now make their j
decision — to tour or not to tour -- on the basis of I
I whether or not our Huntington Hartford Theatre will be
I available to them."36
| Inevitably, a positive assessment of a healthier
theatrical milieu refines itself down to a final analysis
and commentary on the audience. Viewed through the focus
of the Hartford's program, Los Angeles Times chief theatre j
; critic, Cecil Smith, suggested that a changed and superior
I reflex had evolved in the Los Angeles theatre audience. !
j It indicated a new maturity in receptivity and response.
j
i In New York's center of the American theater
I among the coffee cups at Sardi's and at Downey's,
! the talk of Los Angeles is not that "Hello Dolly!"
grossed $1 million at the Music Center or that
crowds mobbed the box office for "Barefoot in the
Park" -- this was to be expected -- but that such
plays as "After the Fall," "Luther" and "The Subject
Was Roses" attracted greater crowds here than any-
! where in the country. These are plays of substance
j and stature, plays you bring your mind along to see,
i and there's the feeling that only the frivolous and
trivial succeed in the commercial theater today.
! That there is an audience here for strong, abrasive,
meaningful drama, plays with red meat in them, sur
prises many a Broadway nabob. But this is the
^^puncan, "The Summer Season," p. 4l.
36Ibid., p. 44.
321 :
37
audience Doolittle has nurtured and developed. 1
The, then, nearly fourteen-year career of the '
Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association becomes most clearly !
I significant when it is considered in the context of these j
! I
references to the newly-sophisticated Los Angeles theatre j
audiences. Spanning this period of progress from •
! theatrical indifference and deprivation to a more excited j
I
1 theatrical milieu, the Greek Theatre Association had
; sponsored the major proportion of the best that United
States theatre could offer through the period 1953-66.
| The thread of theatre in Los Angeles, on the grand scale,
j
had been maintained by way of Doolittle and the Associa-
; tion's rescue of the City's only major legitimate houses,
I and by sustained presentations there. The 1965-66 seasons
j at the Huntington Hartford Theatre manifested no new
I
j departure from past policies of the Association. It con
tinued to be led by its establishing statement-of-intent
which promised to seek out and bring the best possible
1
; theatre to Los Angeles. The success of the 1965-66 season
off-beat selections was no more than a repetition of the
achievement at the Greek Theatre. The Association
chanced and won with unusual and qualitative programming
which astutely estimated and played up to its audiences.
Whatever other identifiable factors may have
3?Smith, loc. cit.
; 322
! contributed to the improved theatrical environment,
Doolittle's role was frequently measured in terms of the
: reawakened audience of 1965-66. One article called him
; -- "something of a legend in New York as well, as the
oQ
liberator of the locked-up Los Angeles audience." Ano
ther article in the Los Angeles Times summed up the pre-
! vailing theatrical climate in the City at the mid-sixties,
! and suggested Doolittle's contribution:
| Yet the growing interest in theater here, the
excitement that has changed Los Angeles from the
worst theater city in the country to one of the
best, the swelling numbers of Theater Guild sub-
| scribers, the eagerness and receptiveness of aud-
! iences for fine drama has occurred under Doolittle's
stewardship of the city's major legitimate house,
first the Biltmore, now the Hartford.39
I
I In late 1965, Doolittle pinpointed three Greek
j Theatre Association theatre events which he felt made
j
j major contributions to the re-establishment of the Los
j
j Angeles theatre. The first signpost was the sellout
response of Los Angeles' audiences to Durenmatt's "The
i Visit" -- a 1959 presentation at the Biltmore starring
the Lunts. Doolittle overcame the hesitations of the New
York management, who thought that a tour of the dark and
gloomy play was risky. In order to get the play to Los
3®Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," Los Angeles
Magazine, June, 1966, p. 44.
^Cecil Smith, "Doolittle: Slings, Arrows,
Achievements," Los Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday,
November 28, 19^5 > p. 2.
; 323
| Angeles, the Greek Theatre Association underwrote the
i I
tour.
Doolittle cited the 1963 presentation of "A Man
iFor All Seasons" at the outdoor Greek Theatre as the |
1 |
second indication of Los Angeles' new coming of age. Again.)
the New York management of the play feared an open-air •
' production when a Biltmore presentation was thought to
t
! guarantee sure-fire success. Doolittle countered the
■ objections by offering the New York management the
$80,000 profit they could be assured from full houses at
i the Biltmore -- if they would allow the play to be done
at the Greek Theatre. Doolittle said:
It was costly. It had to be redesigned and
j restaged. But it played to 51,000 people in two
| weeks and grossed $176,000. Many of the people !
| who saw it in the Greek hadn't been to a play in
years. They saw how great an experience in the .
theater can be, how deeply moving and gratifying.^0
i
The third event Doolittle singled out was the 1965
production of Arthur Miller's "Incident at Vichy" at the
Huntington Hartford Theatre. Doolittle imported Harold
Clurman, who had directed the play for New York's Lincoln
Center, to restage it for a proscenium production.
Several of the original cast members were joined by actors
1
who were cast in Los Angeles. Cecil Smith said that the
production was ". . .as perfectly assembled as a Swiss
watch. It was a beautiful hunk of theater, the equal of
^°Ibid.
; 324
! any production on earth, and as a work produced in and for
Los Angeles it gave new stature to the theater here, a
i i 4l
standard of what can he accomplished." Doolittle's own
comment gave "Incident at Vichy" the same dimension of
i
influence:
. . . The credit belongs to Clurman but this
| showed we are not some stock operation in the
sticks but can do theater as well as it can be
1 done anywhere. The quality of that production
1 showed us the level theater can attain here.42
As the summer season of 1966 arrived, Doolittle
was again credited with theatrical coups. His opening
i show at the Greek Theatre was Peter Shaffer's massive
pageant, "The Royal Hunt of the Sun" -- a play which was
i Broadway's most impressive and important drama of that
I
j year. A leading Los Angeles theatre critic called the
j 1966 summer season at the Huntington Hartford "the most
j awesome single new event of the summer . . . ."^3 jjis
j appraisal referred to the nine-week scheduling of the
j Association of Producing Artists (APA) performing a
I
I repertory of productions which had recently established
| them as one of the finest acting companies in the land,
j Helen Hayes was the leading actress in the series of plays
i which included "You Can't Take It With You," "Right You
Are - If You Think You Are," "The School for Scandal,"
41Ibid. 42Ibid.
^Duncan, "The Slimmer Season," Los Angeles Magazine,
June, 1966, p. 4l.
and "War and Peace." The latter was performed at the
1 Greek Theatre. j
| The ferment of Los Angeles theatre in the mid-60's j
was a fact in terms of quantity and quality. It remained
j
for local critic Ray Duncan of Los Angeles Magazine to
' give a sober appraisal of the Los Angeles theatre scene in ‘
■
j which he reminded that ". . .a metropolis which draws
I
I
1 upon a population approaching seven million, yet had only
| one major legitimate playhouse devoted to non-musical
| productions."^ Since his focus was on major legitimate
j theatres with sustaining production programs, Duncan's
reference pertained to the Huntington Hartford Theatre,
j His remarks excluded other Los Angeles theatres such as j
j the Lindy Opera House and the Ivar Theatre which were used !
I
| for many legitimate dramas, but which seldom built long
i
records of production on any major and sustaining scale.
In the context of his assessment, Duncan wrote that Los
Angeles — regardless of its huge community of writers,
i
jperformers, technicians, and revitalized theater interest
lie
— maintained a creative lag far behind its potential. J
Resident companies of opera and ballet are still
unrealized in Los Angeles. No voice of the past fifteen
years was more constant than Doolittle's in calling for
^Ibid., p. 40.
^5Ibid.
j 326
| the necessity, and the means, to make Los Angeles a
creative center. This more negative aspect of the better
theatrical condition was, once again, best expressed in
Duncan's objective and tough-minded summing up:
1
But what we still lack are native playwrights,
j discoursing on native themes for a native theatre
that dares to be militantly critical or militantly
| affectionate toward native institutions. Until
I that time we will remain what we are this fermenting
| summer -- the American theatre's most vital, most
i active and most exciting suburb of New Y o r k . 44
I
Greek Theatre Production Finances
Recent Years -- 1903-^9
! The history of the Greek Theatre's last seven
years describes many problems which find their root in the
j financial realities of doing theatre during the period
i 1963 through 1969. A record of the Greek Theatre produc-
I
j tion costs during that time shows an expense squeeze on
I
revenues as well as several seasons of loss. Table 10
completes the financial statement of the theatre operation
covering the Association years 1953 to the present, while
i
| it also aids a fuller understanding of events during the
jmost recent years.
j
j These figures, when compared with the operational
!figures in Table 3 of Chapter IV, show a sharp rise in
attraction and production costs beginning in 1962. These
two combined costs fell under $600,000 only in 1966 and
^Ibid ., p. 45.
i
TABLE 10 |
I
Greek Theatre - Statement of Operations 1963 Through 1969
1
Year
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
Total Audience 317,728 260,431 341,063 263,213 299,591 269,223 282,127
Number of Per 83
79
102 74
77 75 65
formances
Box-Office 1,288,769 679,449 1,230,736 834,541 1,004,212
850,773 1,023,045
rvcwc xp OO
Miscellaneous
36,749 31,405 41,171
44,828
35,923 20,951
18,462
Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE 1,325,518 710,854
1,271,907 879,349
1,040,135 871,724
1,041,507
EXPENSES
Attractions 629,046
347,955 635,843 352,992 484,238 370,287 508,767
Production 205,546 124,207 203,962 219,924 158,276
241,037 156,174
Costs
Theatre 33,120
30,139
37,678 21,445 30,580 22,641 20,867
Operations
Rent 50,000 50,000 50,000 51,282 55,000 49,683 51,312
Ticket Dept.
72,273
47,982
58,325 49,827 39,554 42,999 42,105
Publicity &
193,197 162,959
216,330 2l6,4ll 145,862 167,314
113,119
Promotion
Administrative 143,218 137,842 137,281
91,505 103,338 164,483 123,003
TOTAL 1,326,400 901,084
1,339,419
1,003,386 1,016,848 1,058,444
1,015,347
EXPENSES
Net Gain or Loss -882 -190,230 -67,512 -124,017 23,287
-186,720 26,160
uo
ro
- s i
: 328 I
I 1
| 1968. At their highest, they exceeded $800,000. Table
10 also shows the steep rises in the costs of the ticket
department and administration and in publicity and promo
tion costs.
j
Since 1962, the Association's net loss at the
i Greek Theatre has amounted to $534,615 -- four of the last I
| six seasons contributed heavy losses to this deficit
I
! figure.
i
Survival Struggle — 1966 and 1967
The civic Greek Theatre was in a crisis situation
i during the years 1966 and 1967. The financial curve bent
! I
sharply downward following the 1965 season, which brought J
I a minimum profit of $23,287. Since then, the Greek j
j Theatre has not had a season which brought a profit.
!
| Counting the 1964 deficit, the Association by the end of
! the 1966 season had lost some $300,000. The time had
I
| arrived for decisive steps to be taken if the Associa-
I tion's theatrical program at the Greek Theatre was to
survive. As a result, the years 1966 and 1967 witnessed
another public controversy between City factions and
Association partisans negotiated new operational bases to
keep the Greek Theatre functioning.
In late 1966, the Greek Theatre Association set
out to reverse the decaying process of the Greek Theatre.
An Association brochure stated three major needs of the
; 329
{facility: "... (1) the modernization and beautification
I
' of the facility and its immediate environment; (2) the
installation of adequate and convenient parking; and (3)
I a fair, long-term lease that is realistically based on the
l
economics of theatre as it exists today."^5
i A key objective to the Association’s future was
I its time-worn goal of acquiring a long-range, ten-year
I
! contract from the City. Its position on the prevailing
| three-year contract was that it allowed insufficient per
manency and security. The Association claimed that a
i lack of insured tenure prevented the booking of attrac-
j
| tions which might have to be negotiated over a several
j year period. Doolittle maintained that a lack of perman-
I ency made it impossible to seek foundation support and
I J | /T
patronage for the Greek Theatre. Prior to the 1966
season, the Association renewed its campaign for a ten-
year contract. This would permit the Association the
immediate advantage of securing long-range bank loans to
j take care of the Greek Theatre needs on its own. Although
the long contract did not materialize, one positive fac
tor did result from the 1966 talks — the long-requested
straight rental fee of $50,000 per year. The innumerable
^"Los Angeles Theatre Crisis," Greek Theatre
Association mail-out pamphlet, 1966-67> P* 6.
2 i c
John Dooley, "Trojan Horse in Doolittle’s Row
With City Over Greek Could be Another Tenant," Variety,
February 9S 1967, p. 1^-.
; 330
j
i plus factors of this agreement with the Recreation and
Parks Department meant that Association accounts and the
1 policing of them was no longer an issue. This would save
i much time, money, and irritation for both partners.
I
: The Parking-Lot Issue
' First among Greek Theatre needs was room for
i additional parking space. In 1963-64, approximately 300
i
j parking spaces had been preempted by a golf facility which
was built across the street from the theatre. By the
spring of 1966, the Association, aided by the cooperation
I of Recreation and Parks Commissioner Ludlow Flower, form
ulated a plan which would expedite a financial appropria-
I
tion for the building of a parking lot. For the first
I
| time this new plan contained the Department of Recreation
j
! and Parks’ agreement that the Association could pay a
J straight $50,000 yearly rental fee to the City. Further,
the Department agreed that the Association could immediat-
i ely begin to use these future rent payments as collateral
| to obtain a bank loan which was to be used to finance a
new parking lot. Once secured, the loan would allow the
Association to hire a private firm to build the lot in
time for the opening of the 1966 season.^ Indirectly,
this meant that the Recreation and Parks Department was
Greek Theater Hit by Parking Lot Row," Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, May 5* 1966, p. F-8.
; 33i
1 financing the parking lot out of rent monies it should
receive from the Greek Theatre Association. The Depart-
! ment planned to recoup these monies by parking fees.^8
| However, Mayor Yorty and City Administrative Officer C.
I Erwin Piper killed the plan. Mayor Yorty requested the
Recreation and Par.cs Commission to restudy the proposal,
! and he expressed his belief that "the city could get a
I better d e a l ."^9 Recreation and Parks Commissioner Flower
; best described the resulting stand-off when he said that
the objection from the City Administrative Office
unexpectedly put a last minute crimp in the plans.
! I've been working night and day to try to settle
the situation, but so far haven't made much head
way.
! They made proposals that the work be done by i
j the Board of Public Works and other moves which
j insure that the lots would not be built this year
j -- if ever.50
I
j This issue was settled on June 30, 1966, when the
| Recreation and Parks Commission signed a revised extension
i of the Greek Theatre lease which ran until October 1, 1968.
| The most positive aspect of the agreement was the establish-
I
ment of the straight $50,000 annual rental fee. A new
plan to resolve the parking issue called for the Department
I
48"Greek Theater Gets New License Agreement," Los
Angeles Westlake Post, June 30, 1966.
49
"Mayor Wields Axe — Yorty Listens to Budget
Pleas," Hollywood Citizen-News, April 8, 1966.
5°"Greek Theater Hit By Parking Lot Row," loc. cit.
; 332
| of Recreation and Parks to build a new lot prior to June 1,
: 1967. The projected cost of $150,000 was to be regained
by establishing new parking fees of $1 per car.
Only Commissioner Mrs. Morton opposed the new
j
; Greek Theatre Association lease.51
Association Campaign for Support
j The losses of the 1966 Greek Theatre season --
1
j $124,017 -- stepped up Association efforts to bring about
a general awareness of the theatre's dire financial pre
dicament. In late 1966, the Greek Theatre Association
i
I circulated two mail-outs which summed up the reasons why
the Greek Theatre might be forced to close its doors. The
! imposing prospect of competition from the new and magnifi-
j cent Los Angeles Music Center accented the plight of the
1
j Greek Theatre. The Center was bound to book major attrac
tions because of its performance capabilities and physical
I
assets. This probability, added to its novelty appeal
for audiences, made the Center a threat to competing
theatre endeavors in Los Angeles. New measures were im
perative to make the Greek Theatre competitive.
The Association's direct appeal to the City and
I
its mail-outs to patrons contained no hedging on the
immediacy and dimension of the Greek Theatre's needs. At
51"Greek Theatre Gets New License Agreement,"
loc. cit.
j that time, the City Department of Recreation and Parks ;
i !
was sensitive to, and generally sympathetic to, the Greek ,
! Theatre's problems. John C. Horan, Chief of the Department!
; Administrative Services, provided a definitive public
i
! statement of the Greek Theatre needs when he said that
the theatre was a unique facility that "ought to be a
| jewel in the park c r o w n . Horan went on to say that
i
! currently the theatre was "tawdry and shabby."53
| It's not only what you see, but what you
don't see. The dressing rooms are a shambles.
The lighting system is outdated. The sound
system is antique. The seats are a horror and
I parking is practically non-existent.54
j
Because of its sustained losses, the Greek Theatre
' Association felt it could not continue its theatrical
i
I
j tradition unless it was given revised financial considera-
j
tions. In this regard, the Association called attention
to the dramatic differences between the civic Greek
Theatre operation and that of Los Angeles' other major
publicly-owned theatre — the Hollywood Bowl. These
i
j discrepancies, which are treated in Chapter IV of this
j study are: (l) a no-rental lease for Hollywood Bowl,
versus the stiff $50,000 rental for the Greek Theatre;
(2) current County and City subsidies of approximately
52Erwin Baker, "Money Crisis May Downgrade Shows
at Greek Theatre," Los Angeles Times, Part I, December 5,
1966, p. 34. ------ ----------
53ibid. 54Ibid.
334
I $300,000 per year to Hollywood Bowl, versus a current
i i
$10,000 subsidy to the Greek Theatre from the County
, alone; and Los Angeles City, which owned, received rent, 1
' and was partner in the Greek Theatre operation, gave it !
no subsidy, and (3) millions of dollars refurblshments
at Hollywood Bowl, versus a ten-year period of no major
I
I I
j changes at the Greek Theatre.
i
!
j Media and Public Response to the
; Greek Theatre Crisis
In November of 1966, the Greek Theatre cause
| received several public boosts by way of radio, television,
|
; and newspaper editorials. All of the editorials dealt
j with the differences between the subsidy and rental
I
; policies which applied to the Greek Theatre and those 1
j that applied to the Hollywood Bowl. One KABC-TV commen-
l
| tary -- telecast seven times on November 14, 15, and 16,
1966 closed with an exhortation which was typical of the
favorable editorials. It said: "The future of the Greek
1
I
Theatre is up to the City Council. Ask your Councilman
55
what he is going to do about it." In a late November
editorial, Ben Hoberman, General Manager of KABC Radio,
broadcast his praise of the Greek Theatre cultural record.
Hoberman also lauded Los Angeles County's admirable
support of the arts. He mentioned, specifically, the
55"Greek Theatre," KABC-TV editorial #7566,
broadcast on November 14, 15, 16, 1966.
335
County's help to the Greek Theatre. When Hoberman refer
red to the City, he said in part:
The time has now come for the city itself to
do something about the Greek Theater . . . like a
grand-old-lady, the Greek has fallen behind the
times. Too long has she been neglected in terms
of beauty. . . and like other ladies, she would
benefit from some paint and powder.
! It is time for the city to show the kind of
| dedication to the Greek Theater that the county
! has demonstrated in giving us the Music Center
| and the Hollywood Bowl.
Beyond refurbishing the Theater, we hope that
the Commission would also write a new long-term
contract with Jimmy Doolittle and the Greek Theatre
i Associates, to guarantee Los Angeles more years of
! the kind of entertainment we've come to expect
from the Magnificent G r e e k .56
I The Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, the City's second
; largest newspaper, reiterated all the pertinent points
j of the "Greek Theater's cause."57 jt added that, although
!
j the Recreation and Parks Commission was sympathetic to
I
j the problems, it "declares it does not have the funds to
j make the necessary improvements."58 in view of this, the
i
; Herald-Examiner hopefully recommended that the matter
i would be deliberated at the top level by municipal
officials who "would allow the Greek Theater to stay
5^Ben Hoberman, "Greek's Tragedy," KABC Radio
editorial, reprinted in the Los Angeles Enterprise,
November 25, 1966.
Greek Theater Tragedy," Editorial, Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, November 28, 1966.
58ibid.
336
! alive."59
To support its cause, the Greek Theatre Associa-
! tion martialed not only supporters but also an impressive
; amount of favorable documentation. The Association
; printed a brochure entitled "Los Angeles Theatre Crisis,"
: which described the generally dismal financial realities
! of Los Angeles Theatre. The brochure contained reprints
1 of several favorable editorials along with many responses
| which had been triggered by the media reports. The re
printed reactions were indignant and very articulate.
; One letter writer asked:
Isn't anyone going to do anything but talk?
I have been enjoying the programs at the Greek
; Theatre since I was 10 years old. Where else
would I have been able to see such classics for
an amount of money I can afford?6o
| An excerpt from the California Teachers Associa-
j
! tion letter addressed to Mayor Yorty said, "For the last
14 years over half a million teachers have selected the
Greek Theater as the finest possible showcase for legiti
mate theater, ballet and opera."61 One irate letter
| expressed the writer's inability to "understand or
" ibid.
6o
A letter from Mirolyn Powell, reprinted in
"Los Angeles Theatre Crisis," Greek Theatre Association
pamphlet, 1966-67, p. 4.
6lA letter to Mayor Yorty from Jose Colmenares,
Entertainment Coordinator of the Southern Section of the
California Teachers Association, November 17, 1966.
337
! i
| condone"^ the City government's attitude of indifference
I 1
toward the Greek Theatre. The same letter added that
: "the City is killing the goose that laid their golden
; eggs for so many years."^3 The tenor of citizen support
j
: was synthesized by a letter which asked: "Why must the
■ Greek Theatre, the theatre that has given so much to Los
I '
j Angeles, always have to go to the back of the bus when
j aid is given?
! The year 1966 ended with a consensus shared by
City officials and the public alike that immediate action
i was required to revitalize the Greek Theatre. There was
!
; general agreement that about a half-million dollars was
j "the 'magic' figure needed to pump new life into the
| dying theatre.The usual question also applied in this J
I
I case -- where was the money to come from? Meanwhile, Los
I
1
Angeles County added an ominous note to the Greek Theatre
problem. The new chairman of the County Board of Super
visors, Frank Bonelli, suggested that the Greek Theatre
1 •
might be beyond saving, and, perhaps, should be abandoned.
Bonelli reasoned that the $10,000 subsidy from Los Angeles
6?
A letter from Victor Goldenberg, reprinted in
"Los Angeles Theatre Crisis," Greek Theatre Association
pamphlet, 1966-67, p. 5.
63Ibid.
letter from Mrs. W. T. Ensign, Ibid., p. 3.
^Baker, pp. cit., p. 3*
j 338
] !
| County was a "drop in the bucket" considering the
1 theatre's needs. His solution was to move the Greek j
i
I Theatre program to the Hollywood Bowl or to the Ahmanson !
( T . f .
| Theatre in the Music Center. u
j
; 1967 - The Year of Quasi-Resolution
1 In 1967, the Greek Theatre problems were fought
1
| through a cobweb of complexities to a partial solution.
t
I
j After much negotiation, the Association nearly won its
long-desired ten-year contract. Instead, it continued
! its traditional three-year one. However, beginning in
!
i 1967, the three-year contract contained a beneficial stip
ulation which allowed the Association to use its $50*000 j
1 j
! annual rental fee to finance repairs to the Greek Theatre j
j rather than adding the fee directly to the City coffers
as it had in the past. This favorable measure did not
come about until several skirmishes had been engaged
between the City and the Greek Theatre Association.
As 1967 began, top City officials approved a large
refurbishment budget for the Greek Theatre. City Adminis
trative Officer C. Erwin Piper recommended that the
Department of Recreation and Parks assign the highest
1
priority to a $711*000 improvement program. Piper suggest
ed that the financing be advanced from "temporarily idle
Roger Grace, "Bonelli Suggests Abandon Greek
Theater -- Board Chairman Says Move the Productions,"
The Enterprise, Los Angeles, December 9* 1966.
339
1 funds in the department's capital improvements inventory."
The recommendation met strong opposition from the Recrea- j
tion and Parks Department. John C. Horan, Administrative !
officer, said, "We don't have any idle unallocated j
: funds."67 j
The Greek Theatre Association proposed a way out !
! of the dilemma -- one which would by-pass bureaucratic
wrangling, and which would expedite a cure for the Greek
Theatre ills. Once again, a ten-year contract was the
I
issue. If the Association had a long-term contract, it |
; could finance refurbishments to the theatre and pay off j
the loans over a period of several years. Association
; President Joseph Barbera argued that several banks had
indicated their willingness to lend money to the Associa- !
i £TQ
j tion if it could grant ten years as collateral security. u
i
j The Association also felt that the time had come
1
j to waive the $50*000 yearly rental. It claimed that the
I
| rent had long been too high, impossible to continue and
I
; "unless some relief is given it is doubtful that it can
! support another season."6^ For the first time, in
j January of 1966, the Recreation and Parks Department
I 67
'Erwin Baker, "Battles May Flare on Greek
Theatre," Los Angeles Times, Sec. B, January 29* 1967, P- 6,
66John Dooley, "Trojan Horse in Doolittle's Row
with City Over Greek Theatre Could Be Another Tenant,"
Variety, February 9, 1967* p. 1^.
6^Baker, loc. cit.
3^0
! seriously considered allowing the Association to put its
yearly rental fee toward the Greek Theatre repairs as
amortization funds rather than paying it to the department.
' However, there was a temporary roadblock to this proposed
: settlement. The Greek Theatre Association was behind on
payment of its 1966 rental. The Association had held
1 back on its payment in the hopes that the 1966 fee would
I
be the first money used as collateral for theatre repair
| loans. Presumably, the Association was using the delayed
payment to dramatize not only its financial bind, but also
1 the need for action on its money problems. City officials
j
took a dim view of the deferred payment. The Department
; of Recreation and Parks declared that "the element of
j good faith on the part of the association definitely
| appears to be lacking . . . ."70 Several newspapers
|
| reported Mayor Yorty’s reaction. One said:
| At a press conference last week, Mayor Sam
j Yorty also expressed his irritation with Doolittle,
I saying he expected GTA to pay its 1966 rental fee.
i He also hinted that the City might seek other
j leasing proposals.71
Newspaper accounts reported that official disaf
fection with the Association was widespread.
I Some City Hall officials close to the problem
frankly hope that the association will bow out of
the contract picture.
_______________________
7°Ibid.
71Dooley, loc. cit.
; 3^i
I "There are a lot of other bidders who are
1 anxious to submit their proposals," said one
who asked that his name not be used.72
I The issue over the deferred rental payment was
j intensified by a disclosure of the Recreation and Parks
|
! Department that the Association had a cash balance of
$195*144 as of October 2, 1966. This created echoes of
I
I the 1962-63 controversy in the form of suggestions that,
1
I
1 once again, the Association books should be carefully
; audited.7^ jn an open letter to the Los Angeles Times,
Greek Theatre Association President, Joseph Barbera, ended
| speculation on this issue. Barbera explained that this
money was used to pay off accrued expenses of recent pre-
; sentations, and past debts on trust deeds. An audited
- balance sheet on the Association showed that as of October
I
| 2, 1966, it had a negative working capital of
|$2 0,5 6 9 .74
A Variety report on this particular point contribu
ted a revealing sidelight on the question of Doolittle's
1
personal financial interest in the Greek Theatre Associa
tion. The question was not a new one. Intimations of
Doolittle's personal gain were frequently raised in news-
ipaper accounts which led up to the controversy of 1962-63.
As a result of an interview with Doolittle, Variety
72Baker, loc. cit. 73rbid.
74"Greek Theatre Tells Position," Letters page,
Los Angeles Times, February 4, 1967.
342
! i
| reported in part:
As to the question of his financial interest in |
GTA, he explains that he is under contract to receive j
$40,000 annually for operating both the Greek and the
Huntington Hartford. He added that in the last three
years he waived $10,000 of this and in addition con
tributed $10,000 to the operation of the Greek,
' thereby receiving virtually nothing for the last
three years.75 |
On February 16, 1967* the Greek Theatre Association
I
j paid its overdue rental of $50,000."^ Its bid to secure
I
| money for collateral usage was lost. Before this however,
on February 3* the Department of Recreation and Parks
finally proposed a ten-year contract with the Association.
! Under the proposal, future rent fees were to be used to
amortize and pay off projected repairs amounting to
! $541,000.77 Only the City Council had the authority to
j ratify an extraordinary contract like this one which
i
j exceeded the usual three-year concessionaire agreements.
I
| Eight of the 15-member City Council votes were needed for
ratification.
i The City Council reacted with considerable
75Dooley, loc. cit.
j 1 1
76"Greek Theater Pays Back Rent," Los Angeles Her-
ald-Examiner, February 16, 1967, P. B-8.
' 1 1 ' ' ' '
77Eric Malnic. "Park Board Plan Could End Greek
Theatre Rent Dispute," Los Angeles Times, Part II,
February 3* 1967.
7^Erwin Baker, "Greek Theatre Contract Faces Stiff
Council Fight," Los Angeles Times, Part II, February 16,
1967.
343
! opposition to the Department's long-term contract proposal.
A poll of council members, conducted by Los Angeles Times
! staff writer, Erwin Baker, revealed that five members
’ approved. Five members supported a long-term contact,
[
but preferred open bidding or negotiations with other
possible operators. The remaining five members wanted
i "a hard look at the small print before committing them-
|
j s e l v e s ."79 Two of the most vocal objectors held key posi-
; tions on the Council. These were Councilman Marvin
Braude, chairman of the Council's Recreation and Parks
i Committee, and John P. Cassidy, chairman of the Finance
Committee.
; "If we are to spend $541,000, it ought to go
! to open competitive bidding, said Braude. "This
■ is the public business, and a negotiated contract
j has no justification unless it is a last resort."
i
| Cassidy said that in addition to Doolittle,
"there are other qualified producers and operators
with a record of successful operations, and I would
like to invite the outstanding men in theatrical
productions to bid on the contract.
i In early March of 1967, the Greek Theatre Associa-
! tion moved to forestall any extended battle over the ten-
!
year contract. It temporarily withdrew its request for
the long lease which necessitated City Council approval.
Instead, the Association aimed for and secured the
immediately possible — a new three-year agreement with
the Department of Recreation and Parks. The new lease
79i) id. 8°Ibid.
: 344 !
| allowed the Association to use its next three years' rent (
: amounting to $150,000 to amortize repairs. Association
President, Joseph Barbera explained that in view of the !
j
| long study and time-consuming deliberation that the City |
| Council needed before it could grant a ten-year contract, j
the Association pressed for a short lease from the '
I Department so that it could proceed with its forthcoming
I
I Greek Theatre season on schedule. He said further that
! interest in a long-term lease remained a high priority
on the part of the Greek Theatre Association and "it is
Si 1
! going ahead with plans for one." This concession won I
i |
: by the Association aroused City Councilman Marvin Braude
j to term the action "a deliberate move to avoid further
I action by the City Council."®2
| Braude was probably correct in calling the Associa-
!
tion's "a deliberate move" to avoid further City Council
action. But the City Council's "further action" gave
strong indications that the ten-year contract and its
i
implied curatives for the problems of the Greek Theatre
would remain too long in the limbo of municipal argument.
The Association decided to avoid this possibility. In its
favor, the Association had already secured the Recreation
®1Eric Malnic, "Board OKs Greek Theatre Contract
for 3-Year Lease," Los Angeles Times, Part II, March 3,
1967.
82
"Greek Theater Leased," Los Angeles Herald-Exam
iner, March 2, 1967? P. A-3*
! and Parks Department’s agreement that it could direct its
future rental fees to Greek Theatre repairs. Therefore,
! since the Department had the autonomy to grant a three-
! year contract, the Association seized the opportunity to,
| once again, accept a three-year contract from the Depart
ment. This would allow the Association its new advantag-
' eous use of the rental fee. In terms of Braude's accusa-
i
1 tion, the Association moved not "to avoid further action"
i
by the City Council, but rather, to avoid further inac
tion on its needs.
I The Greek Theatre Association promptly used its
I
newly-won financial leverage. Following its 1967 season,
I the Association contracted and installed new seating in
the Greek Theatre as well as painting it and making other
J
j capital improvements. The work cost approximately
1
| $165,000. Since the lease ran only to the end of 1969*
J this meant that the $50,000 yearly rentals for 1967a 1968,
j and 1969 seasons would only amount to $150,000. This
i
j left a $15,000 obligation still remaining after the con
tract span. Therefore, in December of 1967a the Depart
ment of Recreation and Parks had tacked on a fourth year
to the contract which ran through 1970. The year's
extension insured the payment of the debt out of the 1970
rental.
®3"The News of the Day," Los Angeles Times, Part I,
December 15a 1967a P* 2*
346
Greek Theatre affairs caused one final flurry
!
among the Recreation and Parks commissioners at the end
; of 1967. On December 21, the Commission appropriated
; $50,000 to improve the dressing rooms and lighting system
| at the Greek Theatre. This refurbishment was to be a
Department project paid for out of Recreation and Parks
I funds and apart from the amortization and repairs program
I
! of the Association.
i
The appropriation was made by the Commission
despite its admission that it didn't know where the money
i was coming from. However, the supporters of the expendi-
i
ture -- Commissioners England, Pierson and Flower --
| expressed confidence that they could find it.84 Commis-
i sioner Mrs. Morton raised "vehement objection," and
i
llabeledthe action "outrageous" and "irresponsible." Mrs.
i
| Morton said further, "we'll be criticized unmercifully for
j this action. I don't bleed for a private concern, espec-
I
J ially when we are taking money from our children and
| senior citizens."85
j As a result of the Commission action, the Greek
Theatre dressing rooms were refurbished in time for the
11968 season.
Oh
OH""Greek Theatre Repairs Voted; Source of Funds
I Left in Doubt," Los Angeles Times, Part II, December 22,
11967.
85ibid.
; 3^7
j Comments on the Events of 1966 and 1967
The first observation which pertains to the events !
of 1966 and 1967 concerns the difficulty the Greek 1
; Theatre Association experienced in winning any concessions j
! I
! from the City of Los Angeles. The Association's financial j
: difficulties were obvious, and they were documented. In 1
i ;
! many ways, the Association's past success was its undoing.
!
1
1 In view of its accomplishment it is unnecessary to repeat
j it here that it became a major project to reverse the pre
cedents it had established. This was especially true of
I the high rental fee the Association paid off the top of
j
i its operation expenses and which, because it was a tradi- j
; tion, was taken for granted. The events of 1966-67 also j
1 I
| appear to indicate that the Greek Theatre had to become |
j a public issue before physical rehabilitation could take
j place to correct a deteriorating condition brought about
by ten years of neglect.
Turning to the consistent opposition of Commission-
I
er Mrs. Morton to Greek Theatre Association affairs, one
cannot disagree with her late 1967 objections to the
appropriation of Department monies from non-existent
funds. On this point, her position appears to be con-
scionably conservative. However, Mrs. Morton's qualifica
tion that she didn't "bleed for a private concern" raises
problems. An inference may be drawn from her phrasing
that she regarded the Greek Theatre Association as a
; 348
I business corporation engaged in the primary pursuit of
commerce and profit. This viewpoint ignores certain
I realities of the Association's non-profit status which are
i well known. The Association By-Laws prevent any person
|
! profiting from its activities. In the same context,
nothing in the non-profit definition forbids the Associa-
I
! tion from accruing capital from the successful operation
!
! of its ventures. If it were otherwise, a non-profit
i
; corporation would have to lose money in order to remain
legitimate. It is a matter of public record that the
| Greek Theatre Association "profits" are transferred as
production capital toward its originally stated goal --
j to bring the best in theatre to Los Angeles. Commissioner
i Morton's own department has policed and made public the
|
| accounts of the "private concern" for years.
j
During the 1962-63 controversy, the affairs and
methods of the non-profit Greek Theatre Association were
I thoroughly examined. Its integrity was upheld and the
I
|Association was endorsed in the form of continued business
|relationships with the Recreation and Parks Department,
|
j the City, and the County of Los Angeles. It is self-evi-
!dent that the international reputation of the Greek
Theatre reflected favorably on these government agencies
which were linked to it in its civic endeavors.
In view of the extensive amounts of time and study
the Department devoted to the Greek Theatre Association,
; 349
; December of 1967 appears to be a late date to label it
i
as only a "private concern." The context of Commissioner
Morton's reference transmits a limited conception of the
j Greek Theatre Association. It defines the Association
i
! too narrowly, and disregards its true non-profit civic
nature.
1
1
j The Ten-Year Contractual Deal
j A review of the City's wrangling over the ten-
year contract proposal offers a good chance to examine
{ a civic cultural effort which was measured against busi-
!
iness criteria.
One climactic factor, which affected the 1966-67
I deliberations, was the strong public opinion aroused in
| favor of the Greek Theatre Association's position. City
j
1 officials resented what they felt was a compromising situa
tion -- either they rallied to the rescue of the Greek
Theatre, or they were against culture.^ Doolittle, the
1 Association's focal figure and prime mover, came in for
] the brunt of the resentment.
I
| When the Recreation and Parks' proposal for a long
j contract came before the City Council, the fifteen members
1
of the Council reacted in three ways on the issue. Five
members approved out-right of the ten-year contract.
Recalcitrance was divided among five members who wanted
o/r
Dooley, loc. cit.
350
^ the contract opened for general biddings and five others
who wanted to take close looks at the contract's fine
! print. The following contentions arose:
(1) The City had agreed to build a new parking
|
1 lot at its expense. This expenditure was over and above
the $541,000 the Association hoped to amortize. Revenues
! from the lot would compensate the City for its expenses.
i
! Some Councilmen expressed concern that the contract
1 did not specify how long the City would retain income from
the lot. Greek Theatre Association President Joseph
j Barbera answered that "there is no problem there," and
■ that he had no doubt that the Recreation and Parks Depart-
87
; ment would retain control of the lot. '
I (2) Barbera was asked who would pay the Greek
| Theatre maintenance costs. He answered that the Depart-
I OD
| ment would continue to do so.
This latter query should have been unnecessary.
If the Association had to pay approximately $40,000 yearly
i
j maintenance costs, nothing could be gained in their efforts
to get a financial break so that they could refurbish the
theatre on a long-range plan. This issue was raised in
light of the fact that the Association would continue to
pay its $50,000 yearly rent. Only the application of the
^Baker, "Greek Theatre Contract Faces Stiff
Council Fight," Los Angeles Times, February 16, 1967.
88Ibid.
351
! money altered. Instead of going to the Department's
: account, the money would be put to work immediately for
j
capital improvements to the City's own property. !
(3) Two City Councilmen -- Ernani Bernardi and j
■ John Ferraro -- raised the familiar call for a "proper j
: !
and complete," "full accounting of all the facts" on the
I
| Association operation. Doolittle's reply was that "the
! City has access to every expenditure, payment and receipt
j O q
; of the association." y
The two Councilmen gave the appearance of "headline
i
; hunting" on this point. They were, after all, confronted
j !
by a proposal from their own City Department. The "proper j
J and complete" picture they demanded had been policed and j
1 j
found satisfactory for years. Also, the current deficit :
I
j position of the Greek Theatre Association was already
!
jdocumented and established.
! (4) Councilman Marvin Braude called vigorously
|for the projected $541,000 refurbishment cost to be put
i
out to competitive bidding,
j If this course were taken, the delays on bidding
and construction priority would defeat the urgent needs
iof the Greek Theatre.
(5) Councilman John P. Cassidy's reaction to the
Greek Theatre capital expenditure plan was his renewal of
89Ibid.
; 352
| the suggestion that other qualified producers be invited
: to bid on the contract.
Cassidy's suggestion too-easily assumed that
| there were abundant production organizations comparable in
I
: quality to the Greek Theatre Association. Further, it was
I a facile dismissal of the distinguished cultural record
| of a "known quantity."
I
j The Deal — Its "Pros and Cons"
The ten-year contract held out many advantages to
the Greek Theatre Association. It would allow the
j Association to do its work better by employing the lever
age of long-range scheduling. A long tenure would give
i
' the time needed to attempt to form performing academies
1
j and resident companies. A greater sense of permanency
I
i would encourage Foundation support. The proposed contract
I
! offered the immediate advantages of directing $50,000 per
I
| year to restoring the Greek Theatre to first class condi-
i
! tion. The amortization plan, however, placed the Associa-
j tion in the position of responsibility for the financing
|
of the Greek Theatre refurbishment. The only collateral
the Association had was a long-range theatre program which
needed to be successful in order to pay off debts.
The City of Los Angeles stood to benefit by the
restoration of its own real property. The City's contri
bution was wholly encompassed by a re-direction of a
i rental sum which would be invested in capital improvements
to its own property rather than paid directly to the City.
Aside from this arrangement, the City was committed to
: build a new parking lot with City funds.
i i
! Given the facts above, the ten-year contract
appeared to offer many advantages to the City. The Associa-
| tion was not asking for gifts. Yet the City Council
i
I
! treated the long contract proposal as if the City was
! conceding a considerable subsidy to the Association. The
situation of the Greek Theatre was that the City exchanged
i the use of the property and maintenance costs for a proven
j
cultural program which would restore, by its own earnings,
; the City's own real property.
It is difficult to understand the hard-nosed
j business objections to the ten-year contract. It could be
| conjectured that the City was being asked to subsidize
j its own property through the abilities of the Greek
I
j Theatre Association. A review of the 1966-67 controversy
1
| tempts the question — who was subsidizing whom?
The Greek Theatre Cultural Program
19bb Through 19^9
The recent cultural scheduling at the Greek
Theatre shows the effects of the financial attrition. The
artistic program at the Greek Theatre is not up to its
past standards. The patent formula which used to balance
itself by mixing popular shows with a greater number of
354
! extraordinary artistic ensembles no longer applies. In
the most recent years, the Greek Theatre has presented few
important theatrical events, rather it has leaned heavily
; on popular shows -- an extension of television and Las
I
; Vegas.
The change in the theatre1s programming appears to
■ be rooted in its financial realities. The general cost
I
i
I rise for theatrical productions has squeezed the profit
| margin. This has made it impossible for the Greek Theatre
Association to go out on a limb, as it used to do, to
i underwrite worthwhile shows which lose money even at
!
capacity attendance. As a consequence, its scheduling is
| geared to the least possible risk.
Despite the profit squeeze, the Greek Theatre
i
jAssociation's financial obligations have not lessened.
j
| With only a small subsidy from the County, it still pays
| its $50,000 yearly rental. The Association must come up
J with that amount of money because it is in debt for it
i
; under its amortization plan. This requirement alone dic-
! tates a safe policy of scheduling so that the Association
i
can pay off its bank loans.
The Profit Squeeze in Terms of
Audience Percentage
The thin margin of profit which pertains to the
current Greek Theatre operation can best be shown in broad
terms by citing percentages of audience attendance.
355
| Since 1963, there has been a fall-off of attendance
at the Greek Theatre. The decline was most dramatic in ;
1
1967 and 1968. Except for those two years, the season I
attendances may be termed good -- even though all the j
' r I
seasons but 1985 lost money. I
The succeeding breakdowns were figured on a seating!
j capacity of 4,407 for the years 1964, 1965* 1966 and 1967. j
1 For 1968 and 1969* the seating capacity was 4,456.
| In 1964, the season attendance averaged 3*590, or
82$ of capacity. Losses were $186,720.
The 1965 season gained $23,287 from an average
j
audience of 3*895* or 88$ of capacity.
!
In 1966, the audience average was 3*557 -- again j
! 1
i an 82$ of capacity. Losses were $124,017. ;
| The year 1967 showed only a 3*334 average atten-
1
| dance and a 76$ of capacity audience. The loss amounted
| to $67,512.
j The worst year was 1968. The audience average
i
; dipped to 3*255* and the percentage of capacity fell to
I
! 74$. The heavy financial loss amounted to $190,230.
In 1969, losses were only $882 — off an 86$ of
capacity audience which averaged 3,828. The slight loss
resulted even though season receipts were nearly a million
and one-third dollars.
Based on the figures presented in Figures 2, 3,
and 4, a break-even season at the Greek Theatre depends
356
Figure 2
Presentations and Attendances Greek Theatre
Seasons 1965 and 1966
1965
! 17
7
7
7
6
24
6
6
Average
Evening
Attendance
Attendance
Total
"How to Succeed in Busi
ness Without Really
Trying"
Henry Maneini
Young Americans
New Cristy Minstrels
Kingston Trio
Roger Miller
Maurice Chevalier
Harry Belafonte
American Ballet Theatre
Judy Garland
"Pas de Dix" Ballet
Young Americans
3,088
52,497
4,061
3,807
28,425
26,646
4,407
4,040
4,516
3,505
30,851
24,232
108,382
21,033
2,508
7,525
1 77
Season Average
3,895 299,591
11966
11
"Royal Hunt of the Sun" 3,009 33,095
7
Johnny Mathis
Younger Generation 4,350
30,545
7
Tijuana Brass 4,48l
31,367
6 Jose Greco
4,093 24,556
7
Carol Burnett 4,038 28,269
6 Victor Borge
3,695
22,192
6 * Nancy Wilson 4,465
26,801
11 "War and Peace" (APA) 2,200 24,200
6 Harkness Ballet 2,820
16,91^
7
Ella Fitzgerald-Duke Ellington 3,468 25,274
74 Season Average
3,557 263,213
357
Figure 3
Presentations and Attendance Greek Theatre
Season 1967
19 67
Total
Number of
Performances
8
7
7
7
7
6
17
7
7
6
7
National Ballet of
Mexico
"Sweet Charity"
Henry Maneini
Doodletown Pipers
Andy Williams
Erroll Garner
Donald 0'Connor
The Association
Smothers Brothers
Vikki Carr
Tony Bennett
David Rose
George Kirby
Harry Belafonte
Miriam Makeba
"Land of Smiles"
Operetta
Righteous Brothers
Ramsey Lewis
Roger Miller
Young Americans
Bobby Gentry
"Lado" The National
Dance Ensemble of
Yugoslavia
Average
Evening Attendance
Attendance Total
3,153
4,267
3,326
4,524
3,530
4.590
4,128
4.590
2,813
3,753
2,440
1,690
18,919
34,133
23,283
31,670
25,703
32,135
24,766
78,027
19,694
26,273
14,633
11,827
102 Season Average 3,344 341,063
Figure 4
Presentations and Attendance Greek Theatre
Season 1968
1968
! Total
1 Number of
Average
Evening Attendance
Presentations Attendance Total
7
I
Brasiliana 2,214 15,000
! 7
1
Festival from India
Ravi Shankar
1,951
13,658
! 6 Trinl Lopez
Frank Gorshin
3,747
22,481
7
Jerry Lewis 3,880 27,150
1 Royal Philharmonic
Orchestra of London 3,246 3,246
4 Bayanihan Philippine
Dance Company 3,078 12,314
14 "On A Clear Day You
Can See Forever"
3,457 50,395
7
Jack Jones
Buddy Rich
3,471 24,295
6 Jose Greco & Company 3,286
19,719
7
Lou Rawls
Flip Wilson
Shirley Bassey
4,157
29,098
7
Sergio Mendes &
Brasil '66 4,744 33,106
6 Theatre Royal Windsor
1,423
8,542
1 Theatre Royal Windsor
(Preview)
927 927
80 Season Average
3,255 260,431
359
Figure 5
Presentations and Attendance Greek Theatre
Season 1969
1969
Total
Number of
Average
Evening Attendance
Performances Attendance Total
7
Tom Jones 4,851 33,956
7
5th Dimension 4,088 28,616
7
Johnny Mathis
Henry Maneini 4,665
32,657
20 Harry Belafonte
3,525 70,499
7
Crosby, Stills, Nash,
Young & Joanny
Mitchell 4,388 30,718
7
Jose Feliciano 4,272
29,903
7
Don Ho 3,416
23,913
6 Anthony Newley 2,640 15,840
1 Glendale Symphony
Orchestra 1,841 1,841
7
Engelbert Humperdinck 3,426
23,983
7
Grand Kabuki 3,686 25,802
83
Season Average 3,828 317,728
360 ;
j on an average audience of approximately 88$, or about
■ 3*800 -- out of a capacity 4,456 attendance — every night
' of the season. It must be conceded that an 88$ of
capacity audience represents an extremely successful
j
turnout. It is readily apparent, then, that losses may
■ easily accrue despite successful audience response. It
| becomes equally clear that the chance for profit at the
I
I
! Greek Theatre relies on an amount of response which is
| probably unattainable in any sustained theatre operation.
' Hindsight on the Greek Theatre
t
j A recent critical review of a 1969 presentation
at the Greek Theatre described the metamorphosis of the
1
| theatre in disillusioning terms. Extracts from the
|review’s long prefacing remarks read:
j Once upon a time, the Greek Theater of Los
| Angeles concerned itself primarily with such
"serious cultural attractions" as "Faust," "La
Traviata," "The Medium," The Ballet Russe de
1 Monte Carlo, The New York City Ballet, Alicia
j Markova, American Ballet Theater, and "La
1 Perichole."
Even now, the program magazine contains
flowery and prideful references to "ballet,
opera and other forms of musical and legitimate
theater" which "realize the purpose for which
. . . (sic) this non-profit organization . . .
(sic) was formed -- to enrich the cultural life
of the community."
This season's schedule represents a pleasant
array of ultra-commercial pop attractions. The
stress is on the word "commercial." Culture, in
the non-pop sense, has little to do with it.
Opera, ballet, drama, et al., have even less.
. . . It just seems time to admit that the
Greek has become a razzle-dazzle showcase for
the lighter muses. It should not pretend to be
a lofty cultural emporium and should not solicit
subsidy as such.90
j This statement from Martin Bernheimer, music critic
of the Los Angeles Times helps to being an end to a main
part of this study's examination. The modern history of
1
i the Los Angeles Greek Theatre has manifested, first, its
I
■ development into a cultural showplace of international
stature, and second, its modification into a popular
theatre.
I Bernheimer fittingly described the present Greek
■ Theatre program policy. However, his admonition of the
J Greek Theatre's popular program elicited Bernheimer's own
I
i misunderstanding of the true nature of the Greek Theatre's
I
j situation. First, it must be recognized that the Greek
!
Theatre is a commercial theatre — not a subsidized one.
The Greek Theatre Association's subsidy from Los Angeles
County does not offset the high rental which the Associa-
I
i tion pays Los Angeles City. In view of the Association's
commercial contract with the City, and the fact that the
| Association needs to profit from its program at the
Greek Theatre in order to continue in operation -- A label
of "subsidization" does not apply to the Greek Theatre.
This study has examined the differences between the Greek
9°Martin Bernheimer, "Ailey, Dimension at Greek,"
Los Angeles Times, Part IV, July 16, 1969* p. 12.
i Theatre operation and that of a subsidized operation at
i :
' the Los Angeles County's Hollywood Bowl which has received
, i
• millions of dollars in support in recent years. Therefore,!
j the Greek Theatre is a commercial theatre, and by defini-
i tion, a commercial theatre must be popular in order to
sustain itself economically. The rising costs of theatre
i production in recent years have made it increasingly
i
I
! mandatory that a commercial theatre be popular. When
j Bernheimer alluded to the past record of the Association's
cultural programming, his reference pertained to a time
j when the Association underwrote cultural events, and still
i
| made a profit from its operation. By 1969* the time of
; Bernheimer's critique, changed economic conditions made
!
I this past policy prohibitive for the Greek Theatre.
j
Bernheimer's argument would have been more accurately
aimed if it had remonstrated against the "commercial
theatre" itself — rather than at a theatre which must
conform to commercial principles. His criticism is mis-
; directed where it chides the Greek Theatre Association for
soliciting subsidy under pretenses of a lofty cultural
image while it presented "razzle-dazzle" shows. Yet it
is evident from the Association's past record that its
subsidy appeals were never made for the purpose of produc
ing only popular entertainment. The Greek Theatre Associa
tion can succeed by producing only popular entertainment
— without the help of subsidy. This, in fact, was the
! situation that Bernheimer witnessed and commented on --
i
a commercial, unsubsidized theatre serving the only
; feasible program commensurate with the economics of a
; sustained commercial operation. The Greek Theatre does |
! !
i not function from a position of subsidization which allows, j
! i
t in current times, the kind of cultural program that 1
I j
iBernheimer lamented.
i
! Although his pique was misdirected, Bernheimer
; gave an accurate word picture of the present commercial
and popular nature of the Greek Theatre.
I
j More Bad Theatre News at the
j Los Angeles Music Center
j After only its second season, the downtown Los
| Angeles Music Center gave a striking parallel to the
j economic dilemma at the Greek Theatre. The Center
!
j Theatre Group, which runs both the Ahmanson Theatre and
the Mark Taper Forum, was reported to have lost an esti
mated $500,000 deficit off the 1967 and 1968 seasons.
I
The loss is startling in view of audience statistics. In
1967, the Ahmanson season played to a 96% of capacity
audience; the Forum had a 92% capacity. As expected, the
second season of 1968 showed a fall-off of novelty appeal.
Both theatres dipped to an average slightly higher than
^Winfred Blevins, "Center Theater Group in
Trouble -- Future Clouded Despite Box Office Success,"
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, April 21, 1969* P- A-3.
364
! &5% capacity for their second seasons.92
These figures bear significantly on the prohibitive:
;financial realities of modern theatre operation. As ’
Winfred Blevins commented, "No producer-director should be j
! !
' required to keep attendance over 90 per cent in order to j
survive."93 However, the significance of these economic !
| factors lies in the leverage they exert against an
1 artistic endeavor. Blevins stated the problem succinctly:
j Yet the possibility has arisen that the CTG j
will have to reduce its artistic ambitions and
subtly back down from its original artistic
concept. One CTG official even foresees the
demise of the CTG itself.94
The situation caused a confrontation between the j
; creative personnel of the Center Theatre Group and its
! Board of Directors. The Board, composed of prominent
|
j social and theatrical persons, argued for safe importations
| of "glamorous and established successes in the Ahmanson.
Producer Elliott Martin countered: "If we don’t continue
to create original productions, there is no reason for
| CTG to exist.
92Blevins, "Sour Notes at the Music Center -- Two
Theaters Prosper But Los Angeles Herald-Examiner,
April 22, 1969.
93ibld.
-^Blevins, "Center Theater Group in Trouble --
Future Clouded Despite Box Office Success," loc. cit.
95ibid.
96ibid.
i 365 j
The argument may be left here. The situation has ■
; been played out at the Greek Theatre at the point where j
I
critic Bernheimer "came in." Economic factors dictated |
; the popular "commercial" program at the Greek Theatre.
j |
i Subsidization? "The legitimate theater today is a totally |
| impractical economic venture.
j The effects of theatre's stern economic realities
I
j are dramatically evident in the current situations of the
Greek Theatre and the Los Angeles Music Theatre. These
merely point up the general state of theatre everywhere.
I
I However, the phenomenon is not new. Through the 1960's,
! Doolittle consistently reminded the public of the crushing
I
| financial burden of doing theatre. In 1967, he said:
j The situation with respect to culture here is
! no different than it is elsewhere. Despite the
| rising affluence of Americans and the clamor for
j culture, financial crisis is a way of life in the
j performing arts.9o
f
The crisis at the Music Center over whether or not
I it would compromise its creative intent in favor of im-
| porting shows merely echoed the Greek Theatre's earlier
|
| experience. The Los Angeles Times critic Cecil Smith wrote
of the Association's ambitions in this regard:
97jack Smith, "Biltmore Theater Again Appears to
be Doomed," Los Angeles Times, Section C, May 3, 1964,
P. 7-
^Austin Conover, "Greek Theater Needs Stressed by
Doolittle," Hollywood Citizen-News, January 27, 19&7,
p. B-4.
366
! Ideally, Doolittle would like to have a resident
' theater at the Greek, Its losses subsidized, that
would offer each season a Shakespearean or other
classic play, an opera, a full-length ballet, all
created and produced here. He feels that the cul
tural development of a city depends not on its
Imports nor its re-creation of other works, but on
! productions it creates itself.99 (my emphasis)
In 1967, a penetrating article which appeared in
Arts & Architecture dealt with the Greek Theatre Associa-
1 r r
| tion's failure to achieve its creative design. The
1
( author of the article, Byron Pumphrey, gave full credit to
the Association's achievement. However, he criticized
' the Association for not having ever followed through with
I
i its establishment of performing companies and a creative
production program. Pumphrey suggested that the Associa-
! tion could not hope to compete with the Los Angeles Music
| Center for a significant share of any theatrical subsidy
!
j available to Los Angeles theatre ventures. Pumphrey based
his opinion on the fact that the Association was mainly
an importer of major theatrical events. As such it had to
1 compete to secure attractions against two powerful lm-
j porters of theatre events at the Center -- the Dorothy
t
[ Chandler Pavilion and the Ahmanson Theatre. In addition
| to its theatrical importations the Center also had a resi-
1
dent performing company offering contemporary and experi
mental theatre at the Mark Taper Forum. In view of this
99cecil Smith, "The Greek Theater — Its Miracle
and Its Turmoil," Los Angeles Times Calendar, June 30, 1963.
: 367 '
| formidable competition, Pumphrey felt that the Associa
tion's best chance to gain a significant subsidy depended
| on the Association's becoming a creative producing organi- :
; zation. He specifically suggested that it underwrite
j
: repertory groups like the National Repertory Theater and
i the Association of Producing Artists.100 Both companies *
' have distinguished themselves at the Hartford in recent
i
I
I years. Pumphrey's solution contained much value, even
■ though it was too simple.
The year before, in 1966, Doolittle tried to
I promote some way to keep the APA company in Los Angeles.
]
He said that the APA would like to make the City its
; summer home because of its audience welcome here. "But
j even capacity attendance leaves a deficit," Doolittle 1
j
| said.101 He added that higher ticket prices was not the
1
answer.
The theater is not an institution for the rich.
Many of our patrons economize for weeks to buy a
pair of tickets. An increase in charges might price
1 them out of the theater.
As a medium of mental stimulation, the APA merits
public endorsement ....
Some organization should guarantee the con-
lOOByron Pumphrey, "Theater," Arts & Architecture,
LXXXIV (March, 1967), pp. 30-31.
101Patterson Greene, "APA Hangs on Spectator's
Cents," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, September 4, 1966,
p. G-4.
j 368 !
; I
' tinuity of the APA, which would enrich the cultural
i life of the city. j
i
It might be municipal, or it might be private. j
The price of the deficit is small, compared to what j
it returns. I am confident that official or private j
organizations will take up the slack . . . .102 j
| |
I Thus, Pumphrey's suggestion that the Association |
become a creative producer only repeated an old wish of !
| the Greek Theatre Association. However, his censure of
I
I
! the Association for its past timidity in creative producing
1 glosses over the hazards of such an experiment. It is
common that, despite brilliant work and excellent audience
i response, repertory theatre companies regularly deplete
i
their subsidies. The Greek Theatre Association has never
j had a degree of subsidy which could support consistent
■ losses on the part of any of its artistic endeavors. When |
i the Association underwrote calculated loss-events, it did
j
so because it balanced these shows with sure-fire commer
cial shows. The Greek Theatre is not a subsidized opera
tion such as Hollywood Bowl; it is a commercial operation
i
: which receives a small subsidy. The Association has under-
| written worthwhile theatre events with a frequency and on
a dimension far out of proportion to its minimally sub
sidized position. It has never enjoyed an endowment which
could absorb any program more hazardous than the one it
served.
102Ibid.
369 |
It is also a factor that the Association has
: carried the added financial overhead of the Huntington |
i
I
Hartford Theatre. Among all its competition, it alone j
owns, maintains and produces at its own theatre. The
! necessary reasons for the Association's investment at
: the Hartford have been made clear. The additional strain !
| of administering the Hartford is also made clear from a
I remark of Doolittle's. "All I want to do is produce shows.
J I hate operating a theatre, too, but so far it's been the
only way we can be sure of having a first-rate house to
i play ini"
j
He (Doolittle) cherishes a dream that the city
will some day take over the Hartford and operate it
; as a public cultural institution, with the Greek
j Theatre Association as a principal lessee. Then he
could go back to being a happy producer who ignores
! the sickness of the playhouse and worries only about
| the sickness of the play.1^3
I
I
In his article Pumphrey also gave a valuable
assessment of the practical conditions of operating a
theatre today. He said, "It has at last been realized
i
i that if theater of substance is to be achieved, private
and governmental subsidy is essential." He said further
that "Los Angeles leads the nation in the organizational
form theater has taken . . . ,"10^ In Pumphrey's article,
Doolittle stated the Greek Theatre Association's anxiety
103Ray Duncan, "Dr. Doolittle's Circus," Los
Angeles Magazine, Vol. II, No. 6, June, 1966, p. 48.
10^Pumphrey, op. cit., p. 30.
i 370 ;
with regard to its status in this re-formed Establishment. j
There is fear that the Music Center and its J
affiliate, the Hollywood Bowl, will have excessive |
control over all music and theater in the area be- i
cause of their monumental modern facilities and |
access to most of the available subsidy. (Pumphrey1s I
! emphasis) !
1 i
.....................* .................. I
The hope is that the many millions of dollars ’
that are now being allocated, and have been over
I the past years, are distributed for the maximum
i benefits of the community, and that during the
1 present theater ferment, careful evaluation should
j be given on the basis of past service and proven
abilities, and not on influence or pressure that
might be brought to bear.105 (my emphasis)
It is this last emphasis which causes Doolittle’s
! ultimate concerns. He fears the power of influence --
political and social -- on the destiny of cultural enter-
I
!prises. He views patronage as a trap if patrons are
j allowed to bring pressure on a theatre program. To para-
iphrase him -- amateurs have no place in professional
I - I
I command decisions. A comparable statement on this sub
ject came out of the recent dialogue between the Music
I Center's Board of Directors and its production arm. One
|participant commented, "the worst problem of 99 per cent
of the artistic organizations in this country is the
107
board of directors." Doolittle belongs to the other
105Ibid.
■'■^Interview, James A. Doolittle, March 26, 1969.
-*-°^Blevins, "Center Theatre Group in Trouble --
Future Clouded Despite Box Office Success," Los Angeles
Herald-Examiner, April 21, 1969* P* A-3.
; 37i
! one per cent. He has praised the autonomy he has enjoyed
at the hands of his own patrons and Board of Directors.
Pumphrey implies that, in any face-off with the
i Music Center, "Doolittle cannot hope to compete with Mrs.
i
I Dorothy Chandler in the exercise of political, economic,
and social power . . . ."108 Doolittle admits that he is
I
| temperamentally unsuited to political and social maneuver-
I
l ing for theatre. He, rightfully, considers himself a
| professional, and a producer. His experiences in the
political sphere have been demoralizing. He feels that
| the Greek Theatre never recovered from the resentments
j
; which were created out of the 1962-63 controversy which
; "turned up nothing detrimental to his management."1^
! He claims ruefully that "the Greek Theatre could have been
| one of the great theatres of the world."I10
The future of the Greek Theatre is uncertain.
Throughout its career, the Greek Theatre Association
administered three theatres, and built theatre programs
i
at all three of them. Two of these -- the Biltmore and
the Hartford — the Association saved from demolition and
thereby saved them for theatre presentation in Los Angeles.
From 1953 through 1966, the Association brought to Los
10^Pumphrey, op. cit., p. 31.
l°9Duncan, loc. cit.
110Interview, James A. Doolittle, April 24, 1969*
372
Angeles most of the major theatre presentations which
played here. It gave Los Angeles continuous seasons of
all major theatrical forms beginning in 1959*
The encroachment of fierce theatrical competition
and spiraling costs threaten survival for the Greek
Theatre Association, and for a meaningful cultural program
at the Greek Theatre. The Association’s stormy history
and the issues which it raised through its commercial
career have provided rich experience for all the control
ling factions of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre. Its past
tumults contribute bases for arriving at new approaches
and curative measures for continuing the demonstrated
value of Los Angeles' civic theatre.
CHAPTER VIII
| SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
I
i The civic Los Angeles Greek Theatre has existed
I
; for forty years since it was constructed in 1930- This
!
1 study has examined its whole history with a primary focus
: on the period 1952 through 1969* During this period the
J Greek Theatre had a sustained production record, and was
; operated by James A. Doolittle in his capacity as General
I
i Director of the Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association.
j This non-profit organization was formed for the purpose
i
of presenting a meaningful theatre program at the Greek
Theatre thereby making it a cultural asset to its com
munity. Concurrently, Doolittle and the Association also
j obtained and managed Los Angeles two remaining major
j legitimate theatres — the Biltmore Theatre operated from
! 1959 to 1964, and the Huntington Hartford Theatre from
|
| 1965 through the present. The Theatre programs at the
Biltmore and Hartford theatres were continuations of
Doolittle and the Association's programs, policies, and
373
; 374 :
! involvements at the Greek Theatre, and, therefore, they
! !
form an inseperable part of a history of Doolittle and j
! the Association at the Greek Theatre. But it is the civic !
; theatre which has been the base of Doolittle and the
I
iAssociation's operation from which their other theatre
activities have stemmed. Since the Greek Theatre is j
I leased to the Association by the City of Los Angeles in
!
! a landlord-tenant relationship through Los Angeles Depart-
! ment of Recreation and Parks, a direct business partnership
exists between the professional theatre producer and a
political entity -- city government. The over-riding
j
question for this study became: based on an eighteen-year j
I
l experience, how did this political-theatrical partnership
| work out? Primarily, this study tried to determine the
I
| quality of the Greek Theatre's cultural program, the
degree of the theatre's cultural influence on its com
munity — especially since it brought about a rise in
Los Angeles theatre activity -- and, the degree to which
i
;the Greek Theatre's operation and total performance has
J been affected by its special relationship to the Los
|
jAngeles City government. Secondarily, as a means for
i
iunderscoring the period 1952-69, this study explored the
events which led up to the establishment of the civic
Greek Theatre, its early record under municipal management,
and the theatrical milieu in Los Angeles prior to 1952.
Personal interviews, legal documents, letters,
; 375 j
i programs, newspapers and periodicals were researched to .
: determine the cultural accomplishment of the Greek j
i
! Theatre as well as public and private postures on the many j
political controversies in which the Greek Theatre,
i
; Doolittle, and the Greek Theatre Association have been
embroiled.
I
| Conclusions
I
I
j Between the years 1952 and 1963 James A. Doolittle
and the Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association presented
a major cultural program in the City of Los Angeles
! through an extraordinary renaissance of the civic Los
Angeles Greek Theatre.
1
I In ten years Doolittle and the Greek Theatre
| Association took a theatre of lackluster reputation and
| brought it to international recognition. By 196 3 local
| and national critics claimed that the Greek Theatre was
J the most successful, top-grossing outdoor theatre in the
: world. Nearly two-and-one-half million Los Angeles
citizens, foreign and national visitors had patronized
its summer seasons. This response and recognition modi
fied an image of Los Angeles as an area of theatrical
1
deprivation. The achievement was not merely one of
numbers of audience. More significant was a patent of
programming at the Greek Theatre which mixed high cultural
programs with popular presentations, and brought an
376 !
! audience response to opera, ballet, and ethnic dance
which equalled the response to popular attractions. The j
I
| Greek Theatre programming was unmatched by any other !
: theatre or producing organization in the United States,
j
; and Los Angeles audiences were introduced to first presen-
: tations of the New York City Ballet Company, the Comedie '
; Francaise, Japan's Grand Kabuki Theatre, the Greek Tragedy
i
j Theatre of Athens, and the world's most established ballet
j company in terms of a three-century continuity - the Royal
Danish Ballet. Japan's Grand Kabuki Theatre left its
! homeland for the first time in its history at Doolittle's
behest.
In i960 and 1961 the Greek Theatre Association
! reached its maturity as a production organization when, j
i
! under its production banner, its importations of the Grand
1
j Kabuki and the Greek Tragedy Theatre of Athens played
1
| outstanding engagements in New York City. Other major
I events of this period were the creations at the Greek
I
Theatre of the first full-length versions seen in America
of the ballets "Coppelia" and "Giselle." These creations
|
j were added to the repertoire of ballet companies through-
! out the world. In 1963* the first outdoor presentation of
"A Man For All Seasons" gained immense response and
grosses at the Greek Theatre.
By 1963* major changes had been made to the
physical theatre. In 19^-7* the original open stage was
: 377 ;
i roofed. This changed the Greek Theatre to a proscenium
playhouse which was better suited to the complicated
j
: staging and lighting requirements of musical comedy, opera,|
; and ballet. Ten years later in 1957* the stage covering
j
’ was enlarged and beautified. A larger and higher roof
allowed a bigger proscenium opening and a more expansive ^
i i
| use of scenery.
i A chief contribution of the Greek Theatre Associa-
[ tion came in 1959 when it reestablished continuous
seasons of major theatre attractions in Los Angeles. This
i was made possible when the Association began operating the |
!
i Biltmore Theatre as its winter production outlet. Since J
1 I
1 1959 the Association has presented year-round theatre by |
1 i
way of contiguous seasons at the Greek Theatre, and at j
j the Biltmore Theatre from 1959 through 1964, and later at
i
j the Huntington Hartford Theatre which replaced the Biltmore
j operation in 1965. Up to this time the winter season in
| Los Angeles was limited to infrequent road shows booked
1
| into the Biltmore and Huntington Hartford theatres, and
1
first-rate seasons of musicals given by the Los Angeles
Civic Light Opera Company. The Greek Theatre Association
revived a tradition of sustained major theatre presenta
tions on a scale which had not been seen in Los Angeles
for approximately thirty years.
A high civic purpose was manifested by the Greek
Theatre Association in the achievement of its theatrical
; 378
1 endeavors. The Association supplied its own criterion for
: assessment when it originally stated its goal — to seek
! out and bring the best in theatre to the citizens of Los
; Angeles. The attainment of its goal is verified by its
j
cultural programs at the Greek, Biltmore, and Huntington
Hartford theatres. The Association's governing policy at
| these theatres was to bring to Los Angeles shows that,
I
! in its judgment, Los Angeles audiences should see regard-
1 less of the desired show's profit potential. Frequently,
the Association underwrote engagements which could not
; make a profit even if they played to capacity attendances.
i
; Its 1963 production of "Madame Butterfly" was an example
; of this policy. Prefigured to lose $35,000 at capacity
j attendance for its engagement, it lost exactly that much
I
j in spite of three of the largest overflow audiences in
1
| the Greek Theatre's history. During this period the
J Association could count on its popular commercial presenta-
I tions to balance the losses from its more costly enter-
; prises.
1
i It is a part of the Association's managerial
i
achievement that it showed a profit from the first ten
years of its Greek Theatre management while its rental
payments to the City exceeded $40,000 in some years.
The preservation of both the Biltmore and Hunting
ton Hartford theatres by Doolittle and the Association was
a major contribution. The Biltmore Theatre in 1959> and
379
the Huntington Hartford Theatre in 1964 were both put up
for sale and faced certain extinction at the hands of
commercial developers who wanted the properties for more
i profitable endeavors than theatre. Doolittle hastily-
formed a corporation which saved the Biltmore, and the
Greek Theatre Association successfully produced there for
! five years. It is consistent with the Association's civic
1 aims that it indemnified itself to sa\e the Huntington
1 Hartford Theatre, which in 1964, was Los Angeles remaining
major legitimate theatre following the razing of the
j Biltmore that same year.
The accomplishments of Doolittle must be super
imposed on the Greek Theatre Association record. As the
Association's general director he has held a position of
i
j singular autonomy as overseer of all its theatrical opera-
!
| tions. Every aspect of the Association's programs has
j been conceived, negotiated and supervised by him. The
i
I civic and cultural achievement of the Greek Theatre Assoc-
i
iation and Doolittle cannot be separated. From 1953 until
1967 when the Los Angeles Music Center began full-time
operation of its three theatres, the Greek Theatre Assoc
iation was Los Angeles' chief importer of major theatre
presentations. Doolittle ran every phase of the Associa
tion's operations at the Greek, Biltmore, and Huntington
Hartford theatres -- and the City's reputation gained
because of them. In his key role as catalyst of increased
380
! theatre presentation in Los Angeles, and of the respect-
I 1
ability which the City derived from them, Doolittle was
1
: a cultural resource of his area. j
i The Los Angeles City government's recognition and
I
■ encouragement of the Greek Theatre achievement has been
! minimal. Judged by its policies toward the Greek Theatre, !
! the over-all attitude manifested by the City government
I
I
! has been one in which the City has paid lip-service to the
I accomplishment and has given a minimum amount of practical
support. It is not the chief function of government to
financially underwrite cultural endeavors. Yet, it is a
I
; major conclusion of this research that, ironically, the
] Los Angeles City government gave inadequate support to j
! I
I the Greek Theatre while the theatre was contributing a !
J
j cultural advertisement to the City on local, national, and
!
| international planes. The controversial issues raised
concerning the operation of the Greek Theatre indicate
that the City valued its theatre as a piece of real
i
I estate, a business proposition which should bring in a
certain revenue to the City, rather than valuing the
unassessable cultural benefits inherent in such a success
ful operation.
The precedent for the City's hard-line business
approach to the Greek Theatre can be traced to the first
floundering attempts to get cultural events started at
the new theatre after its dedication in 1930. A conflict
j of values ensued in the negotiations between the Greek
i
Theatre's landlord -- the City Department of Parks -- and
| entrepreneurs eager to produce at the civic theatre. It 1
was a fundamental conflict of cultural versus commercial |
j !
! values: whether the Greek Theatre was more valuable for !
I
its cultural potential, or for its profit-making potential.!
I Tough, inflexible contract demands by the Department
t
I
j turned away some worthy production enterprises from the
| Greek Theatre and stunted its early growth. At this time
the City defined the Greek Theatre as a commercial conces- j
I sion, and set financial terms which have been retained —
j a lessee pays a rental of 5$ of its gross receipts plus
1 10$ of the concession returns. In later years the City
! * I
i continued to demand $50,000 to $55*000 yearly from the |
!
Greek Theatre Association even though the Association
warned that it could not maintain the quality of its
traditional programming unless its rental terms were re
laxed. The Association's prognostication was fulfilled.
I
| It continues to pay $50,000 yearly off the top of its
receipts, and this, combined with increased production
costs, makes it impossible to underwrite unprofitable but
worthwhile shows as it did in the past. Consequently,
the Greek Theatre now presents mainly a safe commercial
program of events which resembles the popular variety of
entertainments presented in Las Vegas.
Los Angeles City's financial support of its civic
; 382 !
: theatre has been token. This is exemplified in the
amounts of subsidies given by Los Angeles City and Los
Angeles County to the Greek Theatre. The record presents |
a paradox -- the Greek Theatre is City property, yet Los
j
! Angeles County has given twice as much subsidy to the
Greek Theatre than its owner, the City, has bestowed on it.!
| In 1963, Los Angeles City cut off its subsidy to the Greek
i Theatre after it gave the theatre a total of $87,500;
| Los Angeles County continues to recognize the Greek
Theatre and has contributed $174,800 to it. A perspective
; on the support given the Greek Theatre is further drama
tized by the subsidies given by each of these governmental
1 bodies to another community-owned cultural enterprise,
!
: the Los Angeles County's Hollywood Bowl. In each of the
j
| past three years the City of Los Angeles has given out-
!
I right subsidies of $100,000 to the Hollywood Bowl --
1
| $12,500 more each year than it has given to support its
! Greek Theatre over a ten-year period. In the same time-
i
j span from 1954-1963 that the City gave subsidies amounting
| to $87,500 to its Greek Theatre, it gave nearly a million
j
dollars - $925*000 - to the Hollywood Bowl. In addition,
and during this same time period, Los Angeles County's
subsidization of the Hollywood Bowl amounted to nearly
$7,500,000 in capital improvements and outright subsidy.
The City's business approach to the Greek Theatre can be
compared in its rental policy with that of Los Angeles
3 8 3 !
County’s rental policy of Hollywood Bowl; the County's
I
lessee Hollywood Bowl Association pays no rental -- the
Greek Theatre Association has paid $608,890 in rent during
: its l8-year contract with the City of Los Angeles. The
Greek Theatre programs have brought great credit to the
City of Los Angeles. Yet the City has given its lessee j
! organization only minimum support. It is hard to reconcile
'the City's relationship to its civic theatre.
Money matters were at the root of a vitriolic
year-long public controversy in 1962-63 between the Greek
; Theatre Association and the Los Angeles Recreation and
i
Parks Commission. The Commission charged that the Associa-
; tion was making unreasonable profits for a non-profit j
I organization, and questioned whether there was co-mingling j
j
! of funds between the civic venture at the Greek Theatre
i
and the Association's commercial, private theatrical
enterprise at the Biltmore Theatre. A general audit of
the Association's books was called for by the Commission
— books, they intimated that Doolittle guarded too
| closely. Throughout a year of public sound and fury, all
of the Commission's charges proved groundless. The charge
that the Association made profits was tantamount to im
pugning the organization for good management. And it is
a priori that no individual in a non-profit organization
can profit over and above his salary -- the Association's
"profits" were used as production capital for the Greek
384
! Theatre programs. Soon after the charge of Greek Theatre-
j
Biltmore Theatre co-mingling of funds was made, the
; Department of Recreation and Parks admitted that no such
mingling took place. Reviews of the Department's own
i
1 audit records of the Greek Theatre accounts revealed that
:Doolittle had not been secretive concerning the financial
|records of the Greek Theatre Association's operations;
I conversely, the Department had consistently reviewed
'accounts far beyond its rightful concern. The issue which
touched off the controversy — City Councilwoman Rosalind
Wyman's possible conflict-of-interest, connected with her
|
; investment in the commercial Biltmore venture with
;Doolittle -- was cleared by the Los Angeles City Attorney
I after Mrs. Wyman initiated her own question on the matter
I
[to him. Doolittle had invested 10$ and Mrs. Wyman 5$ in
j
ia corporation which was created only to save the Biltmore
!
!Theatre from destruction and to preserve its performing
life.
I
| The 1962-63 controversy resolved only one minor
i technicality -- the transfer of the Greek Theatre contract
1
from Doolittle's name to that of the Greek Theatre Associa
tion. Doolittle had been the personally designated con-
tractee to the theatre ever since 1952 when the Recreation
and Parks Commission insisted that an individual be signed
and liable for possible losses at the Greek Theatre.
Although Doolittle and the Association made overtures to
3 8 5 ;
| the City through the years to change the contract,
Doolittle remained the individual contractee for more than |
ten years. This gave a surface appearance that he con- |
: trolled both the civic theatre and the Greek Theatre
j
j Association. Further, it appeared that the Greek Theatre
: operation was Doolittle's own personal business enterprise ^
| making it possible for him to derive profit from a civic j
i |
I i
I endeavor. None of this was the case; Doolittle was merely
j a salaried executive of the non-profit Association. This
contract ambiguity should have been amended years before
1
i
the controversy, and both the Association and the City |
iwere negligent for not correcting the contract to accur- j
I
; ately reflect the system which effectuated it. j
! I
i Throughout the bitter year of 1962-63 the Recrea- !
|
tion and Parks Commission persevered with minor and
abortive issues against Doolittle and the Association long
after the Los Angeles City Council, the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Chamber of
1
j Commerce, news media, and public figures vouched for the
1 Association's record and integrity. The extended dispute
ended with a renewal of the Association's contract just
after the Los Angeles City Council commended the Associa
tion for its 1963 season -- the most prestigous and
successful in its history.
The 1962-63 controversy featured many intemperate
exchanges between the City Recreation and Parks Commission
; 386 j
I
: and the Greek Theatre Association. The City gave a sign
: that the political-theatrical relationship had been j
weakened by the conflicts when it cut off its yearly sub- j
, sidy to the Greek Theatre after 1963- Later the Associa-
; tion experienced extreme difficulty in gaining concessions J
from the City when the Greek Theatre needed them. By !
| 1966-67 the Association was in financial straits because
1
I of increased production costs. The Greek Theatre was in a
i
; state of physical deterioration because the City had
neglected its refurbishment needs for ten years. The
; theatrical program was reduced to one of predominantly
i
popular entertainment. In 1967* the Association asked
; the City of relax its rental fee, and also asked for a
i
i ten-year contract. For more than a decade the Association
!
i
| had requested a long-range contract which would allow it
the security and time needed to make the Greek Theatre
a procreator of its own productions and a home of the
City's resident opera and ballet companies. But a majority
1
I of the City Council was hesitant to relax the Association's
financial arrangements, and some Council members suggested
that the Greek Theatre might benefit from a new tenant.
' This suggestion was an easy dismissal of the Association's
past civic contribution, and a luxurious alternative for
the City after the Association had proved the Greek
Theatre's worth.
The Los Angeles Greek Theatre's career -- from
: 387 ;
* 1952 until the present -- forms an unmistakable and
familiar pattern. It experienced an ascendancy, a decline,,
I
and a change in its character. Broadly synthesized, its j
, history shows that the Greek Theatre's cultural growth j
! stopped in the years following its political crisis of j
1962-63. The City has handled the civic theatre as a !
I commercial proposition. The theatre succeeded for a time
!
1
1 within this framework. Whether or not the Greek Theatre
1 would have become a creative center of the performing arts
under a less commercial stricture is conjectural. More
I certain is the recorded effort of a commercial approach
|
; to the Greek Theatre which has reduced its cultural program
; to a level of popular entertainment.
1
■ The Greek Theatre experience in Los Angeles points
| to major instructions of what to avoid in joint theatre
j
j endeavors between the professional theatre and govern-
j mental bodies. The lessor-lessee partnership between the
Los Angeles Greek Theatre Association and the Los Angeles
I
j City Recreation and Parks Commission functioned at cross
purposes. One demonstration of this was the Association's
seeking of a cultural identity and achievement at the
1 Greek Theatre while the City sought to profit from it.
Fundamentally, this example of a theatre operation sub
ordinate to, and controlled by, a municipal governing
body proved to be an incompatible working arrangement.
Consequently, it is a main suggestion here that all pre-
388
I cautions should be taken to keep theatre operations out
side of political systems.
; Theatre production is an enormous and complex
collaborative endeavor; it is difficult to achieve a
I
' successful theatre operation even when every cooperation
is militated in its favor. A theatre operation cannot
j afford digressions into a political arena, and it cannot
i
i
! survive obstructive conflicts with political personages
| who control it. Therefore:
I. Avoid subjecting a professional theatre
i operation to the control of an agency which is actively
j
engaged in the political governing process.
; It is understandable that, for example, a civic
; theatre must be subject to political authority. But
j
I direct control over the theatre by a City commission
!
| involved in huge responsibilities -- such as recreation
and parks — presents many problems regarding the success
ful operation of a theatre. First, there is the dynamic
i
context of the commission itself -- its membership changes
frequently, and this subjects the theatre to a wide range
of personal orientations toward culture. For example,
some individuals, well-suited to public administration,
may be indifferent to cultural pursuits or ill-equipped
to rule on matters concerning them. In many instances the
Greek Theatre contended with attitudes of open hostility
to its cultural programs.
; 389 ;
! 2. Even given a favorable disposition to its
endeavor, a theatre may become expendable to other respon- j
■ sibilities of a governing agency. The Greek Theatre was
i lumped into a category of recreational facilities which
! are alien to the nature and function of theatre. A
i I
1 theatre cannot get the fostering attention it needs when
I it is only one among the many pressures of a commission
i
I
! which administers a huge recreation and parks program.
; 3. There is a danger of a theatre becoming
"political capital." The public natures of both politics
| and theatre provide many opportunities for publicity. In
j
1962 and 1963 the Greek Theatre became a "political foot-
j ball" when the City Recreation and Parks Commission pro-
ilonged front-page publicity over alleged, but illusory,
t
| faults in the Greek Theatre Association's operation.
!
Further reasons for avoiding theatre control by a
political commission are indicated in the record of the
Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Commission. During this
i
j time under study, this agency was the most volatile and
(controversial in the Los Angeles City government. Dis-
jharmony prevailed among its members, and Commissioners Mel
Pierson and Leonard Shane disrupted the entire Recreation
and Parks Department by their controversial investigation
into its finances. Pierson is currently serving a four
teen-year prison term as a result of his wide-spread
influence peddling and special interest activities among
; 390 !
j the Recreation and Parks' concessions. On the whole, this
commission provided a contentious and unstable political
|
context for the civic Greek Theatre -- unconducive to !
; furthering its success. i
I |
II. Avoid the "concession" -- or purely commer- |
: cial -- approach to a cultural, or theatrical, operation. !
| The Greek Theatre was categorized and administered
I
! by the City of Los Angeles as a business concession --
; an inappropriate designation for a cultural or theatrical
operation. Unlike a concession, a theatre deals in in-
| tangibles, and the value of cultural products cannot be
)
■ estimated in terms of dollars and cents. Cultural enter- j
j prises are not financially profitable today. The facts j
; of their economics are not unfamiliar -- generally, costs ■
I
| have overtaken the capability of admission prices to cover
!
them. It has become increasingly apparent that subsidized
support is needed to sustain cultural operations with
I their derivative benefits. The Greek Theatre provides a
i
| typical example of a theatre operation which was unable to
i sustain its cultural program because of increased produc-
I
i
tion costs and lack of subsidy.
III. An apolitical cultural commission should be
officially appointed to administer and supervise govern
ment-subsidized theatre operations.
It is the suggestion of this research that special
cultural commissions are required, and should be appointed,
391
to adjudicate government-connected cultural operations.
The commission members should be persons expert in the
fields of the performing arts, and the commissions should
be kept free of political involvements. A separate agency
of this kind could assemble the particular capabilities
which are required to rule on the merits of theatrical
endeavors. Cultural projects would benefit by qualified
judgments on their worth, and governments could gain a
maximum coordination of their cultural programs.
i
APPENDIX
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF ALL PRODUCTIONS OF
JAMES A. DOOLITTLE, THE GREEK THEATRE
ASSOCIATION AT THE GREEK THEATRE,
THE BILTMORE THEATRE AND THE
HUNTINGTON HARTFORD
THEATRE 1952-1970
392
393
Productions by James A. Doolittle
Prior to His Greek Theatre
Career 1945-3 951
;i945
SONG WITHOUT WORDS
Tschaikowsky
starring Mia Slavenska
directed by Anton Dolin
; 1949
SAN FRANCISCO BALLET
j FAUST
Gounod
starring Nadine Conner
Richard Tucker
Jerome Hines
! directed by Vladimir Rosing
VAGABOND KING
Friml
j starring Nadine Conner
Lief Erickson
Francis X. Bushman
j directed by Kenneth Burton
LA TRAVIATA
Verdi
starring Nadine Conner
John Charles Thomas
directed by Amelio Colantoni
!l950
LIGHT UP THE SKY
Kaufman and Hart
starring Nancy Kelly
! Guy Madison
j Fred Clark
I directed by Michael Cisney
1951 !
THE MEDIUM AND THE !
TELEPHONE j
Gian Carlo Menotti
starring Mary Davenport
directed by Roger Gerry
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
Florence Ryerson and Colin Clements
starring Barbara Britton
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
Kaufman and Hart
starring Fred Stone
James A. Doolittle and the Greek Theatre
Association's Productions and
Presentations 1952-1970
At the Greek Theatre:
1952
BALLET RUSSE de MONTE CARLO
VELOZ AND YOLANDA
! 1953
) NEW YORK CITY BALLET
MADAME BUTTERFLY
LA BOHEME
ALICIA MARKOVA
1 PAL JOEY
1954
NEW YORK CITY BALLET
; THE NUTCRACKER
JOSE GRECO
I CARMEN
| THE MIKADO
j ALICIA MARKOVA
1955
THREE FOR TONIGHT
WONDERFUL TOWN
THE NUTCRACKER
NEW YORK CITY BALLET
; JOSE GRECO
j KATHERINE DUNHAM
! 1956
jVICTOR BORGE
! HARRY BELAFONTE
BALLET RUSSE de MONTE CARLO
THE STUDENT PRINCE
THE RED MILL
1957
JUDY GARLAND
JOSE GRECO
HARRY BELAFONTE
COPPELIA
VICTOR BORGE
LA TRAVIATA
AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE
1958
MAURICE CHEVALIER
JOSE GRECO
LES BALLETS DE PARIS
DANNY KAYE
LA PERICHOLE
GISELLE
JERRY LEWIS
1959
VICTOR BORGE
HARRY BELAFONTE
COPPELIA
NEW YORK CITY BALLET
THE NUTCRACKER
JACK BENNY
I960
GRAND KABUKI OF JAPAN
CAROL CHANNING - SHOW BUSI
NESS
NEW YORK CITY BALLET
GEORGE BURNS SHOW
ROYAL DANISH BALLET
JOHNNY MATHIS
11961
VICTOR BORGE
JOSE GRECO
! HARRY BELAFONTE
THE NUTCRACKER
iNEW YORK CITY BALLET
! MUSIC FOR TONIGHT
!NAT KING COLE
! GREEK TRAGEDY THEATRE OF ATHENS
! 1962
| VICTOR BORGE
I A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM
j NEW YORK CITY BALLET
H.M.S. PINAFORE
DANNY KAYE
! NAT KING COLE
' COMEDIE FRANCAISE
! MAURICE CHEVALIER
j AND WILLIAMS AND AL HIRT
:JOHNNY MATHIS
! 1963
| MY FAIR LADY
I A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
I MADAME BUTTERFLY
I HARRY BELAFONTE
I KINGSTON TRIO AND HENRY MANCINI
I
1964
TOSCA
JOSE GRECO
JOHNNY MATHIS
NAT KING COLE
HENRY MANCINI AND CHRISTY MINSTRELS
WIENER BLUT
NEW YORK CITY BALLET
A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM
ZIZI JEANMAIRE - BALLETS DE PARIS
ARIRANG - KOREAN NATIONAL COMPANY
GREEK TRAGEDY THEATRE OF ATHENS
395 |
1965
HOW TO SUCCEED IN
BUSINESS WITHOUT
REALLY TRYING
HENRY MANCINI - THE
YOUNG AMERICANS
THE NEW CHRISTY
MINSTRELS - WOODY
ALLEN
THE KINGSTON TRIO -
ROGER MILLER
MAURICE CHEVALIER
BELAFONTE AND COMPANY
AMERICAN BALLET
THEATRE
1966
ROYAL HUNT OF THE SUN
JOHNNY MATHIS - OUR
YOUNG GENERATION
HERB ALPERT AND THE
TIJUANA BRASS
JOSE GRECO
CAROL BURNETT
VICTOR BORGE
NANCY WILSON
APA'S WAR AND PEACE
THE HARKNESS BALLET
ELLA FITZGERALD
DUKE ELLINGTON
1967
BALLET NACIONAL DE
MEXICO
SWEET CHARITY
HENRY MANCINI
THE DOODLETOWN PIPERS
THE ANDY WILLIAMS SHOW
ERROLL GARNER
THE DONALD O'CONNOR
SHOW
THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS
TONY BENNETT
BELAFONTE
THE LAND OF SMILES
THE RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS
ROGER MILLER
THE YOUNG AMERICANS
396 :
!
1967--continued
LADO - THE NATIONAL DANCE
ENSEMBLE OF YUGOSLAVIA
1968
!BRASILIANA
RAVI SHANKAR’S FESTIVAL
1 FROM INDIA
TRINI LOPEZ - FRANK GORSHIN
JERRY LEWIS
|ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA
j OF LONDON
!BAYANIHAN PHILIPPINE DANCE
| COMPANY
'ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE
FOREVER
JACK JONES - BUDDY RICH -
GEORGE KIRBY
!JOSE GRECO
jLOU RAWLS - FLIP WILSON -
SHIRELY BASSEY
!SERGIO MENDES & BRASIL '66
'JOSE FELICIANO
!THEATRE ROYAL WINDSOR
!1969
I TOM JONES
I THE 5th DIMENSION
JOHNNY MATHIS - HENRY MANCINI
BELAFONTE
CROSBY, STILLS, NASH & YOUNG
I JONI MITCHELL
1 JOSE FELICIANO
iDON HO AND HIS FRIENDS
THE ANTHONY NEWLY SHOW
THE GLENDALE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MORMON CHOIR
THE ENGELBERT HUMPERDINCK SHOW
THE GRAND KABUKI
At the Biltmore Theatre, j
Los Angeles, and in Other j
Cities in the West: j
1959
THE WARM PENINSULA
Joe Masteroff
starring Julie Harris
directed by Warren j
Enters '
LOOK BACK IN ANGER
John Osborne
starring Donald Harron,
Pippa Scott
directed by Tony
Richardson
TWO FOR THE SEESAW
William Gibson
starring Ruth Roman
Jeffrey Lynn
directed by Arthur
Penn
LI'L ABNER
Panama and Frank
starring Stubby Kaye
directed by Michael
Kidd
SAY DARLING
Richard Bissell, Abe
Burrows and Marian
Bissell
starring Lisa Kirk,
Johnny Desmond,
Orson Bean
directed by David Olive
THE GAZEBO
Alec Coppel
starring Tom Ewell,
Jan Sterling
directed by Jerome
Chodorov
A MIGHTY MAN IS HE
Kober and Oppenheimer
starring Nancy Kelly
directed by Reginald
Denham
397
!1959--continued
'MARY STUART
Fredrich Schiller
starring Eva Le Gallienne
Signe Hasso
directed by Tyrone Guthrie
!SHOW BUSINESS
;Charles Gaynor
starring Carol Channing
directed by Charles Gaynor
THE VISIT
|Friedrich Duerrenmatt
i starring Lunt and Fontanne
! directed by Peter Brook
' i960
SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO
Dore Schary
starring Ralph Bellamy
i directed by Vincent J. Donehue
;THE DARK AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS
'William Inge
; starring Joan Blondell
! directed by Burry Fredrik
THE PLEASURE OF HIS COMPANY
I Samuel Taylor
! starring Cyril Ritchard,
j Cornelia Otis Skinner
directed by Cyril Ritchard
SWEET BIRD OF YOUTH
|Tennessee Williams
j starring Geraldine Page
| Sidney Blackmer
i directed by Elia Kazan
SERVANT OF TWO MASTERS
!Carlo Goldoni
i starring Piccolo Teatro de Milano
directed by Paolo Grass!
THE MUSIC MAN
Meredith Willson
starring Forest Tucker, Joan Weldon
directed by Morton Da Costa
! LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL
Ketti Frings
starring Miriam Hopkins
directed by David Pressman
WORLD OF SUZIE WONG
Paul Osborn
! starring J. Miyazaki, Jack Ryland
| directed by Joshua Logan
j A TASTE OF HONEY
Shelagh Delaney
starring Joan Plowright, Angela Lansbury
! directed by George Devine, Tony Richardson
| ONCE UPON A MATTRESS
I Thompson, Barer and Fuller
j starring Dody Goodman, Buster Keaton
| directed by George Abbott
MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM
William Shakespeare
starring Festival Theatre (Conn.), Bert Lahr
directed by Jack Landau
' 1961
; J.B.
| Archibald MacLeish
starring John Carradine
! directed by Elia Kazan
I BALLETS AFRICAINS
i directed by Kane Facelli
|FIVE FINGER EXERCISE
i Peter Shaffer
I starring Jessica Tandy, Roland Culver
! directed by John Gielgud
I THE HOSTAGE
!Brendan Behan
starring Donald Moffatt
| directed by Perry Bruskin
|A MAJORITY OF ONE
I Leonard Spigelgass
j starring Gertrude Berg, Cedric Hardwicke
1 directed by Dore Schary
|MY FAIR LADY
Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe
starring Michael Evans, Caroline Dixon
directed by Moss Hart
FIORELLO
Jerome Weidman and George Abbott
starring Bob Carroll, C. Fairchild, Zeme North
directed by George Abbott
399
I GYPSY
; Arthur Laurents
starring Ethel Merman
directed by Jerome Robbins
THE MIRACLE WORKER
William Gibson
starring Eileen Brennan
; directed by Arthur Penn
YVES MONTAND
starring Yves Montand
directed by Yves Montand
I
! 1962
! TOYS IN THE ATTIC
: Lillian Heilman
starring Ann Revere, Scott McKay
directed by Adrian Hale
' AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE
starring Maria Tallchief, Lupe Serrano, John Kriza
1 directed by Lucia Chase, Oliver Smith
i GENEVIEVE
! Don Driver
starring Genevieve
1 directed by Don Driver
j DANCERS OF BALI
; Starring 1 Ketut Mario, 1 Gusti Ngurah, Rakah
i THE UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN
j Meredith Willson
j starring Tammy Grimes, Harve Presnell
directed by Dore Schary
MARY, MARY
Jean Kerr
starring Teresa Wright, Scott McKay
directed by Joseph Anthony
i IRMA LA DOUCE
; Moore, Heneker and Norman
| starring Taina Elg, Byron Mitchell
i directed by Peter Brook
j THE CARETAKER
j Harold Pinter
1 starring Barry Morse, John Rees
1 directed by Fred Hebert
COME BLOW YOUR HORN
Neil Simon
starring Hal March
directed by Stanley Prager
400
! 1963
;THE HOLLOW CROWN
Devised by John Barton
starring Dorothy Tutin, Max Adrian, Derek Godfrey
directed by Peter Brook
TAKE HER, SHE'S MINE
'Phoebe and Henry Ephron
1 starring Tom Ewell
directed by George Abbott
OH DAD, POOR DAD, MAMA'S HUNG YOU IN THE CLOSET
AND I'M FEELIN' SO SAD
|Arthur Koplt
j starring Hermione Gingold
! directed by Jerome Robbins
! MILK AND HONEY
j Don Appell
j Jerry Herman
starring Robert Weede, Molly Picon
. directed by Albert Marre
! 1964
;WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
, Edward Albee
| starring Nancy Kelly, Shepherd Strudwick
i directed by Alan Schneider
I THE SOUND OF MUSIC
j Rodgers and Hammerstein
| starring Barbara Meister, John Van Dreelen
! directed by John Fearnley
THE PRIVATE EAR AND THE PUBLIC EYE
Peter Shaffer
starring Geraldine McEwan, Brian Bedford
directed by Peter Wood
ENTER LAUGHING
iJoseph Stein
j starring Yvonne De Carlo, Alan Mowbray
I directed by Gene Saks
At the Huntington Hartford Theatre:
1964
H.M.S. PINAFORE
Gilbert and Sullivan
starring Stratford Festival Company
directed by Sir Tyrone Guthrie
DEAR ME, THE SKY IS FALLING
Leonard Spigelgass
starring Gertrude Berg
directed by Herman Shulman
401
j LUTHER
John Osborne
starring Alan Bergman
directed by Tony Richardson
FILIPENESCAS
Leonor Orosa
starring Philippine National Repertory Dance Co.
: directed by Leonor Orosa
NEVER TOO LATE
Arthur Long Sumner
starring Penny Singleton, Lyle Talbot
directed by George Abbott
I 1965
j VOICE AND SOUND OF AFRICA
starring Miriam Makeba
' ANY WEDNESDAY
Muriel Resnick
starring Don Porter, Patricia Cutts
directed by Henry Kaplan
j THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES
Frank Gilroy
starring Jack Albertson, Martha Scott
directed by Ulu Grosbard
! INCIDENT AT VICHY
Arthur Miller
j starring Jean Pierre Aumont, Joseph Wiseman
! directed by Harold Clurman
j THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT
j Bill Manhoff
j starring Eartha Kitt, Russel Nype
1 directed by Leonard Auerbach
! THE WORLD OF CHARLES AZNAVOUR
j starring Charles Aznavour
I MARCEL MARCEAU
starring Marcel Marceau
| NATIONAL REPERTORY THEATRE
! SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER
! Goldsmith
starring Farley Granger
directed by Eva La Gallienne
HEDDA GABLER
Ibsen
starring Signe Hasso
directed by Jack Sydow
LILIOM
Molnar
BAREFOOT IN THE PARK
Neil Simon
starring Myrna Loy, Richard Benjamin
directed by Mike Nichols_____________________________
402
i HUGHIE
i Eugene O'Neill
starring Jason Robards, Jack Dodson
directed by Jose Quintero
AFTER THE FALL
Arthur Miller
starring Judi West, Charles Aidman
! directed by Edward Parone
THE SIGN IN SIDNEY BRUSTEIN'S WINDOW
; Lorraine Hansberry
starring Gabriel Dell, Alice Ghostley
directed by Peter Kass
| THE KNACK
| Ann Jellicoe
! starring Brian Bedford, Juliet Mills
; directed by Mike Nichols
| RATTLE OF A SIMPLE MAN
Charles Dyer
starring Tammy Grimes, John Astin
directed by Christopher Hewitt
1966
: THE ODD COUPLE
| Neil Simon
I starring Dan Dailey, Richard Benjamin
directed by Marvey Medlinsky
! LUV
j Murray Schisgal
| starring Tom Bosley, Dorothy Louden, Herbert Edelman
directed by Mike Nichols
NATIONAL REPERTORY THEATRE
MADWOMAN OF CHAILLOT
Giraudoux
starring Eva Le Gallienne
directed by Margaret Webster
I THE RIVALS
I Sheridan
| Starring Sylvia Sidney
j directed by Jack Sydow
j THE TROJAN WOMEN
|Euripedes
1 starring Leora Dana
THE TIGER AND THE TYPIST
Murray Schisgal
starring Eli Wallach, Anne Jackson
directed by Charles Maryan
ANNA CHRISTIE
Eugene O'Neill
starring Carroll Baker, Hermione Baddeley,
James Whitmore, Albert Salmi
directed by Jack Garfien_____________________________
403
i ABSENCE OF A CELLO
i Ira Wallach
starring Hans Conried, Ruth McDevitt, Florida Friebus
directed by Charles Olsen
THE GLASS MENAGERIE
Tennessee Williams
starring Ann Southern, Piper Laurie, Ben Piazza,
! James Olson
directed by George Keathley
I APA REPERTORY COMPANY
: YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
1 Kaufman and Hart
| starring Donald Moffat
i directed by Ellis Rabb
! THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL
| Richard B. Sheridan
starring Rosemary Harris
directed by Ellis Rabb
■ RIGHT YOU ARE
Luigi Pirandello
| starring Helen Hayes
i directed by Stephen Porter
j HOSTILE WITNESS
■ Jack Roffey
[ starring Ray Milland
directed by Reginald Denham
j LES BALLETS AFRICAINS
j starring National Ensemble of the Republic of Guinea
j CHARLES AZNAVOUR
I starring Charles Aznavour
GENERATION
William Goodhart
starring Don Porter, Jerome Cowan
! directed by Gene Saks
I THIS WAS BURLESQUE
I starring Ann Corio
directed by Ann Corio
I NATIONAL REPERTORY THEATRE
|TONIGHT AT 8:30
Noel Coward
starring Denham Elliott
directed by Jack Sydow
THE IMAGINARY INVALID
Moliere
starring Jeanne Hepple
directed by G. Wood
A TOUCH OF THE POET
Eugene O'Neill
starring G. Wood
directed by Nina Foch
! 1967
THE ODD COUPLE
Nell Simon
starring George Gobel, Phil Foster
directed by Mike Nichols
AGES OF MAN
i starring John Gielgud
directed by John Gielgud
; WAIT UNTIL DARK
■ Frederick Knott
starring Shirley Jones, Jack Cassidy
| directed by Arthur Penn
I THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN
I Michael Dyne
j starring Dan O'Herlihy, Eileen Herlie
' directed by George Keathley
COLE PORTER REVUE
Ben Bagley
! starring Tammy Grimes
i directed by Ben Bagley
| A DELICATE BALANCE
1 Edward Albee
starring Jessica Tandy, Hume Cronyn
directed by Alan Schneider
| DEAR LIAR
| Jerome Kitty
! starring Michael O'Sullivan, Sada Thompson
directed by Jerome Kilty
THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES
Frank Gilroy
starring Jack Albertson, Martha Scott
directed by Jack Albertson
APA REPERTORY COMPANY
THE WILD DUCK
Henrik Ibsen
: starring Donald Moffat
directed by Stephen Porter
RIGHT YOU ARE
Luigi Pirandello
starring Sydney Walker
directed by Stephen Porter
THE SHOW-OFF
George Kelly
starring Helen Hayes
directed by Stephen Porter
PANTAGLEIZE
Michel de Ghelderode
starring Ellis Rabb
directed by Ellis Rabb, John Houseman
405
; THE KING DIES
Eugene Ionesco
starring Richard Easton
directed by Ellis Rabb
BALLET AMERICA
directed by Burch Mann
! REPRISE
Harold J. Kennedy
starring Gloria Swanson
directed by Harold J. Kennec,
YOU KNOW I CAN'T HEAR YOU WHEN THE WATER'S RUNNING
! Robert Anderson
; starring Eddie Bracken
directed by Alan Schneider
j THE HOMECOMING
; Harold Pinter
starring Carolyn Jones
directed by Peter Hall
3 1968
WAIT A MINIM
directed by Leon Gluckman
THE KILLING OF SISTER GEORGE
Frank Marcus
starring Claire Trevor, Natalie Schafer
| directed by Warren Crane
!THE STAR-SPANGLED GIRL
|Neil Simon
| starring Anthony Perkins, Sheilah Wells, Remak Ramsay
j directed by Anthony Perkins
: BLACK COMEDY
|Peter Shaffer
I starring Jeremy Clyde
i directed by Randall Brooks
; THE LATENT HETEROSEXUAL
! Paddy Chayevsky
j starring Zero Mostel, Jules Munshin
j directed by Burgess Meredith
CACTUS FLOWER
Abe Burrows
starring Hugh O'Brian, Elizabeth Allen
directed by Abe Burrows
AMERICAN CONSERVATORY THEATRE
TARTUFFE
Moliere
directed by William Ball
UNDER MILKWOOD
Dylan Thomas
directed by William Ball
406
; YOUR OWN THING
Donald Driver
Hal Hester
Danny Apolinar
directed by Donald Driver
i PLAZA SUITE
! Neil Simon
starring Dan Dailey, Lee Grant
directed by Mike Nichols
! 1969
i BOYS IN THE BAND
! Mart Crowley
j directed by Robert Moore
: JACQUES BREL IS ALIVE AND WELL AND LIVING IN PARIS
Eric Blau
starring Elly Stone, Robert Guillaume
directed by Moni Yakim
I HAMLET
' William Shakespeare
starring Nicol Williamson
directed by Tony Richardson
J AN EVENING WITH PETER HURKOS
! starring Peter Hurkos
THE ODD COUPLE
|Neil Simon
! starring Hal March, Jackie Coogan
directed by Richard Vath
MAX MORATH - AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY
starring Max Morath
BLITHE SPIRIT
starring Zsa Zsa Gabor
directed by William Tregoe
iSCUBA DUBA
; starring Dick Shawn
j directed by Clarke Gordon
1970
OUR TOWN
starring Henry Fonda
directed by Henry Fonda
MAME
starring Ann Miller
directed by John Bowab
j
BIBLIOGRAPHY j
I
i
I
I
407
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources !
; Architectural Plans, Greek Theatre, Department of Recrea- |
tion and Parks, Griffith Park. |
I
. Attendance Figures, M'Belle Dunham, Greek Theatre Librarianj
City Records #D: 1226-40, an Indenture from Griffith J. ;
I Griffith and his wife, Mary Agnes Mesmer Griffith,
formalizing their gift of Griffith Park to the
1 City of Los Angeles.
| Davis, Gordon. KFWB Radio Editorial, December 9, 10, 1968.
Financial Figures on City Subsidies, City Greek Theatre
Operations Los Angeles County Subsidies, and
' Hollywood Bowl Operations derived from: |
Vasquez, Ignacio S. and Neil Ingram, Audit Division]
Department of Recreation and Parks. ]
Odegaard, Oscar. Los Angeles City Budget Division, j
Maruyama, Mrs. Hi. Los Angeles County Department |
of Parks and Recreation. I
Morishita, Ernie. Los Angeles County Budget |
! Division.
I
iFredrickson, William, John Horan, and L. W. Helgesen.
Administrative Special Staff Reports submitted to
their Board of Commissioners, Los Angeles Depart
ment of Recreation and Parks on December 6, 1962.
Theatre Association Attorney Walter Danielson,
"Comments on Audit Reports," January 4, 1963.
Theatre Association Resolution, Statement of Posi
tion, January 3, 1963.
Theatre Statement of Operations financial accounts,
Harry Strohmer, Comptroller,Greek Theatre
Association.
Theatre Association, Statement of 1967-68 Refurbish
ment.
Theatre Dedicatory Program, September 25, 1930.
(Library of the Greek Theatre)
"Greek Theatre," KABC-TV Editorial #7566, Broadcast on
________November 14. 15. 16. 1966.__________________________
! Greek
l
j Greek
i
i
j Greek
!
I
Greek
Greek
* Greek Theatre Leases between Los Angeles Greek Theatre
Association and the Los Angeles Department of i
Recreation and Parks, 1953-1967. ;
Greek Theatre pre-season Mailings, ticket scales and j
schedules of forthcoming events, 1953-1970. j
i
I
Griffith J. Griffith. Last Will and Testament. February j
8, 1916. j
Interviews
Doolittle, James A. Producer, Greek, Biltmore, Huntington
Hartford Theatres, Managing Director Los Angeles
Greek Theatre Association. Personal interviews,
March 26, April 11, April 24, August 11,
November 24, 1969.
Horan, John and John Ward. Administrative Offices of the
Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks.
Informal interviews. Winter, 1969.
Reed, Jack. Production Assistant, Greek Theatre Associa
tion. Informal interview, November 24, 1969.
! Letters
I ■ ■
I
I Letter from the California Teachers Association, Southern
Section to Leonard Shane, Chairman Recreation and
| Parks Commission, October 24, 1963.
! Letter from Greek Theatre Association Attorney James C.
I Maupin to Department of Recreation and Parks
i Commissioner Leonard Shane, August 30, 1963. Also,
letter from Maupin to Los Angeles City Attorney
Elliot E. Stanford, October 15, 1963.
i
| Letter from Greek Theatre Association President, Nolen
j Allen, to the Los Angeles County Board of Super-
| visors, requesting information on the County’s
j experience with its Greek Theatre audits,
December 13, 1962.
Letter from Griffith J. Griffith to Mayor Alexander and
the Los Angeles City Council, December, 1912;
contained in Greek Theatre Dedicatory Program,
September 25, 1930.
410
Letter from James A. Doolittle to Recreation and Parks
William Fredrickson Jr., January 7, 1963.
Letter from J. Don Hanauer, General Manager, Los Angeles j
Area Chamber of Commerce, personally addressed to ]
the author of this study, September 22, 1969* j
1
Letter from Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor's j
Chairman Warren Dorn to Greek Theatre Association, j
letter gives favorable County experience with j
past County audits, December 14, 1962.
Letters from Ruth Knight, Secretary, Los Angeles Department
of Recreation and Parks Commission, to James A.
Doolittle, December 2, 1954.
Miscellaneous
: Los Angeles Board of Park Commissioners Annual Report,
; #13873b, June 30, 1931.
; Los Angeles City Attorney Roger Arnebergh's Opinion
' "Extent of City's Right to Audit and Examine
Records of Mr. James A. Doolittle," December 4,
1962.
Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Fact Sheet
j #14,070, on Griffith Park.
!
! Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks Master Plan,
j 1969-70.
I
j "Los Angeles Theatre Crisis," Greek Theatre Association
I Mail-Out Pamphlet containing reprints of letters
i from Mirolyn Powell, Victor Goldenberg, and Mrs.
W. T. Ensign; also a reprint of a letter to
Mayor Yorty from Jose Colmenares, Entertainment
Coordinator of the Southern Section of the
California Teachers Association, 1966-67.
Programs, Gene Mann Greek Theatre Productions, 1946-1949.
Newspapers
Note: The first newspaper listings are important by-line
feature articles which were cited in the footnotes. In
nearly every case the articles appeared either in weekly
newspapers or special entertainment sections of Sunday
newspapers.
: 411 !
| Baker, Erwin. "Battles May Flare on Greek Theatre," Los
i Angeles Times, Section B, Sunday, January 29, 1967.'
Bell, Joseph N. "Observing the Theater," The National !
Observer, V, Monday, August 8, 1966, p. 1.
Dooley, John. "Trojan Horse in Doolittle's Row with City j
i Over Greek Could Be Another Tenant," Variety, |
February 9, 1987. <
: Greene, Patterson. "Doolittle Provides Stage Conscience,"
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Sunday June 18, 1961.
1 i
; ________ . "Stepping Right In," Los Angeles Herald-Examinerj
! Section F, Sunday, May 17, 196?. j
| ________ . "APA Hangs on Spectator's Cents," Los Angeles !
! Herald-Examiner, Section G, Sunday, September 4,
19bb.
i Hendrick, Kimmis. "Boom in Theatre Cheers Los Angeles," j
i The Christian Science Monitor, October 18, 1957. i
!
' Hillinger, Charles. "Griffith Park - The City's Largest j
Christmas Gift," Los Angeles Times, December 26, j
j 1967. 1
! Smith, Cecil. "Doolittle Giving Biltmore Lift," Los
! Angeles Times Entertainment Section, Sunday,
j March 29, 1959.
! ________ . "Biltmore Brightens L.A. Stage Outlook for '60,"
! Los Angeles Times Entertainment Section, Sunday,
I January 10, 19b0.
!_______ . "'Five Fingers' New Laurel for Biltmore," Los
I Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday, February 19, 19bl.
j_______ . "The Greek Theatre - Its Miracle and Its Tur-
| moil," Los Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday, June 30,
i 1963.
________ . "Doolittle: Slings, Arrows, Achievements,"
Los Angeles Times Calendar, Sunday, November 28,
19b5.
Smith, Jack. "Biltmore Theater Again Appears to Be Doomed,'
Los Angeles Times, Section C, Sunday, May 3, 1964.
Taubman, Howard. "Subsidies for Culture," The New York
Times, January 11, 1969.
412
: Williams, Dick. "'Toys in the Attic' Salvaged for Run
on Biltmore Stage," Los Angeles Times Calendar,
Sunday, January 21, 1952.
Wright, Giles E. "Doolittle Defended in Row Over Greek
Theatre Lease," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner,
Sunday, January 13a 19o3-
The Beverly Hills Citizen - important features by Hazel
Flynn, August 21, 1950-
October, n.d., 1950*
August 2, 1957.
, June 17, 1958.
Deal Publications, in which the Civic Center News Agency
(CCNA) articles of Ridgely Cummings appeared.
Eagle Rock California Sentinel, CCNA, July 12, 1959
Eagle Rock California News-Herald, CCNA, December
— 23, ' i9b-2. --- ----------------
Griffith Park News, CCNA, September 3a 1958.
j Griffith Park News, CCNA, September 4, 1959*
I
; Los Feliz Hills News, CCNA, October 2, 1958.
1
| Los Feliz Hills News, CCNA, April 18, 1963.
j Northeast Star Review, CCNA, August 23, 1959*
i Hollywood Citizen-News. Important feature articles by
Austin Conover.
i September 11, 1953•
| June 9a 1954.
August 7, 1954.
July 7a 1956.
June 26, 1958.
June 4, 1959.
September 6, 1961.
; 413
November 15, 1962.
June 22, 1963.
July 17, 29, 1963.
August 7, 1964.
June 22, 1965.
April 8, 1966.
! January 27, 1967.
1 Los Angeles Canyon Crier, June 21, 1956.
' Los Angeles Dally News, November 13, 1962.
Los Angeles Enterprise, reprint from radio editorial
November 25, 1966. j
I Los Angeles Enterprise, December 6, 1966. !
Los Angeles Examiner, important feature articles by
Patterson Greene.
I
August l6, 1950.
| June 24, 1956.
I
■ June 27, 1958, editorial.
| June 18, 1961.
I
1
j Los Angeles Herald-Examiner
June 29, 1962.
I December 6, 1962.
i
I
December 21, 1962.
December 27, 1962.
January 3, 1963.
January 13, 1963*
January 15, 1963.
January 24, 1963.
September 12, 19^5•
May 5, 1966.
; August 5j 1966.
I
September 4, 1966.
November 28, 1966.
| February 16, 1967.
! March 2, 1967*
| April 21, 1969.
April 22, 1969.
1 Los Angeles Herald Express,
j April 22, 1957.
June 26, 1958j Editorial.
i
| September 17j 1958, Editorial.
| Los Angeles Mirror, October 6, 1950.
I
I Los Angeles Times.
|
| December 173 1896.
September 5> 1903*
March 2, 3, 1905-
February 25, 1931.
March 2, 1931-
June 27, 1931.
August 13 * 194-9-
July 8, 1950.
July 10, 1950.
July 15, 1951.
_________August 10, 1953._______________
415 ]
July 6, 14, 1954.
August 5, 1954.
1
September 9, 1954. ■
August 8, 1957.
June 26, 1958.
October 12, 1958. !
March 29, 1959. |
January 10, i960. I
August 16, i960. !
February 19, 1961. j
January 21, 1962. j
March 30, 1962. |
September 13, 1962. j
November 16, 22, 1962. !
December 14, 21, 28, 1962.
January 1, 11, 18, 1963.
June 30, 1963«
October 9, 18, 1963.
November 8, 1963.
May 3, 1964.
August 14, 1964.
November 28, 1965.
December 5, 1966.
January 29, 1967.
February 3, 4, 16, 1967.
March 3, 1967.
: 4l6
j December 15, 22, 26, 1967.
March 25, 1968.
June 10, 11, 1968.
July 14, 1968.
I
’ July 16, 18, 1969.
February 11, 1970.
! April 11, 1970.
! Los Angeles Westlake Post, June 30, 1966.
! Pasadena Star-News, October, 1961.
Redondo Beach California Daily Breeze, July 30, 1963.
i San Diego Tribune Sun, October 3, 1949-
i
| San Francisco Chronicle, November 8, 1950.
j Santa Monica Evening Outlook.
| October 29, 1962.
! November 13, 14, 19, 21, 1962.
1
j January 14, 1963, Editorial.
Valley Times Today.
November 16, 23, 1962.
1
December 6, 12, 27, 1962.
January 3, 25, 1963.
March 9, 1963*
October 9, 1963*
Variety.
July 18, 1951.
November 29, 1963.
February 9, 1967•
417
!
! Newspaper Series Articles of Special Interest
, Los Angeles Express, on Griffith shooting incident and
follow-up, file in Central Los Angeles Public
Library.
; Los Angeles Express.
September 4, 5, 7, 8, 1903.
October 2, 24, 26, 1903.
j November 2, 5, 6, 9, 1903*
; July 7, 1919* Griffith's Obituary.
The Civic Center News Agency Articles (CCNA) of Ridgely
Cummings; see Newspaper Bibliography.
October 2, 1958.
December 4, 1958.
June 11, 16, 18, 1959.
; July 12, 30, 1959.
[ August 20, 23, 30, 1959.
I
| September 3, 1959*
| October 1, 29, 1959.
! November 3, 12, 24, 1959-
I
February 11, i960,
j March 17, 31, i960.
April 2, 20, i960.
August 25, i960.
May 7, 1961.
June 22, 1961.
December 20, 1961.
January 4, 14, 1962.
4l8 :
I
December 6, 23, 1962.
January 13, 1963. |
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Los Angeles Music Center
series.
April 21, 22, 23, 24, 1969.
Santa Monica Evening Outlook, series by Ron Funk and Will i
O'Neil on the Eugene and Rosalind Wyman's Expose,
and the James A. Doolittle and Greek Theatre
connection to the Wymans.
October 26, 29, 31, 1962.
November 2, 13, 14, 19, 21, 1962.
December 3, 10, 1962.
January 14, 1963, Editorial.
1962-63 Greek Theatre Controversy Series.
Seidenbaum, Art. Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2,
3, 1963.
Wright, Giles. Los Angeles Herald-Examiner,
January 13, l4j 15, 1903. See also
Editorial, January 17, 1963.
j Secondary Sources
I
i Books
i
: Rigdon, Walter (ed.). Who's Who of the American Theatre,
j Biographia Encylopaedia. New York: James H.
j Heineman, Inc., 1966.
|
i
j Booklet
Northcutt, John Orlando. The Hollywood Bowl Story. Third
printing revised. Los Angeles: The Hollywood
Bowl Association, 1968.
Periodicals and Theatre Programs
Boylan, La Dessa Gibson, "The Greeks Have A Word For It,"
Social Service Review, Los Angeles: Social Service I
Auxiliary, XXI (Summer, 1958), pp. 30-^8.
Doolittle, James A. "The Future of Opera in Los Angeles," j
The Arts Magazine, Los Angeles: Altruistic j
Artists Foundation, II, (January, 1953)3 PP» 10-11.j
Duncan, Ray. "The Summer Season," pp. 40-45; "Dr. '
Doolittle's Circus," pp. 44-48; "Tempest Over a ,
I Trip Downtown," pp. 45-48, Los Angeles Magazine, |
; XI (June 1966). !
i |
I Note: Greek Theatre Magazine is the official publication |
of the Greek Theatre. It is the theatre program 1
for each engagement. The following articles and
issues were used for text material. After the
first listing only the publication data is omitted. |
' Greek Theatre Magazine, Los Angeles: John F. Huber !
: Publishing Company, Inc. (1953 through 1969). j
|
; "Ballet, Song, and Comedy Highlight Greek Theatre Season," !
and Douglas Crane, "After Fifty Years - How the j
i First Authentic Kabuki Came to America," Greek !
; Theatre Magazine, Eight Season program (June 27
! through July 10, i960),
j
i "Ballet and the Greek Theatre Association," Greek Theatre
j Magazine, Thirteenth Season program (September l3
j through September 18, 1965).
i "International Recognition for the Greek Theatre," and
"La Perichole1 Will Star Cyril Ritchard, Greek
Theatre Magazine, Sixth Season Program (July 21
| through August 3» 1958).
i
| Mahony, Patrick. "A Touch of Old Athens ir/ Los Angeles,"
i Greek Theatre Magazine, Sixteenth Season Program
(June 17 through June 23, 1968).
Pierre, Dorathi Bock. "The Greek Theatre in Griffith Park
- A History," Greek Theatre Magazine, Fifth Season
program (July 15 through August 4, 1957)•
"The Fabulous New York City Ballet - a pas de deux," Greek
Theatre Magazine, Twelfth season program (June 27
through July 3,1964).
420 !
1 i
! Greene, Patterson. "The Gift-Bearing Greeks," Theatre
i Arts, XLII (July, 1958), pp. 65-67. i
"In The News - Controversy: New Los Angeles Co.," Dance |
Magazine, XXXVIII (November, 1964).
, "Let's Go Greek," Plays and Players, London (May, 1959). )
! "Los Angeles Greek Theatre Has Exciting and Successful |
Season," Musical Courier, New York: Gainsburg- j
Shack, Inc. CXLIX (May 15, 1954), p. 32. 1
I "Los Angeles Greek Theatre Series to Offer Ballet and Opera!
; by U.S. and Japan Troupes," Musical Courier, j
) New York: Musical Periodicals Corporation, |
i CXLVII (April 15, 1953), P. 10. j
Marienthal, Hal. "Much Ado About Doolittle," Los Angeles
Fm & Fine Arts, VI (July, 1965), PP. 14-17.
1 Miller, Geoff. "The Practical Impresario," Los Angeles
i & Southern California Prompter, II (May, 1901),
pp. 40-41.
1 Pumphrey, Byron. "Theater," Arts & Architecture, j
! LXXXIV (March, 1967), pp. 30-31. |
i
| Shallert, Edwin. "Los Angeles: A Retarded Destiny,"
j Theatre Arts, XL (June, 1956), pp. 72-89.
!
1 Theatre News. American Educational Theatre Association
| (AETA), (April 1969).
j The Playgoer. Huntington Hartford Theatre program, Los
j Angeles: John F. Huber (1966-1969).
i
Westcott, Bill. "New Horizons in Ballet," The Arts
Magazine, Los Angeles: Altuistic Artists Founda
tion, IT (March, 1953), pp. 14-16.
Whitby, James M. "The Valuator Interviews . . . James A.
Doolittle," The Valuator, the official publication
of the Southern Sectionof the California Teachers
Association, Los Angeles: CTA-SS Special Services
Staff (Summer, 1965), pp. 30-31.
Zolotow, Maurice. "Land of Nod," Theatre Arts, XL
(April, 1956), pp. 73-86.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

A Historical Study Of The Origins Of The Persian Passion Plays

PDF

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

PDF

The Paradox And The Grotesque In The Work Of Friedrich Duerrenmatt

PDF

A Re-Evaluation Of The Major Works Of George Kelly

PDF

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

PDF

An Analytical Study Of Structure, Characterization, And Language In Selected Comedies By Philip Barry

PDF

A Historical Study Of Gilmor Brown'S Fairoaks Playbox: 1924-1927

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

South Coast Repertory, 1963-1972: A Case Study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Kelly, Richard Joseph (author)

Core Title 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...

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication (Drama)

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Theater

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Butler, James H. (committee chair), Berry, Marvin B. (committee member), Stahl, Herbert M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-446181

Unique identifier UC11362016

Identifier 7107719.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-446181 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7107719.pdf

Dmrecord 446181

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kelly, Richard Joseph

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