University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

American premiere criticism of selected contemporary French plays produced on the New York stage 1946-1960

(USC Thesis Other)

American premiere criticism of selected contemporary French plays produced on the New York stage 1946-1960

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been 65-8920
m icrofilm ed exactly as received
McCARTHY, Thomas Justin, 1919-
AMERICAN PREMIERE CRITICISM OF SELECTED
CONTEMPORARY FRENCH PLAYS PRODUCED ON
THE NEW YORK STAGE T 946-1960.
University of Southern California, Ph. D ., 1965
Language and Literature, modern
University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Copyright by
THOMAS JUSTIN MCCARTHY
1965
AMERICAN PREMIERE CRITICISM OF SELECTED
CONTEMPORARY FRENCH PLAYS PRODUCED
ON THE NEW YORK STAGE 1946-1960
by
Thomas Justin McCarthy
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
(Comparative Literature)
June 1965
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L
U N IV E R SIT Y PA R K
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...................Th o m as. _ Ju s tin . _ M _c.C _a r thy...................
under the direction of his.....Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
..
Date J.U.ne,...1.9.65.....................................
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
f { . .
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION...................................... . 1
Chapter
I. JEAN ANOUILH: CRITICISM................... 15
Antigone (1946) ........................... 15
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Ring Round the Moon (1950) . ............. 31
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Mademoiselle Colombe (1954) .............. 42
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
The Lark (1955)........................... 58
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
The Waltz of the Toreadors (1957).......... 77
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Chapter Page
Time Remembered (1957) 92
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
The Fighting Cock (1959) 107
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Becket (1960) 125
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
II. JEAN GIRAUDOUX: CRITICISM................. 148
The Madwoman of Chaillot (1948).......... 148
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
The Enchanted (1950) 171
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Ondine (1954) 190
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Tiger at the Gates (1955)................. 214
Production Criticism
iii
Chapter Page
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Duel of Angels (1960).................... 237
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
III. JEAN-PAUL SARTRE: CRITICISM................. 261
The Respectful Prostitute (1948) ..... 261
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
Red Gloves (1948)......................... 282
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
IV. SAMUEL BECKETT: CRITICISM .......... 316
Waiting for Godot (1956).......... 316
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
V. ALBERT CAMUS: CRITICISM ■ .............. 356
Caligula (1960) 356
Production Criticism
Dramatic Criticism
Evaluation
CONCLUSION . . . 398
iv
Chapter Page
APPENDIX.............................................. 407
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................. 415
v
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Purpose
As a means of indicating what is now a prevalent
American attitude toward contemporary French plays, it is
the purpose of this study to analyze and evaluate American
premiere criticism of certain contemporary French plays
1
produced on the New York stage 1946-1960. The analysis
will be conducted in terms of specific criteria, correspond
ing to what Aristotle has called the separate parts of
2
tragedy. As used here, these criteria will be applied to
premiere criticism of both production and dramatic values.
■^Offered in the Appendix is a representative list of
contemporary French plays produced in English on the New
York stage 1946-1960. Sources on which this list is based,
as well as for all production data in this study, are Daniel
Blum, Daniel Blum's Theatre World (New York, 1946-1960), 15
vols., and Robert Burns Mantle, The Burns Mantle Best Plays
(New York, 1946-1960), 30 vols.
^According to Aristotle, "the parts of every tragedy
should be six, from which the tragedy derives its quality.
But these are fable, and manners, diction and sentiment,
spectacle and meloneia." Aristotle, "The Poetics," trans.
by Theodore Buckley in European Theories of the Drama, ed.
Barrett H. Clark (New York, 1947), p. 10.
1
Under separate headings for each play, production criticism
will he analyzed with reference to sets, costumes, lighting,
music, direction, and acting. Dramatic criticism will be
analyzed with reference to theme, play form, characteriza-
3
tion, and language. Based on the analysis of production
and dramatic criticism, an evaluation will be set forth
indicating the main critical trends for each play under
consideration. As a final outcome, these trends will be
compared with subsequent criticism which deals, more or less
directly, with the premiere criticism in question and with
4
the New York productions on which it was based.
Initial Hypothesis
In my statement of purpose, I have referred to the
existence of "a prevalent American attitude" toward con
temporary French plays represented by a body of premiere
^Because a certain amount of premiere criticism which
appears in this study is unsigned, premiere criticism is
identified throughout the various sections by publication
rather than by name of critic. For the same reason, the
separate bibliographies of premiere criticism for each of
the plays under consideration are alphabetically arranged
by name of publication rather than by name of critic.
^This criticism will be appended in the form of foot
notes to the premiere criticism which appears in the main
text under the.headings of production criticism and dramatic
criticism.
criticism which attended their New York production. The
assumptions on which this statement rests are that the New
York stage is the huh of the contemporary American theatre
and that the reviews of New York stage productions by
American premiere critics have an immediate and lasting
effect on the playgoing American public. The first of these
assumptions is based on two factors: more plays are pro
duced each year in New York than in any other American city;
for the most part, other than New York productions emanate
from New York or are slanted toward it: road companies on
tour with New York hits, amateur and semi-professional
revivals of these hits, tryouts for New York openings in
various American cities. The second assumption, relative to
the existence of "a prevalent American attitude," is based
on the fact that in the mind of the American playgoing
public the success or failure of a New York play (in effect,
its worth or worthlessness), is almost directly dependent
upon what the premiere critics wrote about it,^
Eric Bentley has called attention to this life-and-
^Leonard Pronko refers to a prevalent American attitude
toward the plays of Anouilh but does not relate this atti
tude to American premiere criticism. The World of Jean
Anouilh (Berkeley, 1961), pp. xix-xx.
4
death relationship between New York play production, pre
miere criticism, and the playgoing public. According to
Bentley, the Broadway producer is less concerned with direct
audience response to a play than with what premiere critics
will write about it:
If he has produced a serious play, and the reviewers don't
like it, he is done for. If some of them don't like it,
he is done for. Only if all of them write of it in a vein
of corny exultation is he sure of a hit.^
Seeking an answer to this ultimate power wielded by the
premiere critics, Bentley concludes that the public has
itself to blame, especially when the critics "make such
admissions of ignorance that one might say their motto is:
7
'I thank thee, God, for my humility.'"
The importance of premiere criticism is again referred
to by Laurence Le Sage in terms of a prevalent American
attitude toward the plays of Anouilh:
It may be that the American public is too healthy, too
optimistic to tolerate the caricature of life that
Anouilh makes in his plays. But I fear that his failure
to get even a toe hold in this country has a less philo
sophical cause. My own suspicion is that his plays have
been killed by irresponsible critics who fail to serve
in their most legitimate function: that of guide and
teacher. Much of what I have read in the American press
^The Dramatic Event (New York, 1954), p. 245.
^Bentley, p. 245.
reveals shocking ignorance on the part of the arbiters
of taste and judges of drama.8
It is interesting to note that Le Sage comes to much the
same conclusion that Bentley did: American premiere critics
are irresponsible and misinformed but at the same time a
power to be reckoned with. The purpose of the present
study, however, is not a consideration of the premiere
critics' state of enlightenment. Rather it is to indicate
that a now prevalent American attitude toward the contem
porary French plays represented in this study is founded on
what the premiere critics wrote about these plays.
Definitions and Limitations
American premiere criticism
! According to the terms of this study, American premiere
i
criticism is intended to mean the reviews of selected con-
'temporary French plays produced on the New York stage 1946-
1960. These reviews include only the criticism offered by
9
major New York newspapers and magazines. The reviews do
®"The Theatre of Jean Anouilh," The American Society
Legion of Honor Magazine. Winter 1952, p. 324.
^1 refer here to those New York newspapers and American
magazines which have traditionally maintained the services
of a regular play reviewer and which, for this reason, have
not include criticism which was subsequent to the premiere,
and they exclude criticism based on a production in any
other place than New York City or on a purely textual exe
gesis. In this respect, premiere criticism, based on a
theatrical frame of reference, on what is necessarily
immediate and sensory, may be distinguished from textual
criticism where the frame of reference is confined to the
play as it appears in written form. A first-nighter Pari
sian critic makes the distinction when he refers to what is
most typical of premiere criticism: "des reactions enregis-
trees sur-le-champ
exerted considerable influence on a large part of the play
going public. The direct source for all newspaper premiere
criticism appearing in this study (hereafter identified by
the initials N.Y.T.C.) is the New York Theatre Critics1
Review (New York, 1946), 15 vols.
1°I have, of course, included in the form of footnotes
appended to the main body of premiere criticism, what might
be called "semi-textual" criticism. This would be criticism
of the plays in question written by other than premiere
critics who, for the most part, had one eye on the play text
and another on its New York production. It should be noted,
however, that in relation to the present study the inclu
sion of such "semi-textual" criticism is for but one pur
pose: an operational means of comparing and contrasting the
main trends of premiere criticism so as to elucidate the
prevalent American attitude which these trends project.
^Robert Kemp, La vie du theatre (Paris, 1956), p. 9.
This distinction between the theatrical and textual
aspects of drama has itself been the subject of a prolonged
dispute among theoreticians. The "theatricalists, " of whom
Gordon Craig is perhaps the best known in the English-
speaking world, maintain that a play is largely meaningless
12 . , „
except as a produced item. Jean Vilar, currently director
of the Theatre Populaire National, takes the "theatricalist"
point of view when he states that the dramatist is extra
neous to the theatre because he thinks in terms of words
13
instead of his true medium which is the stage. According
to Vilar, the indeterminate quality of modern theatre, its
lack of focus and definition, can be attributed to its
divorcement from "the poetry of the senses," from music,
14
dancing, pantomime and the like. Compared to the ventur
ing spirit of the pictorial arts, "to the anxious grace of
Matisse, to Picasso's tragic forms and the controlled dis
order of Bracque," the modern theatre is still under the
■^For a detailed treatment of Craig's "theatricalist"
approach to drama, see Edward Gordon Craig, On the Art of
the Theatre (Edinburgh, 1905); Towards a New Theatre (Lon
don, 1913); Books and Theatres (London, 1926).
13"The Director and the Play," trans. Richard W.
Strawn, Yale French Studies. V, pp. 12-26.
■^Vilar, p. 21.
aegis of bourgeois vulgarity, typified by Victorien
15
Sardou.
Contrary to the view set forth by Vilar is the "tex-
tualist" approach to drama, the idea that the primary value
of any play, to which its theatrical representation is
always incidental, rests in the actual writing. Something
of this approach is given by Maurice Valency when he writes
. . . the artistic trends which have characterized our
time since the end of the first world war . . . center
on the repudiation of the mimetic basis of art. . . .
it can hardly be expected that so public an art as the
drama can support itself save in the presence of a
widely intelligible experience.^
What might be called a critical middle ground between
the "theatricalists" and the "textualists" is separately
advanced by John Gassner and Marc Beigbeder. Gassner finds
that the function of dramatic criticism is twofold:
Ultimately the true critic, whether constructive or
destructive is involved with the two most fundamental
elements of theatre, its sensibility and intelligence.
Perhaps they are simply two aspects of the same thing.
Stark Yong, for example could teach the theatre how to
see; Shaw how to think.^
■^Vilar, p. 21.
■*-^"The World of Jean Anouilh," Theatre Arts. July 1957
p. 92.
^ Theatre at the Crossroads (New York, 1960) , pp. 114-
115 .
9
Beigbeder picks up the same thread of a theatrical totality,
the interrelation of play script and play production:
Separer metteurs en scene, decorateurs, acteurs, ne va
pas sans artifice. Car une oeuvre dramatique, ce n'est
pas une piece, ou une mise en scene, ou un decor, ou une
interpretation, raais tout. 11 ne s'agit pas seulement
que, a la representation, il faut evidement les uns et
les autres. Mais que l1oeuvre dramatique est toujours
a la fois texte, mise en scene, decor, interpretation:
un spectacle.
The "middle ground" of Gassner and Beigbeder is, of
course, the desideratum of all dramatic criticism. But
because the subject under discussion in the present stufly
is criticism of contemporary French plays as a produced
item, purely textual criticism of these plays is operation
ally irrelevant. This is no reflection of the intrinsic
worth of such criticism or on its ultimate importance with
respect to the American critical reputation of contemporary
French plays and contemporary French playwrights. What the
exclusion of purely textual criticism does reflect on is a
situation well beyond the scope of the present study: a
rapprochement of the infinite number of variables represent
ed in a hypothetical common denominator between criticism
of a play text as it appears in written form and criticism
^®Le theatre en France depuis la Liberation (Paris,
1959), pp. 8-9.
10 j
of a play as it appeared in production.
Selected contemporary French
plays
Selected contemporary French plays refers to plays,
written by French authors between the years 1930 and I960,
which were produced for the first time in English on the
New York stage 1946-1960. Excluded from consideration are
the offerings of what is generally known as the French
boulevard theatre, as well as the dramatization of French
19
novels and all musical adaptations. A further basis of
selection, within the limits already defined, is a purely
quantitative factor related to the amount of public and
critical interest aroused by certain plays. In this sense,
the contemporary French play considered in the present study
must have had a minimum of thirty-eight performances and
have been reviewed by at least ten major New York newspapers
or major American magazines.
Period under consideration
1946 has been chosen as a starting point because in
■^Excluded on this basis are boulevard plays such as
Marcel Achard1s I Know Mv Love (1949) and Marcel Ayme's
Clerambard. and adaptations from novels such as Colette's
Gicri and Andre Gide's The Immoralist.
11
that year Anouilh's Antigone marked the first post-war
production of a contemporary French play on the New York
stage. 1960 has been chosen as a terminal date because it
was a post-war high in contemporary French play production
20
on the New York stage.
New York stage
In this study, I have used the term New York stage in
%
a generic sense as referring to play production which took
place within the geographical limits of New York City and
its immediate environs. I have refrained from using the
more precise, and at the same time more complicated terms,
Broadway and Off Broadway. However, for purposes of clari
fying Broadway and Off Broadway, I have solicited and
^In 1960, the New York English premieres of six con
temporary French plays, representing the work of Anouilh,
Beckett, Camus, Genet, Giraudoux, and Ionesco, were given
a total of 976 performances. This compares with the 1946
premieres of two contemporary French plays, representing
the work of Anouilh and Sartre. Hamilton Mason, French
Theatre in New York 1899-1939. cites 1909 as a previous
high point in French play production on the New York stage
and 1939 as a low point. Relative to post-1960 play pro
duction, Michael Smith in a personal letter to me, April 5,
1962, states: "As for French plays, I don't believe there
are ANY running now. Ionesco's 'The Killer' and Arrabal's
'The Picnic on the Battlefield' were done on the 'Theatre
of the Absurd' series at the Cherry Lane last month. Had
trouble finding audiences."
received letters from a number of people closely associated
with the contemporary American theatre and in particular
with the New York stage. These are George Freedley, Curator
of the Theatre Collection, New York Public Library; Alan S.
Downer, drama critic and chairman of the English Department,
Princeton University; Willard Swires, sometime executive
director of ANTA (American National Theatre and Academy);
Michael Smith and Sandra Schmidt, respectively assistant
editor and drama editor of "The Village Voice," an inde
pendently owned New York newspaper. In distinguishing
Broadway from Off Broadway, the central point on which all
concerned reach agreement is this: strictly speaking (and
this is according to the union contract of Actors' Equity
Association), New York theatre houses of over 299 seating
capacity are Broadway; less than this number are Off Broad
way .
I include this definition because a substantial part
of French play production on the New York stage 1946-1960
was done in Off Broadway theatres. However, with reference
to the plays under consideration in this study, all but one
were premiered on Broadway. The one exception (Respectful
Prostitute) opened in an Off Broadway house, New Stages
Theatre, and after forty performances was moved to
13 ;
Broadway's Cort Theatre for the remainder of its run. On
the basis of information provided me by Mr. Michael Smith,
I have indicated in the list of contemporary French plays
which appears in the Appendix those plays which were pro
duced in Off Broadway theatres.
Methods and Procedures
Under the conditions outlined above, a total of seven
teen plays are involved in the present study. That any one
play, or any one playwright, is represented to the exclusion
of another is entirely in terms of the criteria of selection
and in no wise reflects a value judgment on the merits of a
particular play or playwright. In keeping with the quanti
tative aspect of the selection criteria, the seventeen plays
which comprise this study are arranged by author— from the
playwright having the most productions to the playwright
having the least— rather than by strict chronology. Thus
Chapter I, JEAN ANOUILH, includes the premiere criticism of
eight plays; Chapter II, JEAN GIRAUDOUX, the criticism of
five plays? Chapter III, JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, the criticism of
two plays. Chapters IV and V, under the separate headings
of Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus, include criticism of
one play by each author. Throughout the various sections,
and for each of the seventeen plays under consideration the
following additional data are provided: a listing of pro
duction details and a newspaper and magazine bibliography
of premiere criticism.
CHAPTER I
JEAN ANOUILH: CRITICISM
Antigone (Antigone) 1946
Adapted by Lewis Galantiere; Setting by Raymond Sovey;
Costumes by Valentina; Directed by Guthrie McClintoc; Pro
duced by Katherine Cornell in association with Gilbert
Miller at the Cort Theatre; Opened February 19, 1946; Closed
May 4, 1946 (64 performances).
THE CAST
Chorus ..................... ............... Horace Braham
Antigone ................................ Katherine Cornell
Nurse ...................................... Bertha Belraore
Ismene......................................Ruth Matteson
Haemon .................................Wesley Addy
Creon .................................... Cedric Hardwicke
First Guard............ George Mathews
Second Guard ........................... David J. Stewart
Third Guard ................................ Michael Higgins
Messenger .................................... Oliver Cliff
Page ........................................ Albert Biondo
Eurydice .................................... Merle Maddern
15
ANTIGONE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., February 19, 1946,
p. 450.
New York Herald Tribune. Barnes, Howard, N.Y.T.C., February
19, 1946, p. 450.
New York Journal American. Garland, Robert, N.Y.T.C., Feb
ruary 19, 1946, p. 451.
New York Post. Rice, Vernon, N.Y.T.C., February 19, 1946,
p. 453.
The New York Times. Nichols, Lewis, N.Y.T.C., February 19,
1946, p. 451.
New York World Telegram. Rascoe, Burton, N.Y.T.C., February
19, 1946, p. 452.
PM Exclusive. Kronenberger, Lewis, N.Y.T.C., February 19,
1946, p. 452.
The Sun. Morehouse, Ward, N.Y.T.C., February 19, 1946, p.
453.
Magazine Criticism
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, April 1946, pp. 71-72.
The Commonweal. Phelan, Kappo, March 8, 1946, pp. 525-526.
Forurn. Gassner, John, April 1946, pp. 751-753.
16
Independent Woman. (Unsigned), March 1946, pp. 100-102.
Life. (Unsigned), March 18, 1946, pp. 73-75.
The Nation. Krutch, Joseph Wood, March 2, 1946.
The New Republic. Young, Stark, March 4, 1946, pp. 317-318.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), March 4, 1946, p. 54.
. The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, March 2, 1946, pp. 40-41.
The Saturday Review. Brown, John Mason, March 9, 1946, pp.
24-26.
Theatre Arts. Gilder, Rosamond, April 1946, pp. 196-199.
Time. (Unsigned), March 4, 1946, p. 54.
18
Production Criticism
With the exception of Journal American and Commonweal.
the physical aspects of production met with approval.
Evening dress for the men and Valentina's non-period gowns
for the women were regarded as suitable to the prose-poetic
requirements of the play. Equally suitable was Raymond
Sovey1s set— semi-circular steps, bare stage, curtained
backdrop. Cornell's Antigone was variously praised and
blamed. Those in favor found that she depicted a tragic
heroine poignantly and with singular grace and beauty.
Those in disfavor— Journal American. New York Times. PM.
Commonweal. Newsweek. Time— observed that she struggled in
vain with totally unsatisfactory material.^ Except for New
Yorker. Hardwicke was praised by all for his rendering Creon
a suave, man-of-the-worId dictator, logical, strong, and
persuasive. It was generally felt that Hardwicke, having
the clearer part, took most of the acting honors. Favorably
mentioned in minor character roles were Wesley Addy as
^"Maurice Valency refers to the production of Antigone
as "a success of esteem, at least with the incomparable
Cornell in the leading role." "The World of Jean Anouilh,"
Theatre Arts. July 1957, p. 93. David De Laura assigns
"Miss Cornell's special talents" as one of the reasons for
Galantiere's inadequate and misleading translation. "Anou
ilh's Other Antigone," French Review. October 1961, p. 41.
Haemon, Horace Braham as Chorus, Bertha Belmore as Nurse,
and George Mathews as First Guard.
Dramatic Criticism
Most critics agreed that the theme of the play is the
individual versus the state. It was also agreed that the
full implications of the theme are best understood with
reference to the German Occupation background of the Pari
sian premiere in 1943, In this context Antigone stands as
a symbol of French resistance to German oppression repre-
2
sented by the tyrant, Creon. Stripped of its Occupation
context, however, the play loses much of its force and mean
ing. For this reason, critics who on the whole approved the
play— Catholic World. Independent Woman. Life. Nation. New
Republic. Saturday Review. Theatre Arts— felt it should be
definitely restricted to its Occupation context, that within
o
In his review of a 1956 revival of Antigone. Harold
Clurman finds that the premiere critics were mistaken in
their appraisal of Anouilh's theme. According to Clurman,
the theme of Antigone (and with it the key to Anouilh's per
verse romanticism) is purity versus corruption: "Being in
formed that her brother was a despicable thug by the very
reasonable politician Anouilh has made of Creon, she sees
that life isn't worth living at all. All is corruption:
life dulls, coarsens, depraves men’s initial goodness, and
those who go on living become mere 'cooks,' compromisers
content to come to terms with the shabby routine of ordinary
existence." Nation. April 21, 1956, p. 348.
20
this frame it presented a powerful statement of the case for
individual freedom and the democratic principle. Converse
ly, those who disapproved the play felt it should be di
vorced from its Occupation context and taken on its own
merits, particularly as these would occur to a 1946 American
audience. According to these critics, the play was at best
interesting theatre and at worst an abortive mingling of
3
classic and modern, incomprehensible as it was untimely.
A minority of critics— The Sun. Commonweal. New Repub
lic— saw in the theme an attempt to humanize both Antigone
and Creon. The result was a struggle of wills: Antigone's
instinct and emotion versus Creon's intelligence and cold
logic. According to The Sun, the play is thrown off bal
ance because in the struggle with Antigone, Creon comes off
^De Laura finds that much of the premiere critics'
confusion as to the form and meaning of Antigone was due to
Galantiere's faulty translation: "One's final suspicion is
that the end product of Mr. Galantiere's deadly patchings—
half sentimental exploitation of American expectations and
Miss Cornell's special talents— were made with a knowing eye
on the receptivities and tolerances of the Broadway trade.
As a result a whole generation in this country has been de
prived of the impact of one of Anouilh's most integral and
disturbing creations." "Anouilh's Other Antigone," p. 41.
Leonard Pronko makes the general observation that Anouilh's
American translators have seldom done him justice and have
frequently wrought fundamental changes in his plays. The
World of Jean Anouilh (Berkeley, 1961), p. xx.
21 i
as the more believable character. The same fault was found
by Commonweal: by portraying Antigone as a modern-day
neurotic, Anouilh weakens her credibility as Creon's oppo
nent. New Republic wrote that Anouilh, like Sophocles,
adapts the story of Antigone to fit his own purposes. In
so doing, Anouilh "manages to say no little about dictators,
4
individual rights, respect for human xnstincts."
With reference to play form, Saturday Review stated
that Antigone has the depth and relentless quality of the
best tragedy. Commonweal. to the contrary, classified it
as melodrama: "Of us is required not the arguable 'pity and
terror,1 but rather pity for terror, and sequentially pity
for pity, and for self-pity at that." Between.these two
^Robert Champigny states that the underlying principle
in Anouilh's theatre is a studied self-consciousness which
reflects not so much upon life and on moral and philosophi
cal issues as it does on theatrical conventions. In this
sense, Anouilh makes conspicuous use of a play within the
play technique (according to Champigny, the premiere critics
caught some of this in The Lark. but missed it altogether in
Antigone). In Antigone. the play within the play technique
reveals itself through "a conflict between the dramatist and
the persona. In the words of the Chorus, the dramatist
tries to find a certain artistic purity in the tragic genre.
The personae are despoiled of their pretension to represent
the spontaneity of life? they are nailed to a part, they are
cogs in a machine. 'Her name is Antigone and she will have
to play her role to the end.'" "Theatre in a Mirror," Yale
French Studies. Winter 1954-55, p. 60.
extremes was the majority opinion that the play was experi- !
mental in form, a somewhat unsuccessful attempt at combining
5
classic tragedy with the modern theatre of ideas.
Antigone, as a character, gave rise to considerable
adverse criticism. Most critics felt that her motivation
was unclear, and for this reason the play itself was un
clear. On the one hand is Antigone's classic religious
motive for burying Polynices which causes her to defy Creon.
On the other is her mature love for Haemon and her girlish
5
Valency refers to Anouilh's adolescent hankering after
an impossible perfection which causes him to reject experi
ence on an adult level and to the same extent precludes a
tragic view of life: "it comes down to the difficulty of
saying yes to life, and its source is the outraged puritan-
ism of a sensitive child." "The World of Jean Anouilh," p.
32. Later (p. 93), Valency refers to the feeling of nausea
projected by Anouilh's heroes as a like by-product of an
adolescent hankering after perfection: "Bur. nausea is a
contagious emotion. It takes a great master to transmit its
effects without mishap. Hamlet's nausea is vast. It en
compasses his world. But it is sublimated. It is tragic.
Anouilh's nausea is not a heroic disease. It is not a re
jection. It accomplishes the insatiable appetite of a con
stant malaise, not to be taken seriously." David Grossvogel
sees the impossible perfection, the outraged puritanism, the
feeling of nausea as an expression of shame. In lieu of
tragic guilt, Anouilh's heroes acknowledge their shame. In
so doing, they point up the distinctly personal nature of
their misery: "Pride and poverty, the distinctive polarity
of these people, point to the respective worlds that make up
this polarity, the interaction of which fashions the hero:
that of the illusion which he demands and that of the real
ity into which he has been inescapably willed." The Self-
Conscious Stacre in Modern French Drama (New York, 1958),p. 155.
23
love for her nurse and her dog. Hence, in her scenes with
Creon she presents an improperly fused, antithetical aspect
— half Greek, half sentimental— which destroys her credi
bility as a tragic heroine and with it the whole theme of
the play. Catholic World. Nation. Saturday Review, and
Theatre Arts expressed an opposite view, holding that in the
mere act of defying Creon, Antigone vindicates and clarifies
her position as a symbol of freedom in its ageless fight
against oppression.^
^In his criticism of the Galantiere translation, De
Laura cites two examples of how Antigone was misrepresented
to the premiere critics. The first of these deals with the
matter of religious tone whereby Antigone is made to seem
more religious-minded than she really is. In Anouilh's
original, Creon refers to the stammering of the priests as
a stripping down of Polynices' dead body and a manifest
absurdity. Antigone echoes his sentiments: "Oui, c'est
absurde." In Galantiere's version, Antigone says: "Yes, I
have seen all that." Galantiere completes the deflection of
Anouilh's meaning when he has Antigone continue on the sub
ject of Polynices and the priests: "No, Creon. There is
God and there are his priests. They are not the same
things. You are not free to do with men as you wish— not
even when they are dead." Further evidence of the less
consciously and far-more-selfish nature of Anouilh's Anti
gone may be found in certain cuts which Galantiere made for
the New York production. In Anouilh's original, Antigone
gives Creon her reason for dying: "Pour personne. Pour
moi." This did not appear in Galantiere's version. Also
cut for the sake of New York audiences were Antigone's
references to "sale espoir." "Anouilh's Other Antigone," p.
37. De Laura cites a second example of how Antigone was
misrepresented by means of crucial changes made in the
prison scene. Where Galantiere has Antigone dictate in her
24 |
On the subject of Creon, as a character, there was
unanimous agreement. He was well-defined; his motives were
clear and coherent. Comparing him with Antigone, "a wilful
and stupid girl with a flair for martyrdom,1 1 World Telegram
found Creon
a patient and troubled king whose greatest sin was the
hubris of thinking . . . he was the law and that a viola
tion of one of his edicts would bring about the complete
collapse of order and authority.
Time observed that Creon is the "least Sophoclean" of
Anouilh's creations, hence "the one honest character in the
play."7
letter to her lover, Haemon, "My darling, I had to die . .
.," her distant French cousin had actually said, "Mon cheri,
j'ai voulu mourir," Galantiere's omissions are equally
disturbing. Anouilh's heroine is not merely afraid but un
clear as to the rationale of her conduct. She is patheti
cally unwilling to admit that Creon is in some sense right
and she even admits to being uncertain of why she is dying:
"Et Creon avait raison, c'est terrible maintenant a cote de
cet homme je ne sais pourquoi je meurs." Again, this may
be compared to the Galantiere version in which Antigone
keeps saying, over and over, that she did not die for her
self. "Anouilh's Other Antigone," p. 38.
7
This comment may be compared with what De Laura calls
Galantiere's "total subversion of the finale." After Haemon
breaks with his father, Galantiere gives "the Chorus two
'pious' remarks which Anouilh did not write. When Haemon
breaks with his father, the Chorus is made to say: 'Creon,
the gods have a way of punishing injustice.' And after the
revelation of the multiple suicide at tne endj the Chorus
comments: 'You who would not bury Polynices today will bury
Eurydice and Polynices tomorrow. And Antigone, too.
25 I
I
As to the minor characters, opinion was divided.
"Movie extras" and "not quite human beings" were the re
spective comments of Herald Tribune and New York Times.
New Republic, however, found the minor characters well-
drawn; and Saturday Review stated that if they are shadowy,
g
"they cast long shadows."
The text of the play was greeted with a mixed recep
tion. Journal American stated that except for Creon's
speeches the language was without point or pertinence.
Expressing a like view, New York Times held that the use of
anachronisms tended to antiquate Sophocles and lessen the
sense of high tragedy. Independent Woman, on the other
hand, felt that the effect of colloquial language was "to
(Pause) The gods take a hand in every game, Creon. Even
politics.1 To this latter invented remark, Creon ('nodding
soberly') replies: 'The gods.1 Presumably we are to assume
that the hard and confident secularist and rationalist of
the early part of the play has now come to realize that 'the
gods' are not to be mocked. This is simply unintelligible
in the light of the movement of the French play. Anouilh's
Chorus says merely: 'Et tu est tout seul maintenant, Cre
on, ' and Creon's entire reply is: 'Tout seul, oui.’"
"Anouilh's Other Antigone," p. 38.
^Robert Champigny refers to the play within the play
structure of Antigone wherein, according to the opening pro
logue, "'The characters will have to play their part.'
Anouilh shows a preference for social situations in which
the part has absorbed the reality." "Theatre in a Mirror,"
p . 58.
rouse interest and create sympathy in the audience." Though
deploring the play as a whole, Forum found that the writing
itself was excellent, "witness Creon's speeches and . . .
unique creativeness in several of the scenes." PM, New
Republic and Theatre Arts, feeling that the play was essen
tially well written, indicated that certain of its finer
9
qualities may have been lost in translation.
Evaluation
American critics were hard put to arrive at a defini
tive judgment of the first post-war production of a con
temporary French play which combined flippancy and high
seriousness in its treatment of a classic Greek story.
Adding to the critics' confusion, rather than subtracting
from it, were Galantiere’s program notes. Galantiere wrote
that for the French, Antigone symbolized Free France and
the individual, Creon the German Occupation and tyranny of
^Robert Champigny explains these anachronisms and col
loquialisms in terms of Anouilh's Chorus who is not an
oracle of the gods but the will of the dramatist: "The
theatrical metaphors which the Chorus uses to outline the
destiny of the personae are more than metaphors. The god
who dictates the destiny of the characters is the dramatist
and the Chorus stands for Anouilh. Anouilh undermines the
sacred drug of the myth by putting himself on the stage,"
"Theatre in a Mirror," p. 60.
the state. Why, then, asked the critics, had Anouilh made
the case for Creon so strong, for Antigone so weak? Why,
too, had Anouilh chosen a classic framework? His choice of
subject matter and the over-all style of production— bare
stage, flowing gowns, the acting of Cornell and Hardwicke—
clearly pointed to a classic concept of tragedy. But
against this was a very un-Greek Chorus who smoked cigar
ettes and offered for the audience's benefit well-bred
cynicisms about the play and its characters. Finally, ther
was the matter of numerous jarring anachronisms, liberally
sprinkled throughout the dialogue, and an out-of-the-play
gang of palace guards who talked like American "Dead End"
kids .
The result of so many conflicting elements was to
create a splintered, somewhat aimless reaction on the part
of the premiere critics. The main line of critical reason
ing took Antigone as a largely unsuccessful attempt at
combining classic tragedy and the modern theatre of ideas,
an individual versus the state play incongruously housed in
a Grecian setting. A second line of reasoning (The Sun.
Commonweal. New Republic) tried to separate the play from
its classic framework and regard it as a struggle of wills.
Common to both lines of reasoning was the notion that
Antigone herself was a martyr. If Antigone was a martyr for
democracy, the play was meaningful, at best tragic; if a
martyr for her own sake, the play was meaningless, at worst
maudlin. In any case there was no critical awareness of the
two most dominant characteristics of Anouilh's art: his
unique sense of artistic reality and his persistent theme
of individual purity versus the corruption of the world.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Antigone may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The play was suitably produced. The acting was ade
quate and in the case of Hardwicke more than adequate.
With reference to Cornell, hers was a difficult role
because Antigone as a character was so often inex
plicable .
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme of Antigone was the individual versus the
state, a defense of the individual and the democratic
principle. In this sense, Antigone represented the
French Resistance, Creon the Nazi Occupation.
Play Form
The play was experimental in form, a somewhat unsuc
cessful attempt at combining classic tragedy with the
modern theatre of ideas.
Characterization
Antigone's motivation is unclear, and for this reason
the play was unclear. We are never really sure of why
29
it is that Antigone dies.
Language
Except for Creon's speeches, the language of the play
was in questionable taste. Anouilh's use of collo
quialisms were out of keeping with the seriousness of
his subject.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
Cornell's acting gave Antigone a success of esteem
(Valency). Galantiere's translation was geared to
the acting talents of Cornell, which is one reason
why the translation was inadequate (De Laura).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme is purity versus corruption (Clurman). The
theme reflects Anouilh's hankering after an impossible
perfection (Valency). The theme is involved with the
sense of personal shame which afflicts Anouilh's
heroes (Grossvogel).
Play Form
Anouilh uses a play within the play technique. The
classic framework is only a device; the characters are
pawns in a theatrical chess game. The object of the
game is not to find answers to moral and philosophical
problems. It is rather an exhibition of Anouilh's
skill in handling a certain play form (Champigny).
Characterization
Antigone's character was sentimentalized and her
motivation misrepresented by the cuts and additions
30 j
in the Galantiere translation. Galantiere's reason
for Antigone's death is because she had to die;
Anouilh's was because she wanted to (De Laura).
Because the premiere critics missed Anouilh's play
within the play approach to dramaturgy, they failed
to understand that the characters were playing a
part instead of acting as individuals (Champigny).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Antigone to subse
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. The premiere critics were largely unaware of
Anouilh's sophisticated sense of artistic reality
(the play within the play technique mentioned by
Champigny).
2. The premiere critics were confused and misled by
Galantiere's translation. For this reason, they missed
the theme of Antigone and were otherwise unilluminated
as to its form and meaning.
Ring Round the Moon (L1 Invitation au chateau) 1950
Adapted by Christopher Fry; Settings and Lighting Supervised
by Raymond Sovey; Winter Garden Setting by George Wakhe-
vitch; Costumes by Castillo; Curtains by Raoul Dufy; Choreo
graphy by Ted Cappy; Music by Francis Poulenc; Directed by
Gilbert Miller; Produced by Gilbert Miller at the Martin
Beck Theatre; Opened November- 23, 1950; Closed. January ' 20,
1951 (69 performances).
THE CAST
Joshua ..........
H u g o .............
Frederic ........
Diana Messerschmann
Lady India ....
Patrice Bombelles .
Madame Desmermortes
Capulat ..........
Messerschmann . . .
Romainville . . . .
Isabelle ........
Her Mother . . . .
A General ........
Footmen ..........
. Francis Compton
Denholm Elliott
Denholm Elliott
Neva Patterson
Georgina Cookson
Michael Evans
Lucile Watson
Cynthia Latham
Oscar Karlweis
Philip Tonge
. Stella Andrew
. Brenda Forbes
................. Marcel Dill
William Allyn, Bennett Martin
31
RING ROUND THE MOON BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., November 24, 1950,
p. 189.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., November 24, 1950, p.
191.
New York Herald Tribune. Barnes, Howard, N.Y.T.C., November
24, 1950, p. 190.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., November
24, 1950, pp. 190-191.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., November 24,
1950, p. 189.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., November 24,
1950, p. 190.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., Novem
ber 24, 1950, p. 191.
Magazine Criticism
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, January 1951, p. 307.
The Christian Science Monitor. Beaufort, John, December 2,
1950, p. 13.
The Commonweal. Kerr, Walter, December 15, 1950, p. 253.
The Nation, Marshal, Margaret, December 2, 1950, p. 514.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), December 4, 1950, p. 74.
32
33 !
j
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, December 2, 1950, pp. 68-69.:
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), January 1951, p. 12.
The Saturday Review. (Unsigned), December 16, 1950, pp. 25-
26.
Time. (Unsigned), December 4, 1950, pp. 64-65.
Production Criticism
The physical aspects of production met with unanimous
and enthusiastic approval. Wakhevitch's winter garden set
ting, Castillo's 1912 period costumes, Dufy's inter-act
curtains, and Poulenc's incidental music were regarded not
only as a unique contribution to the mood and spirit of the
play but a veritable tour de force of production. Most
critics also agreed that the acting was good. Andrew, in
the part of Isabelle, was considered warm and charming.
Elliott was commended for his dexterous handling of the dual
role of the twins, Hugo and Frederic. Watson and Karlweis
were praised for their strong portrayals of the crusty grand
dame, Mme. Desmermortes, and the bemused financier, Messer
schmann. Daily News, however, found that the acting was
poor, except for the tango scene with Cookson and Evans.
New York Post and Saturday Review observed that while the
individual performances were good, there was a sometime lack
of ensemble, especially in the diffusion of acting styles.
Theatre Arts detected an occasional tendency to play for
farce, rather than fantasy, which detracted from the charm
10
of the play.
In the New York productions of several contemporary
35 i
j
i
Dramatic Criticism
Most critics agreed that the play had no recognizable
theme nor any purpose other than to amuse and dazzle the
spectator. Those who thoroughly disapproved the play fDaily
News. Journal American. Commonweal) found it dull and in
comprehensible, noting that its absence of theme and purpose
resulted in a lack of unity and coherence. Observing that
the play was variously disunified and incoherent, the major
ity of critics felt that it possessed a certain wayward
charm with its combination of fairy-tale atmosphere and
11
sophisticated comedy. Nation and Saturday Review voiced
the minority opinion that Rina showed some evidence of a
serious purpose. Pointing to the play's 1912, pre-World War
French plays, the matter of a diffusion of acting styles was
commented on by the premiere critics. The comment, wherever
it occurred, was generally unfavorable.
-'-■'-Leonard Pronko refers to Rina as "a lively and some
times fantastic farce with an air of a fairy tale about it."
Pronko also stresses the non-illusionistic aspect of the
play, typified by Anouilh's plot device of the twin brothers
and by the underlying sense of a kind of theatrical game
which is led by the author himself: "the whole picture is
to amuse us and not to present any true image of life. . . . ;
The action is fantastic in its complications and the charac
ters are unreal." The World of Jean Anouilh (Berkeley,
1961), p. 150. Robert Champigny expresses much the same
idea when he states: "the plot is contrived within the
play." "Theatre in a Mirror," Yale French Studies. Winter
1954-55, p. 58.
36 1
i
jl period, Nation stated that underneath Anouilh's surface j
! '
jgaiety lies the seriousness "of one who has survived experi-j
| j
ence, not of one who has never had it." Saturday Review j
f
attached a measure of social significance to the play's
1
i ;
iportrayal of class struggle against a background of "the '
i 12
{unreliability of appearances."
i i
In keeping with the fragile, unreal world in which he ;
jplaces them, Anouilh's treatment of his characters was con- !
| '
Isidered detached and somewhat fragmentary. For this reason,!
Daily News. Journal American, and New York Times felt that
jthe characters of the play were all stereotypes. Commonweal
i i
fnoted that though individually attractive, the characters
jwere unintegrated with the play as a whole. According to
j ’ |
]Time, Anouilh depicts his characters with a capricious dis- I
i i
(regard for reality and at the end casually mates them off !
Ip
j Wallace Fowlie finds that in Ring;, as in several
other of his plays, Anouilh "accords an almost mystical '
power to money. He seems to look upon money as the deter- j
mining factor in the evolution of human destiny." Dionysus j
in Paris (New York, 1960), p. 113. Pronko also takes up thd
question of Anouilh's belief that money is evil. We see thg
great evil of money represented in the character of Messer- !
schmann: "it hides the authentic man by making the rich j
jinsensitive to the real life led by the poor, and, by the
jsame token it widens the breach that separates man from man
land loses us more irremediably in the solitude that is our |
|condition." The World of Jean Anouilh, p. 124.
:"and whisks them away like folding chairs." Christian j
Science Monitor commented that the people of the story, like;
characters in a fairy tale, "must be properly seen to be
believed."
Except for Daily News. the language of the play met
with whole-hearted approval. This approval, however, seemed
to reflect more upon Fry’s adaptation than on the original
play. Referring to the adaptation per se. Herald Tribune
wrote that it has "fluency as well as splendor"; New York
Post that it "sings and sparkles"; Newsweek that it is a
tribute to Fry's own "magic and wit"; Saturday Review that
it has "the fecund imagery, the dash, the beauty, and the
originality associated with his [Fry's] poetry." Expressing
a like admiration for the language of the play, Nation and
New Yorker indicated that at least part of its quality
should be ascribed to Anouilh himself. Nation stated that
Fry's adaptation has been done "with great fidelity to the
l^in considering Anouilh's failure with the premiere
critics, Stewart H. Benedict lists as one of the causes the
artist's intensely cerebral approach both to subject matter
and characterization; "The popularity of the glorified soap
opera like Look Homeward, Angel or The Miracle Worker shows j
just how far the Anouilh style of detached intellectualizing
is from the contemporary Broadway stage." "Anouilh in
America," Modern Language Journal, p. 343.
38
letter and the spirit." New Yorker found the dialogue
"almost always bright and shapely" thanks to Anouilh's
"Gallic knack for civilized comedy" and Fry's "unique
14
poetic quality."
Evaluation
The prevalent critical attitude was that in writing a
farce-comedy, or a kind of fairy-tale fantasy, Anouilh had
no other aim than to please his audience and to offer an
egregious, sometimes brilliant display of his native wit.
Hence, Ring was a talky play, overplotted to the point of
plotlessness, variously disunified and incoherent, having
no recognizable theme, no connection with reality.
A second critical attitude (limited to Nation and
Saturday Review) was based on the idea that underneath the
surface gaiety Anouilh showed evidence of a serious purpose
Nation pointed to the just pre-World War I background of
^Alfred Drake claims that the Fry translation misrep
resented the spirit of Anouilh's original. Whereas Anouilh
was at the same time fantastical and serious, Fry catches
only the superficies— the fapade of tricks and poses.
Underneath the tricks and poses is Anouilh's true theme,
never touched upon by Fry, which is "about lack of under
standing between people and loneliness and poverty and
wealth and misery and what causes all these." Theatre Arts
December 1950, p . 96.
Rina, to the play's mixture of irony and nostalgia, as a
matter of intent, not of accident. The pre-World War I
period, the mixture of irony and nostalgia, are closely
related to Anouilh's own socio-artistic background, that of;
one who has written an Antigone and survived two world wars.
Saturday Review referred to Anouilh's intricate plotting and
the stereotyping of his characters as a technical device.
The intricate plotting with its disregard for conventional
logic and reality served to emphasize Anouilh’s belief in
the underlying instability of the social order. His brittle
and unreal characters provided opportunity for satirizing a
wide variety of social types living in a brittle and unreal
wor Id.
It is worth noting that both critical attitudes— Rina
is with or without a serious purpose— were related to a
production emphasis on style rather than content which was
the logical sequitur to a similar emphasis in the Fry adap
tation .
The main critical trends in the premiere criticism of
Rina may, then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The physical aspects of production met with unanimous
approval, particularly the music of Poulenc. Most
critics thought that the acting was good. New York
40 |
i
Post and Saturday Review thought it suffered from a
lack of ensemble.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Most critics agreed that there was no recognizable
theme nor any purpose than to amuse and dazzle the
spectator. Nation and Saturday Review voiced the
minority opinion that Ring showed evidence of a
serious purpose.
Play Form
Ring was a fairy-tale farce but so overplotted that
it was often incoherent.
Characterization
The characters were unreal and unbelievable, mere
puppets whom the author manipulates at his own whim.
Language
Except for Daily News, the language of the play met
with whole-hearted approval. This approval, however,
reflected more upon Fry's adaptation than on Anouilh's
original.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
No comment.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The milieu and the circumstances which surround his
subject matter, indicate Anouilh's perennial concern j
with money as the determining factor in human destiny
(Fowlie). In the case of Messerschmann, we see how
money alienates man from man and man from himself
(Fowlie, Pronko).
Play Form
Ring is a fairy-tale farce which achieves an internal
balance through Anouilh’s use of a play within the
play technique. Hence, the elaborate framework— the
overplotting and the obvious artificiality— is integral
with Anouilh's over-all purpose: to point up the basic
unreality of what is supposedly a real world (Pronko,
Champigny).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Ring to subsequent
iticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. Most premiere critics took Ring at face value. In
effect, they caught the counterpoint— the fagade of
farce and fantasy— but they missed the point: why it
was that Anouilh depicted a brittle and unreal world
peopled with brittle and unreal characters.
2. Anouilh's detachment from his characters, his use
of a play within the play technique, was completely
misunderstood by the premiere critics. Whereas this
approach to characterization was integral with
Anouilh's artistic purpose, most critics regarded it
as casual and capricious.
3. Conceivably, the Fry adaptation, with its emphasis
on style and movement, failed to convey the underlying
seriousness of Anouilh's theme: man's alienation from
his fellow man and from himself.
Mademoiselle Colombe fColombe) 1954
Adapted by Louis Kronenberger; Production designed by Boris
Aronson; Costumes by Motley? Directed by Harold Clurman;
Produced by Robert L. Joseph and Jay Julien at the Longacre
Theatre; Opened January 6, 1954; Closed February 27, 1954
(61 performances).
THE CAST
Colombe ...................................... Julie Harris
Julien ........................................ Eli Wallach
Mme. Georges.................................. Edna Preston
Mme. Alexandra................................ Edna Best
Chiropodist ................................... Edward Julien
Manicurist ................................... Joanne Taylor
Hairdresser .............................. Nehemiah Persoff
Gourette........................................Sam Jaffe
Edouard ..................................... William Windom
Deschamps ..................................... Frank Silvera
Poet-Mine-Own .............................. Mikhail Rasumny
Gaulois .... Harry Bannister
Dancers ................ Lee Phillips, Jeanne Jerrems
Stagehand ................................... Gregory Robins
42
MADEMOISELLE CQLQMBE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C,, January 7, 1954,
p. 397.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., January
7, 1954, p. 399.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., January 7,
1954, p. 400.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., p. 399.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., January 7,
1954, p. 397.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., January
7, 1954, p. 398.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, January 23, 1954, p. 426.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, March 1954, pp. 467-
468.
The Commonweal. Hayes, Richard, February 12, 1954, pp. 471-
472.
Life. (Unsigned), February 15, 1954, pp. 59-62.
The Nation. Hatch, Robert, January 23, 1954, pp. 77-78,
The New Republic. Bentley, Eric, January 25, 1954, pp. 20-
21 .
43
44 I
Newsweek. (Unsigned), January 18, 1954, p. 59.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, January 16, 1954, pp. 50-52,1
The Saturday Review. Brown, John Mason, January 23, 1954,
pp. 59-6 0.
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), January 16, 1954, p. 14.
Time. (Unsigned), January 18, 1954, p. 54.
45 I
I
!
Production Criticism
Aronson was commended for this atmospheric reproduction
of a 1900 Paris theatre and Motley for his period costumes.
Clurman's directing, however, met with a mixed reaction.
According to Commonweal. Clurman misinterpreted the play
(having miscast it to begin with) by stressing its grotes-
querie instead of its sense of rue and bitterness. Nation
likewise felt that the play was miscast, that because of
the actors' inability to assume "unexperienced masks,"
Clurman's direction "results in an air more Frenchy than
French." Catholic World stated that Clurman showed "deli
cate perceptiveness" in his direction of Harris; but in
Best's overly shrill portrayal of Mme. Alexandra, and
Wallach's "toughly American" approach to Julien, the direc
tion backfired. On the credit side, America wrote that it
was Clurman's intention "to achieve a panorama of flamboyant
action leaving room for individual bravura performances,"
notably those of Best, Silvera, and Rasumny. Clurman makes
it clear, observed New Republic, that Colombe. like Anti
gone , is "one of those plays in which there is guilt cn both
15
sides of the conflict."
■^Harold Clurman, in what he calls "a few reflections
46 :
Except for Commonweal (lacking in range) and Nation
(too modern American), Harris' performance in the role of
Colombe was well received. Theatre Arts found that Harris
was the play's "sole redeeming feature"; and to all other
critics, whether for or against the play, Harris was vari
ously charming, captivating, and endearing. By way of con
trast, Wallach, in the part of Julien, met with a less
cordial reception. Nation stated that, like Harris, he was
too modern American; Daily Mirror that he "fails somehow to
touch you"; Commonweal that he "lacks style or finish'; New
Republic that he was miscast in the role of a juvenile lead.
In a favorable vein, New York Post reported that Wallach's
acting has "both reality and insight." New York Times wrote
that Wallach shows "admirable naivet^"; World Telegram that
he gives a fine performance as the play’s most sympathetic
character.
of a more abstract character on Anouilh's play and certain
American attitudes," offers the following opinion: "If
there is a general tendency to be noted in our theatre at
the moment, it is an unconscious drift on the part of the
public and the reviewers who reflect its taste toward the
sweet, the pleasant, the untroubled, the undisturbing, above
all the safe." Against this tendency runs the intensely
stylized quality of Colombe where the essential theme "is
the conflict or interplay of reality and illusion, the world
and love seen as ideal or mirage and complex fact, presented
in nearly commedia dell1 arte terms." Lies Like Truth (New
York, 1958), pp.218-220.
47
Best, as Mme. Alexandra, was praised or blamed accord
ing to the individual critic's feeling that Colombe should
be played for farce or tragedy. Whether praised or blamed
by the critics, it was agreed that she deliberately over
played her part, effecting a bigger-than-life caricature of
an old-style trouper."^ In a minor character role, Jaffe
received favorable mention for his portrayal of the down
trodden Gourette.
Dramatic Criticism
There were two major divisions of critical opinion
regarding the theme of the play: first, that it represented
the conflict between idealism (Julien) and realism (Colombe);
second, that there was no theme whatever. Holding to the
first view, New York Post defined the theme as the conflict
"between egoistic romantic idealism and practical worldly
-'-kjohn Gassner observes that in terms of the theatrical
quality of Colombe the fault with Best's performance lay not
with her but with the other actors: "Edna Best's playing
was simply too strong for Broadway, where we are unaccus
tomed to such forceful histrionics. If her style of acting
was also too strong for the play, the reason was that some
of the other actors seemed to take her tantrums too serious
ly instead of with comic knowingness. They should have
realized that she was putting on a show for them as well as
for herself." Theatre at the Crossroads (New York, 1960),
p. 246.
48
17
.realism." Commonweal, finding that the moral of the play
is "subtle and embedded in the action," quoted Maurice
Valency: Anouilh's plays achieve dramatic tension by juxta
posing "the purity of the ideal and the degradation of the
individual in the material world." New Republic asserted
that the play reiterates Anouilh's "standard theme of
18
desecrated innocence." Among those critics who found
Colombe lacking in theme were Catholic World (a dull play
without point or purpose); Nation (lively theatre but shal
low ideas); New Yorker (devoid of wit, charm, or ideas).
Saturday Review noted that because of the author's cynical
detachment the play fails to convey what Anouilh himself has
17
Wallace Fowlie finds that the theme of Colombe "is a
debate . . . between two philosophies: one that is deter
mined to exploit human life and profit from it, and another
that demands of human life more than it can ever give."
Dionysus in Paris (New York, 1960), p. 123.
-^Jacques Guicharnaud states that Anouilh's perennial
theme of purity versus corruption is symbolic rather than
literal and to this extent ambiguous: "Taking Colombe as
an example, we find that the purity Julien wants to impose
on Colombe is withering and deadly, whereas the corruption
she undergoes in the company of actors makes her live and
brings her happiness. In general, the accuser, thrown by
Anouilh into his world of shame, is controversial. He is
subject to contradictory judgements and is far from being
a paragon of virtue and justice." Modern French Theatre
from Giraudoux to Beckett (New Haven, 1961), p. 122.
described as its theme: "the plight of a man who loses his
wife when she moves into a world different from his own."
With reference to play form, there' were again two major
divisions of critical opinion. Daily News. New York Post.
New York Times. and New Yorker classified Colombe as farce.
Most other critics regarded it as a combination of farce and
tragi-comedy. Generally speaking, this latter group found
fault with Anouilh's off-handed approach to dramatic form,
particularly in his shifting of moods from tender to ironic
and from farcical to tragic. In a minority of one, Common
weal saw Colombe as a dominantly tragic play which demands
sharpening of our intellect and sensibility as a key to its
19
"bitter contrasts."
To most critics the characters of the play were
■^Clurman identifies Colombe1s mixture of farce and
tragedy with a tendency on the part of contemporary French
playwrights "to make life look like theatre rather than as
with most Americans, theatre look like life." Hence, Co
lombe is "a tragic harlequinade . . . in which the author
hopes to transform the drama of his thought and feeling into
colorfully entertaining shapes at which we may laugh or cry
at will in aesthetic pleasure." Lies Like Truth, p. 220.
Fowlie points to the structure of Colombe: a piece bril-
lante which mixes "thematic seriousness and lightness of
touch, lightness of style." The ideological conflict, rep
resented in the theme of idealism versus opportunism, "is
paralleled in the amazing contrast, within the texture and
the style, between a virtuoso's technique and the gravity of
a revolt against human fate." Dionysus in Paris, p. 123.
50 j
unsympathetic and uninteresting. Especially vehement was
the judgment of Daily Mirror: animalistic, cruel, heart
less, and utterly selfish, Anouilh's characters "do not
realize that man now walks erect, often with purpose and ■
dignity." It was also felt that Anouilh's detachment from
his characters led to a sense of incompletion and false
reversal. In this respect, New York Post observed that
Julien's downfall is welcomed, whereas "it should have had
20
a touch of sadness about it too." Nation and New Yorker
took the view that all the characters were caricatures.
2°Leonard Pronko contrasts the moral intransigence of
Julien with that of Antigone: "His purity is still admired
but that blind obsession that was so much a part of Antigone
is almost criticized in Julien." The World of Jean Anouilh,
p. 48. Later (p. 163), Pronko comments on the shattering
of Julien's dream of perfection, represented by his sometime
vision of a pure and completely unlifelike Colombe: "The
retrospective vision with which the play ends does not con
stitute a happy ending with the protagonist losing himself
in illusion." David Grossvogel relates the final shattering
of Julien's dream to the theatrical aspect of Anouilh's
basic play structure: "Colombe. a play characteristically
set in a theatre and about a girl who ceases to be the ideal
she once represented because, essentially, she starts 'act
ing, ' merges the nonreality of the play at the beginning of
the fourth act— that being performed by Madame Alexandra and
Du Barthas— into the reality of the barren stage upon which
the act will end. . . . That stage is ultimately the area
for the materialization of an intellective act, Julien's
meditation upon his first meeting with Colombe." The Self-
Conscious Stacre in Modern French Drama, p. 195.
Theatre Arts referred to the characters (Colombe excepted)
as "feeble cartoons." A somewhat more favorable view was
taken by New Republic: except for Julien and Colombe, the
characters were deliberate caricatures "outrageous as Ho
garth or the Keystone Cops." Following a similar line,
America found the characters to be interesting, "some of
them the most rococo creatures ever seen this side of Lewis
21
Carroll's Looking Glass."
The language of the play was well received by the
majority of critics. But to New Yorker and Saturday Review
the language was devoid of wit and charm. What humor it
possessed, wrote Saturday Review, was due to Kronenberger,
not Anouilh. Kronenberger1s adaptation was praised by most
critics for its faithful rendering of the original into a
smooth-flowing and colloquial English. Daily News, however,
found that Kronenberger1s reluctance to cut dulls the con
flict. Catholic World noted "a constant clash between the
2-*-Clurman takes the view that the personae in Colombe
are largely types rather than realistic representations:
"Its central characters are only partly realistic figures:
They are very much Pierrot- and Columbine. The other charac
ters are not so much sketches of types in the Parisian
theatre of 1900: they are clowns— Pantaloons, Punchinellos,
Scaramouches— of the old comedy." Lies Like Truth, pp. 219-
220.
52 i '
words and the action" occasioned by Kronenberger1s use of ■
colloquial English which is out of keeping with "French
mouths of fifty years ago." Acknowledging that Kronenber
ger 1 s adaptation was "fastidious," Commonweal felt that the :
play's original image "has "somehow become deformed and
22
obscured."
Evaluation
A major sore point for the critics was Anouilh's clini
cal detachment from his characters, his uncomfortable knack
for portraying them with ruthless, almost mechanical objec
tivity. The net result of this objectivity is a sense of
false reversal: at the end we scorn the sympathetic Julien,
and we come to regard the unsympathetic Colombe with
^Referring to some of the difficulties which Anouilh
presents for American audiences, Louis Kronenberger makes
the following observations: (1) At the end of Colombe.
"you are left with a real feeling about life which is not
true of a great many of our most heralded American dramas."
(2) Colombe combines tragedy and comedy which may not suit
Americans used to one or the other separately. (3) Anouilh
remarked on the failure of his plays in America that Amer
icans are used to surface realism: "They want the appear
ance of reality, not reality itself. My realism is stylized
and not a mirror realism at all. The feelings are true, but
not the appearances." (4) Colombe1s being faithful to two j
men at the same time is profoundly un-American and very
difficult to convey to an American audience. (Unsigned),
"The Importing of Being Earnest," The Saturday Review. Jan
uary 1954, pp. 30-31.
53
iaffection rather than loathing. Apart from his unamiable
treatment of character, most critics felt that Anouilh had
also blundered badly in his cavalier handling of dramatic
form. Just what bind of play was Colombe; comedy, tragedy,:
farce, or an unhappy melange of all three? Anouilh's hap
hazard shifts from tragic to farcical, from tender to bawdy,;
made for a state of meaningless confusion. Worst of all,
his lack of dramatic focus left the audience completely
unoriented, engaged in a vain search for a common emotional
center. In sum, the critical consensus judged Colombe a
tedious and cynical moral tract, bleak, joyless, without
sentiment and human feeling, conveying no sense of form or
purpose, a reverse demonstration of the wages of sin with
an unappetizing final twist: vice is rewarded, not pun
ished, virtue is scorned.
A few critics, notably America and New Republic, were
willing to accept Anouilh's characters as deliberate cari
catures, as Hogarthian, Alice-in-Wonderland creations vari
ously outrageous and amusing. One critic only, Commonweal.
professed unreserved admiration for the play. Commonweal
wrote that in its subtle probing of a universal human prob
lem Colombe restates a favorite Anouilh theme, the purity
of the individual versus the corruption of the world.
In analyzing the critical failure of Colombe and the
to-date failure of Anouilh on Broadw.ay (five plays and five
failures), consideration must be given to a number of fac
tors. Chief among these was the inability or unwillingness
|
of most American critics to recognize Anouilh's underlying
themes. To many critics, Anouilh was full of theatrical
sound and fury signifying nothing. Even to the few who
found substance in his plays, Anouilh's themes were largely
unsuited to the needs and tastes of an American audience.
A second factor in Anouilh's failure was what might be
called American "stage resistance" founded on a long-stand
ing native tradition of clear-cut dramatic patterns: a play
is either a comedy, a tragedy, or a fantasy, and its charac
ters, in a mutually exclusive sense, are either sympathetic
or unsympathetic. A final factor in Anouilh's lack of
critical and box-office success can be related to the way
in which he rationalized, stylized, and, to an American
view, stereotyped reality. Unquestionably, the to-date
Broadway failures (Antigone. Legend of Lovers. Rina Round
the Moon. Cry of the Peacock) presented an other than sur
face realism which contrasted physical appearances against
some kind of inner psychological truth. The difficulty for
American critics lay in their refusal to grant Anouilh the
55
1
artistic premise for his own variety of stage realism whence
j
he might be properly judged on his manner of execution and
his nearness to the inner truth he sought to portray.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Colombe may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The scenery and lighting were satisfactory. Clurman's
theatrical style of directing met with a mixed recep
tion. Harris was praised by most critics; but again
there was critical objection to a diffusion of acting
styles, particularly to Best because she overacted.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme represented a conflict between idealism or
purity (Julien) and realism or corruption (Colombe).
Many critics felt that the theme was never clarified
because of Anouilh's detachment from the moral problem
which he presented.
Play Form
Some critics called Colombe a farce. Most regarded it
as tragi-comedy. Anouilh was widely attacked for an
improper fusion of tragic and farcical elements.
Characterization
The characters were unsympathetic and uninteresting.
Anouilh's detachment from his characters, particularly
from Julien, leads to a sense of false reversal.
Language
The language was well received by most critics. New
Yorker and Saturday Review found it devoid of wit and
charm. Daily News. Catholic World, and Commonweal
56
i
!
attacked Kronenberger's translation. I
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
Colombe is a highly stylized play whose structure is
integral with the main thematic conflict of an inter
play between reality and illusion (Clurman). Any lack
of fusion in acting styles, including the "overacting"
of Best, reflects on a lack of understanding by most
of the actors as to the theatrical nature of the play
itself (Gassner).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Purity versus corruption is, in Colombe. on a symbolic
level, hence ambiguous: Julien, the practitioner of
purity, is far from a paragon of virtue (Guicharnaud,
Pronko). American audiences are not conditioned to
the unvarnished truth about life which Anouilh con
veys, particularly with reference to Colombe's loving
two men simultaneously (Kronenberger).
Play Form
Colombe1s mixture of farce and tragedy demonstrates a
theatricalizing tendency on the part of contemporary ~ '
French playwrights which runs counter to the illusion-
istic conventions of the American theatre (Clurman).
As a piece brillante. Colombe mixes thematic serious
ness with a lightness of style: the dramatic intention
is to contrast these two elements (Fowlie). Colombe
combines farce and tragedy which may not suit Americans
used to one or the other separately (Kronenberger).
Characterization
Anouilh's detachment from his characters is in keeping
57
with the theatrical aspect of his basic play structure:
the milieu of Colombe is the theatre; its characters
are at once real and unreal (Pronko, Grossvogel). The
characters are largely types derived from the commedia
. dell * arte (Clurman).
Language
Anouilh was not seeking a replica of 1900 French
theatre speech. Hence, Kronenberger' s "colloquialisms'1
are no violation of Anouilh's basic language patterns
(Clurman).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Colombe to subse
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. Again, most premiere critics were unaware of
Anouilh's play within the play technique. What they
looked for was a non-present illusionistic treatment
of reality.
2. As in Ring. Anouilh's cerebral approach to charac
terization led the premiere critics to the conclusion
that he was cynical and superficial and completely
detached from the fate of his characters.
3. Because Anouilh offers no pat solution to the
moral problem of adultery, he was accused by the pre
miere critics of being immoral or at best unclear in
relation to his theme of purity versus corruption.
The Lark (L1Alouette) 1955
Adapted by Lillian Heilman: Lighting and Setting by Jo
Mielziner; Costumes by Alvin Colt; Music by Leonard Bern
stein; Directed by Joseph Anthony; Produced by Kermit Bloom-
garden at the Longacre Theatre; Opened November 7, 1955;
Closed June 2, 1956 (228 performances).
THE CAST
Warwick . . Christopher Plummer
Cauchon Boris Karloff
Joan .......................................... Julie Harris
Her Father.......... . Ward Costello
Mother ......................................... Lois Holmes
Brother John Reese
The Promoter..............................Roger de Koven
The Inquisitor ............................ Joseph Wiseman
Brother Ladvenu Michael Higgins
Robert de Beaudricourt .................... Theodore Bikel
Agnes Sorel................... .................. Ann Hilary
The Young Queen................... Joan Elan ;
The Dauphin Paul Roebling |
Queen Yolande........................... Rita Vale
Monsieur de la Tremouille .................... Bruce Gordon;
Executioner Ralph Roberts
English Soldier ............................... Edward Knight
Scribe Joe Bernard
58
THE LARK BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., November 18, 1955,
p. 207.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., November 18, 1955, p.
208.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., November
18, 1955.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., November
18, 1955.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., November 18,
1955.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., November 18,:
1955, p. 206.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., Novem
ber 18, 1955, pp. 207-208.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, December 24, 1955, pp. 363-364.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, January 1956, pp. 308-
309.
The Commonweal. Hayes, Richard, December 23, 1955, pp. 304-
305.
Holiday. O'Connor, Frank, March 1956, p. 77.
59
60
Life. (Unsigned), December 12, 1955, pp. 113-114,
The Nation. Hatch, Robert, December 3, 1955, pp. 485-486.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), November 28, 1955, p. 112.
New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, December 3, 1955, p. 106.
The New Republic. Bentley, Eric, December 5, 1955, p. 21.
The Reporter. Mannes, Marya, December 29, 1955, p. 31.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, December 3, 1955, p. 38.
Theatre Arts. Hewitt, Alan, March 1956, pp. 63-64.
Time, (Unsigned), November 28, 1955, pp. 76-78.
Production Criticism i
Mielziner's austere sets and sensitive lighting were
regarded as a perfect complement to the fluid demands of the;
i
play's flashback structure. The simple and down-to-earth
costumes by Colt were considered effective. Except for
Commonweal. Bernstein's musical simulation of Joan's "Voiced'
was likewise approved. Anthony's direction, in the opinion
of most critics, showed a keen awareness of stage movement
and a love of good theatre. In a minority of one, Common
weal pointed to an over-all lack of production fluidity,
particularly in the insufficient stylization of the court
life scenes.
Harris was acclaimed for creating a Joan who was emi
nently warm, human, and understandable. According to most
critics, her performance represented a unique combination of
childlike simplicity and intense poetic feeling. Time. her
most favorable critic, wrote that her performance establish-
23
es her as the greatest of American actresses. Somewhat
less flattering were the opinions of Saturday Review and
p O
John Gassner writes that excellent performances by
Harris and the fine supporting cast saved Lark from the
failure which it probably deserved. Theatre at the Cross
roads . p. 249.
Theatre Arts. Saturday Review wrote that Harris presents ;
"a remarkable clean-cut Joan at her best in her quiet mo-
i
! i
ments, but somewhat less effective when she tries to shout
it out with her judges." Theatre Arts credited Harris with j
a good performance; nonetheless, Suzanne Flon in the Paris !
jproduction is "the finest Joan I have ever seen." Dis-
i
jtinctly unfavorable were the opinions of Holiday and Nation
jwho took exception to Harris' overly adolescent portrayal j
i i
las out of keeping with Joan's saintliness and the serious I
i
jcircumstances of her trial. |
The supporting cast met with unanimous approval. They |
■
iwere referred to as "brilliant" (Herald Tribune); "close to j
perfection" (New York Post); "actors of power and fine dis- |
i 1
jcrimitation" (Nation); "a beautifully chosen cast" (Theatre i
i i
i
I I
lArts). Karloff was especially commended for presenting a |
| :
Iconscience-stricken Cauchon described by Herald Tribune as
an agonized figure of great power and genuine warmth." j
■ i
; i
I Dramatic Criticism
I I
j [
The theme of The Lark gave rise to a wide difference I
! i
I i
jof critical opinion. Catholic World and Holiday saw the j
|play as a political allegory wherein Cauchon (Petain) pleadsj
! i
i I
the cause of collaboration with an obdurate Joan (Free
France). Both critics also said that because of Anouilh's j
political bias he distorted historic as well as poetic
truth. Cauchon, for example, was despicable, not kindly;
Joan died a martyr for her faith in God and her country, not
out of fear of old age; the main issue of the trial was the
diabolic or divine origin of Joan's "Voices," not freedom of
the individual. Agreeing with these critics that the play
was an allegory, though not necessarily a political one,
Nation felt that the present version of Anouilh's "lark"
caught in the web of circumstance has too much mood of
cheerful sentimentality for the burning of a mystic and a
24
prophet who has freed France.
OA
Wallace Fowlie makes the same objection: "The
laughter that the play elicits is too close to the laughter
of mockery. Some of the most successful scenes are built on
commonplaces. Baudricourt, for example, illustrates the
fact that soldiers are stupid and that women are clever, and
that women win out by telling men they are handsome and
intelligent." Fowlie also refers to the happy ending con
trived by Anouilh as further evidence of an unsuitable ap
proach to the Joan legend: "Anouilh sees to it that the
public will leave his theatre in a state of euphoria. All
the moments of bad taste in his play (what I suppose the
French would call vulgarite) have been adroitly camouflaged.
Far more than one realizes, Jean Anouilh is mocking the
saint, the Church, French peasants, French royalty, man
kind." Dionysus in Paris, pp. 121-122. Leonard Pronko
finds, to the contrary, that Lark "strikes a note of opti
mism in the blackness of Anouilh's theater. Indeed the play
ends on a joyful note— one we would not have expected from
this author. The ending may appear to be contrived, but it
64
To Commonweal and New Republic. The Lark was a restate
ment of Anouilh's standard theme of desecrated innocence.
"Joan takes her place in the company of Anouilh's celebrated
i
heroines," wrote Commonweal. "— young girls of fantastic,
lyrical beauty: doomed to violation by the grossness of the:
world's body." In a similar vein New Republic stated that
Anouilh uses his familiar pattern of "clear-eyed virgins
whom a world of wicked men takes and destroys." Concurring
with Catholic World and Holiday. both Commonweal and New
Republic observed on Anouilh's distortion of historic and
poetic truth to the general detriment of Joan's stature as
a tragic heroine.
Daily Mirror. Herald Tribune. World Telegram, and Time
is impressive in that what survives is not Jeanne the martyr
burning for her convictions, but Jeanne as a symbol of a
France that is joyous and invincible, led from time to time
by a pure ideal: "That little lark singing in the sky of
France, over the heads of the foot-soldiers." The World of
Jean Anouilh, p. 38.
^5David Grossvogel finds a close relationship between
Joan’s refusing to yield to Cauchon and Antigone's struggle
with Creon: "Is Jeanne's ultimate triumph not that of still
another Anouilh heroine gratuitously refusing and is it not ■
the reason for the Inquisitor’s rage that makes him sound
so much like Creon?" The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern
French Drama, p. 165.
;found in The Lark an expression of Anouilh's philosophy
regarding the relationship of God and man. Daily Mirror
declared that Anouilh's major premise was "that God gave man
i
I
the sense to bring off the seemingly miraculous, to work j
wonders in a mundane world." In this sense Anouilh makes
Joan's vision inseparable from its pragmatic function:
"what good is it if it isn't brought to fulfillment through
action?” According to Time. the play's existentialist end
conveys the idea that man "cannot be true to God except he
be true to himself." World Telegram stated that the play
deals with "how much God exists in man and whether it is
possible to love man and God at the same time." Voicing
objection to this man-and-God relationship, Herald Tribune
branded as extraneous and anti-climactic Anouilh's second
act "left-field philosophical gesture that momentarily tries
to see Joan as the 'natural man"'
The mobile, flashback structure of The Lark was
26pronko points out the difference between Joan and
Antigone as the difference between human love and human
selfishness: "Antigone acts for herself alone, becoming
almost dehumanized, whereas Jeanne has a love for the common
man and is filled with the milk of human kindness so ab- j
horred by the Inquisitor who judges her. . . . The theme of
the 'Natural Man' who has faith in the native goodness of
;humanity remains a constant theme in Anouilh's plays." The
World of Jean Anouilh, p. 37.
jacclaimed by Daily News for its skillful blending of the I
: I
historic and psychological elements of the Joan story. Both!
viewpoints, said Daily News, are "splendidly realized by the
!
technique of divorcing the drama from the confinements of !
I
time, sequence and space." Less sparing in its praise, New j
Yorker found the play's structure generally "effective and
intelligent." But to Theatre Arts the structure was less
skillful than slick: "I almost felt as if I was watching
27
'You Are There' without Walter Cronkhite."
In the opinion of Herald Tribune. New York Times. and
^Henry Knepler contrasts Anouilh's use of the flash
back to the conventional use of this technique on the Ameri
can and English stage: "The flashback as we know it takes
us from the present back to a previous event, a previous
reality; it serves the elucidation of character or some
other purpose of exposition. The French flashback, which
Anouilh, Sartre, and Giraudoux have used to varying degrees ;
before, is not the same at all in degree or purpose. Rather
it is a melange of idea and reality, an often confusing
mingling of materials symbolic of past and present, an elu
sive allusiveness to historical, political, cultural events.I
It serves the character and plot less than the erection of
those edifices of historical parallels, cultural undertones,;
and social double-entendres which the French drama uses ex- j
tensively (as, for example, in the various modern versions
of classical drama). It is, therefore, not so much a change!
of scene, like the American type, but a change of character,!
not exposition, but sophistication. In the American flash- !
back a character may jump in and out of a scene at the drop !
of a spotlight. In the French equivalent, he may not only \
jump out of a scene, but, as a character, out of the whole
play— and without benefit of lighting." "The Lark: Trans- ;
lation versus Adaptation: a Case History," Modern Drama.
May 1958, p. 17.__________________________ .
i 67 i
: i
Time. Anouilh's approach to his material was dominantly j
intellectual. Herald Tribune wrote that the play could havej
i
used an out-and-out emotional crisis that would stir you
I
"beyond your rapt intellectual attention." New York Times i
submitted that the play was the work of a French dramatist i
"who likes to reason his way through a sacred mystery."
Time observed that the play lacks substantial emotion but
has "the cerebral excitement and the visual flair of super- :
ior theatre." A contrary view was expressed by New York
Post (the play's appeal is more emotional than intellectual);
and by Theatre Arts (the play in its present version makes a
28
direct appeal to the emotions).
^These differences in critical opinion, reflecting on
the reality or non-reality of the experiences Joan under
goes, are undoubtedly connected with Anouilh's use of the
flashback as outlined above by Knepler. Robert Champigny
takes up in detail the question of the real and unreal as
pect of The Lark with its blend of poetic game and theatri- ;
cal acting: "As a solitary shepherdess, Jeanne was still in
control of her visions. It was not a case of religious
possession. Jeanne was merely telling herself a poetic
fairy tale: she was sitting by l'arbre aux fees and when
she is asked to act the scene, she is ready to assume the
role of the angelic voice. The poetic dream was not alien- ;
ating, for the child was the author, the actor, and the ;
^spectator. Yet it was a departure from reality which per
mitted the deterioration into a theatrical dream. The en- i
|
trance of Jeanne into the social anti-world turns her poetic
igame into religious acting: she has to play the role of
Joan of Arc." "Theatre in a Mirror," Yale French Studies.
Winter 1954-55, p. 61.
68
It was generally agreed that in characterizing Joan, j
Anouilh, like Shaw, made her less a mystic and a saint than !
a simple country girl overwhelmingly inspired by a love of
her native country. This emphasis on Joan's earthiness met,
i
with no particular objection on the part of Journal Ameri
can. Life and New Yorker. Referring to Joan, as she appears
in the Anouilh treatment, "a simple, often bewildered
country girl caught in the elation of a spiritual experi
ence," Journal American asserted that the events of Joan's
life are understandable on a human level of "animal exuber
ance . "
But to the majority of critics, Anouilh's conspicuous
humanizing of Joan results in a weakening of her character
and a loss of dramatic impact. Anouilh's humanizing Joan,
maintained these critics, demeaned his heroine by depriving
her of any dominant spiritual force. Moreover, he fails to
offer a satisfactory substitute, as did Shaw, in the form of
some dominant ideality. Comparing Shaw's St. Joan with
Anouilh's Lark. New York Times pointed to Shaw's "intellec
tual passion" as against Anouilh’s "intellectual reverie."
Commonweal wrote that Shaw's Joan is an idealized figure, i
whereas Anouilh's is too human, too limited in space and
time. New Republic contrasted the affirmative quality of
iShaw's Joan, as the first great protestant and nationalist, |
with the negative and pessimistic Joan of Anouilh who pre
sents the view of a non-religious bigot unable to encompass ;
i
. . 29 i
any notion of positive goodness.
t
Heilman's somewhat free adaptation of Anouilh's origi
nal was well received by most critics. It was generally
felt that she had rendered The Lark in clean, crisp English,
and that her rearranging of the play was theatrically super--
ior to the more literal Fry version which was used in the
30
London production. However, to a minority of critics—
29
Vincent 0'Flaherty writes that modern playwrights
(Bernard Shaw, Maxwell Anderson, and Anouilh) ignore the
deeply spiritual aspects of Joan's character and her true
relation to the Catholic Church. In effect, they distort
history and falsify Joan's character. Anouilh's depiction
of Joan's "Voices," for example, and her dealings with the
Dauphin is "about as supernatural as a fable by La Fon
taine." Anouilh also distorts the historical facts in mak
ing Cauchon kindly and Le Maitre "a relentless bloodhound
for a misanthropic Church." "St. Joan Wouldn't Know Her
self," America. April 28, 1956, p. 110.
^Knepler defends Heilman's rearrangements of Anouilh
and finds her version of Lark superior to Fry's in terms of
its stage effectiveness for an English speaking audience.
In this sense, Heilman has made modifications in Anouilh's
;use of the flashback and has laid stress on physical action ;
iand the direct clash of personalities. The result is a de-j
■crease of subtlety and the sometime transmutation of indi- !
vidual characters into mere types. At the same time, Hell-;
man has put her audience in touch with what is the general |
equivalent of Anouilh's dramatic intention. This is a great:
deal more than Fry accomplished with his literal (and
70
Commonweal. Nation. Saturday Review, and Theatre Arts—
Heilman's rearrangements were something less than satisfac- !
tory. In the opinion of these critics, Heilman sacrificed
the intellectual content of the play in favor of its emo
tional and theatrical qualities. Comparing the Fry .and
Heilman version of The Lark. Commonweal wrote that Fry's.was
far superior, and that Heilman had reduced the play to "a
genteel muddle." Saturday Review stated that the Heilman
version destroys much of the original's provocativeness.
Anouilh's original postulates Joan "as much in danger of
becoming a 'woman' as she is of execution," and most of this
feeling of human growth has been lost through Heilman's
rephrasings and omissions.^
frequently inexplicable) rendering of Anouilh's original.
"The Lark; Translation versus Adaptation: a Case History,"
pp. 15-28. Gassner, who found The Lark a self-conscious and
overly theatrical play, also defends Heilman: "Miss Heil
man’s adaptation lets illusion take hold of us by withhold
ing the information that actors are putting on a play. Miss
Heilman's theatricalization of reality proved to be quite
fascinating. But even an instantly perceived play-within-
the-play technique would not eliminate ambiguities in the
work. Even knowing that The Lark is a play about a play
being performed will not necessarily eliminate an uneasy
feeling that reality and stage illusion have become entwined
rather disturbingly." Theatre at the Crossroads. p. 248.
31as against the pro-Heilman views of Knepler arid j
Gassner, Alice Griffin maintains that the Fry version is
much closer to Anouilh's original, not only in language but;
71
I
i
Evaluation j
Much of the success which Lark enjoyed, critical as
well as box-office, may be attributed to the happy combina- ;
tion of a familiar story and a personal acting triumph on j
the part of Julie Harris. But beneath the common knowledge ;
that Lark had scored a theatrical hit, there was an under
tone of critical uneasiness. Anouilh had indeed written a
stageworthy play. It had the sweep and dimension called for
by his subject, and it proposed serious treatment of the
philosophical and moral implications of the Joan legend.
Nonetheless, there was a quality about Anouilh's Joan— all
too human or not human enough--which disturbed the critics.
If Anouilh was indulging in political allegory (Cauchon is
Petain, Joan Free France), he was guilty of the same fault
which the critics had observed in Antigone. that of distort
ing historic truth for the sake of his own political bias. ;
in spirit. According to Griffin, the theme in Fry, as it
was with Anouilh, is that "man himself, as man, with all
his faults but his glory too will prevail despite the at
tempts of those who would sacrifice humanity to the idea."
But Heilman has simplified and misrepresented this theme
into "man's courage, as characterized by Joan will prevail ;
despite efforts to destroy it." Griffin also comments on ;
Heilman’s romanticizing and emotionalizing of Anouilh's
lending. "A Comparison of Fry's and Heilman's Lark," Theatre
Arts. May 1956, pp. 8-10. 1
72
Certainly, for no other reason than some political bias j
S
could Anouilh have so twisted the facts, making Cauchon
kindly instead of despicable, and showing Joan as a humani-
i
tarian instead of a martyr for her faith. If, on the other j
hand, the play was non-political allegory— a lark caught in j
the web of circumstances— there was too much cheerful senti
mentality in it, too little dignity for the burning of a
mystic and a prophet who had freed France.
Too much sentimentality, too little dignity could also
be applied to Anouilh's using Joan as a vehicle for his
standard theme of desecrated innocence. By making her an
all too human, all too Anouilh heroine, a passive instrument
who can only express the negative pessimism of her unbeliev-
ing, nay-saying creator, Anouilh had distorted poetic as
well as historic truth. In Shaw's Joan, however unhistori- :
cal she may have been, there was affirmation and positive
belief, a dominant ideality which gave her stature as a
tragic heroine. In Anouilh's Joan there is an opposite
i
condition which makes of her a mere theatrical puppet mouth-*
ing her master's gloomy precepts. \
A further area of critical doubt centered around Hell-j
man's somewhat free arrangement of Anouilh’s original.
Although majority opinion was in favor of Heilman's
73 !
i
rearrangements and her over-all emphasis on stage movement, j
i
Commonweal. Nation. Saturday Review, and Theatre Arts voiced!
i - -
a dissenting opinion that Heilman had emotionalized the
play, sacrificing intellectual content to theatrical appeal.
I
I
Fry’s London version of Lark was mentioned in this context j
j I
as being closer in spirit to Anouilh's original, less showy,j
more articulate, and with thematic stress on ideology ratherj
than personality. j
t j
| It is, perhaps, this last item of thematic stress which!
can best serve as an index to the American critical recep- !
I
j
tion of Lark. What the critics saw on the stage of the j
i
I ' !
iLongacre Theatre, and what constituted the basis for their j
I
judgment, was a skillful rearrangement of Anouilh which j
| |
'emphasized those elements in his play most likely to appeal |
i ■ |
[to an American audience. The effect of this emphasis was j
| I
[to focus attention on an explicit conflict of personalities j
; - !
i
!(Cauchon versus Joan) rather than on an implicit conflict
!
I
of ideologies (faith in the Idea versus faith in humanity).
By so stressing the personal conflict over the ideological,
3
i
the explicit over the implicit, Heilman may well have upset j
I
the internal balance of Anouilh's play, leaving the critics
to wonder at his purpose in creating a Joan, equally non-
tragic and non-historical.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Lark may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
Sets, lighting, and costumes were considered proper to (
Anouilh's flashback structure. The direction, with its
emphasis on stage movement, was likewise approved.
Except for Holiday and Nation. Harris was credited with
a fine performance. The supporting cast, especially
Karloff, was well received.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Lark was a political allegory: Joan is Free France,
Cauchon is Petain. Lark restates Anouilh's perennial
theme of purity versus corruption. Lark expresses
Anouilh's humanistic philosophy: love of humanity is
antecedent to a love of God.
Plav Form
The flashback structure was generally approved.
Anouilh’s play within the play approach to dramaturgy
caused most critics to regard Lark as a dominantly
intellectual treatment of the Joan legend.
Characterization
Except for Journal American and New Yorker. Anouilh's
humanizing of Joan was thought to have weakened her
character because it deprived her of any dominant
spiritual force.
Language
Most critics felt that Heilman's version of Lark was
well done and in any case superior to Fry's. Common
weal. Nation. Saturday Review, and Theatre Arts held,
to the contrary, that Heilman had sacrificed the in
tellectual content of the play in favor of its emotion
al and theatrical qualities.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
I
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
Excellent performances by Harris and the supporting
cast saved Lark from the failure it deserved (Gassner);
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Anouilh is facile and tongue-in-cheek; in effect, he
is mocking Joan and, through her, France and ail human
ity (Fowlie). Anouilh is sincere in his portrayal of
a Joan who, unlike Antigone, dies for something more
than her personal convictions, namely, mankind and
her beloved France (Pronko). Joan's refusing to yield
to Cauchon is like Antigone's refusing to yield to
Creon; it is an act of gratuitous negation (Gross-
vogel).
Play Form
Anouilh's use of the flashback, consonant with his
play within the play approach to dramaturgy, runs
counter to American stage conventions where the flash
back is dominantly a time and space factor rather than
a complete changeover in mood and character (Knepler,
Champigny).
Characterization
Like Bernard Shaw and Maxwell Anderson, Anouilh has
ignored the spiritual aspects of Joan's character and
her relation to the Church. Anouilh has further dis- |
torted history by misrepresenting Cauchon and Le
Maitre (0'Flaherty). >
Language
Heilman's, rearrangements are justifiable in terms of
76
their effectiveness for an American audience: although
they distort Anouilh's structure, they achieve a rough ;
equivalent of his dramatic purpose (Knepler). Heilman j
has actually improved on Anouilh: his original is
self-conscious and overly stagy (Gassner). Heilman
has completely misrepresented Anouilh: Fry's version j
of the play is closer to the original in language as
well as spirit (Griffin).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Lark to subsequent ;
criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. A first-rate production, along with strong perform
ances by Harris and a fine supporting cast, were of
value in making Lark into a box-office and critical
success,
2. Whatever the merits of Heilman's adaptation, much
of it ran counter to Anouilh's sophisticated sense of
artistic reality. This conflict tended to confuse
Joan's relationship to the other characters and to
make unclear her ideological position as martyr and
as humanist.
3.' The parallel between Joan's "No" to Cauchon and
Antigone's "No" to Creon is obvious. Whether Joan's
"No," like Antigone's, was purely gratuitous, or
whether it contained broader implications is perhaps
open to question. On the face of it, however, Joan's
"No" is based on an other-than-personal conviction.
Antigone's "No" is not.
4. It was on this.point of Joan's motivation in refus
ing to yield to Cauchon that critical judgment of Lark
turned. If Joan's refusal was simply a personal nega
tion (and most critics, premiere or otherwise, thought
it was), then Lark was the work of a "nay-saying pessi-;
mist." If Joan's refusal involved her love of France
and humanity, then Lark has the broader implications
of a tragic view of life.
The Waltz of the Toreadors
(La Valse des toreadors) 1957
Adapted by Lucienne Hill; Setting by Ben Edwards; Music by
John Hotchkis; Directed by Harold Clurman; Produced by
Robert Whitehead at the Coronet Theatre; Opened January 17,
1957; Closed May 11, 1957 (132 performances).
THE CAST
Mme. St. P e ................................Mildred Natwick
General St. Pe ............... ........ Ralph Richardson
Gaston, His Secretary John Stewart
Sidonia, His Daughter ................. Mary Grace Canfield
Estelle, Another Daughter ............. .... Sudie Bond
Doctor Bonfant . . . John Abbott
First M a i d ................................... Frieda Altman
Mile. De St.-Euverte ..................... . Muriel Forbes
Mme. Dupont-Fredaine ............... . . . Louise Kirtland
Father Ambrose ............................ William Hansen
New M a i d ...................................... Helen Seamon
THE WALTZ OF THE TOREADORS BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
iDaily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., January 18, 1957, |
! p. 393. |
iDaily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., January 18, 1957, p. ;
I 390.
i ■ !
! |
jNew York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., January 18,j
j 1957, p. 390. j
I
jNew York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., January
] 18, 1957, p. 392.
I
jNew York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., January 18, ;
! 1957, p. 391. |
IThe New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., January 18, ;
! 1957, p. 392. i
!
jNew York World Telegram. Donnelly, Tom, N.Y.T.C., January j
| 18, 1957, p. 391. j
Magazine Criticism
i
America. Lewis, Theophilus, March 9, 1957, p. 656.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, March 1957, p. 469.
The Christian Century. Driver, Tom, February 13, 1957, p.
201.
Life. (Unsigned), February 25, 1957, pp. 109-110.
The Nation. Hatch, Robert, February 2, 1957, p. 106.
The New Republic. Gassner, John, February 11, 1957, p
Newsweek. (Unsigned), January 28, 1957, p. 84.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, January 26, 1957, pp.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, February 2, 1957,
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), March 1957, p. 21.
Time. (Unsigned), January 28, 1957, p. 50.
79
. 21.
62-64.
p. 24.
Production Criticism
Edwards1 atmospheric setting was praised for comple-
i
menting the mood and spirit of the play. New York Times
referred to the setting as "amiably fantastic . . . in whichj
I
32
everything is a little too big, ornate, and massive." [
Clurman's direction met with almost unanimous approval.
Most critics agreed that while directing mainly for farce,
he was well aware of the play's deeper implications. Herald
Tribune and Saturday Review called attention to Clurman's
unifying of the play's disparate elements of farce and
tragedy, and to his skill in orienting American audiences
to Anouilh's Gallic viewpoint. Commending Clurman for his
32jyiaurice Valency refers to Anouilh's withdrawal into
the past (particularly the just pre-War I past) as one of
the dominant characteristics of his art. A good example of
this withdrawal is the Edwardian background of Waltz. "The
World of Jean Anouilh," Theatre Arts. July 1957, p. 31.
Jacques Guicharnaud also calls attention to Anouilh's going
back into past time in a vain search for purity and lost
innocence. Comparing Anouilh to Salacrou, Guicharnaud finds
that both "are obsessed by the notion of degradation in time
and space, but there again they reject the Romantic attitude
in that they do not accept the idea of a spiritual eternity i
(in the heart, memory, or "form") of things that have dis
appeared. Memory does not make things relive. It consists ;
essentially in regrets. According to them we remember the
past; we don't live in the past. And when we try to recon-j
struct it from fragments, we sink into the grotesque as in
La Valse des Toreadors, or into despair, as in 1'Inconnue
d’Arras. No Proustian ecstasy, this!" Modern French Theatre
from Giraudoux to Beckett (New Haven, 1961), p. 118.
81
[intelligent direction, Nation and New Republic observed that
the play itself was improperly fused. Hence, Clurman and
his actors were largely at a loss in any but the straight
farce situations. Clurman's one unfavorable critic, World
Telegram. imputed the play's disunity as much to the direc
tor as to the author.
With the exception of World Telegram (his performance
"lacks the cutting edge of high comedy"), Richardson's act
ing was greeted with enthusiastic acclaim. Note was taken
of his superb transitions, alternating farce and pathos,
and of his ability to communicate the outward and inward
states of the disillusioned General. Daily Mirror wrote
that Richardson "catches the surface bravado and the inner
loneliness of the peripatetic military man with persuasive
skill"; Herald Tribune that he maintains "the grotesque
balance of savagely ironic humor and wistful defeat." New
York Times and Catholic World found that Richardson makes
an ordinary line seem witty and a witty line wittier." News
week observed that Richardson follows the pattern of the
General's character "by being at once a skillful farceur
and the classic actor."
Natwick won high praise for her portrayal of the
General's melodramatic and shrewish wife. Apart from the
j 82 j
i • I
! ;
[purely comic aspect of her role, New Republic observed that I
Natwick played "with a full awareness of its Strindbergian
dimensions." Saturday Review wrote that reminiscent of the :
Strindberg sex duel, Natwick "acts a marvelous combination
of female hysteria and cold-blooded possessiveness as the .
nagging wife." Except for World Telegram, the supporting
cast was commended for its all-around excellence and its
sense of balance in maintaining the style set by the prin
cipals .
Dramatic Criticism
There was general agreement that on the surface Waltz
was a cynical and sophisticated sex farce, typically Gallic
in its treatment of sex, marriage, and the human comedy.
Most critics also felt that underneath the surface gaiety,
Anouilh was communicating, or at least trying to communi
cate, various of his philosophical beliefs. To Herald
Tribune and Time these beliefs reflected the eternal dis-
33
illusionment of the hyper-romantic. Herald Tribune also
33Guicharnaud offers a contrary opinion: Anouilh, like
Salacrou, is completely anti-romantic and strives "to de
flate illusions that are characteristic of our time."
Anouilh and Salacrou are also alike "when they see through j
the farcical game of conjugal infidelity or the romantic
idea of grandeur in unhappiness . . . questioning an entire
83
called attention to the sex duel aspect of the play; and in
the same context Theatre Arts referred to Waltz as a sour,
outspoken commentary on marriage, "a sort of Gallic comedi-
34
an's distillation of Strindberg's views on the subject."
America and Christian Century saw the play as a grim
reminder of the wages of sin. "A study of the corroding
effects of sin on a man's character, until his soul turns
into a hus"k, remembering past pleasures that turn sour as
he recalls them" (America). "It is Graham Greene stripped
of theology" (Christian Century)r
To a third group of critics— New York Times. Nation,
and New Republic— Waltz was yet another demonstration of
Anouilh's characteristic pessimism. New York Times stated
concept of human nature. Basically what seems funny is
actually pathetic, what is reputedly ennobling is in fact
degrading, what touches the heart is often degrading or
disgusting. In Anouilh and Salacrou, the mission of theatre
--the art of illusion par excellence--is to denounce illu
sion." Modern French Theatre, p. 116.
■^Valency refers to the emphasis on sex as yet another
characteristic of Anouilh's art: "for Anouilh the flesh is
the ultimate betrayal of the ardent spirit. . . . the source
of this sensuality is a hunger of the flesh senseless and
impersonal as an itch, and hardly more amusing." In the case
of the General, his betrayal (which is a self-betrayal)
reverts to the loss of his youthful dream of purity— a
dream, or an ideal, which forever rejects relationships
founded on a sexual basis. "The World of Jean Anouilh,"
p. 93 .
Ithat at bottom Waltz points up the black despair of
Anouilh's basic attitude: "Understanding is the real source
of unhappiness, he says at the end, and doubtless he means
it." New Republic declared that like Antigone and The Lark.
Waltz is philosophically desolate and complex, the work of j
a nay-saying writer "too busy thumbing his nose at life to
35
give any genuine significance to its failures."
Most critics felt that Waltz's unique blending of farce
and pathos was dramatically sound. Despite its unconven
tional use of a conventional form, the play was at once
unified, coherent-, and cogent. World Telegram. Nation. and
New Republic offered the dissenting opinion that the play's
varying elements of farce, melodrama, and tragedy were .im
properly fused. Definitely a comedy, the play "never gets
into a satisfactory focus" (World Telegram). The first act
is pure farce which is all to the good; but as the play goes
■^Wallace Fowlie calls Waltz "the 'blackest' of
Anouilh's plays, his most brilliant demonstration of unre
lenting pessimism." Fowlie observes further that "the basic
Anouilh theme of incommunicability is again established in
La Valse: incommunicability between the heroes of this
playwright and their world. Wherever the sense of the ab
solute exists in a human being, the power of communication
diminishes. And at the same time, the power to compromise
or adjust." Dionvsus in Paris (New York, 1960), pp. 117-
118.
85 j
i
on, "when the colors darken, they do not deepen." (Nation) 36,
f
World Telegram. Nation. and New Republic also found
that the characters of the play were badly drawn. Referring
i
to the General as contemptible and his wife cruel and ugly, i
j
Nation asserted that Anouilh's characters lack the depth to |
assume any semblance of tragedy and make it convincing.
New Republic wrote that we never really know the General and
his wife: "We know only the former's amorous animation and ;
the latter's animus against her husband." As in his other
plays, the conduct of Anouilh's characters bears no relation
to their environment, to their status in life, or to their
36valency comments on the seeming incongruity of
Waltz's mixture of farce and tragedy: "The agony, the
shame, the humiliation of a lost soul— these are hardly the
proper materials for farce. The tragedy of Lieutenant St.
Pe cannot be transformed into comedy, although it can easily
degenerate into travesty, and I dare say The Waltz of the
Toreadors is something of that sort. Spiked as it is with
laughter, this play is a strange cocktail, a sort of drama
tic pousse-cafe, the layers of which are immiscible. The
first act is largely foolery. The second act is a harrowing
scene of horror, calculated to excite laughter only in the
most obtuse. Act three, with its classical apparatus of
anagnorisis and peripeteia, ends in the sheerest pathos."
"The World of Jean Anouilh," p. 93. David Grossvogel sees
'Waltz as a dominantly tragic play in a farcical setting.
What makes it farcical (apart from the buffoonery) is that
it is "about ineffectual people and the ineffectuality of
love . . ." The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern French
Drama. p. 202.
Ipast and present. !
But to a larger number of critics Anouilh had endowed
his characters with universal human significance, merging
|
fact with fantasy, irony with pity. Daily News saw the
General as typical of the play's implications "so outwardly;
blustering, so inwardly insecure." Catholic World called
him "a modern Falstaff hampered by the pitiless logic which
five centuries have stamped on a wearier world." Taking
note of the fact and fantasy aspect of the play, Saturday
Review wrote that "the General's frankly schizoid manner of;
dealing with life has wider implications than mere sexual
ones." And Time wrote of Anouilh that through mockery and
exposure, "he achieves sympathy for the dreamer; in the very
37
Grossvogel points to the General's unavailing efforts
to strangle his wife as evidence of the tragic-farcical
quality of the play and of the ineffectuality of its person- ?
ae: "The fact that he is unable to kill her merely prolongs
both characterizations graphically." Grossvogel also ob
serves that the denouement comes "as an anticlimax in the
Farce, like the abatement of tragedy." The General's dream
of his long-lost love is shattered. He is faced with the
same old routine of a shrewish wife and the doubtful solace
of surreptitious affairs with kitchen maids. And at this
point, "the hopeless isolation no longer pertains to an
ephemeral hero— but to the spectator. Solitude, the inef
fectuality of love, of any reaching out, obliterate the
color, the gross puns, the funny faces, the impossible
scenes. These surfaces cast the spectator back into himself
and into a genuine world— that of man's very unenviable
lot." The Self-Conscious Stage, p. 204.
87
: !
degree he is harsh, he is also humane."
The language of the play, as it appeared in Hill's
translation, met with unanimous approval. It was variously ;
described as graceful, witty, charming, and fluent. Though j
commending the language for its admirable wit and style,
New Yorker frowned on what it called untasteful sex refer
ences. In the same reference Catholic World noted that
"words are more quickly denuded of decency in English than
, ,,38
in French.
Evaluation
Criticism of Waltz tended to follow three main lines of
reasoning. Waltz was respectively a comic variation on the
Strindberg sex duel, a moral commentary on the evils of
sexual promiscuity, another demonstration of Anouilh's
characteristic pessimism. Common to all three lines of
reasoning was the, notion that Anouilh paints a desolate
picture of human pain and frustration for which there is no
cure, only relief in the anodyne of laughter and the now
and-then balm of human pity. Common, also, to the first
■^^Stewart Benedict finds that much of the success that i
Waltz had in America was due to Hill's toning down of
Anouilh’s sex references. "Anouilh in America," Modern
Language Journal. December 1961, p. 343.
88
jtwo lines of reasoning (Waltz as sex duel or as moral com- j
mentary) was the notion that Anouilh first engages our at
tention with laughter; whence, bit by bit, we are led to a
i
sense of the underlying pain and frustration which besets
his characters. At this point, we sympathize with the
hyper-romantic General; and while we laugh at him and his
even more absurd wife, we have pity for their suffering.
But to a few critics (New York Times. Nation. New Re
public) . the laughter was empty and the pity wore thin. In
their view, Anouilh had nothing to say other than that life
was meaningless and understanding useless. As to the con
temptible General and his cruel wife, these were unhuman and
unsympathetic beings who served only to demonstrate
Anouilh's black despair and his inherent hatred of life.
Compared with that of its Broadway predecessors, the
critical reception of Waltz was marked by a greater aware
ness of Anouilh’s unique view of stage reality. In this
respect, Anouilh's sudden shifts in mood and tempo, his
stylization and stereotyping of reality, were accepted by
most critics as artistically valid. Again for most critics,
there was a ring of artistic truth in Waltz with its contra-*
puntal interweaving of tragic and comic, and with its
schizoid General suspended between tears and laughter.
89
The main trends of premiere criticism in Waltz may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The settings were praised for complementing the mood
and spirit of the play. The direction was approved
by most critics for its fusing of farcical and tragic :
elements. In the same sense, Richardson won almost
unanimous acclaim for his acting balance between farce
and pathos. Natwick and the supporting cast were also
commended.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Waltz communicated Anouilh's romantic disillusionment,
or as the case may be, his disbelief in the institu
tion of marriage. Waltz was a moral commentary on the
wages of sin. Waltz points up Anouilh's characteristic
pessimism, his forever nay-saying approach to life.
Play Form
Except for World Telegram. Nation. and New Republic.
Waltz1s unique blending of farce and pathos was con
sidered dramatically sound.
Characterization
Except for World Telegram. Nation, and New Republic,
most critics felt that Anouilh had endowed his charac
ters with universal human significance.
Language
The language of the play met with unanimous approval;
it was considered witty, charming, graceful, and flu
ent .
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
90
criticism:
Production Criticism
The Edwardian setting is an example of a dominant
characteristic of Anouilh's art: his withdrawal into
the past (Valency, Guicharnaud).
\
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The emphasis on sex indicates Anouilh's disillusionment
with the world of adult experience: the flesh betrays
the ardent spirit (Valency). The theme demonstrates
Anouilh's unrelenting pessimism in that his heroes,
engaged in a vain search for the absolute, can never
communicate with the world in which they live, let
alone adjust to it (Fowlie). Anouilh is anti-romantic,
anti-illusionistic, and his purpose is to denounce
illusion, not hanker after if (Guicharnaud).
Play Form
Waltz is a perplexing, yet inseparable mixture of farce
and tragedy which can easily degenerate into travesty
(Valency). Waltz is a dominantly tragic play in a
farcical setting: what makes it farcical (apart from
the buffoonery) is the ineffectuality of its personae
(Grossvogel).
Characterization
What the play conveys, in terms of its main charactersj
is their inability to establish contact with each other
and the world in which they live (Fowlie, Grossvogel,
Valency).
Language
Much of the success which Waltz enjoyed was due to
Hill's toning down of Anouilh's sex references (Bene
dict) .
V
91
Comparing the premiere criticism of Waltz to subsequent
criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. To achieve a production balance between pathos and
farce must be judged a formidable undertaking. Hence, |
Clurman's direction and Richardson's virtuoso perform- |
ance can be accounted a major factor in the stage |
success of Waltz.
2. Anouilh's so-called romantic disillusionment is
open to question. As pointed out by Guicharnaud,
Anouilh's theatre is intensely anti-illusionistic and
at the opposite end of the spectrum from conventional
romanticism.
3. The General is a mediocre man placed in extraordi
nary emotional circumstances. Since he is completely
lacking in tragic stature, there is perforce a farcical
relationship between what he aspires to and what he
does. This relationship between aspiration and accom
plishment applies with equal force to the other prin
cipals.
4. The source of Anouilh's pessimism is not so much a
nay-saying approach to life nor an implicit belief
that understanding is the source of all unhappiness.
The source of his pessimism is rather the feeling that
people are incapable of communicating with each other.
Time Remembered f Leocadia) 1957
Adapted by Patricia Moyes; Setting by Oliver Smith; Costumed
by Miles White; Lighting by Feder; Music by Vernon Duke;
Directed by Albert Marre; Produced by the Playwrights' Com
pany in association with Milton Sperling at the Morosco
Theatre; Opened November 12, 1957; Closed June 14, 1958
(247 performances).
THE CAST
Amanda, a milliner . . Susan Strasberg
The Duchess of Pont-au-Bronc.............. . . Helen Hayes
Theophilus, a butler ...................... Frederick Rolf
Lord Hector ................................... Glenn Anders
The Ice Cream M a n ............................. Le Roi Operti
The Taxi Driver..................... .. George Ebeling
Prince Albert .............................. Richard Burton
Ferdinand, head-waiter.......... Sig Arno
The Singer ................................. Stanley Grover
The Pianist......................................Edmund Horn
The Violinist ............................... Seymour Miroff
The Cellist.................................... Emil Borsody
The Landlord ............................ Frederic Warriner
Germain, a ghilly.............................. Truman Gaige
Footmen and Waiters ..................... E. W. Swackhamer
Fred Starbuck, George Landolf
92
TIME REMEMBERED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism I
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., November 13, 1957, ;
p. 185.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., November 13, 1957, p.
186 .
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., November
13, 1957, p. 184.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., November
13, 1957, p. 185.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., November 13,
1957, p. 184.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., November 13,
1957, p. 183.
New York World Telegram, Aston, Frank, N.Y.T.C., November
13, 1957, p. 186.
Magazine Criticism
America - Lewis, Theophilus, December 14, 1957, p. 355.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, January 1958, p. 304.
The Christian Century. Driver, Tom, December 4, 1957, p.
1448.
Life. (Unsigned), December 9, 1957, pp. 73-74. ;
The Nation. Clurman, Harold, November 30, 1957, pp. 415-416i
...........................93....... :
94
I
[Newsweek. (Unsigned), November 25, 1957, p. 84.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, November 23, 1957, pp. 77-
78.
The Reporter. Mannes, Marya, December 12, 1957, pp. 35-36.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, November 30, 1957, p. 23.
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), January 1958, p. 19.
Time, (Unsigned), November 25, 1957, p. 91.
95
Production Criticism
Except for Nation and Saturday Review, who complained
j
that the play was overproduced, the physical aspects of
i
I
production met with enthusiastic approval. Smith's ornate, j
rococo settings were widely admired. The unique arrangement
by which the sets changed before the audience's eyes was
called "workable and ingenious" (Journal American) and an
i
enhancement to the magic of the play (Christian Century).
White's costumes, Feder1s lighting, and Duke's incidental
music also drew favorable comment. Journal American stated
that given a better presentation the music "would be a solid
feature of the evening."
Marre's direction was approved by all critics with the :
exception of Saturday Review: his stressing of comic detail
"tends to turn the play into a transparent sham." Journal
American wrote that Marre has shown skill "in directing
this discursive property"; New York Post that the direction
has pace and vitality as well as style. New York Times
stated that Marre "has ingeniously combined loveliness and
drollery, piling magnificence so high it becomes funny."
Catholic World observed that under Marre's excellent direc-;
tion there is no jarring or discordant note. New Yorker
found that the direction is‘ brilliantly perceptive."
96
In the opinion of most critics Hayes gave a remarkable I
j
performance as the pixie Duchess. Particularly favorable
were the opinions of America and Hew Yorker. America wrote
that Hayes was outstanding in a role that demands making thej
unbelievable plausible: "It is the most luminous perform
ance any playgoer of our time has seen, or is likely to
see." Acknowledging her the most versatile and entrancing
of all actresses, New Yorker called attention to Hayes'
inspired performance, blending eccentricity with the grande
dame manner. Less sparing in its praise was Journal Ameri
can: despite humorous moments, Hayes' part is incidental to
the main story. Distinctly unfavorable were the opinions
of Reporter and Saturday Review, who felt that Hayes had
overacted her part and was woefully out-of-step with the
style of the play.
Burton, as the bereaved young Prince, was praised for
his strong and compelling performance in a role which some
critics felt was poorly written. He was especially com
mended for his second act speech in which he outlined the
boredom of the rich, handsome, and untalented. For her
charm and acting aplomb in the part of the practical-minded
young milliner, Strasberg was applauded by Daily Mirror.
Daily News. New York Post and Newsweek. However, Saturday
Review found that her acting was mechanical; and Christian i
Century stated that she was the play's only drawback, "her j
voice too metallic, her intention too obvious." In the mat-
j
ter of Strasberg's voice, most critics were in agreement
with Christian Century that she suffered from a monotonous
and unvarying delivery.
Arno and Anders were singled out for fine performances
in the minor character roles of Lord Hector and Ferdinand,
the headwaiter. Daily News wrote that Anders and Arno get
great humor out of minor parts? Journal American that they
supply "the truly hilarious moments"; Theatre Arts that
their "vital performance do much to shore up the rather
frail nature of the work." Arno was further commended by
Nation ("the most stylistically consummate performance of
the evening") and by Saturday Review ("the one £ruly real
ized performance").
Dramatic Criticism
Opinion was unanimous that the theme of the play re
volved around the conflict between the romantic illusions
of the past, represented by the Prince's love for Leocadia,
and the living realities of the present personified by the
young milliner, Amanda. According to Journal American.
! 98 |
Anouilh was making the point "that everything looks better j
i
in retrospect, but we are suckers not to live in the pre
sent." New York Post stated that what keeps the Prince from.
I
loving the milliner is less the force of his old love than
his fear that the old love was just an illusion. Christian i
Century and Life found that the play has a moral for lovers
who live on memories and are thus shut off from new and
39
vital experiences. Observing that Anouilh's lighter
themes are drawn from the same material as his heavier ones,
Nation wrote that in the present play "he pokes fun at his
own romanticism— his idealization of old loves and dreams—
just as in several other of his plays, he flays it." Satur
day Review felt that the theme was improperly presented:
the play makes delightful reading in French, but its vital
core was not reached in a lifeless production. Finding the
theme labored and tenuous, and its atmosphere of fantasy
o q
-^Jacques Guicharnaud writes that Anouilh's concept of
love is that of an unreal or ephemeral relationship which
can never survive the rigors of everyday existence. In
Eurvdice and Romeo et Jeannette, the lovers "have to commit
suicide before the impurity of others and their own tempera--
ments can show them the vanity of their dream." In le Bal
des voleurs. Leocadia. and 1’Invitation au chateau, love is i
part of an unreal divertissement "in which the playwright's
technique itself emphasizes the fantasy of the final happy
marriage." Modern French Drama from Giraudoux to Beckett.
p. 117.
99 i
’ !
'unconvincing, Reporter asserted that "the 'time remembered1 j
is very special, very rococo, and not very amusing."^0
The play was variously classified as costume romance
(Daily News), a play of mood (Herald Tribune), a fantasy j
(Journal American. Catholic World), a fairy story (Mew York
Post. New York Times. Newsweek, Time). World Telegram saw
the play as a combination of all these ingredients, decided
ly entertaining up to the point in the second half "when thd
author's playfulness goes lame." Calling the play a sophis
ticated fairy tale in the Molnar manner, Time reported that
despite good writing and the right style, "the play seems
merely thin where it should be diaphanous, merely slight
41
where it should be airy."
^Maurice Valency finds that Time demonstrates the
dualism, the mixture of sunshine and gloom, which is one of
the characteristics of Anouilh's art: "Leocadia is about
as rose as Anouilh can manage, but the somber quality of
its mood is not much relieved by the atmosphere of gay make-
believe in which its action takes place, and its actors move
through their strange surroundings like the inmates of an
expensive asylum." "The World of Jean Anouilh," p . 92.
41-David Grossvogel classifies Time with le Bal des vo-
leurs and 1'Invitation au chateau: a comedy in which a
heroine of wholesome but not epic quality "redeems a weaker :
hero.” The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern French Drama, p.
154. Later (p. 198), Grossvogel refers to Anouilh's self-
conscious mixture of farce and fantasy which operates in the
manner of a theatrical game: "The laughter of, and at, the
characters can freely echo in the music, the dance, the
But to the majority of critics the play was a light
hearted, artfully structured piece, lacking in substance
yet relatively flawless in its varied use of conventional
i
comic forms. To Herald Tribune, it was dominantly a play
: i
of mood; despite occasional flaws, it established after the j
opening sequence "that brittle, faintly disbalanced uni
verse in which, as Miss Hayes remarks, 'art is stronger than
nature.'" Nation observed that the play, modeled on what
Moli&re called comedie-ballet, is "a gay pirouette of know
ing playfulness, gossamer light, admirably written . . .
42
remarkably gifted."
color, and the attributes of the spectacle. These attri
butes concomitantly dissociate the morality figures from
their superficial circumstances as once did the stylization
of the tragic masque, by making them simple stage proper
ties." Robert Champigny expresses much the same thought
when he states that "in 1'Invitation au chateau and Leocadia
the plot is contrived within the play. After playing Leo
cadia, the heroine is allowed 'to be herself,' but this only
means playing the part written by Anouilh." "Theatre in a
Mirror," p. 158.
^Leonard Pronko places Time in that group of plays
which "contain a character who might be looked upon as the
author's mouthpiece. They are characters who are either
completely outside the action of the play because of the
nature of their roles, or who are unaffected by what hap
pens in the play because they can look upon it with a more
objective eye than the other characters." In this context,
Pronko mentions M. Henri in Eurvdice. the Doctor in La Valse
des toreadors. Lucien in Romeo et Jeannette. the Count in
Ardele. and the Chorus in Antigone. The Duchess in Time is
101 |
; ' I
I
Like Nation. most critics found that the play was ad- |
I
mirably written. New York Times stated that one of its main
charms lies "in the sharpness of the writing." New Yorker
i
wrote that the play combines "genuine style, civilized wit,
non-cloying sentiment and adroit comic invention in a manner
extremely unusual in the theatre nowadays." Moyes1 adapta
tion was described as excellent by New York Post and Nation.
and "reasonably faithful" by Saturday Review. But to New
Yorker the adaptation may have lacked "quite the finely
lacquered surface of the original." Definitely unfavorable .
was the opinion of Reporter: the play's enchantment, if
any, "was perpetually short-circuited by a quality I can
only describe as translation."
Evaluation
Critics were agreed that the theme of Time illustrates
just such a character; although she lacks the omnipotence
of a M. Henri, she manages, like Mme. Desmermortes in Ring.
"to manipulate the other characters like so many dolls."-
The World of Jean Anouilh, pp. 188-189. William Schuyler
writes that "Anouilh simply chose for dramatic effect to
surround his early heroes and heroines with stylized person
ages representing extreme wealth and extreme poverty." The!
Duchess in Time is an example of this type, and the use of |
such typification is undoubtedly derived from the commedia ;
dell1 arte. "Anouilh and the Commedia dell'Arte," Revue de
Litterature Comparee. janv.-mars 1962, p. 91.
the conflict between romantic illusion (the Prince) and |
i
living reality (Amanda). For the most part, critics were i
/
also agreed that Anouilh had sustained an uninterrupted mood
|
of sophisticated fantasy, characterized by a tongue-in-cheek
i
i
attitude toward love, a graceful wit, and an almost flawless
use of the varied comic forms. It was pointed out by Nation
that in keeping with the mood of sophisticated fantasy,
Anouilh pokes fun at his own romanticism instead of flaying
it as he does in his other plays. In this sense, there is
a perennial repetitiveness about Anouilh's themes. The
lighter themes and the heavier ones are both drawn from the
same source (Anouilh's romantic disillusionment), variation
being achieved in the manner of thematic treatment, bitter
or nostalgic as the case may be.
Critical disapproval of the play (Reporter, Saturday
Review. Time) related to the tenuousness of its theme, the
unbelievability of its fantasy atmosphere, and the unsatis
factory quality of its writing. The theme seemed labored
and tenuous, the mood it evoked flat and dull, because
Anouilh had failed to empathize his audience, to engage
their minds and emotions in the atmosphere of fantasy which j
surrounds his play. To some extent, the unsatisfactory
quality of the writing, manifested in an over-all flatness
103 |
|
and dullness, might be due to a translation which lacked
the zest and sparkle of Anouilh's original.
Along with The Lark. Time Remembered enjoys the dis
tinction of being a considerable success, box office as well;
as critical. Certainly, the presence of the popular Ameri
can actress Helen Hayes was a contributing factor to this
double success, just as Julie Harris was in the case of
Lark. The special quality of Time (where it differs from
Lark and the whole gamut of Broadway Anouilh) rests partly
in the way Anouilh treated his theme, partly in his conven
tional approach to a conventional form. Gone for the moment
was Anouilh's pessimistic philosophy of life, his outre use
of dramatic form, his clinical detachment from his charac
ters. In Time. Anouilh treats with nostalgia rather than
bitterness what Nation has called his perennial theme of
romantic disillusionment. And he establishes a mood of
fantasy early in the play which is sustained to the finish
without change or interruption. The combined effect of all
this— a non-toxic thematic treatment plus a well-ordered
use of a well-worn form— was to win Anouilh his greatest
critical success on the New York stage.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Time may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
104
Production Criticism
Except for Nation and Saturday Review, the physical
aspects of production met with unanimous approval.
Except for Saturday Review, the direction was likewise
commended. In the opinion of most critics, Hayes and
Burton gave fine performances as the Duchess and the
Prince. Strasberg's Amanda met with a mixed reception.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme revolved around the conflict between the
romantic illusions of the past, represented by the
Prince's love for Leocadia, and the living realities
of the present, personified by the young milliner,
Amanda.
Play Form
Time was a light-hearted, artfully structured piece,
lacking in substance yet relatively flawless in its
varied use of conventional comic forms.
Characterization
The characters were variously charming and zany. Some
critics found that the Prince was poorly characterized
because his motivations were weak and unclear.
Language
Most critics thought that the play was admirably writ
ten. New Yorker. Saturday Review, and Reporter took
issue with Moyes1 translation.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
105
Production Criticism
j
No comment.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme j
Anouilh's concept of love, as exemplified in Time. is
that of an unreal, ephemeral relationship which can
never survive the rigors of everyday experience (Gui-
charnaud). Time demonstrates the perennial dualism,
the mixture of gloom and sunshine, which is a dominant
characteristic of Anouilh's art (Valency).
Play Form
Time postulates a world of unreality; like le Bal des
voleurs and 1'Invitation au chateau, it is deliberate
ly artificial and theatrical (Guicharnaud, Grossvogel).
Time presents another example of Anouilh's play within
the play approach to dramaturgy (Champigny).
Characterization
The characters are make-believe types rather than dis
tinct individuals (Valency). The characters are styl
ized figures related to a kind of theatrical game that
Anouilh plays with his audience (Grossvogel). The
characters are stage puppets manipulated by the author
through the agency of his "spokesman" character, the
Duchess (Pronko). The characters in Time. as in all
of Anouilh's early plays, are theatrical types derived
from the commedia dell'arte (Schuyler).
Language
No comment.
Comparing the premiere criticism of Time to subsequent
criticism, these conclusions can be drawn;
1. The explicit departure from reality which signal
izes the characters and circumstances of Time created
106
fewer misgivings among the premiere critics than the
more acrid blend of reality and unreality common to
most of Anouilh's other plays.
2. Again, because Time projects an unreal and not-to-
be-taken-seriously situation, the underlying bitterness
of Anouilh's concept of love escaped the attention of
the premiere critics. The Prince was taken at face
value as a story-book figure, immersed in romantic
visions, from which he is awakened by the practical-
minded Amanda.
3. Since, in the opinion of most premiere critics,
Time was a light-hearted fantasy, Anouilh's play
within the play technique and his manipulating of his
characters was regarded as a conventional, hence
acceptable approach to his material.
The Fighting Cock (L1Hurluberlu) 1959
Adapted by Lucienne Hill; Settings and Costumes by Rolf
Gerard; Lighting by Howard Bay; Directed by Peter Brook;
Produced by Kermit Bloomgarden Productions Inc. at the ANTA
Theatre; Opened December 8, 1959; Closed February 20, 196 0;
(87 performances).
THE CAST
The General Rex Harrison
The Doctor............................ Geoffrey Lurnb
Toto ........................................ Claude Gersene
Marie-Christine................. Judy Sanford
Milkman's S o n Rhoden Streeter;
Milkman Roger De Kovefi
Father Gregory ............................... Michael Gough
Sophie..........................................Margo Anders:
Tarquin Edward Mendigales Roddy McDowalli
B i s e .............................................Jane Lillig1
Aglae...........................................Natasha Parry!
Lebelluc .................................. Arthur Treacher
Michepain.................................... . Gerald Kiken
Baron Henri Belazor ....................... Alan McNaughton
107
THE FIGHTING COCK BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C.,.December 9, 1959
p. 193.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., December 9, 1959, p.
194.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., December
9, 1959, p. 194.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, December 9, 1959,
p. 195.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., December 9,
1959, p. 192.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., December 9,
1959, p. 193.
New York World Telegram. Aston, Prank, N.Y.T.C., December
9, 1959, p. 192.
Magazine Criticism
i
America. Lewis, Theophilus, January 30, 1960, pp. 38-39.
The Nation. Clurman, Harold, December 26, 1959, pp. 495-496,
The New Republic. Brustein, Robert, January 4, 1960, pp.
20-21.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), December 21, 1959, p. 83.
^The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, December 19, 1959, pp. 72-
77.
Time, (Unsigned), December 21, 1959, p. 34.
110
I
; r
Production Criticism !
i
Gerard's lavish and colorful sets were referred to as
"imaginative and eye-filling" (Daily Mirror): "almost oper- '
i
atic in their extraordinary boldness" (New York Times); "thei
!
i
work of an unusually bold and delicate imagination" (New
Republic); and as introducing a mood not sustained by the
production (Time). With reference to Brook's direction,
critical opinion was divided. Daily Mirror stated that
Brook "has adroitly mated Gallic reason to action"; Journal
American that he has directed "with taste and perception";
New York Times that he has woven all the play's contrasting ;
moods "into a pattern of living." Calling Brook's direction
good, Daily News observed that the material was too thin for,
outstanding work. Time labeled Brook a top director, but
felt the production "needs more thrust and more evocative
ness, a right blending of the aromatic and astringent."
Distinctly unfavorable were the opinions of Herald Tribune. ;
]
Nation. and New Yorker. who found the direction unintegrated
and desultory. The direction calls for lots of shouting,
gesturing, and cute business, wrote Nation. but no ensemble,!
no atmosphere or idea.
Harrison was commended by most critics for his vigor
and great personal charm in the difficult and somewhat
Ill
[incongruous role of the General. But to Daily News and New
Yorker the incongruity of the role, especially as it related]
i
to Harrison's acting style, resulted in a mediocre perform
ance. Daily News wrote that Harrison "looks pretty silly"
playing a long and pointless scene dressed in medieval [
armor; New Yorker that he "seems less outrageous and over
bearing than the role demands." New Republic took the view
that the sophisticated Harrison was miscast as the naive
General; and Time attributed Harrison's inexpressive General
less to his own ability as an actor than to the playwright
j
and the director.
As the realistic son of a war profiteer, McDowall was
praised by Daily Mirror. Herald Tribune, and New Yorker.
Daily Mirror wrote that McDowall "brings off an admirable
tour de force"; Herald Tribune that his explanation to the
General of why no one loves him is "perfect in its benevo
lent contempt"; New Yorker that he has "the right amount of i
nouvelle-vague amorality." In a minority of one New Repub
lic found McDowall "too brash and callow," too unsophisti
cated for the role of a smooth-spoken scoundrel. j
Parry, as the faithful wife, was described as "delight-j
[ful" (Daily Mirror): "delectable" and a fine actress (Jour- !
nal American); and as playing "with the bland, cryptic
I 112
j
[beauty the part demands" (New Yorker). In the minor roles
i
of Lebelluc, the General's confidant, and Father Gregory, a i
wise priest, Treacher and Gough received favorable mention.
Except for Nation, the supporting cast won unanimous approv-[
t
al.
Dramatic Criticism
It was agreed that the theme of the play rests in the
conflict between the traditional values of the past, per
sonified by the time-is-out-of-joint General, and the exi
gencies of the present summed up by his friends, his family,
and the world about him. To New York Times the spectacle of
the high-minded but ineffectual.General lends to the theme
"a wistful note of mercy for the follies of the world . . . ;
a feeling of pity for the painful ignorance of a man whose
intentions are honorable." Acknowledging Anouilh's com
passion for the General, World Telegram and Time felt that
the theme lacks point and purpose. Time wrote that the
play's weakness lies not so much in a lack of destination
43
"as that it fails to dramatize the very lack of one."
43R0bert j0nes relates the chronic ineffectuality which
besets Anouilh's heroes and heroines to their overweening
ego: "they must have all or nothing, but their colossal !
egos and eccentric views of human nature will not permit
In the opinion of Daily News. Journal American, and I
New Yorker this lack of dramatic focus vitiates the theme j
i
because we are never sure whom or what the General is for ori
j
against. Daily News stated that in the person of its Gen-
i
eral the play "never comes to grips with anything or any
body." Journal American wrote that the play is "pretty
feeble stuff" in its presentation of a stolid and malad
justed product of the past; New Yorker that Anouilh fails in
his attempt to present serious ideas in an intellectual
framework: "We are expected to sympathize with the General,:
yet we cannot, so trite are his arguments, so flimsy in
substance and so feebly expressed."
But to a large number of critics the General was a
reasonably articulate mouthpiece for Anouilh's embittered
comments on manners, morals, art, and politics. Herald
Tribune wrote that Anouilh seems to be saying that the world
has been taken over by a race of modern Falstaffs to whom
honor means nothing: "Indeed there is only one man of honor
them to accept life on its own terms and hence their lone
liness." The Alienated Hero in Modern French Drama (Athens,:
Georgia, 1962), pp. 17-18. This ineffectuality, of which
Jones speaks, is certainly germane to "the lack.of point
and purpose" commented on by Time and World Telegram. i
114
i !
left in the universe, and he is the fool." In a similar j
: i
sense Daily Mirror stated that the play deals with a modern
Don Quixote who "champions ideals and is always getting the '
devil kicked out of him." New York Post saw the embattled
General as "a sort of road company De Gaulle," anti-prag
matic, anti-expedient, unrelenting in his refusal to com-
44
promise with the modern world.
The political aspects of the play were especially em
phasized by America. Nation. New Republic, and Newsweek.
America and Newsweek spoke of the General as an idealist
who dreams of ridding the world of maggots (opportunists)
and of restoring France to her former greatness. Referring
to the play as Anouilh's apologia pro vita sua. Nation wrote
that Anouilh uses the General to denounce the political and
social institutions of modern France. According to Nation.
the General does much to explain Anouilh's position— politi
cally an anarchist of the Right, emotionally a dogged roman
ticist, whose misgivings "create cynicism, sentimentality,
^Leonard Pronko finds that except for The Lark and
Beeket. Anouilh's later plays are dominated by a spirit of
disillusionment which is the aftermath to a spirit of roman-j
tic revolt manifest in Anouilh's earlier plays. The World '
of Jean Anouilh, p. 213.
115
! laughter, and cunning." Concurring with Nation that Anouilhi
[
uses the General to criticize the wider aspects of democrat-:
ic life, New Republic called Anouilh a traditionalist in
form and technique who is now trying to dramatize the an- 1
achronistic quality of his own position: "based on the j
conflict between the past and present, his recent plays are
about the importance and futility of maintaining traditional
values in a world that no longer cares." As a further in
stance of Anouilh's traditionalist views, New Republic
called attention to Anouilh's satirizing of the avant-garde
45
playwrights, Adamov, Beckett, and Ionesco.
With reference to play form, most critics were agreed
that Fighting was a loosely structured and disunified comedy
which mixed serious ideas with ludicrous situations. News
week wrote that after a loose first act, "the playwright and
director Peter Brook pull the play firmly together and
achieve a touching and significant climax." To New York
Times the play was less firmly knit than Waltz of the
^Jacques Guicharnaud writes that "on the level of
elementary politics, Anouilh's satire might be considered
as tending toward the right . . ." What is of more conse
quence, in Guicharnaud's opinion, is that Anouilh seeks to
destroy the illusions of bourgeois values and the cult of
humanity. Modern French Theatre from Giraudoux to Beckett,
pp. 115-116.
IToreadors. but nonetheless "an extraordinary achievement."
!
To Daily Mirror the loose structure and disunity of Fiqhtincr
were an asset: as the best play of the season, it provides ;
"absorbing, fascinating theatre with all the informality of j
I
46
Commedia dell1arte."
But to the majority of critics these qualities of an
errant play form were a distinct disadvantage. Daily News
^Guicharnaud refers to Anouilh's use of theatricalism
as a variant solution which the author applies to the prob
lem of the "pure" individual in an "impure" world: "Anou
ilh's comedies, his 'Pieces Roses,’ 'Pieces Brillantes,' and
certain 'Pieces Gringantes,' emphasize another kind of solu
tion: theatre itself. It is presented in the form of fan
tastic and contrived denouements such as the end of le Vova-
aeur sans bagaae or of la Valse des toreadors. In the
first, the hero escapes from his real past by acting out a
lie with the help of an unexpected and Heaven-sent little
boy; in the second, the plot is nonchalantly resolved by a
conventional device from classical comedy: the farcical
discovery of hidden filiations. Even more clearly, at the
end of Hurluberlu. the hero— after both his conspiracy to
save France and his marriage have failed— has no other solu
tion but to act in an amateur production, and the curtain
comes down on the beginning of a play within a play." Mod
ern French Theatre, p. 125. Pronko also finds the world of
make-believe is a refuge for Anouilh's heroes, their way of
refusing to accept ugly reality as final: "In L'Hurluberlu
the characters are once again preparing a play, and in the
last act most of them are in pseudo-Spanish costumes. Be
fore climbing onto the stage for a dress rehearsal, the
General turns to his young son with a word of advice: "We
must play the play gaily. Man is a disconsolate and cheer-j
ful animal . . . You'll see, as you grow up Toto, that in
life, even when it appears to be serious, it's really noth- ;
ing but a Punch and Judy show. And we always perform the
same play."
117
jpointed to the play's disconcerting lack of story content,
I |
and Herald Tribune to the lack of a common center to which
its tantalizing and philosophizing fragments can adhere.
World Telegram called the play bad theatre, though it is
"caustic and merry, a feast for those who live for and by
the mind alone." Referring to the play as second-rate
Anouilh, New York Post and New Republic placed it on a high
er level of excellence than most American plays. "Structur
ally it's a mess," wrote New Republic, but it does have a
unified theme, sentiment, and mood which is better than
current Broadway. Time stated that the play shows Anouilh
"more effective as a philosophe than as a dramatist."
Apart from critical comments on the General as theme
bearer and apologist, New Yorker. in a minority of one,
expressed dissatisfaction with Anouilh's over-all handling
of his characters. According to New Yorker. the fascinating
unpredictability of Anouilh's characters, of which the Gen
eral is a sample, is due to the fact that "most of them are
not characters at all but amorphous bundles of attitudes,
put together with more regard for expediency than consist
ency." An instance of this unpredictability is when the
Ubermensch General is rebuked by his daughter's faithless
! 118
47
|lover for loving the common man too much."
The language of the play, so far as it attracted criti-j
j
cal notice, was well received. Daily News referred to the
|
dialogue as "good.” New York Post called Hill’s adaptation i
|
"skillful." And New York Times wrote that the adaptation
keeps "the wayward dialogue sparkling in unexpected places
,.48
and directions.
Jones identifies the "sameness" of Anouilh's charac
ters with a tendency among contemporary French dramatists to
limit their range of characterization. Sartre, Camus, Bour-
det, and Giraudoux, for example, write about the same type
of people with the same type of problem. Lenormand, Mont
herlant, and Anouilh "write about one person who seems to
appear in each of the plays as a spokesman for the author
. . ." With special reference to Anouilh, many of his
heroes and heroines "seem to be the same character in vary- ;
ing circumstances. In his comedies and tragedies the back
grounds of his characters, their reactions to life, and
their actions in life are all surprisingly alike and perhaps;
identical with their creator. Their follies, vices, and
virtues all show such remarkable resemblances that it is
quite possible to remove a hero from one play and transfer
him to another without changing the plot of the second play ‘
at all." Alienated Hero. pp. 1-2.
^Pronko observes that Fighting Cock. though published
separately, belongs in spirit to the four plays— Ardele ou
La Marguerite. La Valse des toreadors. Ornifle ou Le courant
d1 air. and Pauvre Bitos ou Le diner de tetes— gathered to
gether under the title Pieces Grincantes. According to
Pronko, "the only brilliance in these plays is the superfi- :
cial one given by the witty dialogue, the colorful or gaudy j
costumes, and the hollow histrionics of the frivolous characj-
ters who take the satge; but beneath this superficial
brightness we feel the grating disillusion that is fundamen
tal to Anouilh." The World of Jean Anouilh, p. 41.
j 119
I
Evaluation j
i
i
Most critics felt that the General in Fighting Cock
served as a mouthpiece for Anouilh's embittered comments on i
manners, morals, art, and politics. The comments were em- I
bittered because in a pragmatic world the high-minded Gen- j
eral is an object of scorn and derision. Instead of being
what he aspires to be, the leader of a great and just cause i
founded on the traditional values of the past, he is re
garded by those about him as a blustering and meddlesome old
i
fool. Like a modern Don Quixote (like Anouilh himself), thes
General butts his head against sundry physical and meta
physical windmills and all to no avail.
It is precisely in this matter of "all to no avail"
that certain critics (Daily News. Journal American. New
Yorker) took exception to Anouilh's use of the General. If j
he was indeed Anouilh's raisonneur, the case for traditional!
I
values which the General represents should have been set
forth by Anouilh in some more logical and coherent form.
As it is, the General fails to clarify, either in his own
thinking or the thinking of those about him, whatever it is ;
he is for or against. This is particularly true in terms |
of what the General is for: he rages against the moral and
intellectual turpitude of his time, but in his raging fails ;
jto clarify any of the serious ideas or problems which he 1
; j
evokes. Not only was the General confused and confusing as
raisonneur, but to New Yorker he was equally confused and
confusing in his function of dramatic character As a
dramatic character, the General was shadowy and formless
without real identity or inner consistency. In common with
all of Anouilh's other creations, he is stamped with a
puppet-like quality which makes him move and act, not by
his own will, but according to the whim of his creator.
However, to most critics the General was a sufficiently
realistic character who expressed in a clear enough way what
Anouilh thinks of contemporary society, namely, that its
political and social institutions are as hopelessly corrupt
as the individuals who comprise them. It is through the
General, then, that Anouilh gives vent to his disgust for a
society which heaps ridicule on the traditional values of
the past and which is indifferent to sentiment and human
feeling. In this sense, Nation called Fighting Cock
Anouilh's apologia pro vita sua. an oblique but telling
expose of his political arch-conservatism and his dogged
romanticism. New Republic propounded a similar view of
Anouilh as a traditionalist whose recent plays are based
on the conflict between a meaningful past and a meaningless
121
present. These plays demonstrate how it is important, yet j
futile, to maintain enduring values in a world which cares ;
nothing for values, past or present.
This picture of Anouilh The Embattled Traditionalist isj
significant because it offers an approach to his plays here-!
tofore neglected by the Broadway critics. Certainly, a
large number of these critics came to the simultaneous
realization that Anouilh's use of the General was of deep-
founded origin, not just a dramatic device of the moment.
What the General stood for against a race of conniving op
portunists was a principle of unattainable perfection at
once dear to Anouilh's heart and integral with his dramatic
practice. Compounded of traditionalism and Anouilh's own
variety of Weltschmerz romanticism, this principle is enun
ciated again and again throughout his plays. That Anouilh
gives it a negative rather than a positive expression re
lates to his personal feelings of futility and frustration
toward a world which rejects perfection in favor of expedi- ;
ency.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Fighting may, ;
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The sets were regarded as the most outstanding feature
122 |
i
in the production. Critics were divided in their j
estimate of Brook's direction. Harrison was commended
for his vigor and personal charm; but to some critics,
he was either miscast or his part was badly written.
The supporting cast, especially McDowall and Parry,
was well received.
|
Dramatic Criticism ;
Theme
The theme rests in the conflict between the traditional
values of the past, personified by the time-is-out-of-
joint General and the exigencies of the present summed
up by his friends, his family, and the world about him.
But because the General is unable to express any co
herent rationale— his ideas are scattered and diffuse
and his application of them erratic— the theme was un
focused, its dramatic effect tenuous.
Play Form
The play was a loosely structured and disunified comedy
which mixed serious ideas with ludicrous situations.
Characterization
For most critics, the General was a mouthpiece for
Anouilh's embittered comments on manners, morals, art, :
and politics. New Yorker took issue with the puppet
like quality of Anouilh's characters and their lack of ;
inner motivation.
Language
So far as it attracted attention, the language of the
play was well received.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
123
Production Criticism
No comment.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme expresses a spirit of disillusionment which
is the aftermath to the romantic revolt manifest in
Anouilh's earlier plays (Pronko). The disillusionment
which the theme expresses is integral with Anouilh's
over-all dramatic purpose: to destroy the illusion of
bourgeois values and the cult of humanity (Guicharnaud).
Characterization
The chronic ineffectuality which besets Anouilh's
heroes and heroines is due to their colossal ego; this
ego (perhaps reflecting on the author himself) will
never permit them to accept life on its own terms,
whence their loneliness and their forever sense of
alienation. So far as the "sameness" of Anouilh's
characters, this may be identified with a tendency
among contemporary French dramatists to limit the
range of their characterizations (Jones).
Play Form
Anouilh's use of the play within the play is a variant
solution to the problem of the "pure" individual in an
"impure" world. Confronted with the dual failure of
his marriage and his conspiracy to save France, the
General seeks refuge in an amateur theatrical produc
tion (Guicharnaud, Pronko).
Language
Fighting belongs in spirit to the Pifeces Grincantes.
whose only brilliance is the superficial one given by
the witty dialogue and the highly theatrical staging.
Comparing the premiere criticism of Fighting to subse
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
124
1. The ineffectuality of the General is not casual j
but deliberate. Anouilh's characters project a sense !
of ineffectuality because the author intends them to. j
It is his way of indicating man's plight in the face j
of a hostile and frequently absurd world.
2. In the same sense, the theme of the play ironically!
reflects on the lack of a rational framework to which j
rational men can attach their ideas. Under these con
ditions, ideas become scattered and meaningless, and J
the people who express them become objects of ridicule.
3. Whether the aftermath of a romantic revolt or part
of a conscious effort to destroy the illusions of bour
geois complacency, Anouilh's disillusionment is inte
gral with his dramatic practice. In Antigone. it was
a question of dying in favor of being disillusioned.
In Fighting. it is a matter of finding refuge in the
unreality of the theatre itself. -
Beeket (Becket) I960
i
Adapted by Lucienne Hill; Settings by Oliver Smith; Costumes
by Motley; Lighting by Jean Rosenthal; Music by Laurence
Rosenthal; Directed by Peter Glenville; Produced by David
Merrick at the St. James Theatre; Opened October 15, 1960;
Closed March 25, 1961 (193 performances)
•
THE CAST
Henry III, Duke of Normandy and
King of England ..................... . . Anthony Quinn
Henry's Page .........................
Thomas Becket ......................... . Laurence Olivier
The Archbishop of Canterbury ........
The Bishop of Oxford .................
Gilbert Folliot, Bishop of London . . . Earl Montgomery
The Bishop of York ...................
A Saxon Peasant .......................
His Daughter.........................
His Son ...............................
Gwendolen .............................
First English Baron.......... ..
Second English Baron .................
Third English Baron ...................
Fourth English Baron .................
A French Girl ......................... Madeline Morgan i
A Soldier .............................
A Young Monk ......................... . . Victor Thorley
A French Priest .......................
William of Corbeil ...................
A Servant .............................
A Second Servant ..................... . . Julian Miller
The Queen Mother .....................
The Queen, Wife to Henry ............ . . Margaret Hall j
Henry's Elder Son ..................... . . . Dennis Rosa ;
Henry's Younger Son ................... . . . . Kit Culkin
125
126
THE CAST (Continued)
A Monk, Secretary to Becket.......................Tom Leith
First Monk from Hastings.................* . Mel Berger
Second Monk from Hastings .................... Ronald Weyand
Louis, King of France ........................ Robert Eckles
First French Baron ........................... Will Hussung
Second French Baron .......................... Sydney Walker
The Duke of Arundel....................... Claude Woolman
The P o p e .................................. Edward Atienza
Cardinal Zambelli .......................... Dino Terranova
An Old Footsoldier ........................... Louis Zorich
A Young Footsoldier .......................... Julian Miller
A Priest .......................... Sydney Walker
BECKET BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., October 6, 1960, p.
222.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., October 6,
1960, p. 225.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., October
6, 1960, p. 224.
New York Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., October 6, 1960
p. 223.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y .T.C., October 6,
1960, p. 222.
The New York Times. Taubman, Howard, N.Y.T.C., October 6,
1960, p. 223.
New York World Telegram. Aston, Frank, N.Y.T.C., October 6,
1960, p. 224.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, November 19, 1960, pp. 275-276.
The Catholic World. Scharper, Philip, December 1960, pp.
191-192.
The Christian Century. Driver, Tom F., November 2, 1960, pp
1284-1286.
Coronet. Nichols, Mark, January 1961, p. 14.
127
128
The Nation. Clurraan, Harold, October 29, 1960, p. 336. j
The New Republic. Brustein, Robert, October 17, 1960, p. 22j
Newsweek.. (Unsigned), October 17, 1960, p. 102.
The New Yorker. McCarten, John, October 15, 1960, pp. 73-74.'
Reporter. Mannes, Marya, November 24, 1960, p. 45.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, October 22, 196 0, p. 22.
Theatre Arts. Pryce-Jones, Alan, December 1960, pp. 9-11.
129 |
|
Production Criticism
Smith’s elaborate sets, featuring multiple inserts, i
prancing life-like horses, and floating furniture, were
praised by most critics for providing an impressive visual
background to the play's twenty-two scene, panoramic struc
ture . But to Herald Tribune. Nation, New Republic, and
Saturday Review, the sets were a wasted effort. Herald
Tribune wrote that the elaborate mechanism of the sets con
flicted with the acting; Nation that the more modest Paris
production was "more fluent and more fun"; New Republic that
the sets are in keeping with "this overproduced and under
rehearsed epic"; Saturday Review that the sets and costumes,
beautiful in themselves, misrepresent the play as pure
pageantry.
On the subject of Glenville's direction, critical
opinion was likewise divided. Glenville was commended by
Daily News. New York Times, and Newsweek for his skillful*,
blending of the play's diverse qualities of pageantry and
intellectual sparkle. But to Nation Glenville's direction
was markedly inferior; "the production never gets off the
ground." In the same vein New Republic wrote that Glenvilld
displays care for opulent externals and directs as if
Becket were a De Mille epic in Cinemascope and stereophonic
isound. A third group of critics— Herald Tribune. Saturday j
Review, and Time— felt that due to difficulties beyond his ;
control, Glenville was unable to project the play's true
j
meaning. Herald Tribune related these difficulties to a ]
complicated and disjointed play structure. Saturday Review I
stated that because Olivier and Quinn were miscast, Glen
ville was forced to subvert the inner meanings of the play
and settle for pageantry. Time wrote that Glenville was
hampered by a play which has inward themes but runs largely
to externalized effects.
Olivier's suave and graceful Becket was considered by
most critics in the best tradition of classic English act
ing. To this larger group of critics, Olivier portrayed
the many-sided Becket— courtier, humanist, and man of God—
with consummate skill. Howeverj Herald Tribune. Nation, and
Time held that Olivier's acting was more skillful than mean
ingful, largely because the part itself was ineffectively
written. Distinctly unfavorable were the opinions of New
Republic and Saturday Review. Olivier pieces his role out
of a hodge-podge of acting parts and "barks his lines like
a melancholy terrier" (New Republic). Olivier lacks the
ability to carry a role that requires the patience and in
telligence of a Becket and "that balks at extroversion"
131
(Saturday Review). j
Quinn's brutish and headstrong Henry met with a divided
reception. Those in favor found his performance forceful
s
and marked by a rough sincerity mingled with pathos. Those I
in disfavor objected to Quinn's overacting the part, to his *
making Henry an adolescent lout lacking in personal depth
or kingly dignity. A number of critics had special refer
ence to the ensemble aspect of Quinn's and Olivier's vastly;
different acting styles. To New York Post and Christian
Century the dramatic contrasts of the play were well repre
sented by Quinn's naturalistic-American Henry as against
Olivier's cool, classical Becket. But to Herald Tribune.
Coronet, New Yorker. and Reporter the difference in acting
styles served no dramatic purpose and resulted in bad en
semble.
Among the minor characters, Eckles1 King of France and
Powers' Queen Mother were favorably mentioned. The support
ing cast was well received except for New Yorker; Olivier
and Quinn "are surrounded, but not supported, by a large
cast."
Dramatic Criticism
There was general agreement that the theme of the play:
132
rested in a twofold conflict, part historical, part psycho- j
logical. Historically, the theme comprehended the head-on
conflict between Becket as churchman and Henry as chief of
state. Psychologically, the theme dealt with Becket and
Henry on the personal level of a highly complicated love-
hate relationship. It was also observed by some critics—
notably, New York Post. New York Times. America. and Chris
tian Century— that the play's subtitle, "The Honor of God,"
indicates Anouilh's main concern is Becket's spiritual
49
transformation from sinner to saint. Agreeing, then,
that the theme was a complex of various elements--histori
cal, psychological, and religious— critical opinion was
divided on Anouilh's molding of these elements into a mean
ingful and coherent whole.
With the exception of Herald Tribune (the play's themes
"are spelled out in block letters suitable for a clever
child's first reader"), newspaper critics were unanimous in
^9Leonard Pronko writes that "Becket's faith is not so:
much in God as himself: his prayers reflect the perfection--
ism of an aesthetic moralist rather than a devout believer. ;
. . . Louis of France touches the heart of the matter when
he explains: 'Becket has a protective tenderness for the
King. But the only thing in the world he loves is the idea;
of his honor which he has forged for himself.'" The World
of Jean Anouilh, pp. 59-60.
; 133
their praise of Anouilh's handling of the historical,
psychological, and religious complex. Most magazine crit-
cis, however, felt that Anouilh had distorted history and
over-simplified his characters, achieving in the process
50
neither truth nor dramatic unity. Nation, for example,
found in the theme "no real conflict of principle, no real
definition of issues." And New Republic wrote that Anouilh
had reduced the medieval struggle of church and state
into a lovers’ quarrel between a loutish jealous king
with homosexual tendencies and a rather cold nihilist
with a compulsion to defend the honor of God— all against
a Norman-Saxon background stolen from Sir Walter Scott.
Running counter to this mainly unfavorable magazine
criticism were the opinions of America. Christian Century.
Newsweek. and Saturday Review. With some reservations as
to the play's historical accuracy, America endorsed the
^Ojacques Guicharnaud observes that Anouilh's anach
ronisms (the twentieth century policemen in Antigone. the
bourgeois flavor of the family scenes in Becket) are used to:
refer the spectator to the incongruities which exist in the
world of today: "But such allusions are actually denuncia
tions: the guard in tragedy is no different from the modern
prison guard; one reflects on the other. The somewhat sor- ;
did and grotesque aspect of the present is related to the
crimes of antiquity which make us shiver; and the great I
crimes of antiquity also involved a certain amount of the |
sordid and grotesque. Thus the anachronism is double-edged,:
and two accepted concepts are denounced." Modern French
Theatre from Giraudoux to Beckett, p. 125.
134
I
church versus state aspect of the them& and accepted as
spiritually and psychologically true Becket's espousal of
God and martyrdom. Christian Century and Newsweek found
that the theme was historically valid, psychologically
sound, and dramatically unified. Saturday Review called
Becket a great play, misrepresented as historical pageant in
its poorly acted and poorly produced American version.
According to Saturday Review, the heart of the play, never
reached in the American production, rests in "a subtle study
51
of the relationship between two very different men."
With reference to play form, the majority of critics
were of the opinion that Becket was historical drama in the 1
panoramic tradition of the Shakespearean chronicle. Hence,
a number of critics based their judgment on a consideration
of the play's historicity weighed against the dramatic and
theatrical effectiveness of its many scenes and characters.
Of these critics, Christian Century and Newsweek found that :
^Guicharnaud finds that Henry's relation to Becket and
Becket's to Henry are on a quite different plane. Becket is
the detached observer, the "role-playing" type character; j
his relationship to Henry is that of one who participates in
an experience but is yet aloof from it. Henry, on the other
hand, is never detached from what he experiences; he is a j
creature of passion and impulse, guided not by reason but by
instinct. Modern French Theatre, p. 124.
the play was historically valid and by the same token dra- j
matically unified. America observed that while distorting !
i
|
the facts of history, Anouilh had remained faithful to theirj
spirit: molded in the classical matrix, the antagonists j
!"have dignity and greatness of stature." But to Nation. j
j
jNew Republic. Theatre Arts, and Time, Anouilh's distorting
!of historical fact was needless because it served no useful
jdramatic purpose in unifying the play. Nation labeled
iBecket "a sometimes clever recording of events loosely
jculled from popular biographies" which has little intellec-
i
jtual, moral, or historical substance. Calling attention to
i
!the fact that Becket1s early life was pure, not roisterous,
Theatre Arts called the play a loosely constructed, undocu- J
jmented, nineteenth-century costume piece. Time wrote that
I i
; I
j " Becket skips lightly across centuries, shuttles blithely 1
: 52
'between styles ."
i !
Somewhat less rigorous in the cause of history, most j
CQ ‘
“^Guicharnaud considers Becket as a play which is built
on two levels: "On one level, the historical drama is a |
pretext for very contemporary allusions, sordid family j
scenes, denunciations of political corruption, whether ap
plied to a disillusioned King of France or to a kind of
clownish Pope. On another level, the play is a tragedy of
passion." Modern French Theatre, p. 124.
other critics accepted Becket in the poetic sense of histor-j
i
!
ical drama and based their judgment of the play mainly on
i
its inherent dramatic values. Of these critics, Daily Mir-
i
i
ror and Daily News found the play brilliant and exciting
j
i
theatre which unfolds with compelling power. World Telegram
I
wrote that the play's slow buildup and complicated twenty-
two scenes make for a massive effect, cumulatively powerful,,
but demanding on the audience's concentration. New York
Times and Reporter stated that not only was the play over
written but lacking in human feeling and audience empathy.
Noting that the play was overwritten, Herald Tribune and
Catholic World referred to its form as disunified and struc
turally weak.
A minority of critics— Journal American. New York Post.
Coronet. and Saturday Review— maintained that even in the
poetic sense Becket was not a historical drama but a drama
of ideas. To these critics, the play's historical back
ground was by intention more decorative than definitive.
In effect, Anouilh used a historical background as a means
of heightening the character struggle between two very dif
ferent men— Becket, the idealist, Henry, the earthy sensual-;
|
ist— linked to the death in a love-hate relationship. Coro-j
net found that in this context of character struggle the
137
i
iplay is "a stimulating drama of ideas" which fails because j
Becket is not credible as a human being or as a saint, j
Saturday Review blamed the play’s failure on its misrepre
sentation as historical pageantry. But to Journal American
i
and New York Post, the essential drama of ideas was admir
ably brought out in the contrasting characters of the two
antagonists climaxed by the poignant hopelessness of Henry's
love-hate feeling for Becket and the tragic inevitability
53
of Becket1s martyrdom.
^Guicharnaud writes that like most of Anouilh's other
characters, Becket "can only play his part well when he
wears the costume symbolic of the part. By putting on a
monk's habit or an Archbishop's sumptuous robes, Becket
succeeds in identifying himself with the honor of God: a
serious masquerade, but a masquerade. And it is through
playing the parts that Becket finds his truth and his own
honor." This role-playing role which Anouilh assigns to
his heroes is inseparable from a theatrical vision of life;
it is Anouilh's solution to the anguish and defeat of man
in the face of an absurd reality, a means by which man can
achieve liberation and victory as a total actor: "The con
sequences of such an attitude are dual. On the one hand,
it is the source of multiple theatrical effects, either
original or borrowed from all that is obviously theatrical
in the Commedia dell'Arte, Shakespeare, Molifere, or Beau
marchais . On the other, it gives enormous rights to thea
tre, since it is not only a metaphor of life but also a
solution. Unexplained flashbacks, juggling with time and
space, a whole arsenal of devices which might be described
as toned-down avant garde are not based on magic or the i
supernatural. They are pure theatrical freedom. They rep-:
resent no more than the playwright's way of telling a story.
’ --in other words the indefeasible power of theatre itself."
Modern French Theatre, pp. 127-128.
138
Much of the unfavorable criticism bestowed on the play j .
revolved around the character of Bechet, particularly in the?
matter of his spiritual transformation and martyrdom. New
i
; ■ i
York Times stated that the play's weakness lies in the
i
character of. Becket, which is uninteresting because it lack^
the necessary dramatic element of surprise: "One always
knows that this Becket will be faithful to his duty whatever
shape it takes." A similar opinion was voiced by Catholic
World: the play suffers from a lack of complexity in its
main characters and the stereotyping of its minor ones.
New Yorker. Theatre Arts, and Time found Becket1s change
from sinner to saint unconvincing because there was no evi
dence to support it. According to Theatre Arts. Becket is
one moment a boon companion and the next on his way to
sainthood. Minus transition or explanation, "the two states
54
are simply laid before the audience."
54pronko states that "although Becket recalls Antigone
in his intractable attitude before the King, he strikes us
at once as being more mature and more logical. For Becket
is not revolting in a vacuum, and he is not reduced to ad
mitting that he is acting for himself. He is defending a
positive value— the honor of God— and he stands for 'the
unwritten law which always bends the heads of kings at
last.' It is that same unwritten law that gives Sophocles'
Antigone such strength and authority." The World of Jean
Anouilh. p. 57.
| 139
! i
A favorable view of Becket as a character was expressed
by New York Post. Christian Century, and Saturday Review. j
l j
To New York Post and Saturday Review. Becket's turning to
God was a logical outgrowth of his lifelong quest for some- j
i
thing to believe in. Christian Century observed that Beck
et ‘s change is made explicable on the one level of psycho
logical reality necessary for his conversion: "the grace
once observed in Becket as mere intelligence now is trans
lated into a Graceful ease with which Becket responds to
divine commands."
In the judgment of most critics, Henry as a character
was clearly drawn and well motivated. New York Post re
ferred to Henry as the bewildered and passionate King who
lacked nobility and had "only an instinct for appreciating
one who possessed it." New York Times found Henry a much
more credible character than Becket; at the outset Henry is
rough and pleasure loving, but "when Becket turns on him to
serve God, the King achieves a bitter maturity." To Satur
day Review. Henry was likewise an impressive creation, at
once vulgar and ruthless, witty and generous. Nation. how
ever, deplored Anouilh's making the king who laid the foun- ;
dation of the English legal system into a fool. And Time
wrote that Anouilh had superficialized Henry by showing him
140
I 55
as little more than a doltish lout.
With respect to the minor characters, a number of
critics gave special attention to Anouilh's patently anti
clerical scene between the Pope and Cardinal Zambelli. It
was generally felt that the Pope and Cardinal were crude
caricatures and that the scene itself was in bad taste. In
a minority of three, Journal American. Christian Century,
and Saturday Review stated that the cleverly burlesqued
characters provided excellent comic relief.
The language of the play was greeted with a mixed re
ception. Daily News and Journal American agreed that
Anouilh and his translator, Hill, had secured genuine poeti
feeling in many of the scenes and historic verisimilitude
in the dialogue. America wrote that "the antagonists de
fend their positions in the elevated speech that comes
naturally to men who believe in a cause." Saturday Review
found Hill's translation inadequate because "it fails to
duplicate Anouilh's freedom from ennobling phraseology."
55Pronko finds that in comparing Becket to Antigone.
Henry "has none of Creon's dignity or weight. Weak, pathet
ic, brutal, utterly dependent on Becket, Henry's 'honor' is
purely superficial--a hollow mockery that masks political
or financial opportunism." The World of Jean Anouilh, p.
57 .
r~
141
Stating that the Paris production was deficient with regard
t
i
to language, Theatre Arts absolved Hill of any blame for j
I
Anouilh's basic lack of "a period sense and a feeling for
words." Equally unfavorable were the opinions of Herald
Tribune and Time. "The language is riddled with the poker- j
j
table terms so congenial to contemporaries" (Herald Trib- |
une). The play has "no unifying tone in language or atti-
56 ■
tude" (Time). j
Evaluation
i
j
Most critics were agreed that the theme of Becket rep- i
j |
resented a complex of various elements, historical, psycho- j
I \
i
i
logical, and religious. For critics who found that these
elements fitted into a meaningful and coherent whole, j
[Anouilh had written a provocative treatment of the medieval i
| !
struggle for power between church and state personified by
| ^Pronko compares Becket to Ionesco's Rhinoceros: "The|
major differences . . . are those of aesthetic style, lan- j
guage and degree of directness." Anouilh's language, then, j
is more vigorous, more varied than Ionesco's realistic dia- I
logue and everyday metaphors; "but the language takes on a j
literary dimension because the dramatist has skillfully j
chosen the word with the right color and emotional connota- 1
tions. . . . Ionesco's language clings to the ground; it j
has the flatness and banality of everyday conversation."
"The Prelate and the Pachyderm: Rear Guard and Vanguard in
the French Theatre," Modern Drama. May 1961, pp. 63-64.
! 142
jthe churchly Becket in conflict with the worldly Henry. For
i
!
critics to whom the historical, psychological, and religious
! ■ I
complex was an ill-considered, improperly fused hodge-podge,!
i
i
Anouilh had distorted history and oversimplified his charac-j
ters, achieving in the process neither historic truth nor
dramatic unity.
Against this majority view of a tripartite thematic
complex, a few critics (Journal American. New York Post.
Coronet. Saturday Review) saw the theme in terms of a purely
psychological conflict between two very different men: the
vulgar, ruthless, and pleasure loving Henry versus the
clever, wise, and ascetic Becket. Out of their conflict— a
conflict that may reflect on the dual aspect of human nature
itself— comes temporary disappointment and discomfort for
the winner, permanent security and peace for the loser. In
this context of a drama of ideas, the play was judged a
success by Journal American and New York Post. But to Sat-
urday Review and Coronet. the play was a failure. Saturday
Review maintained that Anouilh’s drama of ideas was obscured
by an inadequate translation and a production emphasis on
pageantry. Coronet felt that the play failed because Becket
himself is not a believable character.
The issue of Becket’s dramatic credibility was a
143
I crucial one, for it was here that most critics based their
judgment of the play. To critics who found that the play
had both form and substance, Becket was a well-motivated
and believable character. His turning to God was either a
logical outgrowth of a lifelong quest for something to be
lieve in or an example of divine grace working on human
destiny. But to most critics, the play was vitiated in
whole or in part by Becket's inexplicable change from man
of the world to man of God. One moment he was boon compan
ion and the next, without preparation, he was on his way to
sainthood. In effect, Anouilh does nothing more than tell
his audience what they already know, that Becket turned to
God and against Henry and was martyred for it. Because
Anouilh fails to provide his character with inner motiva
tion and does hot show why Becket turned against his friend
and benefactor, the entire play lacks definition. Under
these circumstances, Anouilh's theme grows increasingly
tenuous, and at worst the elaborate structure of his play
sinks to the level of a mere costume piece.
What emerges, then, from the over-all critical recep
tion of the play is a prevalent notion that Anouilh had
failed in his purpose, which was to resolve the riddle of
Becket the courtier and Becket the martyr. As it is,
144
iBecket presents the appearance of two separate men rather
| i
than one, a stage puppet put together for the sake of dra- ;
matic expediency rather than a flesh and blood character
|
torn between loyalty to his King and his duty to God. That !
i
Anouilh's purpose was other than the resolution of the
Becket paradox was noted by only a few critics. These saw
the play in terms of a psychological conflict, as a drama
of ideas in which Henry, as much as Becket, carried the
burden of Anouilh's theme. However, the exact nature of
that theme, resting as it does in a study of opposites, was
never clearly brought out even by those critics who comment
ed on its existence. It is also worth noting that no critic
gave serious consideration to an alternate possibility that
Anouilh's purpose was not to resolve the riddle of Becket
the courtier and Becket the martyr., but the riddle of the
love-hate feelings he inspired in Henry, his friend and his
murderer.
I
The main trends of premiere criticism in Becket may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The sets were praised by most critics for providing j
an impressive background to the play's panoramic
structure. Herald Tribune. Nation. New Republic, and
Saturday Review felt that the sets were too elaborate:
they were either out of keeping with the spirit of the
145
play or they presented difficulties for the actors. j
The direction was criticized on much the same basis:
it balanced pageantry with intellectual sparkle or it
was lopsided in favor of external values. Most critics!
commended Olivier’s suave and urbane rendering of
Becket. Quinn's earthy and brutish Henry met with a j
mixed reception.
j
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme rests in a twofold conflict: Becket as
churchman versus Henry as chief of state; Becket versus;
Henry on the personal level of a highly complicated
love-hate relationship.
Plav Form
Most critics thought that Becket was historical drama
in the panoramic tradition of the Shakespeare chroni
cle. Journal American. New York Post. Coronet. and
Saturday Review maintained that Becket was a drama of
ideas, a character struggle between Becket, the ideal
ist, and Henry, the sensualist.
Characterization
Many critics felt that Becket's spiritual transforma
tion was unconvincing because there was no evidence to
support it. But to most critics, Henry was clearly
drawn and well motivated. Unlike Becket— whose change
from sinner to saint is never properly explained—
Henry remains from start to finish exactly what he is: :
vulgar, ruthless, witty, and generous.
Language
i
The language of the play met with a mixed reception.
Some critics found a balance of historic verisimilitude
and poetic feeling in the dialogue. Other critics
found that the language was either needlessly involved
or lacking in the right tone for the subject which it
treated.
146
: In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere j
. . i
criticism:
Production Criticism
No comment. I
Dramatic Criticism
Theme I
The theme reflects on Anouilh's theatrical vision of
life as a solution to the anguish and defeat of man in
the face of an absurd world. By playing the part of
the Archbishop, Becket identifies himself with the
honor of God and in so doing escapes not only from ;
himself'but from a meaningless reality (Guicharnaud).
Play Form
Becket is built on two levels. On one level, it is ;
historical drama with a strong contemporary flavor.
On another level,, it is a tragedy of passion with its
accent on the love-hate feelings of Henry. Basically, i
however, Becket is a theatrical play which stresses
elements of illusion and make-believe (Guicharnaud).
Characterization j
Becket is an esthetic moralist rather than a devout
believer. His spiritual transformation is, therefore, j
a transformation in degree, not in kind. The key to
Becket's character is a conscious perfectionism which i
relates not to Henry nor to God, but to himself (Pron-
ko). In contrast to Becket, Henry is a creature of
passion and impulse. Unlike Creon, for example, Henry!
lacks weight and dignity. He is weak, pathetic, and
brutal (Guicharnaud, Pronko). i
Language
Because Anouilh is at pains to choose the right word
147
and not just emulate everyday speech patterns, the '
language of Becket is literary rather than realistic |
(Pronko). j
Comparing the premiere criticism of Becket to subse- ;
j
J
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn: {
i
1. Anouilh's illusionistic approach to theatre would j
seem to have been improperly represented in an overly !
lavish, non-illusionistic production which laid stress
on spectacle and stage movement.
2. Again, Anouilh's theatrical vision of life (theatres
as a solution to human problems) escaped the attention i
of the premiere critics. This would account for much
of the adverse criticism of Becket as a character and
the fact that so many critics were disturbed by
Becket's shift from sinner to saint.
3. The two-level structure of the play— historical
and psychological— was, in the opinion of many pre
miere critics, improperly fused. The point of fusion
is, of course, on a theatrical basis: the metaphor
of the theatre is at the same time a metaphor of life, ■
a bridge between outer experience and inner truth.
4. With respect to the differences between Henry and
Becket, one might refer to the former as an example
of the illusion of reality, to the latter as an example
of the reality of illusion. Henry plays his part as
a character in a play. He stays within the framework
and does not create the impression of a dramatic
doubleganger. Becket not only plays his part but
reflects upon it. The stage conventions of the Ameri
can theatre being what they are, the premiere critics ;
could readily identify with Henry but not at all with
Becket.
CHAPTER II
JEAN GIRAUDOUX: CRITICISM
The Madwoman of Chaillot
(La Folle de Chaillot) 1948
Adapted hy Maurice Valency; Settings and Costumes by Chris- 1
tian Berard; Lighting by Samuel Leve; Directed by Alfred de
Liagre; Produced by Alfred de Liagre at the Belasco Theatre;
Opened December 27, 1948; Closed January 7, 1950 (350 per-
formances).
THE CAST
The Waiter .........................
The Little Man ..... ..........
The Prospector ..................... Vladimir Sokoloff
The President .......................
The Baron ............................
Therese .............................. Patricia Courtney
The Street Singer........ ~.........
The Flower Girl ..................... . Millicent Brower
The Ragpicker........ ..............
Paulette ............................
The Deaf Mute................. . . .
I r m a ................................
The Shoe Lace Peddler ...............
The Broker .........................
. . Jonathan Harris
The Street Juggler .................
Dr. Jadin ........................... . . . Sandro Giglid
Countess Aurelia, The Madwoman
1
of Chaillot ........................
148
149
THE CAST (Continued)
The Doorman William Chambers!
The Policeman.............. John Beahanl
; I
Pierre ........................................ Alan Shaync
The Sergeant Richard Sanderj
The Sewer-Man ........................... . James Westerfielc
Mme. Constance, The Madwoman j
of P a s s y Estelle Winwood
Mile. Gabrielle, The Madwoman !
of St. Sulpice......... . Nydia Westman
Mme. Josephine, The Madwoman f
of La Concorde................................. Doris Rich
The Presidents..........Clarence Derwent, Jonathan Harris,|
LeRoi Operti
The Prospectors .... Vladimir Sokoloff, William Chambers,;
Maurice Brenner
The Press Agents..............Archie Smith, Sandro Giglio,:
James Westerfield
I
The Ladies................ Patricia Courtney, Barbara Pond,;
Sonia Sorel
The Adolphe Bertauts Paul Brown, Harold Grau,;
William Chambers, Gilbert Smith
!
THE MADWOMAN OF CHAILLOT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism j
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., December 28, 1948, .
p. 105.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., December 28, 1948, p.
107 .
New York Herald Tribune. Barnes, Howard, N.Y.T.C., December
28, 1948, p. 108.
New York Journal American. Garland, Robert, N.Y.T.C., Decem
ber 28, 1948, p. 105.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., December 28,
1948, p. 106.
New York Star. Lardner, Ring Jr., N.Y.T.C., December 29,
1948, p. 106. j
The Sun. Morehouse, Ward, N.Y.T.C., December 28, 1948, p.
104.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., December 28,,
1948, p. 107.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., Decem- j
ber 28, 1948, p. 104.
Magazine Criticism
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, February 1949, pp.
401-402.
The Commonweal. Phelan, Kappo, January 14, 1949, pp. -351-
352.
150
Forum. Gassner, John, February 1949, pp. 93-94.
'House and Garden. (Unsigned), April 1949, p. 186.
Life. (Unsigned), January 24, 1949, pp. 64-68. !
i
The Nation. Krutch, Joseph Wood, January 8, 1949, pp. 53-54. j
The New Republic. Clurman, Harold, January 17, 1949, pp.
28-29.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), January 10, 1949, p. 72.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, January 8, 1949, pp. 46-48.
The New York Times Magazine. (Unsigned), February 27, 1949,
p. 31.
The Saturday Review. Brown, John Mason, February 15, 1949,
pp. 32-34.
School and Society. Beyer, William, January 29, 1949, pp.
83-84.
Theatre Arts. Gabriel, Gilbert W., March 1949, pp. 15-17.
i
Time. (Unsigned), January 10, 1949, p. 36.
1 152 |
; I
I !
Production Criticism j
: j
I
It was agreed by all critics that Berard's sets and
costumes, direct from the original Paris production, were
j
an outstanding artistic achievement. New York Times wrote j
I
that the sets are "airy and imaginative," the costumes
"humorously blousy"; House and Garden that the sets are
"weird, witty, and French"; Newsweek that the sets are
"brilliant," the costumes "magnificently rococo"; New Yorker
that the sets "have humor and in the case of the Countess's
living quarters a sort of nightmare magnificence." Journal
American and New Republic indicated that the sets and cos
tumes saved from utter failure what was otherwise a badly
acted and badly directed production.'*'
With reference to de Liagre's direction, critical
■'■Jacques Guicharnaud refers to Giraudoux's theatre as
"a theatre of language— but of spoken and acted language."
In this sense, it is not a static theatre which can be
divorced from its theatrical context; "Such is the differ
ence between Giraudoux's plays and other theatres of langu
age— certain dialogues in George Bernard Shaw's political
plays, for example, for they are self-sufficient non-drama-
tic debates that have no need of staging. Actors, scenery, :
and staging are inseparable in Giraudoux. The text gives
the fundamental drama, which is complete only when the
three collaborators— the written text, the spectator, and j
the actual performance are united. The meeting of all threq
is necessary to the incarnation of the symbol." Modern I
French Theatre from Giraudoux to Beckett, pp. 42-43.
153
j
'opinion was divided. To Daily Mirror. Daily News. Herald
Tribune. The Sun. and Nation the direction was imaginative,
I
succinct, and sensitive. Daily News wrote that de Liagre
& j
"has kept the performance as succinct as possible"? Herald j
Tribune that de Liagre has captured the feeling and flavor j
of the play with "a fine appreciation of its intrinsic
poetry, philosophy, humor and sheer stage excitement." But
to New York Times. New Republic, and Saturday Review, the
production lacked ensemble and stood in need of more re
hearsal. An instance of poor ensemble, as noted by Saturday
i
Review, was the stiff grouping of the sidewalk scenes at the
cafe. This was also commented on by World Telegram: the
direction "leaves stilted the scenes with more than a few
characters in them." Further fault with the directing was
found by House and Garden: because the play is miscast,
2
the production "suffers from stylistic heterogeneity."
Hunt was praised by most critics for her style and
p
Eric Bentley writes that the American production of
Madwoman has the virtues of a fresh approach to Giraudoux, ;
the vices of a non-French feeling among the actors. Bentle^
cites as an example the opening cafe scene where the actors |
lacked the feel of true French cafe life: "They kept trying
to pep up the lines as if they were selling something on the
radio. A Broadway notion of drama intruded ridiculously."
"Back to Broadway," Theatre Arts. November 1949, p. 49.
154
visual flair and for the great warmth and human feeling that
she imparted to the mad Countess Aurelia. Referring to
Hunt's madness as "inspired," and her comic sense "unfail- j
'
ing," Herald Tribune wrote that she "holds the production j
!
together at all times." Equally favorable was the opinion j
of World Telegram: despite the aberrations of her part,
Hunt is always warm and human and lends "a contour to this
madwoman which always gives her sympathetic reality." In a
similar vein, Saturday Review found Hunt's Countess "as
haunting as Toulouse-Lautrec's Madame Lender whom she so :
closely resembles." Time commended Hunt for eschewing easy :
laughs or tears and performing "with wonderful style and
glitter."
A less favorable view of Hunt was expressed by New York
Post ("picturesque but rather too monotonous") and The Sun
(looks the role but "not entirely successful in making a
character of the outlandish Countess"). Acknowledging
Hunt's ability as an actress, Commonweal and House and Gar
den took issue with her clipped British accent as out of
keeping with the over-all style and rhythm of the produc- ;
3 ;
tion. Distinctly unfavorable were the opinions of Journal I
*2
Bentley, finds that Hunt deserves the most credit for
155
'American and New Republic. Journal American wrote that Hunt
overacts and "never gets beneath her madwoman's skin." Ac- i
I
cording to New Republic. Hunt plays on the mistaken assump- |
tion that her Madwoman's essence j
lies in a picturesquely eccentric make-up and a stagily
romantic "aristocracy," whereas it resides in the pro
found and almost gross earthiness of the woman's experi
ence, its deep-delved decay . . . that decay which pro
duces the character's and the play's wonderful glow.
Among the minor characters, Winwood, Westman, and Rich
were well received. Winwood was especially commended for a
fantastic impersonation at once shrill, showy, and amusingly
artificial. Sokoloff, Derwent, and Operti drew favorable
comment for their burlesque portrayal of the villainous
financiers. Carradine, as the Ragpicker, and Dana, as Irma,
were also favorably mentioned.
Dramatic Criticism
According to most critics, the theme of the play re
lated to a unique form of social protest wherein the alter- |
nately noble-minded and naive Countess serves as a foil to
t
making the play amusing and charming. She did this by giv-j
ing us "Dickensian Giraudoux," or a reasonable facsimile ofj
Giraudoux which was within the range of her own experience, j
It would have served the play better had the other actors
given us similar facsimiles. "Back to Broadway," p. 50.
156
the power-hungry profiteers.^ To Daily Mirror. Herald Trib
une . Forum, and Nation. Giraudoux's handling of the theme |
i
was inadequate. Daily Mirror wrote that Giraudoux suggests
an impractical solution for the intricate problems of modern
society: "nothing more than the philosophy of our own j
Thoreau presented through a surrealistic haze by a clever
Frenchman." A like opinion was expressed by Herald Tribune:
Giraudoux's idea of having the Madwoman do away with the
black-hatted pimps of the recent past is complicated and
lacks cohesion. Forum and Nation were agreed that by cen
tering human evil in the members of a small class, sent to
perdition in the sewers of Paris, Giraudoux had oversimpli
fied his theme and in its resolution shown himself more
facile than imaginative. Nation wrote that in the end
Giraudoux seems to be saying, "I know it is not all so
simple as this, but, ah, how I wish it were!" In the
^Laurent Le Sage writes that "La Folle de Chaillot is
generally described as a philosophical comedy about modern
mercantilism. This is quite accurate if one does not imply
that it is just a diatribe aimed at capitalism. Giraudoux
defends more than he attacks, and his aims are surely not
just political. The cause here in question is the very un-j
specific one of poetry and idealism, a just measure of which
;is necessary to keep materialism and practical astuteness j
from disfiguring the earth." Jean Giraudoux: His Life and;
His Works (University Park, Pa., 1959), p. 80..
157
opinion of Nation,•such a resolution lacks sufficient sub-
!
stance for intellectual drama— drama that is searching and j
rigorous, not just urbane,^
But to New Republic. New Yorker. School and Society.
and Time, Giraudoux's theme of social protest was not neces-r
sarily weakened because he could only wish for the extinc
tion of evil represented in the members of a small class.
New Republic wrote that as a political conservative, Girau
doux saw his aristocratic Madwoman as a defender of the
common people of Paris against the greedy bourgeoisie.
( r
Oreste Pucciani refers to Sartre's attack on Giraudoux
in which Sartre maintains that Giraudoux is "unengaged,"
which is to say that he glosses over the political and so
cial issues of his time and takes the dilettante position
of art for art's sake. "The 'Infernal Dialogue' of Girau
doux and Sartre," Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, pp. 57-75.
Jacques Guicharnaud writes that in general "the end of a
Giraudoux play is not only the resolution of a conflict pro
posed during the play by the subject itself; it is also,
and sometimes principally, the esthetic resolution of the
distance between the subject and genre to which it belongs."
In the case of Madwoman, "the Ubuesque character of the
solution . . . is a final exaggeration of a secondary as
pect of the play, revealing the cultural background of the
play's universe: the melodramatic, romantic, and movie
world of the mysteries of big cities. The underground j
chasm into which the pimps disappear is an exaggeration of ;
the sewers of Les Miserables or the dens of Eugene Sue's
characters, just as in the rest of the play, the young
lovers, the.ragman, and the madwomen are very marked re
minders of the fauna in that kind of literature." Modern ;
French Theatre, pp. 33-34.
158
iThrough her,. Giraudoux is saying that "to be respectable in
France even the conservatives must be revolutionary." A
similar view of the Madwoman was propounded by New Yorker:
because of the affinity that exists between the insane and
the criminally ambitious, the Madwoman is fitted to deal
with the rich and wicked who prey on the poor and virtuous.
In the opinion of Time. Giraudoux's wishing away the evil
of the world "has something touching and sad about it; for
only through dreams can there be escape, and only in fairy
tales do the wicked perish so prettily.
A minority of critics— New York Times. Catholic World.
Commonweal. Saturday Review— saw the theme less in terms of
^Wallace Fowlie calls attention to the use of the word
"preciosity" as used to describe Giraudoux's style: "pre
ciosity seems to mean an easy indulgence in brio, artifice, !
gracefulness, and a predilection for literary heroes. The
climate of his plays and novels is temperate. It helps to
diminish whatever tragic tension is created. The amiability
of Giraudoux's world often masks a relentless tragic force
at work." Fowlie also identifies Giraudoux's art with "an
assimilation of traits which have been persistent throughout!
French literature. The preciosity of his images is con
stantly offset by conciseness and a bareness of expression. !
His themes of grandeur are counteracted by a tone of simplin
city which the French might call aentillesse. He considers j
all the gravest of human problems, the conflicts between thei
life of the city and the laws of justice, between love and I
the cruel passing of time, between the purity of man's i
idealism and the necessity to be committed to an idea or a |
party or a nation." "Giraudoux's Approach to Tragedy,"
Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, pp. 6-7.
159
isocial protest than as an affirmation of human love and
I
goodness. New York Times wrote that through the Madwoman,
Giraudoux is saying that "love is the one decent motive for j
i
j
living." Saturday Review found that the theme presented an j
i
old truth in a new and diverting way: greed and lust for ■
power are the main evils, and "love is the essential emotion
for blissful living." Catholic World and Commonweal felt
that the theme reflects an idealized triumph of goodness
7
and simplicity over greed.
With respect to play form, most critics were agreed
that Madwoman was fantasy. To Journal American, however,
it was a confused and self-conscious allegory; and to World
Telecrram. it was "a mature allegory." Commonweal called
the play "a delightful morality"; New Yorker called it "a
moral fantasy." Theatre Arts wrote: "Morality play, im
morality play, farce-fantasy, tragi-vaudeville, a super
Saroyan dipped in corrosive sublimate instead of strawberry
^Germaine Bree maintains much the same view: the theme
of Madwoman (good overcomes evil) is simple. To read in
sociological and symbolic meaning is, therefore, extraneous J
Madwoman is a particularly revealing example of Giraudoux's ;
art as a playwright because "the charm of the play and its ;
significance are theatrical par excellence resisting all '
extraneous interpretation." "The Madwoman of Chaillot: A ;
Modern Masque," Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, p. 51.
jam, a 'Green Pastures' in white face." To Time. Madwoman
was "an ironic extravaganza and a satiric fairy tale." ;
Much of the unfavorable criticism which the play re- j
i
[
ceived was directed at its lengthiness and its lack of unity
and coherence. These weak points were noted by almost all
critics. To those who thoroughly disapproved the play—
Journal American. New York Post. The Sun. Forum. and Nation j
— its lengthiness and lack of unity and coherence were a
major issue. Journal American. New York Post, and The Sun
called Madwoman a dull and confused play with a slow begin
ning, a lagging middle, and a flat finish. Forum noted
that the play was unclear, neither a well-told fairy tale
nor "a metaphor of consistent excellence." According to
Forum. the play lacked a rich and light enough fancy to
sustain the fairy tale; and its metaphor, or message,
"translates itself into something quite unreal and unsound."
Nation also commented on the play's disunity; neither a
fantasy nor a drama of ideas. Giraudoux the wit and the
philosopher, wrote Nation, are "dangerously close at every
i
moment to degenerating into merely Giraudoux the blagueur." j
i
But to the majority of critics, the play's technical j
vices were outweighed by its virtues. These virtues, as
expressed by New York Star. included rare humor, social
161
consciousness, imagination, and intelligence. Acknowledging
j
that by American standards the play is talky, Daily News
found it a fascinating mixture of Shaw and Lewis Carroll
which has "sense and purpose as well as wit." New York
Times stated that despite obvious faults in playmaking (the j
second act "grows increasingly languid"), Madwoman is an
enchanting fantasy, "part whimsy, part parable, light
hearted in style but sombre in thought." In the opinion of
World Telegram, the opening and closing scenes were less
effective than the two middle ones? yet the play has the
imaginative glamor of a children's pageant and "never loses
touch with elemental wisdom."
Other than Forum and Nation. magazine critics were
likewise agreed that the play's virtues outweighed its
structural vices. New Republic wrote that the play is
iridescent with a fantasy that is compounded of sweet
memories, ancient wisdom, and a tradition that is still
vibrant through the survival, amid the debris, of bright
mental faculties and keen senses.
Saturday Review held that like Saroyan, Giraudoux writes
"with a love for man, a faith in his goodness, and an under-4
standing of his hunger for happiness." But as a product ofj
|
an older culture, Giraudoux is infinitely more sophisticat- :
ed. For this reason, Saturday Review found that the real
162
[action of the play "lies in its surprising and incessant
play of mind." Time identified Madwoman with the tradition |
of high-bred fantasy (Don Quixote, the trial scene in Lear, i
j
Heine, and Shaw), and together with Commonweal pointed to
the play's obvious superiority over the boulevard fare of
current Broadway.^
The language of the play met with a mixed reception.
New Yorker wrote that except for some tedious romantic
interludes and some fatuous political speeches, the play
"is written with considerable charm and style." To Theatre :
Arts. the play was "well-styled into English by Maurice
Valency." In the opinion of Newsweek. Valency may err on
®Bree lays stress on the improvisational, masquerade
aspect of Madwoman which appears in a conventional frame
work: "The play is a mild exorcism of the present, a magic,
poetic evocation of the past. The masque, with its trans
parent ambiguities, its margin of fantasy, its use of rhe
toric and improvisation was admirably suited to his purpose.
Giraudoux' comedy has certain of the limitations of the
masque, in particular its dependence upon the topical which j
tends to limit to a particular time and place the efficacy
of the play as spectacle and pageant. The limitation of the
play is woven into the very tissue of the language, favor
ing as it does some of Giraudoux' peculiar mannerisms. But |
beyond the delicate balance he maintained among the diverse j
elements of the masque, an achievement in itself, he was |
able to suggest a unity of mood and a poetic significance !
which emanate from the highly imaginative creation of that
unique figure, the 'Madwoman of Chaillot.'" "The Madwoman
of Chaillot: a Modern Masque," p. 56.
16 3 ]
i
the side of lengthiness but has caught "the wit and warmth, |
I
I
t
the critical intelligence, and the agile imagination that
underlie the author's parable." Referring to Valency's |
i
j
adaptation as "excellent," Forum observed that neither he !
i
nor Giraudoux j
| i
i dispensed enough poetry and madness to make the Madwoman j
■ completely successful even on the level of fantasy— the
Saroyan vein is not flowing freely enough here. j
Daily Mirror and New York Post agreed that perhaps Valency j
I
should be blamed for the play's lack of wit and sparkle and I
9 !
for its theatrical ineffectiveness.
j Evaluation j
! !
! \
| It was generally supposed that in Madwoman. Giraudoux J
i ;
jhad launched a unique form of social protest aimed at the j
jGolden Calf of material success and spiritual poverty. The j
! i
t !
[fact that he chose as his spokesman so grotesque a figure j
i
las the noble-minded but naive Countess gave rise to the j
Sfurther belief that Giraudoux was proposing no serious !
i
i
solution to the problems he evoked, that he was merely S
^William Becker offers this comment on Valency's
jtranslations of Giraudoux: "Maurice Valency always makes
it a point to chop up the longer speeches and substitute
cheap quips for Giraudoux's dry verbal ironies." "Some
French Plays in Translation," Hudson Review. Summer 1956,
p. 280.
164
dreaming of a time and place where human greed and lust j
!
could be forever laid to rest, where man's essential good
ness and hunger for happiness could be realized simply and
I
without falsehood or pretense.
i
To some critics (Daily Mirror. Herald Tribune. Forum. !
Nation). Giraudoux's theme of social protest was invalidated
by the very fact that he proposed no serious solution. His
wishing for a better world and against a worse one marked
him as an impractical dreamer incapable of facing up to the
complexities of society he was attacking. In brief, Girau- ;
doux oversimplifies the problem of human evil by centering
it in the members of a small class sent to perdition in the
sewers of Paris. Commenting on the naivete of Giraudoux's
approach to the complexities of modern life, Forum and Na
tion found that he had oversimplified his theme and in its
resolution shown himself more facile than imaginative. It
was further observed by Nation that Giraudoux's wishful
resolution to his theme lacked sufficient substance for the ;
kind of intellectual treatment which the theme demanded.
Instead of a treatment which is searching and rigorous,
Giraudoux begs the whole question with a garish display of
superficial wit and verbal urbanity.
But to most critics there was an underlying symbolic
Iquality in Giraudoux's theme of social protest, manifested
by his use of the Madwoman as a foil to the power-hungry
profiteers. In the way that Giraudoux has presented her,
the Madwoman stands for an ancient, elemental kind of wis
dom, deep as life itself, which remains untouched by the
veneer of modern civilization and the ugly surface scratch-
ings of its temporal overlords, the profiteers. By means
of this symbolic contrast, Giraudoux draws the moral from
his theme that in the end it is the power-hungry profiteers
who must perish, the life-hungry Madwoman who will survive.
The lengthiness of the theme and its sometime lack of
unity and coherence were noted by almost all critics. To
Journal American. New York Post. The Sun. Nation, and Forum
the entire play was thereby flat, tedious, and unclear,
neither a fantasy nor a drama of ideas. It was not a fan
tasy because it lacked imagination and was hampered by an
unpoetic style. It was not a drama of ideas because it
only dallied with the social problems which it purported to
treat instead of coming to grips with them. However, most
other critics found that despite its structural defects,
Madwoman was an enchanting blend of fantasy and morality,
light-hearted in style but serious in purpose, above all
witty, imaginative, and intelligent. Time identified
166
Madwoman with the tradition of high-bred fantasy, with Don
Quixote. the trial scene in Lear T Heine, and Shaw. Saturday
Review compared Giraudoux with Saroyan: both have a love
for man and a faith in his goodness? but Giraudoux, as the
product of an older culture, is infinitely more sophisti- !
cated in his approach to the subtler nuances of human rela- :
tionships and the interplay of mind upon mind.
Clearly, the premiere criticism of Madwoman reflects
two widely differing views. Basic to both views is the
crucial issue of how Giraudoux resolved his theme. Those
critics who took an unfavorable view of the play held that
Giraudoux had failed to resolve the theme, as he should
have, on an external level of social reality. Critics who
regarded the play favorably held that Giraudoux had resolved!
the theme, as he intended to, on an inner level of poetic
truth. It is certainly significant that for those who found
in favor of Giraudoux, the key to his thematic resolution
lay in his magical use of words whereby disbelief was sus
pended and poetic truth revealed.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Madwoman may, j
then, be enumerated as follows: I
Production Criticism |
Critics were unanimously agreed that the sets
167
represented an outstanding achievement. With reference
to the direction, opinion was divided: it was imagina
tive, succinct, sensitive; it lacked focus and was j
stylistically disorganized. Hunt was commended by mostj
critics for her style and visual flair and the human
feeling she imparted to the Madwoman. The minor char
acter roles were well received.
Dramatic Criticism j
Theme
Most critics thought that the theme was one of social i
protest: the noble-minded Madwoman serves as a foil j
to the profit-hungry financiers. For his 1 1 fantasy"
approach to the solution of a serious theme, Giraudoux ■
was alternately defended and attacked. New York Times. |
Catholic World. Commonweal, and Saturday Review saw thei
theme less in terms of social protest than as an affir-j
mation of human love and goodness. j
Play Form
Most critics were agreed that Madwoman was a fantasy,
or a mixture of fantasy, allegory, and morality. Much !
of the unfavorable criticism which the play received
was directed at its lengthiness, its lack of unity and
coherence.
Characterization
Most critical comment was limited to Giraudoux’s rep
resentation of the Madwoman as a theme bearer. j
Language >
The language of the play met with a mixed reception.
Giraudoux's charm and intelligence received favorable j
comment; he was attacked for being tedious and for
having overwritten his subject. ,
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
|
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere i
168
criticism:
Production Criticism i
I
Although Giraudoux's is a theatre of language, it is ;
not a static theatre which can be divorced from its I
theatrical context: it demands the collaboration of |
text, performance, and spectator (Guicharnuad). The j
American production of Madwoman offers a fresh approach
to Giraudoux; but except for Hunt, it suffered from a !
lack of French feeling among the actors (Bentley).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Madwoman is not just an attack on modern capitalism.
More exactly, it is a defense of poetry and idealism ;
(Le Sage). To read sociological and symbolic meaning
into Giraudoux's theme of good overcomes evil is
extraneous: the charm and significance of the play
are dominantly theatrical (Br£e). Giraudoux's approach
to his theme is aesthetic rather than sociological
(Guicharnaud, Pucciani).
Play Form
Within a conventional framework, Madwoman is a play of
mood which utilizes the techniques of the masque:
improvisation, spectacle and pageant, formalized,
morality-type figures representing the Vices and Vir
tues (Bree).
Characterization
The characters are formalized morality figures. In
keeping with Giraudoux's use of the masque, the Mad
woman and her immediate entourage represent Virtue,
the financiers and their followers represent Vice
(Bree). ;
i
|
Language
Giraudoux's style involves a kind of preciosity which
combines brio, artifice, and gracefulness with
169
conciseness and simplicity. Underneath the preciosity,!
rests the fundamental seriousness of Giraudoux's sub- I
ject and his dramatic intention (Fowlie). The limita- j
tions of Madwoman are woven into the very tissue of !
the language: favoring, as it does, some of Girau
doux's peculiar mannerisms, the language evokes a unity
of mood and a poetic quality suitable to his subject
(Bree). In his various translations of Giraudoux,
Valency has mutilated the original text (Becker).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Madwoman to subse
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. The difficulties represented in a total production !
ensemble of Madwoman were manifest in the critical
observations on a diffusion of acting styles. Such
other difficulties as speech cadence (stage French is j
usually spoken faster than stage English) and direc- j
tional stage groupings may well account for much of the
premiere critical comment on the lengthiness and some- |
time tedium of certain scenes.
2. The interrelationship between Giraudoux's style
and subject matter was a source of confusion to many |
premiere critics. The crux of their confusion was
that Giraudoux had treated too lightly a serious sub
ject. Hence, what troubled many critics was the lack
of a cut-and-dried statement by the playwright which :
would clarify the present day implications of his theme
of social protest. What these critics missed was that ;
Giraudoux's intention was esthetic rather than socio
logical: a non-specific beauty and goodness as an
antidote to ugliness and evil.
3. Although they were agreed that Madwoman was a fan- ;
tasy, or a mixture of fantasy, allegory, and morality, ;
most premiere critics accused Giraudoux of failing to I
sustain a sufficient mood of poetry and enchantment
which would unify his play. But the evidence brought
forth to support this lack of unity was on the basis
of a conventional story form— beginning, middle, and
end— which runs counter to what the critics had agreed j
Madwoman was, namely, a fantasy. The real issue,
170
suggested by the premiere critics but never properly
examined, was whether Giraudoux had achieved a balance
between the improvisational quality of his dramatic
situation and the diverse elements of a patently
theatrical play form.
The Enchanted (Intermezzo) 1950
i
i
Adapted by Maurice Valency; Settings and Costumes by Robert \
Edmond Jones; Lighting by Robert Edmond Jones; Music by j
Francis Poulenc; Dances by Jean Erdman; Musical Supervision j
by Albert Hague; Directed by George S. Kaufman; Produced by j
David Lowe and Richard Davidson at the Lyceum Theatre;
Opened January 18, 1950; Closed February 25, 1950 (45 per
formances ) . .
THE CAST
. Charles Haltoni
i
Russell Collins;
Leueen MacGrath
Carolyn Grier)
Judith Licata!
Mimi Strongin)
. . Leah Chernirr
Patricia Wright;
Betty Richardson
Henrietta Catal;
. . Malcolm Keen)
. . Wesley Addyj
Frances Williams)
. . Una O 1 Connor)
John Baragreyj
. . Joe E. Marks)
James O'Neill
. . John O'Har^
. . Roland Wood
The Mayor . . . .
The Doctor . . .
Isabel ........
Gilberte ....
Daisy ..........
L u c y ...........
Viola ...........
Denise ........
Irene ...........
Marie-Louise . .
The Inspector . .
The Supervisor
Armande Mangebois
Leonide Mangebois
The Ghost ....
First Executioner
Second Executioner
Monsieur Adrian .
Papa Tellier . .
171
THE ENCHANTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism j
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., January 19, 1950,
p. 387. i
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., January 19, 1950, p.
387 .
Herald Tribune. Barnes, Howard, N.Y.T.C., January 19, 1950,
p. 388.
Journal American. Garland, John, N.Y.T.C., January 19, 1950,
p. 389. |
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., January 19,
1950, p. 389.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., January 19,
1950, p. 388.
I
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., January
19, 1950, p. 388.
Magazine Criticism
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, March 1950, p. 469.
The Commonweal. Phelan, Kappo, February 10, 1950, pp. 486-
487 .
The New Republic. Clurman, Harold, February 13, 1950, p. 30.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), January 30, 1950, p. 67. j
172
173
The New Yorker. McCarten, John, January 28, 1950, p. 50.
School and Society. Beyer, William, February 25, 1950, pp.
118-119.
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), March 21, 1950, p. 17.
Time. (Unsigned), January 30, 1950, p. 37.
174
|
Production Criticism j
Critical opinion was divided on the subject of Jones'
sets and costumes. New York Times wrote that the sets ,
demonstrate Jones' genius for "spacious, limpid beauty that
animates all his work." To Daily Mirror, the sets were
"atmospheric"; to New York Post, "charming"; to World Tele
gram. well contrasted. Less favorable was the opinion of
Daily News: the sets are "pretty good." Distinctly unfav
orable were the opinions of Catholic World (the sets are
commonplace), and School and Society (the sets are "unin
spired and literal").
Poulenc's incidental music was singled out for mention
by several critics. Herald Tribune referred to the music
as "delightful." Newsweek observed that "the antic back
ground music," along with Jones' sets, contributes to a
tasteful production. Catholic World. Commonweal. New Repub
lic . and Time found Poulenc's music the most attractive
feature of the production. New Republic wrote that the
production as a whole "lacks lightness, fancy, or fragrance
. . . except for Poulenc's music, an almost complete miss." j
A similar view was expressed by Time; "Only Francis Pou
lenc's music creates the proper note of magic."
With reference to Kaufman's direction, critical
opinion was divided. To Daily News. Herald Tribune, and
Newsweek the direction was skillful, precise, and ingenious.!
New York Post stated that Enchanted was far more fortunate
. |
in its direction and acting than Madwoman: Kaufman shows j
"creative expertness" in his brilliant handling of a diffi- !
*
cult script. World Telegram noted that the intellectualized
action of the play was beautifully concealed by the produc
tion. New York Times and Commonweal were agreed that the
direction was completely faithful to the script and the
intentions of the author. Observing that the direction was '
"far from bad," Time wrote:
It is rather a shame that the production has just the
earthiness needed by the play, the play just the airi
ness needed by the production.
To Daily Mirror . New Republic . School and Society j and
Theatre Arts, the direction was unsatisfactory. .Daily Mir- :
ror stated that Kaufman "misses some of the singular lyri
cism and the graceful irony of the French original's."
School and Society observed that Kaufman's realistic ap
proach to fantasy hampers the actors. Commenting on the
over-all production, Theatre Arts found that it "ignores the
meaning beneath the surface and thus evokes laughter without
176
pity or understanding.""^
MacGrath, as Isabel, was well received by the majority
of critics. Indicative of the majority opinion were the |
views of New York Times and Newsweek. MacGrath is "delicatei
but fragrant, ethereal but strong" (New York Times).
MacGrath gives Isabel "a very acceptable balance of reality
and mysticism" fNewsweek) . In a minority of four, Daily .
Mirror. New Yorker. School and Society, and Time found that I
MacGrath's performance was variously lacking. Daily Mirror
wrote that MacGrath gives "an intelligent if not notably
stylized performance"; New Yorker that she does her best
with an impossible role but dissolves "into nervous flutter
ing before the final curtain." To School and Society and
Time. MacGrath was charming but monotonous. School and
Society stated that by playing her separate scenes with the
i
living and the dead all on the same level, MacGrath defeats
the mood of the play and destroys the believability of Isa- ;
bel.
•^Maurice Valency considers the question of why En
chanted was a production failure. According to Valency, the
only possible explanation is that the play was overproducedr!
with so much effort and talent expended on it, nothing was
left to the imagination. "About the Play," Theatre Arts.
October 1950, p. 50.
177 I
Among the minor characters, Keen's Inspector drew
.
favorable comment from several critics. Daily News wrote j
}
that Keen is "splendid as the archetype of all stuffed
shirts"; New York Post that he gives a delightfully pompous j
caricature. Addy, as the Supervisor, Collins, as the Doc- j
tor, and O'Connor, as Leonide Mangebois, were also well re
ceived. With reference to the over-all acting, Journal
American observed that the entire cast "could scarcely be
bettered"; School and Society that within the range of the
realistic directoral approach, the actors do a fine job;
Herald Tribune that without performances of the first order,
"most of the drama would be sheer clap-trap."
Dramatic Criticism
Most critics felt that the theme of the play related to
the age-old conflict between idealism and realism. It was
also agreed that as a means of illustrating the conflict and
exploring the issues which it involves, Giraudoux made
double use of his young schoolteacher, Isabel. On a purely
personal level, it is the choice which Isabel must make be
tween life (the realistic Supervisor) and death (the ideal- j
istic Ghost). On a social level, it is the rebel idealist
Isabel at war with the convention-minded Inspector who
178
stands for law and order and the eternal principle that
i
whatever is normal is right.’ * ’’ * '
Daily Mirror. World Telegram, and New Republic saw .
Giraudoux's projection of the Isabel conflict in terms of a ;
negative-positive approach: what Giraudoux most believes 1
in— the dignity of man, his spiritual and aesthetic needs—
is trampled on by the everyday world. To Daily Mirror,
Giraudoux is saying that "life today is without spirit,
truth without beauty, and death without dignity." WorId
Telegram found the life and death phase of the conflict both
moving and believable: Giraudoux has the purest kind of
faith and "convinces you without trying that the impossible
can happen to people who wish for it." New Republic stated :
that Giraudoux "criticizes our modern society because it
denies the basic needs of man which he treasured as the
sufficient good." To Theatre Arts and Time. the resolution
of the Isabel conflict indicates the technical triumph of
■^Jacques Guicharnaud writes that "almost all of Girau-!
doux's works are organized around analogous debates: be- j
tween war and peace in la Guerre de Troie. the love of a
young man and the love of an old man in Cantique des canti- ;
gues, the human and the supernatural in Ondine and Inter- i
mezzo. . . . Each play leads the spectator toward a solution!
of the conflict by means of great contrasts and sudden re- j
versals, as in Siegfried." Modern French Drama from Gir.au- i
doux to Beckett, p. 20.
179
convention over the human spirit. But to Time. this triumph,
is mitigated by Giraudoux's thought that man must neither
flee reality nor accept it. In effect, man must deliberate-i
ly transform reality as in the Supervisor's "squeezing j
unheard-of poetry out of his highly prosaic job." Comment
ing on Giraudoux's skillful handling of the theme, New York
Post remarked that Isabel's romantic yearning for death and
phantoms is never unwholesome because the play is always
humorous in mood, sprightly and satirical rather than senti-
12
mental.
But to Her aId Tr ibune. New York Times. Catholic World.
New Yorker. and School and Society, the theme was badly
handled. Herald Tribune wrote that Giraudoux’s championing'
of death is confused, his ideas eloquent but more contrived
I p
Wallace Fowlie observes that Giraudoux makes the same
philosophical point in Enchanted that he does in his other i
plays: "We must learn to see the world from the viewpoint
of universal harmony and not from the viewpoint of individ- ;
ual man. . . . Isabelle explains to the Inspector that
catastrophes are necessary, and she tried to teach the
children in her care not to believe in the injustices of the
world and nature. She refers to the ensemblier. the spirit!
of the universe, who regulates everything including wars and
catastrophes. An individual life is not so important as .
the countless bonds and relationships that join an individ- |
ual with the cosmos. We are not autonomous persons, but
rather we are beings dependent on everything else in the
cosmos." Dionysus in Paris, pp. 65-66.
180
than illuminating. In the same vein, New York Times ob
served that the play "substitutes talk for improvisation";
New Yorker that the theme was hampered by vagueness of ideas
and oversentimentality. Catholic World and School and So
ciety were agreed that in its treatment of a similar theme
Madwoman was much more successful than Enchanted. Catholic
World stated that despite Giraudoux's efforts to weave wider
implications into the story, his satire "seems one-dimen
sional and forced, the girl and her lovers remain shadowy,
and the philosophy— 'Truth is an illusion'— sounds shoddy."
School and Society wrote that the heroine of Enchanted is
the legitimate progeny of the mad Countess Aurelia. But
Isabel is drawn on a scale that falls short of the play1s
dramatic implications: she is a silly, scatter-brained
girl whose choice between two worlds is oversimplified.
Hence, in the opinion of School and Society, the theme is
13
muddied, the play overdrawn and talky.
1 * 3
Guicharnaud maintains that in the Gidian sense of
discussing a problem of religious metaphysics, Giraudoux's
theatre is not a theatre of ideas: "His plays are in the
form of debates, but the debates are not really discussions.
They are an esthetic equilibrium between contrary defini
tions .... What directs the drama toward the victory of
one essence or another is the weight of such or such de
scription, of such or such definition. Often a definition
or description grows richer by stealing, so to speak, from
With reference to play form, Daily Mirror found En- !
chanted a rich and rewarding comedy of ideas whose only
fault is that Giraudoux says so much it is hard to follow
him. To Journal American. Enchanted was "a fascinating
tragi-comedy of life, death, and the hereafter." Referring
to the intellectualized action of the play, World Telegram
observed that it was beautifully projected by the writing.
Commonweal wrote that the play combined lyricism, charming
dialogue, and interesting philosophy in an artistic complex.
Theatre Arts commented: "Because one can laugh at the ;
people to whom Giraudoux entrusted his message, it does not
follow he has written a comedy." To New York Post and Time.
the play's strength lay in its symbolism and in the humor
and irony of its separate parts; the play's weakness lay in
its lack of a unified story.
To Herald Tribune. New York Times. Catholic World.
Newsweek. and New Yorker. the play's lack of a unified story
was a fatal weakness. Herald Tribune wrote that the two
major plot elements— the satire on bureaucracy and the love
another, and finishes by conquering it thrpugh absorption.
In Intermezzo Isabelle gives up her phantom, but only be
cause the Supervisor managed to constitute the universe of
civil servants as an equivalent of the specter's romantic
world." Modern French Theatre, p . 22.
story— are never properly fused and Giraudoux's "resolution
of a tangled plot is far from artful." Finding the play
topheavy in words and abstractions, New York Times stated
that Enchanted "hardly gets its feet off the ground until
the last act." Catholic World noted that the first and
second act could easily have been condensed into one. To
Newsweek. the play as fantasy is "both confusing and ulti
mately tedious," especially in the last act when the balance
between philosophy and a satire on bureaucracy is completely
lost. New Yorker wrote that the play sounds "as if it might
have been put together by William Saroyan in collaboration
with the publicity director of Woodlawn and Thornton W.
14
Burgess, the nature-story man,"
The language of the play was well received. Commonweal
wrote that the dialogue was "charming"; New Republic that
-^Valency speaks of Enchanted as a biography of that
moment in a young girl's life when she turns from girlhood
to womanhood: "It is a biological study: the metamorpho
sis of Isabel." Comparing Isabel to the Madwoman, Valency
finds that the former is "an example of an Isabel who did
not come off in the normal course of existence . . . For
Giraudoux, the mystery of young girls consists in an un
earthly transparency through which we glimpse for a little
while the world of the spirit. . . . So great is Isabel's
affinity with the spiritual world that she is able to evoke
it in person, and transform it into what looks like a social
revolution. This is the basic idea of the 'Comedy' of
Dante." "About the Play," p. 50.
183
Giraudoux's prose had more poetry in it than Eliot's "Cock
tail Party"; Newsweek that the play "is illuminated by pas
sages of beauty and rare humor." To Daily News. Valency's
adaptation was "smooth and witty"; to New York Times. the
adaptation had "grace, flow, and wit." In a minority of
one, School and Society remarked that the adaptation loses
the provincial French quality of the play and buries the
spirit and mood of fantasy in an unimaginative, literal
, 15
Evaluation
Critics were agreed that in Enchanted. Giraudoux had
attempted to set forth his belief in the dignity of man and
the enduring nature of man's quest for truth and beauty.
l^Georges May writes that "the purity of Giraudoux's
ieunes filles is also the purity of his style: a beautiful
but complex style . . . which avoids obscurity in spite of
its elegance and originality." "Jean Giraudoux and Drama
turgy," Yale French Studies. Summer 1956, p. 89. Later (p.
91), May quotes Giraudoux on the subject of style as the
ultimate expression of the writer's art: "Our age no longer
asks more works from a writer— the streets and courtyards
are already overflowing with this outmoded furniture— it
mostly calls for a language. What it expects is no longer a
writer who, like a court jester, tells the happy king a few
home truths in novels or in successful and harmless plays,
such criticism being as despicable as flattery. It expects
him to reveal to his contemporaries his own truth, to en
trust them, so that they may organise their thoughts and
their sensibility with the secret of which the writer is the
sole repository."
184
How successfully he had done this was a matter of sharply
divided opinion. For some critics, Giraudoux had failed to
clarify the two distinct phases of his theme. The external
phase, representing the conflict between Isabel who upheld
the dignity of man and the Inspector who would degrade this
dignity, is never properly focused because Giraudoux blurs
his drama of ideas in a welter of verbal gymnastics and
extraneous improvisation. The internal phase of the theme,
corresponding to man's quest for truth and beauty, is like
wise unclear. It is unclear because Isabel's romantic
yearning for truth and beauty in the person of the Ghost is
an ill-defined effort on the part of an immature girl to
reach for an obviously unattainable experience, much in the
way a child would reach for the moon. Failing to clarify
what were the two distinct phases of his theme, Giraudoux
compounded the failure in not having united these phases in
a single unit. As a result, Enchanted is hampered by vague
ness of ideas, oversentimentality, and a disunified struc
ture .
An opposite view of Enchanted was expressed by a second
group of critics who maintained that Giraudoux had present
ed his theme clearly and cogently and had united its vari
ous elements in a meaningful complex. The main point which
185
these critics made was that Giraudoux had offered a comment,
part philosophical, part poetic on life as it is contrasted
with life as it ought to be. On life as it is, Giraudoux
offers a philosophical comment stressing the need for an
adjustment to reality, not the reality made up of weights
and measures and statistics but the kind that makes for
human happiness. It is this type of adjustment which Isabel
comes to when she rejects the Ghost in favor of the Super
visor. On life as it ought to be, Giraudoux offers a poetic
comment that man should be ever responsive to aesthetic and
spiritual experience. Where or when he is not, his under
standing will be dimmed and his humanity, like that of the
literal-minded Inspector, will wither on the vine. Refer
ring again to Isabel, it is her yearning for death and
transfiguration which exemplifies man's responsiveness to
spiritual and aesthetic experience. That in Isabel's case
such experience was obviously unattainable does not invali
date Giraudoux's belief in man's communion with the aesthet
ic and the spiritual; nor does it mean that in Giraudoux's
opinion man should abandon his eternal quest for truth and
beauty.
As in Madwoman. the premiere criticism of Enchanted
reflects two widely differing views. The favorable view
186
was that by his magical use of the word, Giraudoux suspends
disbelief and leaves his audience to ponder the philosophi
cal and poetic implications of his play. The unfavorable
view was that Giraudoux's fondness for words obscures his
theme and makes slipshod his whole dramatic structure. It
is worth noting that apart from the major issue of Girau
doux's wordiness, the unfavorable view of Enchanted was
accompanied by an equally unfavorable reaction to the physi
cal aspects of production. The gist of this reaction was
that except for Poulenc's music, the true spirit of Girau
doux's play was never captured in a production that empha
sized the slick and the realistic and which was played for
comedy rather than intellectualized fantasy. In this sense,
Kaufman not only destroyed the delicate air of other-world-
liness which pervades the whole play but had also subverted
the intellectualized action implicit in Giraudoux's theme.
Under his direction, Isabel was made to appear a befuddled
and immature girl rather than as Giraudoux had intended her,
a symbol of the dignity of man and of man's enduring quest
for truth and beauty.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Enchanted may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
187
Production Criticism
Poulenc's music was regarded as an outstanding feature
of the production. Opinion was divided on the subject
of the sets and costumes; they were spacious, limpid,
and atmospheric; they were commonplace and literal.
Kaufman's directing also met with a mixed reception:
he was faithful to Giraudoux and handled a difficult
script with expert ingenuity; he directed for easy
laughs and missed entirely the play's lyrical quali
ties . MacGrath was commended by most critics for
creating an Isabel who maintained a delicate balance
between reality and unreality. Some critics found
that she lacked style and gave a monotonous perform
ance . The minor character roles were well received.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme deals with the conflict of idealism and
realism. In the thematic conflict, Giraudoux uses
Isabel as a pivot: she chooses between the Ghost
(idealism) and the Supervisor (realism); she is at
ideological war with the convention-minded Inspector.
Play Form
Enchanted was referred to as a comedy of ideas, a
tragi-comedy, a philosophical fantasy, and a satire
on bureaucracy. Opinion was divided on how success
fully Giraudoux had fused the intellectual and lyrical
elements of his subject matter.
Language
Except for School and Society (Giraudoux's mood of
fantasy is lost in Valency's adaptation), the language
of the play was considered graceful, poetic, and witty.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
188
Production Criticism
Why Enchanted was a production failure may relate to
its being overproduced (Valency).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Enchanted makes the point that we must see the world
from the viewpoint of universal harmony and not from
the viewpoint of individual man (Fowlie). Enchanted
is organized around an analogous debate between the
human and the supernatural (Guicharnaud). Through
Isabel, we are able to glimpse the world of the spirit:
Isabel evokes the spiritual world and transforms it
into what looks like a social revolution (Valency).
Plav Form
Enchanted is not a play of ideas in the sense of a
weighted discussion of pros and cons. It is rather
an aesthetic balancing of contrary definitions. Isa
bel finds her definition (an equivalent to her roman
tic phantom) in the workaday world of the Supervisor
(Guicharnaud).
Characterization
In keeping with the theme and play form, the charac
ters serve to exemplify the terms of Giraudoux's
dramatic debate (Guicharnaud).
Language
The purity of Giraudoux's ieunes filles matches the
purity of his style which is elegant and original,
yet never obscure. Giraudoux himself defines style
as the way a writer reveals his own truth to others
and, by so doing, the truth of others to themselves
(May).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Enchanted to sub
sequent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
189
1. Conceivably, Kaufman's emphasis on the slick and
realistic may have destroyed the internal balance of
the play, its mood of lyricism and its contrast of
reality and unreality. Again, the physical aspects
of production may have been too explicit, all stops
out instead of understated and muted.
2. To many premiere critics, Isabel was alienated from
a world of flesh and blood experience. In this sense,
Giraudoux's projection of Isabel as a kind of bridge
between man's spiritual yearnings and man's finite
accomplishments seemed forced and ineffective. What
ever the cause (the production, the translation, or a
literal-minded approach to Giraudoux), adverse criti
cism of Isabel failed to account for her in terms of
what Valency has called that moment in a young girl's
life when she turns from girlhood to womanhood.
3. The dramatic debate aspect of Enchanted was taken
by most premiere critics as a pro and con discussion
which involved the relative merits of an idealistic
and realistic view of life. Because the play is not
resolved on a pro and con basis--idealism is better
than realism or vice versa— many critics felt that
Giraudoux had confused the issue and left it hanging
at the end. On another level, which is probably
closer to Giraudoux's dramatic intention, the dramatic
debate aspect of Enchanted was less an intellectual
discussion than an aesthetic search for meaning. The
meaning that Enchanted reaches lies in the reconcilia
tion of seeming opposites, the flesh and the spirit,
the individual and society. The opposites are recon
ciled in terms of a universal harmony, commented on
by Isabel, where flesh and spirit are one and where
the individual is an indissoluble part of this oneness.
Qndine (Ondine) 1954
Adapted by Maurice Valency; Settings by Peter Larkin; Cos
tumes by Richard Whorf; Miss Hepburn's gowns by Valentina;
Lighting by Jean Rosenthal; Music by Virgil Thomson; Direct
ed by Alfred Lunt; Produced by The Playwright's Company at
the Forty-Sixth Street Theatre; Opened February 18, 1954;
Closed July 3, 1954 (157 performances).
Auguste .............
THE CAST
. . . , John Alexander
Eugenie .............
Ritter Hans ........
Ondine .............
. . . . Audrey Hepburn
The Ondines ........ Dran Seitz, Tani Seitz, Sonia Torgeson
The Old One ........
The Lord Chamberlain
Superintendent of the Theatre . . . . , ........ Lloyd Gough
Trainer of Seals . .
Bertha .............
. . . . Marian Seldes
Bertram .............
. . . . Peter Brandon
Violante ..........
Angelique ..........
Venus ...............
Martho .............
........ Barry 0'Hara
Salammbo ..........
A Lord .............
A Lady .............
The Illusionist . . .
The K i n g ........ .
A Servant .......... . . . . James Lanphier
First Fisherman . . .
Second Fisherman . .
First Judge ........
Second Judge .... . . William Le Massena
The Executioner . . .
Kitchen Maid ....
190
ONDINE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirrorj Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., February 19, 1954,
p. 365.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., February 19, 1954, p.,
362.
Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., February 19, 1954,
p. 364.
Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., February 19,
1954, p. 363.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., February 19,
1954, p. 362.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., February 19,
1954, p. 363.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., Febru
ary 19, 1954, p. 364.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, March 20, 1954, pp. 664-66 5.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, April 1954, pp. 67-68.
The Commonweal. Hayes, Richard, April 2, 1954, pp..649-650.
Life. (Unsigned), March 8, 1954, pp. 6 0-62.
The Nation. Clurman, Harold, March 6, 1954, p. 206.
191
192
The New Republic. Bentley, Eric, March 8, 1954, p. 21.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), March 1, 1954, p. 71.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, February 27, 1954, pp. 66-
70.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, March 13, 1954, pp. 26-
27 .
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), May 1954, pp.. 18-20.
Time, (Unsigned), March 1, 1954, p. 76.
193
Production Criticism
Larkin's fairy tale sets and Whorf's colorful.medieval
costumes met with the unanimous approval of the newspaper
critics. In the opinion of these critics, the sets and
costumes showed imagination, the right amount of visual
flair, and a feeling for the mood of fantasy evoked by the
play. This view was supported among the magazine critics by
Catholic World. Theatre Arts, and Time. Less favorable were
the opinions of New Yorker and Saturday Review. The sets
and costumes "in spite of their traces of heavy Germanic
humor, are imposing and appropriate" (New Yorker). Larkin,
and Whorf, along with director Lunt, "make the whole busi
ness resemble a deluxe edition of a volume of German fairy
tales" (Saturday Review). To Commonweal. Nation, and New
Republic. the sets and costumes were poor. Commonweal wrote
that the seaweed costumes for the ondines "touches vulgar
ity" ; Nation that the pedestrian sets and costumes give "the
impression of a ballet setting in a post-Ziegfeld musical."
Referring to Tchelichev’s Paris production of Ondine. where
in the designer created a world of his own, New Republic
stated that the present production shows "little imagination
. . . pretty much what you'd expect on TV."
Thomson's music received favorable mention from several
194
critics. To Daily Mirror, the music was "atmospheric"; to
Daily News and Herald Tribune, attractive. Newsweek called
the music "agreeable," and New Yorker referred to it as "of
a suitably unearthly nature."
Lunt’s direction met with the unanimous approval of the
newspaper critics. These critics called attention to Lunt's
skillful and sympathetic staging, marked by an emphasis on
graceful movement and stylistic gusto. A like view was
expressed among the magazine critics by America. Catholic
Wprld, Life. and Newsweek. The opinion of New Yorker was
also favorable: except for a few problems beyond Lunt's
accomplished hand, the direction is generally distinguished.
Crediting Lunt with "the intelligence to capitalize on Miss
Hepburn's ballet training," Saturday Review found that the
production lacked "dramatic content," despite its over-all
clarity and style. To Commonweal and New Republic, the
direction was poor. Commonweal wrote that Lunt arranges a
marriage of convenience between reality and fantasy, result
ing in a kind of conventional chic which lacks spirit, fi
nesse, and positive style. Comparing Lunt's directing with
that of Jouvet in the Paris production, New Republic found
that both directors were remiss in the matter of character
ization; but Jouvet had at least a clear-cut style and a
195 :
feeling for the text, neither of which qualities were mani-
16
fest m tne New York production.
Hepburn, in the title role, won almost unanimous ac
claim. The critics were particularly impressed by her
bodily grace, her personal beauty, and her honesty and sen
sitivity as an actress. Herald Tribune wrote that with her
personal loveliness and her exquisite elfish grace, Hepburn
is “the principal magic of 'Ondine.'" New York Times ob
served that Hepburn captures all the intangibles of her
complicated role— moods and impishness, mischief and tragedy
— translated "into the language of the theatre without art
fulness. or precociousness." To New Yorker, Hepburn's great
est feat is "the feeling of sad and hopeless beauty that she
brings to the story." To Theatre Arts, there is real pathos
in Hepburn's final moments "when we realize she is doomed to
forget the knight and her earthly existence." New York
Post. Commonweal. and New Republic were agreed that despite
■^Maurice Zolotow quotes Lunt with reference to the
problems he encountered in directing Ondine: because there
are only two long acting parts, as against many small parts,
it is "difficult to sustain a mood . . . an actor has no
space in which to build his role." Another problem that
Lunt encountered was the sharp shifts in mood "from high
comedy to what Lunt describes as phantasmagoria." "Alfred
Lunt, Director," Theatre Arts. April 1954, p. 29.
196 |
Hepburn's faulty delivery, she gave an extraordinary per
formance. Acknowledging her technical flaws— sing-song
delivery, mouthing of lines— New Republic observed that
"Ondine was worth writing, translating, and producing just
to place Miss Hepburn on the stage in such a role."
But to Nation and Saturday Review. Hepburn's lack of
stage training presented more of a problem. Nation stated
that though talented, beautiful, and sensitive, Hepburn
"doesn't yet know how to transfer the outward aspects of
characterization . . . into an inner characterization." For
this reason, her performance "actually lacks mystery," a
dimension beyond her entrancing self. Saturday Review found
that Hepburn "gives in every sense of the word a performance
and not a piece of acting." Her movements and physical
presence are "joyous and refreshing," but she overacts and
lacks subtlety and shades of feeling.
Ferrer, as the knight errant, was greeted with a mixed
reception. He was praised by most newspaper critics for a
vigorous and straightforward performance which pictured the
knight as a practical-minded mortal caught between human
and supernatural forces. However, to New York Post. Ferrer
was commonplace and upset the balance of the play by failing
to communicate to his knight either romantic style or a
197 !
feeling of reality. A similar opinion was voiced by most
magazine critics. New Republic wrote that Ferrer is "the
kind of Hollywood actor who can dress up as King Arthur
without concealing his preference for the corner poolroom."
Saturday Review stated that Ferrer presents the knight as a
nonentity instead of a human being. In a minority of two,
Newsweek and Theatre Arts found that Ferrer gave a sympa
thetic performance.
The supporting cast was well received. In a minority
of one, Commonweal expressed an unfavorable opinion: the
17
supporting cast is "oddly graceless."
Dramatic Criticism
Most critics were agreed that the theme of Ondine. like
that of Enchanted. dealt with the conflict between idealism
and realism. According to various critics, this thematic
conflict was expressed in a number of ways. To New York
Times. Commonweal. New Republic, and Time, it was idealized
love and innocence versus human weakness and impurity. New
^-7Maurice Valency comments that "the interesting thing
about Ondine is not to my mind that we were able to do it
as we did but that we were able to do it at all." "Some
Facts About a Myth," Theatre Arts. December 1954, p. 33.
198
York Times wrote that what comes between Ondine and the
knight is that "pure innocence and the world cannot get
along together." To Commonweal. Giraudoux’s theme is "re
membered innocence . . . its fate at the hands of a punish
ing reality his substance." New Republic stated that Girau-
doux shifts the emphasis on narrative found in the original
Fouque story to love itself; thus "Ondine represents the
pure essence of love; her beloved represents love enmeshed
in the ordinary impurities of living." In a similar sense,
Time referred to the clash between mankind's dream of per-
18
fection and his descent into reality.
New York Times found Giraudoux's handling of the theme
both poignant and meaningful. But to New Republic, the
poignancy of the theme was often obscured by the introduc
tion of too many unrelated ideas and by too much verbalizing
ISpavid Grossvogel refers to Giraudoux’s use of a not
unfamiliar flesh and fantasy theme: "In the person of On
dine a delicate figure was attempted, one free from the
coarse and mortal bulk of men. . . . Ondine was given a duet
to act out with the knight Hans von Wittenstein zu Witten-
stein (Giraudoux’s own coinage), the pathetically earthbound
man who stumbles momentarily and hopelessly into Ondine's
realm. At the death of Hans, at the airy departure of On
dine, the spectator was to be left with the regret that
those privileged moments are not for men, though he will
have been elevated by having been drawn into them awhile and
comforted in the knowledge that somewhere, such transcenden
tal worlds endure unsullied." The Self-Conscious Stage in
Modern French Drama, p. 81.
199 ;
Commonweal and Time observed that Giraudoux's fondness for
words and ideas not only obscured the theme but practically
obliterated it. "However great the quality of felt emotion
in the expression, the amount of felt and observed life to
sustain it sadly diminishes" (Commonweal). "What the play
gains in philosophical embroideries, it more than.loses in
19
fairy-tale magic and lyrical feeling" (Time).
New York Post and Newsweek saw the theme in terms of a
conflict between the world of dreams and the world of reali
ty. In the opinion of New York Post. Giraudoux opposes
man's dream of the ideal with his need for living in a prac
tical world: "mankind's triumph is that it does occasion
ally grasp that ideal for a moment, and its tragedy is that
the triumph must be so fleeting," Newsweek wrote that in
presenting the knight, doomed to perplexity between Bertha
and Ondine, "Giraudoux's fable is neither very clear nor
very stirring about this conflict between the dream world
and the world of reality."
According to Journal American and Theatre Arts, the
19John Gassner writes that "Ondine is a beautifully
composed fairy tale, rich in poetic pathos and despair. But
the very character about the love of a water sprite and a
knight attenuates tragic conflict and favors atmospheric not
dramatic pressure." Theatre at the Crossroads. p. 94.
200
theme points up the conflict between the world of nature and
the world of man. Idealistically, man seeks truth in na
ture; practically, he is unable to fit it into his normal
pattern of living. In terms of this man and nature con
flict, Journal American and Theatre Arts were agreed that
20
the theme was clearly presented and well handled.
^Wallace Fowlie observes that except for Auguste, the
fisherman, and the Poet, the characters do not understand
that "Ondine1s love for Hans is nature's benevolence toward
man. . . . The character of Ondine is an extreme mythologi
cal figure, chosen by Giraudoux to show the reality and the
absoluteness of love when it exists in total harmony with
nature. But man is free in Giraudoux's world. He makes
his own destiny. The life of Hans is destroyed because of
his scorn of love." "Giraudoux' Approach to Tragedy," p.
12. Robert Jones takes up the same question of man-nature
relationship; "The King of the Ondines represents fate, the
supernatural force which pervades all of Giraudoux's plays
and provides the essential conflict within them. Ondine has
altered this force by marrying Hans and it only awaits his
infidelity to strike. Auguste warns of this force in the
first act. His nature is strangely akin to the destin of
the Greek plays or the Dieu of the Biblical ones; 'It is
true that nature doesn't like to become angry at man. It
is prejudiced in his favor. Something in him wins it over
or amuses it. All the venom and poison in flowers and rep
tiles flees, at the approach of man, towards shadows or be
trays itself by its very color. But if man has once offend
ed nature he is lost.' Auguste tells Hans that Ondine is
nature itself; 'It is either because children guess in
stinctively what nature is, or it is because the nature of
Ondine is nature itself. There are great forces about On
dine.’ These forces, once unleashed, provide the tragic
climax of the play and Ondine, because of her very perfec
tion, is really the force which is her own undoing." The
Alienated Hero in Modern French Drama, p. 89.
201 j
World Telegram. Nation. and New Yorker held varying
views as to the exact nature of the idealism versus realism
conflict. World Telegram stated that the theme "is presum
ably intended to project the two sides of human nature,
particularly the facets of woman as man requires her to be."
To Nation the' theme expresses Giraudoux’s revolt against the
crassness of contemporary civilization and the ugly realism
of the Theatre Libre. To New Yorker. Ondine is in simplest
terms "the story of a love for which the hero dies and the
heroine knows she is fated to forget." World Telegram.
Nation. and New Yorker found the theme elusive, agreeing
with New Republic. Commonweal. and Time that its meaning
21
was obscured by too much verbalizing and too many ideas.
Daily News. America. and Saturday Review held that the
theme was so elusive as to be unrecognizable. Daily News
^Jones considers the question of the egotistical qual
ity manifest in Giraudoux's heroines: "the exile-heroines
of Giraudoux seem in the long run to lack the tragic stature
of an Antigone, a Lear, or a Phedre precisely because the
ideas they embody become abstractions which, while appearing
to demonstrate a theory, seem more important than existence
itself. In the classical drama most of the heroes seem to
experience some moment of doubt. They wonder, for example,
whether the state or some ideal is more important than them
selves and their own happiness, and this moment of doubt
makes them more human than they might otherwise seem. This
human attitude of doubt is invariably missing in Giraudoux's
women." The Alienated Hero, p. 93.
wrote that the plot and implications of Ondine are neither
important nor weighty. America was unable to find evidence
of any abstruse philosophy in the play. To Saturday Review.
Ondine lacked meaning and clarity because it fails to "cap
ture the heart and poke fun at the mind."
With respect to play form, there was considerable
difference of critical opinion. Ondine was labeled a fan
tasy (Herald Tribune. New York Post. World Telegram); a play
of ideas and mood (Commonweal. Nation. New Republic); a
blend of fairy tale and personal philosophizing (Daily News.
Catholic World); a bittersweet romance (Daily Mirror). How
ever, most critics were agreed in emunerating the faults of
the play: too contrived, too static, and with reference to
the third act, structurally weak. Referring to Ondine as a
self-conscious fantasy, Herald Tribune found special fault
with the skipping over of dramatic time in the second act:
We do lose those moments in which the characters slowly
discover their feelings for one another. We pick them
up later and let them talk. But the talk is long and
the feeling is sadly m i s s e d .^2
oo
Valency makes the following comment relative to the
dramatic construction of Giraudoux's second act: "it had
never played too well in French and obviously needed to be
plainer in English. When I was through with it, I thought
it would be clear, but I had no idea it could be staged as
brilliantly as it was." "Some Facts about a Myth," p. 33.
203 |
Catholic World wrote that the first act closely followed the
original Fouque story, and was the most charming part of the
play. Much less charming, in the opinion of Catholic World,
were acts two and three, respectively a mixture of Giraudoux
and Fouque, and Giraudoux pure and simple. A similar view
was expressed by Commonweal; act one is "bright and lumi
nous; act two is involved in 'desperate artifice'; act three
emerges "with an opaque and burnished density of human
thought." According to Commonweal, the end result is a
somewhat dubious demonstration of Giraudoux's mastery "at
23
forcing wit to bear the burden of tragedy."
Nation wrote that midway through the second act the
^Grossvogel refers to the flippancy of Giraudoux's
play form which "slowly infects the substance of the play.
Quirks that once marked the novels are still apparent.
Characteristics become as effortlessly malleable as the
images themselves: undines are deathless when such a defi
nition is needed (as befits especially the heroine: 'I am
fifteen years old. And I was born centuries ago. And I
shall never die') but there are skulls of dead undines a
moment later (II, XI) to suit a different image (quite in
verting the legend that renders mortal only the watersprite
who marries a mortal). And as in the novels, the witty
author is ready to juggle with any combination of facts, no
matter from what direction they might be tossed at him:
when the notion of faithlessness is detected by Yseult in a
tribe of undines who utterly ignore the concept, a slip that
could have been eliminated without loss to the action is
allowed to remain so that, detected by the author and played
with in the usual way, it might evidence an additional, gra
tuitous sleight of mind." The Self-Conscious Stage, pp. 82-83.
204 !
play becomes inexplicable, largely because of a discrepancy ;
between matter and form. Giraudoux’s forte is high sophis
tication and mental refinement, "but it has little to do
with the gravity and thick sentiment of the Ondine legend.
. . . he loses some of his natural grace when he tries to
shape the foggy mood of Germanic yearning into a Parisian
pattern." New Republic credited Giraudoux with a vast orig
inality in giving a new definition to drama. Philosophi
cally, it is "anti-materialistic, a drama of magic and mir
acle." Technically, it is "a drama in which thought is more
important than action or character, and in which words are
more important than thought." In this respect of unrelated
thoughts and ideas, "the second act of Ondine stands re-
24
vealed as a desperate piece of improvising."
^^Laurence Le Sage offers an opposite view with refer
ence to Giraudoux's arrangement of the Fouque myth and the
dramaturgy of the second act: "Giraudoux takes the incon
gruities of the Fouque myth— its mixture of bourgeois vir
tues and piety against a background of fairy-like unreality
— and develops them into delicious comedy. . . . The second
act especially is largely invention and completely Girau
doux. Dramatic exigencies necessitate abridgment of the
narrative, which Giraudoux ingeniously accomplishes by the
tricks of the illusionist who conjures up in a few moments
the essential dramatic scenes which would normally take
place during a period of ten years. Nothing could more ef
fectively destroy the sense of reality or make it more for
tuitous ." "Jean Giraudoux, Surrealism, and the German Ro
mantic Ideal," The University of Illinois Studies in
In a minority of three, Daily Mirror. New York Post,
and World Telegram found no major flaws in the play form.
To Daily Mirror and New York Post. Ondine was a graceful and
imaginative play which combined philosophy and lyricism in a:
theatrically striking form. World Telegram wrote that from
the point of view of fantasy, the play's disregard for time
and logic was acceptable.
The language of the play was greeted with a mixed re
ception. To Daily Mirror. New York Times. Catholic World,
and Theatre Arts. the language was imaginative and graceful,
the adaptation deft and sympathetic. Daily Mirror wrote
that the adaptation has "feeling and insight"; New York
Times that is is "delicate"; Catholic World that it is in
the simple prose of the Madwoman of Chaillot"; Theatre Arts
that it "brilliantly catches the spirit of Giraudoux." To
New Republic. New Yorker. Saturday Review, and Time, the
adaptation was basically sound but lacked a sufficient poet
ic quality. New Republic stated that Valency "does what
lies in his power to write in English what Giraudoux wrote
in French"; what doesn't come through, and what causes the
play to look bare and naked, is "the aroma which is the
Language and Literature (Urbana, 1952), p. 32.
206 !
i
essence." New Yorker wrote that the adaptation seemed
"fairly literal"; Saturday Review that it was competent if
uninspired. Referring to the adaptation as "excellent
prose," Time observed that "dramatically Ondine suffers
from too much prose— or at any rate too little poetry."
World Telegram voiced a distinctly unfavorable opinion:
most of the play suffers from "pedestrian and unpoetic lan-
25
guage and abject humorlessness."
Evaluation
Most critics felt that in his dramatizing of Fouque's
fairy-tale love story, Giraudoux had projected the immortal
nymph as a living symbol of the truth and beauty which man
^valency observes that his translation offers "sub
stantially the same play that Giraudoux wrote in French,"
As against Madwoman. the changes in Ondine were trifling.
"Some Facts about a Myth," p. 33. Zolotow quotes Lunt on
the problem of speaking Giraudoux's lines: "Much of the
dialogue is profound— but the profundity is tossed off, so
it makes the problem of rendering it hard. The speech is
somewhat heightened, at times almost poetic, and yet it
stays within the vernacular." "Alfred Lunt, Director," p.
29. Le Sage sees the language of Ondine as "a belated vin
dication of Romantic dramaturgy, which provides such an
overwhelming place to lyricism and musicality at the expense
of dramatic invention." According to Le Sage, this Giral-
ducian emphasis on language broke the strangle hold of
realism on the French theatre "and gave it fresh impetus
toward Romantic goals." "Jean Giraudoux, Surrealism, and
the German Romantic Ideal," p. 32.
207 [
|
aspires to, but which he may never attain because of the
hypocrisy and ugliness that surround his daily life. In so
opposing a world of dreams to the world of reality, Girau
doux makes use of a characteristic thematic conflict, that
of idealism versus realism. He shows his hero, Hans Ritter,
half dreamer, half realist, wavering between his love for
Ondine (truth and beauty) and his pragmatic need for the
hypocrisy and spiritual ugliness represented by Bertha.
Through Ritter's unavailing struggle to reconcile dream with
reality— in the poignancy and sense of loss which attends
that struggle— Giraudoux demonstrates, just as he did in
Madwoman and Enchanted, his preoccupation with words and
ideas to the exclusion, of action and characterization.
To Daily Mirror. New York Post. New York Times. and
World Telegram the abjuring of action and characterization
was incidental. It was enough that Giraudoux's words were
poetic and his ideas profound. New Repub Tic went even
further in its praise of Giraudoux, crediting him with a
vast originality in giving a new definition to drama: phil
osophically anti-materialistic, a drama of magic and mir
acle; technically a drama which stresses thought over action
and character, and words over thought.
But for most critics (New Republic included),
208 |
Giraudoux's preoccupation with words and ideas was audience-
wise'a fatal one. It simultaneously blunted the impact of
his theme and buried under an opaque verbal mass the better
part of his dramatic structure. The cumulative effect of
this dallying with words and ideas was to render Ondine in
its second and third act almost totally inexplicable. In
analyzing the structural breakdown of Ondine. Herald Tribune
referred to the passing over of dramatic time in the second
act as a faulty piece of dramaturgy: interrelationships
between the characters are at this point merely talked about
instead of being shown through the action and reaction of
the characters themselves. Catholic World and Time ascribed
the structural breakdown of Ondine to the over-philosophiz
ing of an essentially lyrical theme. Commonweal and Time
wrote that the play fell apart in the second act because of
a discrepancy between matter and form. According to Nation.
the Germanic gravity and thick sentiment of the original
Ondine legend was ill-suited to Giraudoux's typically Pari
sian pattern .of mental refinement and high sophistication.
In Madwoman and Enchanted, critical opinion was some
what evenly divided as to Giraudoux's handling of dramatic
form. His ability to express and clarify a thematic con
flict on the basis of intellectualized rather than physical
action was attacked and defended by about an equal number of
critics. By way of contrast, the dominant trend in the
premiere criticism of Ondine reflects widespread critical
dissatisfaction with Giraudoux's whole approach to play-
writing. A playwright has a primary duty, maintained most
of the premiere critics, and this is to convey to his audi
ence a sense of living character through which the events
of his play take on human meaning. In Ondine. Giraudoux's
characters are so symbolic and representative, so utterly
removed from life, that even as symbols they have no iden
tity. They are rather a kind of phonic nebulae floating
through a maze of magic incantation and cloudy philosophiz
ing. Along with the unfavorable reaction to Giraudoux's
dramaturgy (whether its cause or its corollary) was a some
what unfavorable view of both Valency’s translation and
Lunt's direction. Both were too literal, too prosaic,
lacking the lilt and spirit of Giraudoux’s original. Per
haps, as New Republic indicated, the fault in the American
production of Ondine lay not so much with Giraudoux as with
his guiding lights. For on Broadway there was no Jouvet to
explicate the inner meaning of Giraudoux's word, nor a poet
of sufficient stature who could write this word in a foreign
tongue.
210 |
i
The main trends of premiere criticism in Ondine may, j
i
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
Most critics approved the sets and costumes; but ;
Commonweal. Nation, and New Republic referred to them
as vulgar and unimaginative. Except for Commonweal,
j New Republic, and Saturday Review, the direction was
i considered graceful and stylistically sound. Hepburn
i won almost unanimous approval: she was commended for j
| her bodily grace, her personal beauty, her honesty i
j and sensitivity as an actress. Ferrer met with a mixec
| reception: he was praised for a vigorous, straight-
[ forward performance; he was attacked for being common-
! place and vapid. Except for Commonweal. the support- j
j ing cast was well received.
| Dramatic Criticism
i . !
i |
j Theme j
i
i
I Critics agreed that the theme dealt with the conflict
I between idealism and realism. This conflict was en- I
| visioned in a number of ways: Ondine represents either
j love or nature or perfection; Hans Ritter is the ob-
] tuseness, or the grossness, or the impurity of man
j who is incapable of achieving what it is that Ondine
| represents. Many critics thought that these conflict-
| ing elements were never properly related and for this j
i reason that the theme was unclear. |
i '
\ '
i i
Plav Form j
I
Ondine was described as a fantasy, a play of ideas, a j
i philosophical fairy tale, a bittersweet romance. Most i
! critics agreed that the play was too contrived, too
static, and in the second and third act structurally
weak .
Characterization
.
Most critics felt that the characters were abstract
representations rather than well-defined individuals, j
211
Again, for most critics, Giraudoux seemed more inter
ested in ideas and words than he was in the characters
who expressed them.
Language
The language of the play met with a mixed reception.
To some critics, Giraudoux was graceful and imaginative
in his choice of words and the Valency adaptation was
deft and sympathetic. To other critics, Giraudoux
and/or Valency were verbose and prosaic. New Republic
referred to Giraudoux's use of language as opening a
whole new dimension in drama.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
According to Lunt, there were two major problems in
directing Ondine: the large number of small acting
parts which made it hard for the actors to character
ize; the sharp shifts in mood which demanded a deli
cate balance between comedy and fantasy (Zolotow).
That Ondine was even produced on Broadway was in it
self an achievement (Valency).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme expresses the unattainability of a spiritual
state to which man aspires but never achieves (Gross-
vogel). Ondine1s love for Hans is nature's benevolence
toward man. Hans is destroyed because he repudiates
this love and thus acts against nature (Fowlie, Jones).
Play Form
The second act presented difficulties in dramatic con
struction which especially needed clarifying in English
(Valency). Giraudoux plays fast and loose with his
212
dramatic material: he is flippant, offhanded, and
sometimes inconsistent with reference to his own
statements (Grossvogel). Giraudoux renders the often
lugubriousness of the Fouque myth into delicious come
dy. His skipping over of time in the second act, via
the illusionist, is a typical example of how Giraudoux
imposes the sense of fairy-like unreality which is
integral with his subject and the way he treats it (Le
Sage).
Characterization
The King of the Ondines represents fate, the super
natural force which pervades all of Giraudoux's plays
and provides the essential conflict within them. As
to Ondine, she is like Giraudoux's other exile-hero-
ines, alienated from any moral or social context.
Hence, because she thinks only in terms of herself,
she lacks tragic stature (Jones).
Language
Valency's adaptation is substantially the same play
Giraudoux wrote in French (Valency). Giraudoux
achieves a delicate balance between the language of
high comedy and a poetic profundity (Lunt). Girau
doux' s emphasis on lyricism and musicality is a belat
ed vindication of romantic dramaturgy. It was by
means of this emphasis that Giraudoux broke the
strangle hold of realism on the French theatre (Le
Sage).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Ondine to subse
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. Like all of Giraudoux, Ondine requires a careful
balancing of text, spectacle, and acting ensemble.
A possible weakness in the Broadway production, judg
ing by statements of the premiere critics as well as
Lunt himself, may have been in the lack of acting
ensemble. Certainly, a number of critics took issue
with Ferrer's Hans Ritter as against their almost
unanimous approval of Hepburn's Ondine.
213
2. A common complaint of the premiere critics was
that Giraudoux had showered his play with a barrage
of words and ideas which, as often as not, flew in
all directions and never came to rest at any one
point. Hence, to many critics, the theme was unclear
and never properly resolved. Perhaps the issue here
is that Giraudoux was projecting what Grossvogel has
called the unattainability of a spiritual state to
which man may aspire but never achieve. If this is
so, the shifts in mood and the restlessness of Girau
doux's form were part of an integral effort aimed at
showing the process of man's spiritual experience
rather than the definitive results of it.
3. Most premiere critics held that because Giraudoux
seemed preoccupied with words and ideas his characters
were abstract representations instead of concrete en
tities. Jones considers this lack of concretion from
the point of view of the egotistical nature of Girau
doux's heroines, their lack of contact with the main
stream of human life. Yet, if Ondine represents na
ture (which is what Jones himself maintains), the
charge that she is unlifelike and alienated would
appear illogical and unjustified.
4. Although most premiere critics accepted Ondine as
a fantasy, there was much quibbling about Giraudoux's
arbitrary suspension of reality, a suspension which
is indeed consistent with the fantasy nature of his
material. In question is what Le Sage has called
Giraudoux's belated vindication of romantic dramaturgy
where the emphasis is less on dramatic credibility
than on a drama of magic and incantation, of communi
cation and communion. This is. what New Republic called
attention to as Giraudoux's unique and original con
tribution to the contemporary theatre.
Ticrer at the Gates
(La Guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu) 1955
Translated by Christopher Fry; Settings and Costumes De
signed by Loudon Sainthill; Supervising Designer Paul Mor-
risson; Incidental Music by Lennox Berkeley; Directed by
Harold Clurman; Produced by the Playwright's Company in
association with Henry M. Margolis at the Plymouth Theatre;
Opened October 3, 1955; Closed April 1, 1956 (224 perform
ances ) .
THE CAST
Andromache ................................ Barbara Jefford
Cassandra .................................. Leueen MacGrath
Laundress ...................................... Judith Braun
Hector .................................... Michael Redgrave
Paris . . .•........................... .......... Leo Ciceri
First Old Man .............................Howard Caine
Second Old M a n ................................Jack Bittner
Priam ...................................... Morris Carnovsky
Demekos ......................................... John Laurie
Hecuba Catherine Lacey
Mathematician ................................ Milton Selzer
Lady in Waiting........................... Jacqueline Brooks
Polyxene ................. ............. Ellen Christopher
Helen.................................. Diane Cilento
Messenger .................................... Ernest Graves
Troilus .......................................... Peter Kerr
Abneos.................................... Howard Caine
Busiris ...................................... Wyndham Goldie
A j a x Felix Munso
Ulysses .................................. Walter Fitzgerald
A Topman ................................ . Nehemiah Persoff
Olpides ........................................ Jack Bittner
Senator ...................................... Tom McDermott
Sailor...................................... . Louis Criss
214
TIGER AT THE GATES BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., October 4, 1955,
p. 266.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., October 4, 1955, p.
264.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., October 4,
1955, p. 266.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., Octo
ber 4, 1955.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr . , N. Y .T .C . , October 4,
1955, p. 264.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., Octo
ber 4, 1955, p. 267.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., October 4,
1955, p. 265.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, November 26, 1955, pp. 258-260.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, December 155, pp. 223-
224.
The Commonweal. Hayes, Richard, November 25, 1955, pp. 200-
201. .
Life. (Unsigned), October 17, 1955, pp. 164-165.
215
The Nation. Traube, Shepard, October 22, 1955, p. 348.
The New Republic. Bentley, Eric, October 24, 1955, p. 22.
Newsweek, (Unsigned), October 17, 1955, p. 103.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, October 15, 1955, pp. 72-
75.
The Reporter. Mannes, Marya, October 20, 1955, pp. 42-43.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, October 22, 1955, p. 55.
Theatre Arts. (Unsigned), December 1955, p. 22-23.
Time. (Unsigned), October 17, 1955, pp. 51-52.
217 :
Production Criticism
Sainthill's many-leveled, geometrically patterned sets
and his simple classic costumes won unanimous approval. To
New York. Times. the sets had "the solid balance of classical
drama"; to Commonweal, they "splendidly suggest the fatal
ambience of the myth"; and to Theatre Arts, the sets lent
the whole production "one more ironic touch." Except for
Daily Mirror (over-stresses theatrical effects) and Nation
(too declamatory and static), Clurman's direction was also
approved. Clurman was especially commended for his ability
to strike the right stylistic note midway between the play's
classic background and its modern context. In this respect,
New York Times wrote that the play was beautifully directed,
"like a classic without letting it look solemn." To World
Telegram, the direction gave the play "a fluid beauty of
movement that lends a sense of period to even its sharpest
fun." In the opinion of Commonweal. Clurman had shown rare
judgment and sensitivity in "directing our attention to
what is always the vibrant center of any Giraudoux play:
the mesmerism of the word." New Republic found that in
making his actors "fill in what the author left vague,"
Clurman's approach to Giraudoux is even better than Jou
vet's. Clurman manages this filling-in process by having
218 |
j
"an actor maintain the character in passages where Giraudoux
has forgotten everything except that actors are standing
there reciting.
Redgrave's Hector met with an enthusiastic reception.
The most striking feature of his performance, as noted by
almost all critics, was his synthesizing of the human and
heroic qualities of the Giraudoux character. Journal Amer
ican wrote of Redgrave that he "gives a dynamic and studied
portrait of a warrior who is aware of the futility of con
flict, yet is powerless to prevent it." To New York Post.
Redgrave performed with impassioned sincerity: "he is
moving, tragic, witty, humorous, and eloquent and he gives
Hector the stature of a hero without ever losing the role's
humanity." In a like sense, Commonweal wrote that Redgrave
relates the play not only to the present ("Humanity is out
raged in his defeat . . .") but recreates all the ensuing
26william Becker writes that "directing Giraudoux prop
erly takes a kind of courage that few modern directors have:
the courage to let actors stand and talk. The directoral
task is to assure that they talk well and theatrically,
animate the language, make it work." Under Clurman's direc
tion, according to Becker, all of these things came to pass
(Clurman's only fault was over-directing some of the minor
characters for farce). "Some French Plays in Translation,"
Hudson Review. Summer 1956, p. 282.
219 ;
spectacle of the fall of Troy. Comparing Redgrave's Hector
to Jouvet’s, Theatre Arts observed that Redgrave may have
less biting quality but Jouvet could harly have been more
forceful or human. To New Republic. Redgrave was "more than
a match for Jouvet."
Cilento likewise won unanimous approval for her ex
pertly stylized, yet ingratiating Helen. According to Her
ald Tribune. Cilento's "cool, pliant Helen is a marvel of
insolence"; and to World Telegram. Cilento was "delicious
to look at and slyly witty in her tones of chalky reson
ance." MacGrath1s Cassandra was also commended. Her per
formance was described as "smooth and incisive" (Daily Mir
ror ); imbued with "devastating humor" (World Telegram);
"cool and deadly" (New Yorker). In the opinion of Theatre
Arts. there was a suggestion of Jouvet in MacGrath1s Cassan
dra. Commenting on both MacGrath and Cilento, New Republic
wrote that it would be hard to imagine "even a French pro
duction beating the beautiful Diane Cilento1s witty comment
on Helen or Leueen MacGrath's delicately pointed portrayal
27
of Cassandra."
^^Becker reaches the conclusion that though Redgrave’s
Hector was good, MacGrath gave the best performance of all:
"exactly the feeling for nuance that Giraudoux requires."
220
Among the well-received supporting cast, Fitzgerald
was singled out for a mature and forceful portrayal of
Ulysses. Nation said of Fitzgerald that "his magnificently
cerebral portrait of Ulysses seemed to me one of the real
triumphs of production." Less sparing in his praise, New
Republic found that despite a sound performance, Fitzgerald
is "no match for the great actor for whom the part was
28
written (Pierre Renoir)."
Dramatic Criticism
Critics were unanimously agreed that the theme of Tiger
centered around Giraudoux's belief in the inevitability of
war. The very fact that Giraudoux believed war inevitable
caused three critics to look with some disfavor on the whole
play. To Daily News. Giraudoux1s "witty and cynical sermon
According to Becker, Cilento's Helen was also noteworthy:
"as portrayed by Giraudoux, and somewhat sharpened by Clur-
man . . . not the dignified demigoddess of Homeric myth, but
a coquettish nymph, all sex and coy innocence, the sort of
blonde that Trojan gentlemen prefer." "Some French Plays
in Translation," p. 282.
2®Becker finds that the production got somewhat tedious
near the end, especially in Fitzgerald's scene "composed
entirely of long, rather set speeches which Walter Fitz
gerald delivered handsomely, but without the vigor or the
subtle dexterity of pace they required." "Some French Plays
in Translation," p. 282.
221 j
|
about man's eternal need to go to war" was not only boring
and talky but also pessimistic. Nation wrote that Girau
doux' s stressing the inevitability of war, "even when men
of good will convene to avert it," was at once pessimistic
and negativistic. According to New Yorker. Tiger "preaches
a sermon of chilly despair" because it shows how the com
bined efforts of men of good will are powerless against the
blind forces of cynicism, false sentiment, and sheer human
29
stupidity.
^Wallace Fowlie writes that "even if man himself over
came his warlike instincts, Giraudoux would answer that des
tiny itself demands war. The dramaturgy of La Guerre de
Troie shows how destiny, which wants the war, uses Hector
himself as a pawn to bring it about. Giraudoux's conclusion
is bleak and despairing. War is hateful, but it is eternal
because it comes from the nature of man. And even if men
reach some temporary agreement, destiny, for whom it is a
favorite distraction, will release it." However, according
to Fowlie, Giraudoux's fundamental philosophy is not pessi
mistic, "not the vision of man placed in a world unsuited
to him, in which his existence will appear absurd." It is
rather that Giraudoux places the faults of man upon man's
trying to reconcile the world to himself instead of himself
to the world. With respect to its anti-war implications,
Fowlie also takes note of the World War II contemporaneity
of Giraudoux's theme. Dionysus in Paris. p. 65. Eugene
Falk offers further comment on the contemporaneity of Girau
doux 's theme: "So unsubstantial are the relations between
this play and the Iliad, so marked the differences in char
acters, so few and so tenuous the similarities in episodes
that our minds are necessarily diverted to seek contemporary
events reflected in the play." "Theme and Motif in La
Guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu." Tulane Drama Review. May
1959, p. 19.
222 ;
But for most critics, Giraudoux's handling of his theme
i
was not so much cynical and despairing as it was thoughtful ;
and poignant. The thoughtfulness was manifested in the
spirited exchange of ideas between the characters and in the
ironic cut of Giraudoux's clear, sharp logic. Referring to
Giraudoux's use of irony and logic, which lays bare the
humbug of war-mongering poets and sword-clanking cowards,
Herald Tribune wrote that Tiger is an anti-war play written
by a realist, not an idealist; hence, it is "dry, crisp,
clear, witty and profoundly shocking." Theatre Arts ex
pressed much the same view, stating that Giraudoux's ap
proach to his theme was eminently hard-headed and clear
thinking; "Although the theme of the play is clearly anti
war, the conclusion is otherwise, and the logic is sharp
30
and tonic rather than high flown and impractical."
3C*David Grossvogel finds that irony, rather than trag
edy, is the dominant motif in Tiger. Taking note of Girau
doux* s original title, la Guerre de Troie n1 aura pas lieu.
Grossvogel maintains that the sense of fate or destiny is
more of a mechanism than a consuming force as borne out in
the witty comments of the personae and their symbolic uni
formity. Hence, in Grossvogel's opinion, "the play becomes
an annotation on the processes of an inevitable doom rather
than a revelation of these processes, and because the anno
tation is urbane, yet another step is taken away from trag
edy ." The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern French Drama, p .
92.
223
Again, for most critics, Giraudoux's treatment of his
theme was poignant as it was thoughtful. The poignancy was
manifested in lyrical passages such as Hector's "Ode to the
Dead" which epitomized the play's tragic paradox of man's
inherent desire for life and his fatal and abiding death-
wish for war. Giraudoux's combining of poignancy and
thoughtfulness caused most critics to feel that he had not
delivered himself of a Dies Irae dirge, but a lament for the
human suffering occasioned by human folly. From this point
of view, America observed that while the "Tiger" in the
title is an obvious symbol for war, the effect of the play
is purgative: "It moves us to introspection, a search for
the beast in ourselves." Time wrote that though in a sense
an anti-war play, Ticrer "is much more a lament for the seem-
31
ing inevitability of war."
31-Jacques Guicharnaud refers to Giraudoux' s use of
"irreconcilable definitions" (in Tiger it is, of course, a
matter of war and peace) wherein the stronger definition
wins. This does not mean, however, that "contrary defini
tions are reconciled through facile satire, a feat of God,
or a complicity between gods and men . . . It would mean
putting too great an emphasis on the message or lesson con
tained in each play (we love peace but war is inevitable;
shame on the mean capitalists who destroy the poetry of the
French landscape; etc.) and reducing works whose subject is
hesitation to some positive thesis. The subject of la
Guerre de Troie is not the arrival of war, but the hesita
tion of the world between war and peace . . ." Modern
French Theatre from Giraudoux to Beckett, p. 31.
224 ;
J
These two views regarding Giraudoux's use of his theme
— the purgative effect of the tragic experience and the
lyrical lament for human suffering— were alternately a part
of most critical thinking. Relative to the purgative effect
of the tragic experience, Daily Mirror. Herald Tribune.
World Telegram. Commonweal. New Republic, and Newsweek all
saw the theme in terms of an unequal conflict between Hec
tor, exemplifying the noble individual, and an implacable
destiny which crushes him in its embrace. Quoting Giraudoux
on the subject of tragedy ("the affirmation of a horrible
bond between man's fate and a fate greater than man's
fate"), Commonweal found in Hector what Giraudoux had him
self defined as the tragic hero: "a being peculiarly re
signed to residing with every shape and every monster of
destiny." New Republic observed that our admiration for
Hector is not lessened because he cannot and knows he cannot
succeed in his unequal fight with Destiny.
On the contrary, in a universe so malign, defiance is
the supremely— perhaps the uniquely admirable quality.
Such, at any rate, is the view stated here by Giraudoux
and restated later by Sartre, by Camus.^
^Guicharnaud points to one idea which dominates the
evolution of Giraudoux's art and thought from Siegfried to
Pour Lucrfece: "the idea that man will never live in peace
because he is not alone, that God or the gods, social or
225
With respect to play form, most critics felt that de
spite some wordiness and overwriting, Tiger was theatrically
exhilarating and structurally sound. As enumerated by Her
ald Tribune, the faults of the play (incidental to its vir
tues) are pointed up in an extended second act burdened with
fanciful passages which are "less amusing than the waspish
exchange at the center of the struggle." Nonetheless,
Giraudoux's words, "pointed, trenchant, and alive," were
more than enough to sustain throughout most of the play the
heavy burden of his intellectualized action. Maintaining
that Tiger was not a thesis play ("its values are chiefly
human and not didactic"), New York Post observed that the
play's only fault lay in occasional overwriting as in the
psychological forces, the member of the other sex all set
definitions before him which are different from his own and
which attract and repel him at the same time. There is no
judgment on the part of Giraudoux; there are merely choices
and ambiguities determined by the nature of each play. . . .
But actually in the combat that takes place on stage between
man and the gods, between man and woman, between France and
Germany, between Hector and Ulysses, between Lia and Jean,
our sympathies are with either side but with the struggle
itself symbolized by the combat. So that beyond more or
less individual definitions or essences, dividing and
wrangling over the play's universe, a radically dramatic
definition of man's condition is posed. Comedy springs from
the triumph of human definitions (and as Georges May points
out, 'Giraudoux's men are expert at beating the gods');
tragedy, from the triumph of forces which refuse men peace."
Modern French Theatre, pp. 43-44.
scene between Hector and Andromache. To Commonweal. Girau
doux had come close to the creation of a tragic masterpiece.
Where he failed— and only just failed— was in his substitut
ing intellectualized stimulation for dramatic emotion:
I find everywhere in "Tiger at the Gates" the tragic
rhythm but only once the tragic release: in the long
dialogue between Hector and Ulysses, when heightened
knowledge moves beyond good and evil, beyond wit and
tears and laughter into that chill air where man's fate
is determined, and spirit withers at the mercy of pun
ishing circumstance.
Theatre Arts and Time found that Giraudoux's substituting
words for dramatic action was no more unplayable than Shaw's
use of a similar technique. Comparing Giraudoux with Shaw,
Time wrote that both are masters of dialectic and irony:
they differ in this one respect that "there is something
poignant and lyrical (because more pessimistic) in Girau
doux ."
In a minority of two, Daily News and Nation stated that
Tiger was not only badly written but badly structured. Na
tion called the play "a massive conversation piece" which
employs a dramatically shallow trick (the killing of Ajax)
to effect its foregone conclusion about the inevitability
33
of war.
33Eugene Falk maintains that the murder of Ajax is
227
Giraudoux's skill in endowing classic figures with a
sense of living urgency was commented on by Herald Tribune.
New York Post. Journal American, and Commonweal. Herald
Tribune wrote that intelligent and articulate characters
contribute to the play's exhilarating effect; Journal Ameri
can that Giraudoux presents through his characters "the emo
tional factors that cause people to clutch at each other's
throats.1 1 To New York Post, the play lends reality to
classic figures by giving them human qualities; and to
Commonweal. not the least of Giraudoux's accomplishments was
to endow the pre-literate, classic figures of Homer "with
dramatically defensible and for the following reasons: (1)
The murderer, Demokos, has left the scene of action before
the Hector-Ulysses agreement and thus can have no certain
knowledge that such an agreement had been reached. (2) The
fortuitous nature of the murder with respect to the dramatic
resolution connects with destiny in the sense of a casus
belli. (3) Since Demokos murders Ajax off-stage, the murder
is outside the main action of the play. (4) The murder of
Ajax is, in effect, a repudiation of. Hector's success as a
peacemaker; and more important yet, the murder is a repudia
tion of Hector as one who seeks to dispel the illusions of
mankind on the subject of war. This repudiation ties in
with the over-all problem of man's illusions which, accord
ing to Falk, is the main substance of Giraudoux's play.
Hector tries to destroy these illusions (as in his Oration
to the Dead) but is ironically trapped by his own illusion
of success in destroying illusion. "Theme and Motif in La
Guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu." pp. 19-20.
228 i
34
sophistication and complexity of motive."
The language of the play met with unanimous approval.
In the opinion of all critics, Fry's translation achieved
the ultimate in verisimilitude, being faithful both in let
ter and spirit to the Giraudoux text. What particularly
caught the attention of the critics was the simplicity and
clarity of Fry's English, matching word for word and idea
for idea the biting wit, the sophisticated humor, and the
lyric humor which was Giraudoux's. Commonweal wrote that
in Tiger. "language cascades and erupts in fountains of
liquid sound," and that the Fry translation "has fidelity,
power, elegance, steeliness, and perfection of cut." News
week credited the Fry translation with much of the play's
success: despite Giraudoux's realism and wit in treating
classic form, "the play might have been a series of dramatic
debates without the addition of Fry's spellbinding poetry
. . . never written a more straightforward attack or a more
pertinent epigram." To Time. the Fry translation "not only
does brilliantly by the play but may even be Fry's solidest
■^Grossvogel finds that Giraudoux's heroes and heroines
tend to be over-symbolized. In abstractly representing some
particular idea, they thus become dehumanized. The Self-
Conscious Stage, p. 96.
229
, 35
writing for the theatre.
Evaluation
Tiger was variously classified as an anti-war play, a
play of ideas, and a tragedy. As an anti-war play, Tiger
was attacked by Daily News, Nation, and New Yorker. These
critics maintained that instead of suggesting some solution
for war, Giraudoux shows it as inevitable. He thus projects
a defeatist attitude which negates his whole statement of
the case against mass human violence. Opposed to this view
was the critical consensus which judged Tiger an impassioned
plea, alternately ironic and lyrical, against the folly,
■^Guicharnaud gives Giraudoux's definition of theatre
as "a model dialogue." In this dialogue, "every drama would
be one of the spectator's conflicts— conflicts in his life
and in his imagination— put into model language. The words
that never come, the vital discussions that daily life does
not allow, the classification by category of the soul's and
heart's confusion— that is what the spectator would hear on
stage. Language would become a prism in which the whitish,
monotonous, and imperfect light of life is decomposed into
basic and dazzling colors." According to Guicharnaud, the
final position that Giraudoux takes is that "language, even
with no support, perseveres in its existence. It lives on
independent of the men who use it, just as for a believer
the soul supports the body." Modern French Theatre, pp. 23-
24. Becker writes with reference to the New York production
of Tigeri "this production and this translation remain the
best Giraudoux I have seen; and may at last convince Ameri
can producers that the poisonous little talents of Maurice
Valency may be repudiated without consequent disaster at the
box-office." "Some French Plays in Translation," p. 283.
230
ignorance, and greed that cause war. According to the con
sensus view, Giraudoux raised a relevant moral question
about the immorality of war; but with his stress on human
values rather than didactic ideology, he proposed no ready
made answer. Hence, for most critics, Tiger was an anti-war
play in principle but not in practice.
As a play of ideas, Tiger was acclaimed for its search
ing protrayal of the eternal paradox of the rational and
irrational in human affairs. Most critics felt that with
wit, irony, and a fanciful humor, Giraudoux lays bare the
topsy-turvy structure of human thinking. He shows how facts
are twisted until truth becomes falsehood, falsehood truth,
and how in the name of the greatest good men leap to illogi
cal conclusions which spell disaster for everyone concerned.
In this context of a play of ideas dealing with the paradox
of the rational and irrational, Giraudoux was thought to
have made the point that what mankind most needs is men of
good will (rational men such as Hector and Ulysses) without
whom peace on earth will never be. But in its perverse re
fusal to heed such men, in its turning from the sweet voice
of reason to the bluster of false sentiment and romantic
humbug, mankind is doomed to destruction via its own irra
tional impulses, parading in the name of justice and reason,
lead to a moral and physical death, paradoxically the very
opposite of the peace on earth for which mankind most
yearns.
As a tragedy, Tiger drew special comment from America.
Commonweal. New Republic, and Time. For these critics in
particular, Giraudoux had written a lyrical lament for the
human suffering which is the inevitable sequitur of inevi
table war. More than this, Giraudoux had induced the purga
tive effect of the tragic experience in the person of Hec
tor, a noble individual endowed with the further quality of
innocent guilt. For it is Hector the warrior, caught in
the tiger maw of inexorable destiny, who against his will
and all reason must in the end lead his people into a war
which he recognizes as the supreme human evil.
What emerges from the premiere criticism of Tiger is a
clear-cut recognition of Giraudoux both as playwright and
thinker. Except for some here-and-there misgivings (Girau
doux is negativist in attitude, Giraudoux is too fond of
words for their own sake), the premiere critics were unani
mous in judging Tiger an expertly crafted play, not only
theatrically effective but in the implications of its in
tellectualized action, profoundly thoughtful and moving.
It was further observed that Giraudoux's hard-headed and
4
232 i
realistic treatment of his anti-war theme was altogether
free of the cloudy philosophizing, the seeming lack of an
exact purpose, the dehumanization of character which had
keen pointed out in the adverse criticism of Madwoman, En
chanted. and Ondine as typical of Giraudoux's whole approach
to playwriting. A final indication of the critical success
of Tiaer (possibly the most crucial one) was an immediate
and enthusiastic reaction to Giraudoux's use.of the word.
As iterated by almost all critics, Fry had translated that
word with unerring accuracy, and with equal care Clurman
and Redgrave had given it theatrical form. Between these
three— translator, director, and actor— "the vibrant core of
every Giraudoux play: the mesmerism of the word," as Com
monweal called it, was made flesh through the magical com
munion of living theatre.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Tiger may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The geometrically patterned sets and classic costumes
were unanimously approved. Except for Daily News and
Nation, the direction was commended for its fluidity
of movement, its clarity, its devotion to the verbal
brilliance of Giraudoux. Redgrave was enthusiastically
received by all critics? to New Republic, his Hector
was better than Jouvet's. MacGrath and Cilento were
credited by many critics with outstanding performances.
Fitzgerald met with a mixed reception.
233
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Critics were unanimously agreed that Giraudoux's theme
centered around the inevitability of war. Daily News
and New Yorker felt that for this very reason Giraudoux
had projected a negativist attitude. Most other crit
ics took the view that the theme was less negativist
than it was a comment: ironic, in that it dealt with
human folly; tragic in its lyrical lament for human
suffering.
Play Form
Most critics felt that despite some wordiness and over
writing, Tiger was theatrically exhilarating and
structurally sound. To Commonweal. Giraudoux just
failed in the creation of a tragic masterpiece, largely
because he substituted intellectualized stimulation for
dramatic emotion. It is also worth noting that most
critics did not consider Tiger a thesis play.
Characterization
Giraudoux's skill in endowing classic figures with a
sense of living urgency was favorably noted by a number
of critics. In this sense, Giraudoux's characters were
regarded as more contemporary than Homeric.
Language
The language of the play met with unanimous approval.
The combination of Giraudoux and Fry was considered
particularly felicitous.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
The direction remained faithful to Giraudoux because
234
it stressed the spoken word instead of stage movement.
Except for Fitzgerald, who lacked vigor and subtlety,
and some of the minor characters who played for farce,
the acting was very good. MacGrath's Cassandra came
closest of all to the exact nuance demanded by Girau
doux (Becker).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Giraudoux equates man's desire for war with destiny,
and destiny with man's inability to reconcile himself
to the world around him (Fowlie). The contemporary
implications of Giraudoux's theme are obvious: the
play is so arranged that-the events and characters
seem much closer to our own time than to ancient Greece
(Falk). Since its subject is not the arrival of war
but the hesitation of the world between war and peace,
Tiger is not an anti-war thesis play. What Tiger
illustrates, then, is a Giraulducian tendency to bal
ance irreconcilable definitions, in this case war and
peace (Guicharnaud).
Play Form
Irony rather than tragedy is the play's dominant motif.
Giraulducian destiny is a mechanism rather than a con
suming force, and in Tiger the urbanity of Giraudoux's
approach indicates an intellectual, hence anti-tragic
treatment of his subject (Grossvogel). In Tiger. as
in his other plays, Giraudoux presents a new approach
to drama which is neither comedy nor tragedy nor, in
effect, a combining of the two. What Giraudoux pre
sents is a radically dramatic definition of man's
condition which revolves around the conflicting choices
with which man is forever confronted (Guicharnaud).
Characterization
Giraudoux intended his characters to be contemporary
rather than Homeric (Falk). The main characters in
Tiger. as in Giraudoux's other plays, are over-symbol
ized. Because they represent abstract ideas instead
of concrete individuals, they seem less than human
235
(Grossvogel). We are not so much interested in Girau
doux's characters as individuals. Rather, we are
interested in the conflict which they symbolize (Gui
charnaud) .
Language
Giraudoux defines theatre as a model dialogue which
reflects the inner and outer conflicts of his audience.
Hence, to Giraudoux, language itself is a self-suffi
cient entity, corresponding to a kind of absolute,
which is independent of the particular individuals who
use it (Guicharnaud). Pry has done handsomely by
Giraudoux. The force and fidelity of his translation
of Tiger contrast with the inaccurate and inadequate
adaptations of Valency (Becker).
Comparing the premiere criticism of Tiaer to subse
quent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
*
1. Directorial emphasis on the spoken word and some
fine performances by Redgrave, MacGrath, and Cilento
contributed to a clear and forthright production of
what is generally regarded as Giraudoux's best play.
It is worth noting that in the New York production
of Tiger. representing Giraudoux's most successful
American production, there was a distinctly interna
tional flavor. The main acting roles were performed
by English actors, the translation was by the English
Christopher Fry, and the direction was by a sometime
student of Jacques Copeau, namely, Harold Clurman.
2. The contemporary implications of Giraudoux's
theme, particularly its World War II parallelisms,
were favorably commented on by almost all critics.
The effect of this drawing the classic past into an
American present proved highly salutary in terms of
critical identification with the characters and events
of the play.
3. For the most part, premiere critics did not regard
Tiger as an anti-war thesis play. Their understanding
of Tiger was that it represented a comment, alternate
ly ironic and lyrical, on human folly and human
236
suffering. This understanding of Giraudoux's dramatic
intention runs fairly parallel to the views of Gross
vogel and Falk: Tiger is an ironic annotation on the
processes of an inevitable doom; Tiger reveals the
quintessence of Giraulducian irony in its backhanded
exposure of human illusions.
4. Commonweal stated that were it not for Giraudoux's
overly intellectualized treatment of his material,
Tiger would be a tragic masterpiece. This view is
countered by Guicharnaud, who maintains that Giraudoux
directs our attention to a point, neither tragic nor
comic, wherein we focus on the conflict of choices
with which man as man is forever faced. What Guichar
naud maintains— a new approach to drama on the part of
Giraudoux— would appear the more likely explanation,
not only in terms of Tiger but in relation to Girau
doux's over-all dramaturgy. It is an explanation which
accounts for the seeming detachment of Giraudoux from
his characters and for the so-called irresolution of
his dramatic themes, a much belabored issue among the
premiere critics.
5. A key factor in the success of Tiger with the pre
miere critics was their expressed admiration for the
clear-cut brilliance of Giraudoux's dialogue. In ef
fect, most critics felt that the action of the play
was generated our of the dialogue, and that in itself
the dialogue constituted a sufficient frame of dramat
ic reference. This critical position compares with
that taken by Guicharnaud: to Giraudoux, language is
a kind of absolute, independent of the men who use it.
The question is moot as to why the premiere critics
accepted the dialogue frame of reference in Tiger.
yet rejected it in Madwoman. Enchanted, and Ondine.
Perhaps it was a matter of a superior translation. It
is also possible that in the case of Tiger the premiere
critics could more readily identify with what they
felt were the contemporary implications projected by
the events and characters of the play.
Duel of Angels (Pour Lucrece) 1960
Translated and adapted by Christopher Fry; Settings by Roger
Furse; Women's Costumes designed by Christian Dior; Lighting
by Paul Morrison; Directed by Robert Helpmann; Produced by
Roger L. Stevens and Sol Hurok at the Helen Hayes Theatre;
Opened April 19, 1960; Closed June 1, 1960 (51 perform
ances) .
THE CAST
J o s e p h ................................... . James Valentine
Count Marcellus ........ Peter Wyngarde
Gilly Aina Niemela
Armand ...................................... John Merivale
L u c i l e ....................... ................... . Mary Ure
Eugenie.......................................... Ludi Clark
Mace-Bearer .................................. Felix Deebank
Barbette Margaret Braidwood
Servant....................................Ken Edward Ruta
Mr. Justice Blanchard ..................... Alan McNaughton
Clerk of the C o u r t ............................Donald Moffat
Servant .................................... Theodore Tenley
Customers at the Cafe .... Key Meersraan, Byron Mitchell,
Donald Moffat, Virginia Robinson,
Ken Edward Ruta, Alicia Townsend.
237
DUEL OF ANGELS BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Dailv News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., April 20, 1960, p, 288.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., April 20,
1960, p. 288.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., April
20, 1960, p. 287.
New York Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., April 20, 1960,
p. 289.
&
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., April 20, 1960,
p. 289.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., April 20,
1960, p. 290.
New York World Telegram. Aston, Prank, N.Y.T.C., April 20,
1960, p. 290.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, May 14, 1960, p. 266.
The Christian Century. Driver, Tom F., June 1, 1960, pp.
672-673 .
Life. (Unsigned), May 16, 1960, p. 45.
The Nation. Clurman, Harold, May 7, 1960, pp. 411-412.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), May 2, 1960, p. 54.
238
239
The New Yorker. Tynan, Kenneth, April 30, 1960, pp. 83-85.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, May 7, 1960, p. 26.
t
240 |
Production Criticism
The three elaborate settings by Furse, together with
Dior's elegant gowns, were accepted by most critics as a
perfect complement to the mood of the play and the artifi
cial style of its production. New York Mirror wrote that
the physical aspects of production provide "a rococo vintage
setting for the battle. The Dior creations are dazzling in
them." According to New York Times. sets and costumes fit
the production: the sets are "lush and languid," the gowns
"elaborate." Nation commented on "the superb gowns by
Christian Dior," and Time wrote that "Furse's sets and
Dior's gowns enhance the provincially elegant atmosphere."
In a minority of one, New Yorker found that Dior's gowns
were overly stagy: the lavishly designed costumes "incline
toward pale oatmeal for Virtue and steak tartar for Vice."
Helpmann's highly stylized approach to Giraudoux met
with a mixed reception. Daily News wrote that "under the
under-direction of Robert Helpmann, the leading ladies are
serene and lovely in their enmity." Referring to the frozen
tableau at the play's opening wherein the actors remained
temporarily immobile, World Telegram commended Helpmann for
indicating to the audience "that what was to come would
develop not only clash, humor, and flare but also a tableau
241
of tantalizing ideas." In much the same vein, New York
Times credited Helpmann's studied direction with catching
the delicately and finely spun theatricalism of Giraudoux:
"Movements are slight. Postures are imposing. Voices are
never raised. Silences are eloquent." However, to Saturday
Review. Helpmann's "arbitrary insistence on stilted stage
pictures" made for a static and uninteresting production.
Also unfavorable was the opinion of Herald Tribune; Help
mann fails to secure a sufficient ensemble in his actors,
represented in a vast imbalance between the overpowering
characterization given by Leigh and the somewhat colorless
performances of the supporting cast. Agreeing with Herald
Tribune and Saturday Review. Nation wrote that for the sake
of both play sense and ensemble the part of Lucile should
have been given to a stronger actress. But because Helpmann
was "not impressed by Lucile's (and probably Giraudoux's)
moral position, and because the play is
so elaborate and elegant in language as to need a special
style of presentation to make its particular matter con
form with our ordinary demands for "realism," a directoral
compromise was effected by placing the emphasis on good
looks, suave decorum, salon flair, comedic airiness, a
ballet-like airiness in the manner of Constantine Guy's
drawings— and a minimum of feeling, The result is civil
ized, smart, fashionably glacial and— thinking of
242
3 6
Giraudoux— perhaps false.
Leigh's bravura performance in the part of the wayward
Paola was unanimously acclaimed. What particularly im
pressed many critics was that Leigh interpreted Paola not
only as an intellectualized image of Vice but as a living
woman, motivated by passions that were patently real and
urgent. In this sense, Saturday Review commented that "No
matter how facetious the play becomes, Miss Leigh makes her
whole performance seem to emanate from the sorrowful recall
of some personal experience." In the role of the virtuous
Lucile, Ure was especially commended by Journal American.
New York Mirror, and New York Post. New York Post said of
Ure that she plays "with a quiet force suggestive of great
inner strength . . . especially moving in her final scene o
self-destruction." Agreeing with New York Post that Ure's
final scene was well done, Saturday Review found that she
was "slightly uncomfortable in the opening scenes where.she
must deliver consciously attitudinized speeches." To New
S^Mary Dirks writes that Duel "might be called Girau
doux’ s Measure for Measure. It is too 'dark' to be a come
dy and too outrageous (as well as witty) to be a tragedy.
It contains the elements of farce, drawing room comedy,
melodrama, and the 'play of ideas. Buskin and Farce:
Notes on Pour Lucrece." Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, p.
76 .
243 ;
Yorker and Time. Ure's performance was definitely unsatis
factory. New Yorker wrote that Ure plays too much in the
same vein which makes for monotony. Time observed that "Ure
in the difficult role of the pure woman suggests mere marble
rather than flesh and blood on which ice has been formed."
The supporting cast met with a mixed reception. Wyn-
garde's Count Marcellus was described as "attractive" by
Daily News, and Saturday Review wrote that Wyngarde "cap
tures the debonair surface of the rakish Count Marcellus."
But to Herald Tribune. Wyngarde plays a robust model of
debauchery "on a single headlong tone that does not keep us
guessing from mental twist to mental twist." In the opinion
of New Yorker. Wyngarde overplays his part. Braidwood in
the part of the town bawd, won praise from New York Post:
the cast is good, especially Braidwood "in her effective
closing speech." But to Nation and Saturday Review. Braid
wood 1 s casual delivery of the curtain speech weakened the
37
impact of the play and distorted its meanxng.
■^Dirks finds that "this conclusion upon which the
curtain falls is provocative but unfair, both dramatically
and otherwise. The eternally female protestation— you’ve
made me what I am today, I hope you're satisfied— contains
a far deeper and more trenchant irony. The point really is
that men are what they are— even the Lionels, the Armands,
the Marcelluses— because they are fashioned so by women,
244 ;
Dramatic Criticism
In considering the theme of Duel. many critics felt
that it represented a lengthy, somewhat aimless excursion
into the relative merits of morality and immorality. To
Daily News, the theme was neither meaningful nor exciting
in its assay of "the relative merits of sin and purity as
3 8
these exercises are practised by woman." A similar view
was expressed by Herald Tribune. America. Christian Century,
and Time. America found Giraudoux's ideas so subtle that
the ideas, and whatever they point to, are obscured in the
subtleties. Christian Century wrote that Giraudoux's theme
is unclear and his ideas fragile; moreover, the moral of the
play is theologically naive in presuming that God is inevit
ably at odds with the flesh. According to New Yorker, the
theme of Duel shows the battle between absolute standards
and relativism, between conscience and custom. This has
Adam's rib notwithstanding. And because, in Pour Lucrece.
the heroine and the other women as well are dangerously
close to monsters, we should have preferred, I think, to
have this modern Lucrece trip to heaven accompanied by a few
doubts." "Buskin and Farce," p . 87.
•^Ward Hooker maintains that the theme emphasizes Gi-
raudoux’s idealism, his inherent Platonism. That Giraudoux
has people think of Lucile as absurd is no reflection on Gi
raudoux's disbelief in the ideal of purity. "Giraudoux's
Last Play," The Hudson Review. Winter 1959-60, p. 608.
245
been a favorite subject of French dramatists from Le Misan
thrope to Anouilh's L1Hurluberlu: but Duel fails to offer
any substantial contribution to a long-standing dramatic
tradition:
Beneath its surface flourishes, which sometimes give the
impression that what we are watching is a romantic opera
performed without music, the play is emotionally vapid.
This is late Giraudoux, lush and garrulous . . .39
In a like sense, Time observed that while the play had defi
nite style, it substituted cliches for ideas and as a whole
yielded "not so much a sharp intellectual meaning as a
plaintively cynical mood." Agreeing with Time that Duel had
style, Herald Tribune found that
A certain intellectual vitality is lacking— the kind of
vitality that might keep us breathlessly attentive for
each new jest of fate, and that might make us laugh
oftener and more heartily at an impish truth. . . . with
out an almost constant flow of mocking delight, so self-
conscious a conceit is finally robbed of its special
wholly verbal exuberance.4®
^^Laurent Le Sage writes that without the transfiguring
quality of Giraudoux's language "we should have here a medi
ocre melodrama in the style of Alexandre Dumas, or, with its
lachrymose theme of wronged virtue, something like an early
movie plot." Jean Giraudoux: His Life and Works (Univer
sity Park, Pa.), p. 82.
^Hooker takes issue with the prevailing French opinion
that the posthumous Lucrece represents Giraudoux in a state
of decline. Along with the posthumous Madwoman. which ex
plores a background and realm of character never before con
sidered by Giraudoux, Lucrece offers ample evidence of new
246
A second group of critics— Journal American. New York
Mirror. New York Post. World Telegram. New York Times. News
week . Saturday Review— saw the theme as a self-conscious ex
pression of wishful thinking wherein Giraudoux variously
laments and lambastes an impossible dream of purity in an
impure world. Journal American wrote that Giraudoux indi
cates "it is impossible to remain inviolate in a world which
has devoted so much effort to violating everybody." Daily
Mirror stated that "As to purity, Giraudoux thinks it imagi
nation overflowing." To New York Times. Duel was a varia
tion on the Lucrece theme "by a civilized writer who liked
to dream of purity, but regarded it as an impossible
ideal."4' * ' In the opinion of World Telecrram. Giraudoux's
growth and development rather than a falling off of the
author's powers: "Lucrece brought to fulfillment all the
promises of his earlier tragedies. Structurally it seems to
me the most perfect of his tragedies ..." "Giraudoux's
Last Play," p. 605. Later (p. 609), Hooker writes that with
reference to the construction of Lucrece. "the important
thing is to observe . . . that its plot moves inevitably,
with no impertinent or unjustified suspense, to a tragic
conclusion, so that Lucile's death clearly proves the valid
ity of her Platonic absolute." In this sense, the means
Giraudoux employs— the sleeping powder, the imaginary rape,
the poison— are only what is necessary to move the action
forward. Most important of all is that the dramatic debate
aspect of the play is always kept paramount, whereby we con
tinue to "feel the impetus between Purity and Paola's Ama
zonian 'confrerie de femmes.'"
^^■Dirks holds, that though on the face of it the theme
247
opposition of the impossibly good woman with the immoral one
"is designed to prove, among other things, that purity can
destroy itself." Referring to the "battle of the sexes"
aspect of the theme, Newsweek wrote:
It is Giraudoux's point that women of excessive virtue
are not only ahead of their times, but a threat to the
workable state of affairs that allows women to dominate
both husbands and lovers . . . In the end, playing fast
and leering with logic, Giraudoux arranges a conspiracy
among women to keep men in their place as the pompous
monsters they are.^2
of Duel is outraged chastity, Giraudoux 1 1 has given with one
hand only to take away with the other . . . Giraudoux has
given us a rape of Lucrece in which there are mountains of
dialectic and not a trace of lubricity. Moreover, he has
audaciously altered the facts of history and the refinements
of the legend to discuss for three acts a rape that never
happened." "Buskin and Farce," p. 76.
^Robert Jones refers to Lucile as one of Giraudoux's
implacable heroines: "Whether she is a virgin or married,
the heroine of Giraudoux feels her mission in life. She
dislikes hypocrisy and injustice, and, in order to triumph
over them, she will let cities burn and men be killed. Like
Hugo's Hernani, the heroine of Giraudoux is 'une force qui
va. Jones also makes the point that "each of these hero
ines is alienated, figuratively as in reality, from her
world but the alienation is more pronounced in some than in
others. All of them have some relationship with extra
terrestrial forces and this makes not only their presence
but also the presence of injustice and misfortune in their
world apparent to the destiny or fatality which broods over
Giraudoux's plays." The Alienated Hero in Modern French
Drama. p. 77. Later (p. 94), Jones writes that Giraudoux's
heroines "point up the vulgar aspects of man without either
justifying his existence or offering any proof that their
great personal sacrifices have not been made in vain. As
such Giraudoux's plays fail to become tragedy. They tend
248 |
j
Saturday Review observed that the artificiality of this
tragedy of purity "is happily relieved by practical wit, and
by Giraudoux's determination to go beyond the simple tragedy
of a woman to explore the subtle differences between living
as a woman and living as a man." In the-denouement, Girau
doux points out that life "is best suited for compromisers
and brings to a disastrous end the play's two purists,
Lucile (representing pure virtue) and Marcellus (represent-
• v 1 143
ing pure vice).
to become attacks on contemporary society, which Giraudoux,
always with an ironic and impenetrable smile, seems to con
demn. And his heroines consequently appear to be abstrac
tions, charming and admirable ones to be sure, who are
spokesmen for, or ideals of, their creator rather than per
fectly credible tragic figures." David Grossvogel expresses
a somewhat similar view when he finds that in Lucrece Girau
doux once more displaces the person with the idea: "Lucile,
again a physical representation of absolute purity, is able
to accept the moral implications of a rape until she finds
out that the rape was in fact a hoax. She will then die for
having been forced to lose faith in herself: a symbol will
be physically deleted because it did not remain itself sym
bolically." The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern French
Drama, p. 101.
^Hooker observes that "the characterization of Lucile
will seem inconsistent only to those who expect the quarrel
between purity and impurity to be patched up by some kind
of compromise. But the opposition has been minimized in
this play; Paola's evil was an absolute evil, though it
found expression in a half-measure, a kind of practical
joke. We should not expect Lucile to counter this evil with
half-measures or remonstrances for an 'essence character'
does not make jokes about 'a tiny bit of adultery' or being
249
In a minority of one, Nation offered the dissenting
opinion that Duel was neither aimless in its excursion into
the relative merits of morality and immorality, nor a self-
conscious expression of wishful thinking apropos of purity
in an impure world. These interpretations of Duel. accord
ing to Nation. are founded on a native incapacity of Anglo-
American audiences to comprehend the true significance of
Lucile's moral position which is the in principle tragedy
of desecrated innocence. What this comes to is that Anglo-
American audiences enjoy a theoretical moral emancipation
which contrasts and conflicts with their puritanical inner
leanings. Hence, conversely to a French audience, they can
laugh at marital infidelity on the stage but not in the
practice of their daily lives.
I believe that the Parisians must have taken Lucile at
face value as an inspired person (if only symbolically
so) whose example of sexual highmindedness was a kind
of poetic reproof of their looseness. . . . I suspect
that for all the play's wit and polished detachment,
Giraudoux meant it to have a tragic emphasis: he is
for Lucile. (The play's original title is Pour Lu
crece . )44
'somewhat virginal.' Lucile's attack on impurity in Act I
was serious; her answer to the 'joke' in Act III is both
serious and inevitable." "Giraudoux's Last Play," p. 611.
^Bert Leefmans also holds to the idea that Giraudoux
is for Lucile, even though she is implacable and causes
destruction: "But surely both in the title and in the
250 |
The language of the play met with a somewhat mixed re-
ception. Completely favorable opinions were voiced by Her
ald Tribune (Fry's translation is done "as though crystals
were forming on the edge of his tongue’ 1 ) and by New York
Times (Fry's adaptation "retains Giraudoux's immaculate
literary style, subtleties of humor, and the general insou
ciance of his point of view"). Time re-echoed these favor
able opinions, stating that Fry "has conveyed Giraudoux's
45
sheathed, scented prose with great adroitness." But while
final scene, Giraudoux makes clear his allegiance to the
ideal. Pour Lucrece can only be his homage to fidelity,
his reiteration once again of the lesson of the tragic mas
ters, that how one lives is more important than staying
alive. And the final scene of Pour Lucrece gives the last
word, not merely of this play, but of all his theatre, a
eulogy to the ieune fille who in several plays including
this one becomes a heroine as well." What Lucile's attitude
toward love represents, according to Leefmans, is love in a
Platonic sense: "Love is one of the things which must be
wholly itself or not at all, and we are on our way again to
a deadly struggle between the absolute and the being who
cannot live with absolutes, even though in Giraudoux, he is
their creator." "Giraudoux's Other Muse," Kenyon Review.
Autumn 1954, pp. 621-622.
45Hooker finds that the Fry translation is a literal
one which succeeds "by not trying to outdo his original in
wittiness and by achieving something like a Giraulducian
economy. It is a literal translation, yet surprisingly
short, and it conveys with startling fidelity not only the
sense but the tone and the rhythm of the French dialogue."
"Giraudoux's Last Play," p. 604.
251
most critics were impressed with the verbal elegance of
Giraudoux and the adroitness of Fry's translation, there
remained a persistent feeling that either Fry or Giraudoux
had missed his mark. Daily News wrote that despite impec
cable writing, Duel is more cerebral than it is witty. To
New York Mirror. the blending of Fry and Giraudoux "may not
be entirely felicitous." Because Fry uses words that are
too pretentious, too abstract, and too demanding, he loses
the warmth of the original. New York Post also took excep
tion to Fry's "mannered but often distinguished prose."
Journal American offered this acrid comment, apparently
aimed at both Giraudoux and Fry:
. . , frankly a morass of glib double talk— but it's
always ambitious. Platitudes are dressed in their Sunday
best . . . exactly the kind of play, thoughtful and yet
somewhat abstract, which should be given the support of
New York's dedicated theatre goers.46
^Jacques Guicharnaud refers to Armand's speech about
his wife's fidelity as an example of Giraudoux's use of the
tirade: "In Corneille the tirade is an explanation through
reasoning or a justification a posteriori; in Racine it is
generally a narrative which results in the actual situation
and which, by its very sequence, emphasizes the situation's
inevitability; for the Romantics it was a poetic or pseudo-
philosophical digression around a situation. In Giraudoux
it is neither a digression, nor a minor slackening off of
the situation, nor a step ahead. In the flow of the drama,
it is a snapshot taken of all the tensions of a particular
moment, catching the scenic athlete in mid-air and making
it possible for us to examine it with care. It actualizes
252 ;
Evaluation I
I ' i
! On the face of it. most critics felt that Duel was a
! - - - - - - - - j
play in which Lucile the virtuous and Paola the unvirtuous j
provide the means for a dramatized discussion of virtue and |
I
vice. In this primary sense of a play about characters who i '
represent opposing moral attitudes, Daily News labeled Duel
!
a morality, an opinion which was shared by New York Post.
But because Giraudoux failed to take sides and did not indi-j
jcate very clearly what he was for or against, New York Post I
|
expressed uncertainty as to the exact nature of the play
iform. The question raised by New York Post was whether
'
I >
iGiraudoux was actively involved in the moral issues repre
sented by his protagonists, Lucile and Paola. If Giraudoux !
was actively involved in these issues, Duel was a morality, j
!
If, on the other hand, Giraudoux's position was that of a
imere onlooker, reporting the proceedings with a mixture of f
i j
|wit and cynical detachment, Duel was not a morality. In
Lamartine's wish: 'O Time, suspend your flight.'" Hence,
according to Guicharnaud, the Giraulducian tirade would seeni
to imply a conception of reality in which form precedes con-j
tent: "The poet expresses the Forms toward which our real- j
ity would seem to tend through images. The Forms exist only
through the extrapolation of intelligence or the imagina- j
tion. They are posterior to reality and invented by man in j
order to make the universe intelligible." Modern French
Theatre from Giraudoux to Beckett, pp. 25-26. j
253 ;
attempting to resolve the question of play form, New York
Post. along with the majority of premiere critics, leaned
toward an interpretation of Duel which placed Giraudoux in
the position of a mere onlooker. This position seemed to be
borne out in Giraudoux's worldly, comedy-of-manners approach
to his subject and by the artificial style in which Duel was
produced and acted. Hence, in the consensus view, Duel
presented a twofold aspect. Superficially, it was a play
of opposing moral attitudes, of purity versus impurity.
Fundamentally, it was a play of personality conflict, of
Lucile the purist versus Paola the eclectic.
Granted that Duel was fundamentally a play of person
ality conflict— in effect a drama of ideas— what, then, were
the ideas that Giraudoux propounded? America and Christian
Century found that Giraudoux's ideas were at best fragile
and at worst obscure, romanticized and theologically naive
or so subtle that they eluded classification. To Herald
Tribune. New Yorker. and Time. the ideas were little more
than a series of tired, overdressed cliches unworthy of
substantial dramatic treatment. New Yorker referred to Duel
as melodramatic and emotionally vapid, "late Giraudoux,
lush and garrulous." Herald Tribune and Time were unable
to find in Duel any evidence of real meaning or intellectual
254
vitality.
To a second group of critics (New York Mirror. New
York Post. New York Times. World Telegram. Newsweek. Satur
day Review), the ideas that Giraudoux propounded were
reasonably clear and not without substance. What this group
of critics saw as the intellectual center of Duel was Girau
doux's disillusionment with the ideal of purity. Because
Giraudoux is well aware that such an ideal is only a dream,
he expresses his disillusionment by enjoining a mood of
playful cynicism rather than of earnest reflection. Accord
ing to World Telegram. Newsweek. and Saturday Review. Girau
doux also suggests the need for compromise, showing that in
its uneven battle with the world purity can destroy itself.
Saturday Review found further evidence of Giraudoux's case
for compromise in the denouement of Duel: their inability
to compromise brings to a disastrous end the two extremists,
Lucile, representing pure virtue, and Marcellus, represent
ing pure vice.
In a minority of one, Nation took issue with the con
sensus view that Duel was a play of personality conflict.
Maintaining that Giraudoux was deeply involved in the sig
nificance of Lucile's moral position, not detached from it,
Nation held that the real meaning of Duel related to the in
255 ;
principle tragedy of desecrated innocence. That Anglo-
American audiences failed to grasp the in principle tragic
sense of Duel can only reflect on a native incapacity for
appreciating sexual highmindedness on an ideal level. This
incapacity, however, was not shared by Giraudoux and the
Parisian audience for whom he wrote. For Giraudoux and the
Parisians, Lucile was at least symbolically believable; and
in this symbolic sense, her fate was genuinely tragic.
In appraising the critical reception of Duel, the last
major production of a Giraudoux play for the period covered
by this study, there emerges a manifest tendency on the part
of most critics to regard Giraudoux in the twilight of his
powers. The verbal exuberance, the elegant style, the wit
and the polish were all present, but.lacking was any suffi
cient substance to which these typical Giraudoux qualities
might adhere. In fact, for many critics, Giraudoux had
nothing at all to say since in the first place he had noth
ing at all to talk about. His characters were shadowy ab
stractions engaged in an abstruse problem which neither
they nor the audience could ever translate into living
reality. Thus, for many critics a lush and garrulous, per
haps querulous Giraudoux had substituted cliches for ideas
and melodramatic tricks for dramatic truth. Even for those
I
256
critics who found idealistic disillusionment as the intel
lectual center of Due1. Giraudoux talked long and well but
ended by saying very little.
As already noted, this damning with derision or faint
praise evaluation of Duel was contested by but one critic.
Pointing out that because of socio-cultural differences
Duel was badly misinterpreted by Helpmann and his audience,
Nation called attention to the symbolic level of tragedy
whereon the whole play rested. Failure to maintain this
level (and here the production failed), failure to respond
to this level (and here the audience failed), resulted in
the twin fiasco of directorial misinterpretation and criti
cal misunderstanding represented by the premiere of Duel on
Broadway.
The main trends in premiere criticism of Duel may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
Except for New Yorker, the settings and costumes were
regarded as a perfect complement to the mood of the
play and the artificial style of production. The
highly stylized direction was praised by some critics
because it fitted Giraudoux's theatricalism. The
direction was attacked by Herald Tribune. Saturday
Review, and Nation because it was stilted and static
and lacked proper acting ensemble. Leigh was unani
mously acclaimed for portraying Paola not only as an
image of Vice but as a living woman. Ure met with a
mixed reception. Herald Tribune. Saturday Review, and
| “ '257
1 Nation found that her performance was overshadowed by j
| Leigh's and that this resulted in throwing the play
! off balance.
i
1 _ ;
| Dramatic Criticism
J j
! Theme
i -----------------
!
j Most critics felt that the theme of Duel represented
I an aimless excursion into the relative merits of vice
and virtue, or at best a self-conscious expression of
wishful thinking apropos of purity in an impure world, i
! In a minority of one, Nation saw the theme as a vindi- !
; cation of absolute purity represented by Lucile. ;
' Plav Form !
j
j Most critics thought that Duel was an artificially I
; contrived play of manners which was vitiated, in whole
or in part, by the use of stock dramatic devices and
a melodramatic finish. New Yorker pointed to Duel as
an example of late Giraudoux, overwritten and emotion- i
j ally vapid.
Characterization
I i
i
For whatever reason— the direction, the acting, the
■ mores of an American audience— it was Paola, not Lu-
| cile, who emerged as the dominant character of Girau- !
; doux's play. Hence, the ideal of purity represented j
I by Lucile seemed to most critics at cross purposes
with the general tenor of Giraudoux’s dramatic inten
tion.
Language
i
I 1
| The language of the play met with a mixed reception.
| Giraudoux, and the Fry adaptation, were praised by
j some critics for elegance, subtlety, and adroitness.
! Other critics found fault with writing that was too i
cerebral, too abstract, too literary. j
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
■ I
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism.
258
Production Criticism
Together with an inherently tragic theme, Duel con
tains elements of farce, drawing room comedy, melo
drama, and the play of ideas (Dirks).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The theme emphasizes Giraudoux's idealism, his Platon
ic belief in absolute purity. That Lucile appears
absurd in the eyes of the other characters is, there
fore, not a reflection on the purity of Lucile but on
the imperfections of an impure world (Hooker, Leef-
mans), With its lachrymose theme of wronged virtue,
it is only the superior quality of Giraudoux's langu
age which saves Duel from being a mediocre melodrama
(Le Sage) . Giraudoux has treated his ostensible theme
of outraged chastity with singular detachment, dis
cussing for three acts a rape which never happened
(Dirks).
Play Form
The means that Giraudoux uses to forward the action
are of less consequence than what that action clearly
points to, namely, the dramatic debate aspect of the
play which is purity versus impurity (Hooker). Like
Giraudoux's other plays, Duel tends to become an
ironic attack on contemporary society rather than a
tragedy. This may be attributed to the fact that his
heroines are abstract spokesmen for their creator
instead of credible tragic figures (Jones).
Characterization
Lucile is one of Giraudoux's implacable heroines,
alienated from an everyday world and interested more
in abstract truth and justice than in social relation
ships (Jones). In Duel. Giraudoux once more displaces
the person with the idea. Lucile dies because her
symbolic representation of purity was destroyed via
the mock rape (Grossvogel). As an "essence charac
ter," Lucile is incapable of compromise. Consistent
259
to her ideal of absolute purity, she exemplifies the
lesson of the tragic masters that how one lives is
more important than staying alive (Leefmans).
Language
Fry's translation conveys not only the sense but the
tone and rhythm of Giraudoux (Hooker). Giraudoux's
use of the tirade implies a conception of reality in
which form precedes content. In effect, this preced
ence of form over content is a linguistic means of
making the universe intelligible to man (Guicharnaud).
Comparing the main trends of premiere criticism to
subsequent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. A production emphasis on style, rather than intel
lectual content, may have resulted in the misrepresen
tation of Duel as a comedy of manners. This misrepre
sentation may have been furthered by a lack of acting
ensemble whereby Leigh dominated the whole play, thus
overshadowing the central nature of Ure's role in re
lation to Giraudoux's theme.
2. Most premiere critics were of the opinion (as were
Grossvogel and Jones) that Lucile was not a credible
tragic figure: she was too unlifelike to be believ
able, too self-centered to be sympathetic. Without
contesting the symbolic quality of Lucile, Nation,
along with Hooker and Leefmans, maintained that Girau
doux was obviously for Lucile and that her death ex
emplified the in principle tragedy of desecrated inno
cence. A common denominator in these varying views of
the tragic or non-tragic nature of Duel is the sym
bolic level on which the play rests, particularly with
reference to Lucile as a symbol of absolute purity. On
this level of a symbolic conflict of choices between
purity and impurity, the question of a tragic or non-
tragic play form might well be inappropriate. Cer
tainly, the dramatic focus in Duel is on the conflict
as such. The characters align themselves for or
against purity, for or against Lucile,’ and to the same
extent symbolize the reactions of the for-or-against
Lucile spectator. Perhaps, for lack of another word,
Duel might be called a tragedy of the imagination
rather than the emotions, in terms of the average :
American audience a largely unaccountable approach
to dramaturgy. j
3. To most premiere critics, Lucile the pure came !
off second best to Paola the impure. Hence, the play ;
suffered from a conflict of intention: we are never |
sure of just where Giraudoux's sympathies lie, nor can :
we know with any certainty what it is he is trying to
prove. In the opinion of Dirks, Giraudoux's sympathies!
were with no one; what he sought to prove was that men :
are monsters because women like Lucile and Paola have
made them so. Hooker, Leefmans, and Guicharnaud con
sider the matter of Giraudoux's intention from the |
viewpoint of a philosophical absolute: Giraudoux was .
contrasting perfection and imperfection, man's aspira- !
tions with the less noble practice of his daily life.
If, as these last critics maintain, Giraudoux had
intended some such contrast of the absolute and rela
tive aspects of sexual morality, Duel would appear as
less of a tragedy than the symbolic portrayal of a
conflict of choices. But that these choices are ir
reconcilable (Lucile triumphs in an absolute sense,
Paola in a relative one) does not mean what most crit
ics thought it meant, namely, a compromise. Nor does |
it necessarily mean what Dirks has designated as a ’
sweeping condemnation of the human race. The meaning I
of the conflict of choices upon which Duel is based
is more likely the expression of a fundamental Giraul- |
ducian idea that man is never at peace with himself
or the world around him. What Giraudoux attempts in
Duel is to render intelligible this never-ending con
flict; and he does this by means of symbols, princi
pally words, incidentally ideas and physical objects,
all of which serve to formulate the terms of man's
conflict of choices. Needless to say, the premiere ‘
critics were hard put to find an American dramatic j
equivalent to this stripped-down, "egghead" approach i
to human motivation.
CHAPTER III
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE: CRITICISM
The Respectful Prostitute
(La Putain respectueuse) .1-948
Adapted by Eva Wola; Settings by Robert Gundlach; Costumes
by Dorothy Croissant; Lighting by David Heilweil; Directed
by Mary Hunter; Produced by New Stages Inc. at the New Sta
ges Theatre; Opened February 9, 1948; Closed March 14, 1948
(40 performances); Reopened at the Cort Theatre March 16,
1948; Final Closing December 18, 1948 (348 performances).
THE CAST
Lizzie McKay
The Negro .
. . Meg Mundy
John Marriott
Karl Weber Fred
John
James
Willard Swire
William Brower
Wendell Holmes Senator Clarke
A Man .... Martin Tarby
261
THE RESPECTFUL PROSTITUTE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Magazine Criticism
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, April 1948^ p. 71.
The Commonweal. Hartung, Philip T., March 19, 1948, p. 566.
The Nation. Marshall, Margaret, February 28, 1948,' pp. 257-
258.
The New Republic. Shaw, Irwin, February 23, 1948, pp. 29-30.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, March 27, 1948, pp. 50-52.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), November 29, 1948, p. 82.
The Saturday Review. Bfown, John Mason, March 13, 1948, pp.
26-27.
School and Society. Beyer, William, February 28, 1948, p.
166 .
Theatre Arts. Gabriel, Gilbert W., April-May 1948, pp. 31-
32.
Time. (Unsigned), April 5, 1948, p. 46.
262
263
Production Criticism
Referring to Gundlach's sets. Nation wrote that the
production was "well staged,1 1 and New Republic indicated
approval of the play's "simple, stylized settings." To
School and Society. Gundlach's "stark, congruous setting,
and David Heilweil's lighting, which subtly heightened the
effect emotionally, are excellent." Hunter's direction was
especially commended by Catholic World. Nation. New Repub
lic, and School and Society. Catholic World called the
direction skillful; Nation wrote that the play was "well
directed"; New Republic stated that "Mary Hunter has direct
ed the play . . . with precise violence." School and Soci
ety attributed the over-all success of Prostitute to the
direction:
The success of the production is clearly achieved by Miss
Hunter's adroit, sensitive direction in which she dis
cerningly emphasizes character development, approaching
the play organically and filling in with incisive, pun
gent detail where Sartre charges ahead awkwardly from
climax to climax in an excess of melodrama.-*-
■*-Harold Clurman writes that the direction of Prostitute
went hand in hand with what the play represented to its
American audience, "an audience hungry for an opportunity to
protest against corruption, an audience that secretly de
sires to fight for great causes." According to Clurman,
this idealistic spirit, which transformed and ennobled Sar
tre's play, was conveyed in Hunter's direction, "excellent
in its intelligence, clarity, and devotion to the line of
264 :
In the leading role of Lizzie McKay, Mundy was enthu
siastically received by all critics. Nation found she gave
"a convincing and touching characterization, the creation of
a good playwright but also of a very intelligent and talent
ed actress." New Republic observed that Mundy "is spectacu
larly good as the prostitute who succumbs to the evil forces
around her. . . . She is hard, foolish, sensual, gullible
as the play demands." To Saturday Review. Mundy's perform
ance, along with Harriot's as the Negro, "is one of the few
honest features in a meretricious, hence dishonest play."
The essential honesty which Mundy brought to her part was
also noted by School and Society (she "gives a vibrant,
stunning performance") and by Theatre Arts ("She knows she
is here to act a universal human dope, a creature of coramer-
2
cial and brutally comic facts-of-life . .
Marriot, as the persecuted Negro, was well received by
the critics. According to Nation. Marriot "admirably solved
the problems presented by a character who had to be fearful,
the play as she as part of the audience interprets it."
Lies Like Truth, p. 210.
^clurman attributes much of the appeal of Mundy's per
formance to a carefully disciplined ensemble, reflecting
again on the American-slanted line of the direction and the
over-all excellence of the production. Lies Like Truth, p.
210.
265
humble, honorable and conquered in the short space of a few
small scenes." Saturday Review identified Marriot's per
formance with that of Mundy, as one of the play's redeeming
features. In the opinion of School and Society. Marriot
"plays the terrified, bewildered victim with sympathy and
understanding."
Dramatic Criticism
Most critics were agreed that Sartre's theme of racial
intolerance was a sufficient one for serious and searching
3
drama. But in the matter of Sartre's treatment of this
theme, critical opinion differed sharply. To Catholic
World, Saturday Review. School and Society, and Time, Sartre
sacrifices any honest treatment of the problems which his
play evokes for the sake of catching the eye of his audi
ence and titillating its nervous system. Catholic World
found Prostitute a blatantly brutal and tasteless exercise
in sensationalism. To School and Society. Sartre's
•^Wallace Fowlie finds that Prostitute. in common with
Sartre's other plays, emphasizes "the conflict which takes
place between the sincerity of the character in his effort
to choose his own life and the power of the conventional
world as it seeks to trap and distort him." In this sense,
Prostitute satirizes a superficial and hypocritical social
morality which militates against the moral right of the
individual to his own free choice. Dionysus in Paris, pp.
181-182.
266 |
melodramatics were crude and awkward; it is only because of
perceptive direction that "the play seems infinitely better
than it is." Saturday Review wrote that "it is the situa
tion which supplies the true tragedy and M. Sartre who
applies all the claptrap." Part of the claptrap is undoubt
edly the result of Sartre's writing as a foreigner of people
and conditions with which he is unfamiliar. Hence, his
characters are unreal and his dramaturgy, exemplified by
the offstage noises of a lynching mob and the baying of
bloodhounds, is stilted and melodramatic. Concurring with
Saturday Review. Time rendered the verdict; "As an indict
ment Prostitute pretty much fails— much less for being fac-
4
tually improbable than for being dramatically overdone."
^Jacques Guicharnaud observes that both Sartre and
Camus start "from the principle that man is alone before
man and the fact that such a situation is understandable or
conceivable only in terms of action. Sartre and Camus have
attempted to create a type of theatre in which the concrete
representation of life and their own philosophical concepts
are absolutely inseparable. Given their basic philosophical
positions, the dialogue is indissolubly linked to physical
acts. Their plays are crammed with action or the expecta
tion of action. . . . the spectator is held by the expecta
tion of rebounds, the promise of extreme and definitive
acts, the surprise of certain dramatic effects, and the
double question; What's going to happen? How will it turn
out? Sometimes both writers do end by creating a rush of
physical happenings which border on the unreal. . . . Hence
the adjective 'melodramatic' as applied by some critics to
their plays.” Modern French Theatre from Giraudoux to
267
To Newsweek and New Yorker, the theme of Prostitute.
though marred by melodramatics and existentialist theoriz
ing, was handled with a certain degree of skill. Newsweek
referred to Sartre as "a playwright of considerable distinc
tion and acumen." New Yorker wrote:
M. Sartre wishes to point out the kinship of all outcasts
and his heroine's sudden realization that she and the
Negro her testimony has doomed are identical victims of
society is very movingly portrayed.
But the poignancy of this theme is obscured by Sartre's
melodramatics— false charges of rape, a lynch mob, the Negro
concealed in a closet, ignorant and brutal police— and for
this reason Prostitute is an over-all failure.
A third group of critics (Commonweal. Nation. New
Republic. Theatre Arts) found that Sartre had developed his
theme with precision and power, and that truth, not trick
ery, was Sartre's dramatic counter. Commonweal observed
that the theme of Prostitute deals with
an examination of evil and as such it is one of the most
powerful and shocking documents I have-ever seen walked
on any stage. . . . Saving only his lost ignorant Girl,
and his lost innocent Negro there is nothing in his play
which is not dark and beastly, and all is true. Both
psychologically and theatrically the business is perfect
ly wrought.
Beckett, pp. 131-132.
268 ;
s
Nation wrote that Sartre depicted the conflict between white
and Negro not only as a problem in race relations but as a
problem in relations between human individuals.
It is this insight . . . which accounts for the authen
ticity and power of the play. Sartre was able to get a
perspective as foreigner and philosopher which enabled
him to show human and social values which an American
misses.
The effect of a foreigner's view of American racial intol
erance was also commented on by New Republic and Theatre
Arts. New Republic stated that Sartre preaches a hateful
truth, offering a special challenge to all Americans, that
the mass of humanity not only resigns itself to moral slav
ery but actually revels in its own defeat. In the opinion
of Theatre Arts. Sartre's views on America are salutary?
and with his skillful use of well-worked formulas, he gives
new, fresh, and startling expression to his theme of racial
intolerance.^
With respect to play form, most critics were agreed
that Sartre made extensive use of melodramatic devices and
that his material was presented in a deliberately
^Clurman reports that "when the play was first accused
of anti-American sentiments, Sartre defended it stoutly by
pointing out that it was simply anti-racist. It is inter
esting to learn that Sartre's friend Richard Wright had
suggested the plot and some of the play's details." Lies
Like Truth, p. 208.
269 ,
sensational manner. To Saturday Review. School and Society.
New Yorker, and Time. Sartre's play form was theatrically
ineffective and dramatically inappropriate. Saturday Review
found Prostitute a glaring and badly done example of Grand
Guignol. School and Society referred to the play as "a
stark and driving melodrama of a Negro man-hunt in a South
ern town." To New Yorker, the otherwise poignancy of Sar
tre's concluding scene was marred by his earlier melodramat-
ics. Time wrote that "if Prostitute is no tocsin of social
protest, it rings the bell as melodrama."6
But to Commonweal. Nation. New Republic, and Theatre
Arts. Sartre's combination of melodrama and sensationalism
was peculiarly suited to the limits of his one act play form
and to the nature of his dramatic material. In the short
space of a one act play, maintained these critics, Sartre
could neither intend nor execute a slow-moving dramatic
^Robert Jones holds to a similar view: "The play is a
complete failure in which the characterizations are mere
caricatures and the plot of which is the sheerest melodrama.
. . . Sartre shows no insight whatsoever into American so
cial customs, and the play, because of this and the poor
characterizations, rings false. Two characters in the play,
however, are alienated from the society in which they live—
Lizzie, the prostitute, and the Negro. If Sartre wished to
portray man's fate by underlining the alienation of Lizzie
and the Negro, he failed signally," The Alienated Hero in
Modern French Drama, p. 103.
debate on the relative merits of racial tolerance. His
artistic aim— and he achieved it— was to present in a swift
succession of tragi-burlesque scenes the shocking and brutal
events of a typical race lynching, and in so doing to in
spire his audience with an overwhelming sense of shame,
horror, and moral indignation. As stated by New Republic.
"Pity, alone, is a stage material of which the author never
seems to have heard."
Sartre's typification of the characters in Prostitute
was noted by almost all critics. Newsweek. New Yorker.
Saturday Review, and Time found that the typification was
inept and to no dramatic purpose. Newsweek wrote that
Sartre's protagonists "sound more like existentialist mouth
pieces than people." According to New Yorker, the charac
ters in Prostitute are "caricatures which don't carry much
conviction in terms of Sartre's over-all artistic accom
plishment." Pointing to the Senator and Fred as examples of
unmotivated and aimless characterization, Saturday Review
asked why Fred should behave as he does at curtain time
other than to create suspense, and again why the Senator
should launch a long-winded, sonorous speech about his
family tree when Lizzie threatens his life with a pistol.
It was the conclusion of Saturday Review that "M. Sartre's
271 ;
characters are not written from life but for each scene in
which they appear as that scene comes along." Concurring
with Saturday Review. Time observed that "Sartre's soft-
soaping Senator . . . is pure burlesque and too amusing to
7
be alarming."
But to Commonweal. Nation. New Republic, and Theatre
Arts. Sartre's typification of the characters in Prostitute
was justified on the same basis that justifies his use of
melodrama and sensationalism, namely, the limits of his one
act play form and the nature of his dramatic material. In
the sense that Sartre could neither intend nor execute a
slow-moving debate on racial tolerance, he was in no posi
tion to undertake the gradual build-up of his characters
into three-dimensional figures. Commenting on the artistic
effectiveness of Sartre's typification, Nation wrote:
The attitudes and behavior of the Southern whites are
oversimplified, but in the direction of caricature rather
David Grossvogel comes to much the same conclusion:
in Prostitute "the theorem succeeds at the expense of its
people . . . a wholly spurious American prostitute was
placed in an unconvincing South to illustrate through the
racial problem, existentialist problems of freedom and com
mitment. . . . Sartre's dialectic dominates characters that
remain intellectual propositions devoid of the animal truth
which transcends these propositions in much of the author's
drama." The Self-Conscious French Stage in Modern French
Drama, p. 143.
272
than of misrepresentation. . . . The Negro in this play
strikes me as far more convincing than Negroes in Ameri
can fiction because he is not "a Negro" but simply a
human being falsely accused and in danger of his life at
the hands of other human beings.
According to New Republic, the one dimensionality of Sar
tre’s characters serves to emphasize their dramatic purpose
as symbols of our moral exhaustion and depravity. In this
context, the characters
are whipped in lightninglike streaks of action through
an hour long play in which the scenes dance dizzyingly
through tragedy, low burlesque, ludicrous political
parodies, cold examinations of sexual perversities.®
O
George Ridge writes that "Lizzie, in La Putain res-
pectueuse. represents the individual who loses good faith."
At the beginning of the play she repudiates the Senator and
Fred who are deluded by bad faith. This is because Lizzie
"knows what she is— a common whore— and does not act with
the mauvaise foi. or self-delusion, which characterises the
others. The Senator deludes her, ironically, by appealing
to her sense of purity. Then Lizzie makes the moral choice
proffered her with pen and paper. She signs away the life
of the Negro, who is innocent, and thereby loses the mean
ing of her own life. When in the final scene she sees Fred
shoot the Negro, she draws a revolver in momentary outrage;
but since the persona has now masked her real self, she
cannot pull the trigger. She is paralyzed by Fred's per
sona, half from the emotion she bears him, and half from the
appeal of the persona itself. Fantasy, Sartre implies, is
much more comfortable than reality. In the end she succumbs
to his embrace while Fred paints her future as his mistress
in the small Southern town. And the defeat of a self-willed
and honest individual, even though a prostitute is complete.
Lizzie was once personalized and individual; perhaps she
even shared 'man's aspiration to be God.' But through the
sin of self-betrayal she thwarts the moral purpose of choice
— honesty— which had alone been her guide in life." "Mean-
273 :
There was little or no direct reference to Sartre's use
of language as such. Those critics who found Prostitute an
over-all failure implied that Sartre had written in a stilt
ed and exaggerated way which contributed nothing to his
characterization or thematic development. Conversely, for
critics to whom Prostitute was an over-all success, Sartre's
language was alternately ironic and poignant in keeping with
the mood and movement of his play.
Evaluation
Agreeing that the theme of Prostitute dealt in a sensa
tional manner with racial intolerance, that the form of the
play was melodrama, and that the characters were stereo
types, critics were sharply divided as to whether Sartre had
put these well-worn theatrical elements to good dramatic
use. In this sense, the pivotal point of critical judgment
turned on the matter of Sartre's intention: was his melo
drama and sensationalism a means to an end, or was it an
end in itself? To a larger group of critics, the literal
level of "slam-bang" melodrama on which Prostitute rests
was prima facie proof that Sartre's only intention was to
ingful Choice in Sartre's Drama," French Review. May 1957,
p. 438.
274 i
catch the eye of his audience and titillate its nervous
system. By his facile and flippant presentation of a diffi
cult and complex problem, by caricaturing instead of charac
terizing, Sartre overstated his case against racial intoler
ance and in so doing understated the very real issues which
his play purports to treat. In all of this, he clearly in
dicates his dramatic intention which is melodrama and sensa
tionalism as an end in itself.
To a smaller group of critics (Commonweal. Nation. New
Republic. Theatre Arts). Sartre's use of melodrama and sen
sationalism was just as clearly a. means to an end and not an
end in itself. The literal level of "slam-bang" melodrama
on which Prostitute rests was intended to arouse the audi
ence from a customary state of moral revery to one of immed
iate moral involvement. What Sartre wanted was to arouse in
his audience shame, horror, and disgust; and within the
limits of a one hour play, his use of a one-dimensional,
tragi-burlesque context was both fortuitous and telling.
Apart from having achieved this main purpose of moral in
volvement, Sartre also demonstrated in his choice of a one
dimensional, tragi-burlesque context a skillful command of
dramatic irony. The underlying seriousness of his dramatic
intention was thus expressed in the ironic contrast of
275 j
melodramatic onstage action with the residual moral truth
which underlay that action.
' These two diametrically opposed views of Prostitute
were reinforced by a second consideration, that of Sartre’s
writing as a foreigner of people and conditions with which
he was personally unfamiliar. Saturday Review, in particu
lar, found that Sartre never comes to grips, as have certain
American playwrights, with the living realities of his dra
matic situation. Considering his lack of native background,
the best Sartre could do was to seize on certain key fac
tors— Negroes are persecuted, Southerners are racial bigots,
lynch mobs make a travesty of justice— and, perforce, relate
these factors not to personal experience but to some philo
sophical preconception. Thus handicapped, Sartre was con
strained to a superficial approach, evidenced in his melo
dramatic play form and his stereotyped characters.
In answer to the charge that Sartre's frame of refer
ence was purely theoretical, Nation referred to the conflict
in Prostitute as one that deals less with American race
relations than with relations between human individuals.
For this reason, Prostitute is not primarily a topical play,
limited in space and time. It is rather an expression of a
universal problem which concerns the moral and philosophical
276 !
implications of the tyranny of one individual over the
other. As foreigner and philosopher, Sartre was able to
view this problem with an objectivity and an understanding
that might well elude an American playwright.
What emerges from the premiere criticism of Prostitute
is a wide split of critical opinion relative to Sartre's
dramatic intention and to his competence in dealing with
unfamiliar material. In terms of his dramatic intention,
the melodrama-for-its-own-sake line of critical reasoning
would appear a somewhat oversimplified statement which
stresses the letter of Prostitute and ignores its spirit.
Furthermore, this line of reasoning contains the contrary
to fact implication that Sartre is either a third-rate ex
ponent of Parisian Grand Guignol or a novice playwright
unable to choose properly the play form best suited to his
dramatic purpose. Also contrary to fact is the plain state
ment that Prostitute is melodrama, pure and simple. On the
face of it, Prostitute is conspicuously lacking in the kind
of sentimental moralizing or moralizing sentimentality
proper to historical melodrama. And while sensationalism,
which is certainly proper to historical melodrama, forms a
constituent part of Prostitute. to identify this one factor
with melodrama in toto is to equate Euripides with
277
.
Bernstein, the plays of Fletcher, Ford, and Webster with the
gamut of eighteenth century bourgeois tragedy.
What appears as an equally uncertain basis for a criti
cal attack on Prostitute. or for that matter a defense of
it, is the issue of Sartre's competence in treating material
with which he was personally unfamiliar. That Sartre is a
foreigner and a philosopher is no necessary index, pro or
con, to his dramatic omniscience. Nor is it likely that
Sartre's non-American origin and his philosophical attain
ments are in themselves sufficient reason why Prostitute is
a better or worse play than one written on a similar theme
by a native American who was not a philosopher. The ques
tion, then, which is really pertinent to a critical esti
mate of Prostitute— a question more obscured than illuminat
ed by a reference to Sartre's background— amounts to this:
Granted that his choice of play form was both knowing and
deliberate, how successful was Sartre, as a practicing
playwright, in adducing the obvious moral and philosophical
issues implicit in his main theme of racial intolerance?
Unfortunately, this question was altogether misstated by
the melodrama-for-its-own-sake line of critical reasoning.
And by those critics who found Sartre either wanting or
inspired by his lack of native background, the question was
278
largely begged instead of answered.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Prostitute
may, then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
The sets and lighting were unanimously approved. The
direction was regarded as skillful and intelligent.
To School and Society, it was the direction which made
the play a success. Mundy's performance was generally
considered a major high point in the over-all produc
tion. To Saturday Review, the performances of Mundy
and Marriot were among the few honest features in a
dishonest play.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Although there was general agreement that Sartre1s
theme of racial intolerance was a valid one, the
majority of critics felt he had handled it clumsily.
Much adverse criticism was directed at Sartre’s pur
ported sensationalism, his use of melodramatic devices,
and the fact that he was writing as a foreigner of
conditions with which he was personally unfamiliar.
Nation saw the theme less as a problem in race rela
tions than as a problem in relations between human
individuals.
Plav Form
Again most critics took issue with the melodramatic
emphasis on action and the absence of psychological
motivation. Commonweal. Nation. New Republic, and
Theatre Arts maintained that the emphasis on action
was suited to the limits of a one act play form and
to Sartre's over-all purpose of moral commitment.
Characterization
Sartre's typification of characters was noted by almost
all critics. Critical reaction was mostly adverse:
279 |
the characters were either unmotivated mouthpieces for ;
Sartre's existentialist philosophy or crudely drawn
caricatures. New Republic wrote that the one dimen
sionality of the characters emphasizes their function
as symbols of our moral exhaustion and depravity.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
The production was geared to an idealistic-minded
American audience, and for this reason Prostitute
emerged as a plea for racial tolerance. The acting
and the directing followed in this same line of a
statement for a more humane view of American race
relations (Clurman).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Prostitute satirizes a hypocritical social morality
which militates against the moral right of the indi
vidual to his own free choice (Fowlie). Sartre implies
that fantasy is more comfortable than reality. Hence,
Lizzie's betrayal of the Negro is really a self
betrayal whereby she thwarts her instinctive honesty
(her freedom of choice) and becomes, like Fred and the
Senator, a deluded nonentity (Ridge).
Play Form
Sartre, like Camus, works on the dramatic principle
that action precedes thought and that action is in
separably related to philosophical concepts. The
result is a drama crammed with physical happenings
which sometimes border on the unreal (Guicharnaud).
The plot of Prostitute is sheer melodrama which serves
no dramatic purpose other than to illustrate Sartre's
ideas about freedom and moral commitment.
280 j
Characterization
Sartre's dialectic dominates characters who remain in
tellectual propositions (Grossvogel). Because Sartre
had no insight into American social customs, his char
acters ring false (Jones). Lizzie represents the in
dividual who loses good faith; the Senator and Fred
are individuals who never possessed it. All three
illustrate the Sartrian principle that to be free man
must strip himself of his persona (his false self) in
order that he can act in good faith according to his
inmost convictions (Ridge).
Language
No comment.
Comparing the main trends of premiere criticism to
subsequent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. The success which Prostitute enjoyed with American
audiences ran counter to its over-all failure with
premiere critics. The audience success of Prostitute
could be explained in terms of the topicality of its
subject— a Negro manhunt in a Southern town— and the
fact that it was played before a largely sympathetic
Northern audience.
2. That Prostitute was attacked by most premiere
critics might be explained in terms of (1) a critical
reaction against being stampeded by a "popular" cause;
(2) a critical reaction against a foreigner pointing
the finger at American society; (3) a critical dis
taste for a type of drama in which physical action has
precedence over psychological motivation, even more
for a type of drama which is in the nature of a phil
osophical demonstration.
3. The "popular cause" aspect of Prostitute. together
with widespread critical reaction against a foreigner
pointing his finger at America, was also a likely
reason for the supposition of most premiere critics
that the play was a pure and simple attack on racial
intolerance. Thus the premiere critics took a somewhat
281
literal view of Prostitute: Sartre's conflict between
right and wrong according to its exact physical cir
cumstances . This view may be compared with that of
Fowlie and Ridge: the characters and events of the
play symbolized an inner conflict of free choice rep
resented by Lizzie's self-betrayal via her betrayal
of the Negro. In terms of what Clurman pointed out
as the American-slanted line of the New York produc
tion, the premiere critics' view of Prostitute is not
only understandable but even inevitable. However,
in terms of what Sartre conveyed in his basic play
text, the view of Fowlie and Ridge (an inner moral
conflict) is doubtless closer to the playwright's
dramatic intention.
4. The much belabored point of Sartre's melodramatic
approach to dramaturgy raises the question of just to
what extent drama can proceed on the basis that action
precedes motivation rather than the converse. The
American equivalent of an action before motive theatre
can only revert to the sentimental excesses of an
East Lynne type melodrama. And to most premiere crit
ics (as well as to Jones and Grossvogel), Sartre had,
in effect, substituted philosophy for sentiment as a
tacked-on "booster-upper" for his unreal and frenzied
dramatic action. What does emerge from Prostitute
and the Sartre approach to dramaturgy is this one
assumption to which Guicharnaud called attention: the
audience must grant that philosophical concepts and
a concrete representation of life are inseparable and
that they are indissolubly linked to physical acts.
Here, again, is the parallel between the sentimental
moralizing of an East Lvnne and the philosophical
moralizing of a Jean-Paul Sartre. For New York audi
ences, the philosophical moralizing was acceptable;
to most of the New York critics, it was not.
Red Gloves (Les Mains Sales) 1948
Adapted by Daniel Taradash; Settings by Stewart Chaney;
Costumes by Emeline Roche; Directed by Jed Harris; Produced
by Jean Dalrymple at the Mansfield Theatre; Opened December
4, 1948; Closed March 12, 1949 (113 performances).
THE CAST
Reich .................................... J. Anthony Penna
Johanna...........................................Anna Karen
Loutec ...................................... Guy Thomajan
Munster ........................ Horace McMahon
H u g o John Dali
Jessica ........................................ Joan Tetzel
Marochek ...................................... Jesse White
Kertz ....................................... Martin Kingsley
Hoederer ..................................... Charles Boyer
The Prince ................................ Francis Compton
K a r s k y ...........................................Royal Beal
282
RED GLOVES BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., December 6, 1948,
P- 133.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., December 6, 1948, p.
136 .
New York Herald Tribune. Barnes, Howard, N.Y.T.C., December
6, 1948, p. 135.
New York Journal American. Garland, Robert, N.Y.T.C., Decem
ber 6, 1948, p. 133.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., December 6,
1948, p. 136.
New York Star. Lardner, John, N.Y.T.C., December 6, 1948,
p. 135.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., December 6,
1948, p. 132.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., Decem
ber 6, 1948, p. 134.
The Sun. Morehouse, Ward, N.Y.T.C., December 6, 1948, p.
134.
Magazine Criticism
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, January 1949, pp. 322-
323.
Forum. Gassner, John, March 1949, p. 162.
283
iLife. (Unsigned), January 3, 1949, p. 49.
The Nation. Krutch, Joseph Wood, December 25, 1948, pp. 731-
732.
The Nation. Suvage, Leo, January 1, 1949, pp. 19-20.
The New Republic. Clurman, Harold, December 20, 1948, pp.
28-29.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), December 13, 1948, p. 84.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, December 11, 1948, pp. 57-
58.
The Saturday Review. Brown, John Mason, January 1, 1949, pp.
24-27.
School and Society. Beyer, William, January 29, 1949, pp.
84-86.
Theatre Arts. Gabriel, Gilbert W., January 1949, pp. 18-20.
Time. (Unsigned), December 13, 1948, p. 69.
285
Production Criticism
Except for a handful of critics, Chaney's conventional
stage settings were passed over without comment. Herald
Tribune and The Sun found the stage designs effective and
authoritative. To New Yorker. the sets were "sound if not
particularly inspired." Daily Mirror. Journal American,
and New York Times offered the unfavorable comment that the
sets were dull and prosaic.
Harris's direction was variously commended and con
demned. Daily News wrote that Harris directs "with his
customary vigor"; New York Post that "the staging is skill
ful." To New York Star. the direction was "pleasingly sin
ister"; and to The Sun. the play was "adroitly directed."
For infusing life into a lifeless script, Harris was com
mended by Herald Tribune and New York Times. Herald Trib
une observed that in static scenes, such as the round table
discussion between the rival political leaders, Harris
showed special skill "in keeping the proceedings fluent."
New York Times credited Harris with giving the performance
"an illusion of dealing with momentous matters ..."
But to most other critics, Harris had not only man
handled the play script but had miscast the whole produc
tion. Sartre's play script, according to these critics,
called for something more than a literal rendering of on
stage derring-do, accompanied by sleight-of-hand theatrical
trickery. In this sense, Journal American and Theatre Arts
found that Harris fails to tie the play together because he
emphasizes onstage action to the detriment of the ideas
which underlie that action. Commenting on the over-all
production--the casting, the acting^ the adaptation of
Taradash— Nation (Suvage) asserted that the direction "put
the finishing touches to a shameful job." Saturday Review
voiced surprise that so capable a director as Harris could
produce so dismal a show: "No one would guess from the
wooden quality of the direction that Jed Harris was respon
sible for it." Surprise was also registered by New Repub
lic:
One asks how such an able showman could so completely
have muffed a signal chance for a first-rate production.
One hesitates to suggest some unconscious sense of rival
ry with or envy of an author, who, though not an import
ant artist is at least an astute craftsman and a person
of some importance.
In the part of Hoederer, Boyer received wide critical
acclaim. To state it plainly, it was Boyer's performance
which caused most critics to regard Red Gloves as other than
an abject failure. Representative of this critical attitude
were the judgments of Herald Tribune. Journal American. New
287 |
Yorker. and Saturday Review. Herald Tribune stated that ;
Boyer lends eloquence to scenes which are otherwise flat and
dull: "In the few moments of superior play writing that are
evident he rises to genuine acting heights." Journal Amer
ican wrote, "With no help from anybody, Charles Boyer builds
'Red Gloves' into a must-see here in town." To New Yorker.
Boyer gave a strong and intelligent performance, "often
making his speeches sound much more than the rehash of
stale ideas that they most certainly are." In the opinion
of Saturday Review. Boyer communicated charm and a sense of
power lacking in the script, direction, and his fellow
actors.
However, to a minority of critics, Boyer's virtuoso
performance was a poor excuse for the abjuring of all other
theatrical and dramatic values. Nation (Suvage) and School
and Society pointed to the fact that Boyer's role is not
the lead. Hence, his dominating the whole production puts
the emphasis in the wrong place, on Hoederer instead of
Hugo. The result is a serious imbalance which destroys the
play’s equilibrium and alters completely Satre's philosoph
ical context. New Republic and Theatre Arts took issue with
the matter of play casting and acting ensemble, especially
as these related to Boyer. According to New Republic. Dali
and Tetzel were badly miscast and "were made to appear like
nothing but two animated sticks." As for Boyer, he is
a good actor but, unsupported by a clearly defined exter
nal characterization he is innately too sensitive and
moody for the firm metal of the leader he is representing.
Theatre Arts saw a definite lack of ensemble in Boyer's
playing with flair and Dali and Tetzel for farce: "None of
them seemed to be able to get those gloves off Jean-Paul's
9
knuckles."
Dali's performance in the role of the psychologically
complicated Hugo received favorable mention from New York
Times and Newsweek. New York Times wrote that although he
plays an intolerable character, "it is possible to admire
John Dali's highly overwrought acting of the part." In the
opinion of Newsweek, "John Dali gives a sensitive character
ization of the wavering idealist . . ." But to most other
critics, Dali's performance was far from satisfactory.
Daily News and Herald Tribune ascribed Dali's failure with
^Harold Clurraan observes that while Boyer gave an ap
pealing performance, his acting bore little realtion to what
Sartre had written: "One may agree that an actor shows in
teresting skill and yet find in him a lack or a falsity of
interpretation. Boyer's Hoederer in Red Gloves seemed to me
to have very little interpretation, just as the Morley of
Edward. Mv Son— part social wit and part actor— strikes me
as an amusing and fortunate misinterpretation." Lies Like
Truth. p. 246.
289 !
i
Hugo to a poor acting part. World Telegram and Catholic
World complained of Dali's being overshadowed by Boyer. To
New York Post. The Sun. New Yorker. and New Republic, the
histrionics of Dali were unbelievable and ineffective.
Although Tetzel, in the part of Jessica, was greeted
with a somewhat more favorable reception, the general trend
was to regard her as at best decorative and beautiful. New
York Post. The Sun. and New Yorker commented on the sincer
ity and honesty which she brought to her part of the young
wife. Most other critics felt that Tetzel, like Dali, was
either hampered by a poor acting role or performed in an
unbelievable and ineffective manner.
Among the minor players, Compton was singled out by
Her aId Tr ibune. Journal American. New York Star. and New
Yorker . Herald Tribune and Journal American mentioned
Compton's scheming Prince, along with Boyer's Hoederer, as
the only distinguished performances of the evening. New
York Star wrote that Compton "makes the most of a fine op
portunity." According to New Yorker. Compton "does a nice,
restrained job as a scheming prince, in his own way at
least as admirable as Hoederer."
i 290 |
Dramatic Criticism
Apart from the judgments of Daily News and Journal
American that Gloves was a makeshift melodrama totally lack
ing in thematic content, the premiere critics were of three
main opinions with regard to Sartre's theme. For a majority
of critics, Sartre had proposed an examination of totalitar
ian ideology, of the logical and emotional fallacies inher
ent in the familiar philosophy of the end jusitifies the
means. A second group of critics saw the theme in terms of
a conflict between idealism, represented by Hugo, and real
ism, represented by Hoederer. To a third group of critics,
Gloves was dominantly a psychological character study of
the young aristocrat, Hugo, faced with the existentialist
problem of ultimate moral commitment.
Holding to the majority view of Sartre's theme as an
examination of totalitarian ideology, World Telegram and
Catholic World found that Gloves presented a specific and
strongly stated case against the evils of world communism.
In the opinion of Catholic World. Gloves offers a satirical
comment on the anomalies of the communist position exempli
fied by Hugo's high-sounding theories and Hoederer's low-
291 i
level practice. To World Telegram. Sartre is making the
point, apropos of fanatical devotion to the communist cause,
"that to succeed in the pursuit of any violent artificial
revolution a man roust deny every human instinct he has . „ ."
But to New York Times. Nation (Krutch), Newsweek. New Yorker
and Saturday Review, the anti-totalitarian theme was poorly
developed. New York Times wrote that Gloves is "an analyti
cal play about the evils of totalitarian politics." What
makes an otherwise interesting theme uninteresting is the
fact that Sartre "talks too much to too little dramatic
purpose." Sartre's talkiness was also noted by Newsweek;
Despite the ironic twist that sends Hugo to his death in
the end, Sartre is less concerned with physical melodrama
than with a wordy if eloquent consideration of revolu
tionary fanaticism and political opportunism.
According to Nation (Krutch), New Yorker. and Saturday Re
view. the ironic twists in Sartre's plotting were of the
■^Martin Jarrett-Kerr writes that in a primary sense,
Gloves is "a political tragedy, or political satire . . .
Some people have taken it as expressing Sartre's sympathies
with communism and believe the play to be a satire upon the
typical non-conformist intellectual. Such a person is Hugo
who cannot really grasp the Party's point of view, and who
is, in the last resort, a sentimentalist. . . . But in fact,
we cannot help but sympathize with Hugo, and the play is
much more profoundly a satire upon the way in which Marxist
practice can suddenly turn Marxist theory upside down."
"The Dramatic Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre," Tulane Drama
Review. June 1957, p. 41.
292 |
cops-and-robbers variety and had little or no bearing on his
anti-communist theme. New Yorker held that as a debate on
i
the communist ideology of the end justifies the means, !
!
Gloves is markedly inferior to Arthur Koestler's Darkness at!
Noon. To Nation (Krutch), Gloves was a mere parody of the j
I
Koestler work. The thematic relationship between Gloves anc(
i
Darkness at Noon was also commented on by Saturday Review; j
i
Sartre and Koestler are both concerned with the ironies of
I
loyalty on the part of those who give their allegiance to ;
i
communism. But Koestler explores what Sartre neglects,
i
j
namely, "the fascinating ideas which lie behind the ironic !
dilemma of 'Red Gloves"
Taking the view that Sartre1s theme represented the
conflict between idealism (Hugo) and realism (Hoederer), j
i
New York Star wrote that Gloves is neither pro- nor anti-
jcommunist:
| i
j It has the appearance of a valid examination of the moods j
| and philosophies of revolutionary movements, of the con- ;
flicts within such movements between the intellectual i
!
idealist and the working politician.
!
Likewise to Theatre Arts, the theme of Gloves dealt with j
"the struggle between idealism and realism already played
with both hands by Arthur Koestler before Sartre chimed in."
What made the Sartre version dull and commonplace was the !
293 !
I
deadly literalness of the American production. New York
Post found that in its present day political context Sar
tre's theme of idealism versus realism was both interesting
and valid. Where Sartre fails is not in his choice of themei
but in the way he develops it: "The trouble is that while
the playwright asks his questions probingly, he considers
them haltingly and clumsily . . ." Like New York Post.
Herald Tribune and Time approved Sartre1s choice of theme
but were critical of the way he developed it. According to
Herald Tribune and Time. the thematic conflict of Hugo the
idealist and Hoederer the realist is never properly focused
because Hugo and Hoederer are paperback characters. Hence,
the idealism and realism that they represent can only be
expressed in abstract philosophizing and melodramatic flour
ishes . ^
■^Clurman relates the theme of Gloves to "the existen
tialist movement in France . . . an expression of the mid
dle-class intelligentsia which hopes to dispel French fears
of both past and future, to proceed with present problems
experimentally and pragmatically. . . . it seems evident to
me that a play like Les Mains sales represents the wish of
many Frenchmen to get down to cases on fundamental issues.
That the play is slightly ambiguous— for Sartre seems to be
making a choice here between an unripe, groping idealism and
a limited but integrated materialism, inclining toward the
first about which he is a little satirical, while he rejects
the second, for which he appears to harbor a sincere admira
tion— is part of the play's fascination and truth." Lies
i 294 j
|
With reference to an inadequate development of play
theme, School and Society took much the same position as
Herald Tribune and Time. Maintaining that Gloves was domi
nantly a psychological character study, based on the exis
tentialist principle of ultimate moral commitment, School
and Society wrote that Sartre's dramatic action is never
weighty nor adroit enough "to have his philosophically im
pelled characters proceed in terms of inherent dramatic com
pulsion." But to Forum. Nation (Suvage), and New Republic,
the psychological aspect of Sartre's theme, as well as its
philosophical and political implications, were presented in
a meaningful and coherent complex. This complex, however,
was completely misrepresented in a badly done American pro
duction. Referring to Gloves in its original form as a
provocative political study, comparable to Dostoevsky's
Possessed and Koestler's Darkness at Noon. Forum stated that
Sartre's theme was clearly and cogently developed:
A man, Sartre implies, must be true to his own conception
of himself. The young man's temporary aberration of
jealousy is insignificant by comparison with the principle
he elected to represent, or with the identity he sought
for himself and finds only in the stand and the standards
he has freely chosen. His conviction in other words is
his real personality— a point that only a politically
Like Truth, p. 204.
295 !
I
minded and experienced people can understand.
Echoing Forum's analysis of the philosophical implications
of Sartre’s theme, New Republic wrote:
What Sartre aimed to say was this: a man must decide
through the free choice of his mind and will what his
acts shall mean— and on the basis of that decision ac
cept full responsibility for his life and his death.
To Nation (Suvage), the main theme of Gloves was concerned
with an exploration of Hugo's psychological motives: why
Hugo accepted the role of assassin; why he recoiled from
that role; why he finally fulfilled it in a different state
of mind. The secondary theme of Gloves. actually played
down in the American production, involved a crucial debate
on "the human inacceptability of the Stalinist principle
12
that the end justifies the means."
■^George Ridge writes that "the word 'existentialist'
is best understood in connection with its antipode essence.
Sartre maintains that as far as man is concerned existence
preceded essence. In other words no one has consciously
shaped man to fill a preconceived role, as man, for example,
would shape a tool. Man must shape himself. But not until
man becomes aware of the profound need to shape himself,
i.e., to direct his life consciously through meaningful
choice, can he lift himself from the morass of nausea."
According to Ridge, Hugo illustrates this feeling of nausea
because everything he has ever done has turned against him:
his wife, his comrades, his very beliefs. "Thus he has ex
perienced the absurdity of life— an absurdity born of the
consciousness of one's own pattern as it is woven in the
tapestry of things. And this pattern, he realizes, doesn't
make sense because of the incongruity between wish and
296 |
With respect to play form, most critics felt that
underneath its fa£ade of intellectual drama Gloves was an
awakwardly contrived melodrama which never comes to grips
with the ideas it expresses nor with the characters that it ;
represents. Journal American called Gloves "a melodrama
with a false-faced veneer of political profundity." To New
Yorker. Sartre had concocted a hodge-podge, "roughly two-
thirds advanced political theorizing and one-third old-
fashioned melodrama." New York Post. The Sun. and Time re
ferred to the play as a melodrama of ideas, more declamatory
than it is dramatic. Time wrote that Gloves
again reveals Sartre's ability to melodramatize ideas, to
make a story suddenly flash with "theatre" or a speech
with intensity. . . . Between these two extremes of which
Sartre is master— the phony thrill and the incisive
speech— lies a whole human world he barely grazes; his
situations ring hollow, his people seem paper-backed.
According to Nation (Krutch), Sartre demonstrates he is a
sensational playwright rather than a good one "... and
even his sensationalism misses fire because of his clumsy,
slapdash construction." Sartre's sensationalism and his use
of melodramatic devices were also castigated by Saturday
Review and School and Society. School and Society stated
fulfillment, between the persona and the self." "Meaningful
Choice in Sartre's Drama," French Review. May 1957, p. 435.
297
that the action of Gloves develops on a juvenile who's-got- !
|
I
the-gun level from which vantage point Sartre analyzes his j
characters by indulging in tedious stretches of pretentious |
!
nonsense, all of it pompous and dull. Especially bad are j
I
j
Sartre's love scenes: a reluctant Hugo pursued by a bosomy j
blond comrade; Hugo's wife throwing herself on a reluctant j
|
j
Hoederer. With its melodramatic action, its analytical !
approach to character, Gloves is typical of Sartre's whole |
i
j
dramatic output: j
Sartre's plays all reflect the facets of his alert in- j
quiring mind on social issues, his predilection for |
macabre horror and sadistic action in the old French j
Grand Guignol tradition, plus his preoccupation with j
the latest philosophical cult Existentialism of which |
he is a major p r o p h e t . :
11 • i
j Jacques Guicharnaud distinguishes between Gloves as
a suspenseful politico-detective drama and Gloves as a drama
Df suspenseful motivation. On either level, the dramatic
question is: Why did Hugo kill Hoederer? In Guicharnaud's j
opinion, "Sartre played the game of the detective story |
melodrama according to the rules but he stopped short of j
melodramatic satisfaction. The 'secret' we are supposed to I
uncover is not uncovered and we understand that it is im- j
possible to uncover it. In a sense the naturalistic melo
drama destroys itself under our very eyes, leaving hero and
spectator open to whatever lies ahead. Having finished his
Long demonstration and created the necessary vacuum, Sartre
can then go on to lead both spectator and hero into the true
subject of his play. In the last fifteen minutes we dis
cover that the meaning of Hoederer's murder does not lie in
Hugo's reasons for it, which in any case remain ambiguous. j
Hugo's true motive is the one he chooses afterward when,
fully aware of the situation, he determines— through his |
A more favorable view of Sartre's play form was ex
pressed by New York Star and World Telegram, New York Star
wrote that although the crime passionel plot device is melo
dramatic, Gloves is on the whole "neatly and strongly con
trived ..." To World Telegram. Gloves was a wisely stated,
and deeply ifronical play whose " forceful emotional impact is
derived from purely emotional content." In the opinion of
Forum. Nation (Suvage), New Republic, and Theatre Arts.
Sartre had written a play of ideas out of which Harris,
Dalrymple, and Taradash had made a cheap melodrama. Accord
ing to Forum. Gloves was not a melodrama as Sartre wrote it.
Rather it was "a jeu d'esprit with political realities and
human contradictions as its subject." To highlight these
contradictions, Sartre makes skillful use of dramatic irony.
One example of Sartre's use of irony is the worldly wise
leader disarming physically and mentally a would-be politi
cal assassin, only to be slain by the same assassin in the
guise of a jealous husband. A second example of irony lies
in the change of party line whereby Hoederer becomes a mar
tyred hero, Hugo a revisionist villain. Nation (Suvage)
own death— the meaning of the situation and the value of
Hoederer's life and his own." Modern French Theatre from
Giraudoux to Beckett, pp. 146-147.
299;
;ascribed directorial incompetence as one reason why Gloves j
appeared in the form of melodrama instead of a play of
ideas. The incompetence manifested itself in the banality
of the denouement "where the invasion of the stage by a
group of uneasy killers stifles Hugo's cry of delivery and
14
release— 'Not reclaimableI'" Further evidence of direc
torial incompetence occurred at the turning point of the
play when Hoederer gives the morally disarmed Hugo a chance
i
to shoot him. This climax was not noticed by the audience,
and with good reason: "Under Mr. Harris's direction it was
simply a moment when Charles Boyer enjoys a cup of coffee."
In the matter of Sartre's characterization, most crit
ics took the same view that they had with respect to his
play form: with the possible exception of Hoederer, the
characters were rnelodramatized beings who bore little or no
relation to living reality or symbolic truth. Herald Trib
une wrote that in having them talk endlessly about abstract
problems, "Sartre has given few of his characters honest
■^Ridge finds that Hugo's "Not reclaimable" is the key
to his ultimate search for intellectual certainty: "It is
only in the last scene, as the Communist gunmen wait to
assassinate him, that Barine frees himself of nausea by
consciously choosing a course of action for a meaningful
reason, fully cognizant of the inevitable result." "Mean
ingful Choice in Sartre's Drama," p. 436.
300 I
i
jand appealing definition." To Journal American even Hoeder-'
er was unbelievable as the over-verbalizing party chief.
And to New York Post, as to most other critics, Hugo and
15
Jessica were obscurely and awkwardly drawn. New York
Times and Nation (Krutch) called special attention to Hugo's
unmotivated shooting of Hoederer. According to Nation
(Krutch), there was no real motivation for the killing of
Hoederer, no connection with Sartre's anti-communist theme.
It was purely for the sake of a plot device that Hugo shoots
Hoederer (a man he had come to respect and admire) because
Hoederer seemed to be making love to Jessica (a woman in
whom Hugo had never evinced the least sexual interest).
•^Robert Jones writes that Jessica, Olga, and Hoederer
"are extremely credible and, compared to other characters
in Sartre's theatre, also rather admirable. Jessica is a
brilliantly drawn person whose development from puppy love
for Hugo and adolescent sophistication to mature love for
Hoederer and an acute awareness of the situation is admir
ably portrayed. Olga, although a type figure, has enough
human warmth to make her appealing. Hoederer is perhaps
the finest character in the play. His interest in his work,
his affectionate tolerance of Hugo, and his practical sense
of values make him the most likable person in Sartre's
theatre. The level to which he rises after Hugo shoots him
by protecting the young man from Slick is a level that few
figures in the contemporary theatre attain with such utter
credibility. And yet fine as Hoederer is, Hugo is still
the central figure of Les Mains sales and the tragic empha
sis is concentrated on him." The Alienated Hero in Modern
French Drama, pp. 105-106.
301
Apropos of Sartre's characterization, School and Society
commented that "perceptive revelation in theatrical terms
is . . . not a talent of Sartre's since he seems unable to
create convincing people." This inability is doubtless a
by-product of his existentialist philosophy, which makes
for a defeatist and mechanistic approach to play writing in
general and to character in particular."*"^
■^David Grossvogel observes that Sartre's characteriza
tion is inconsistent in theory as well as practice: "If
Sartre refuses to recognize emotions it is in part because
depersonalization is necessary to the correct development
of a thesis that must remain free from the unpredictable
human quality. But the spectator reinstates those very
elements that make for philosophical inaccuracy. Sartre is
already at fault when in his theoretical writing he illus
trates abstract thought by means of concrete images: the
material detail invites argument which the axiom opposes.
Reliance on such tangibilities is the less permissible as,
in theory, Sartre rejects them himself as being part of the
deceptive and fraudulent vagaries of everyday life." Ac
cording to Grossvogel, Gloves provides a perfect example of
how the spectator misappropriates Sartre's symbols and mis
interprets the moral aspect of any question he treats exis-
tentially: "the clan represented by Hoederer and Olga is
exponential of a good idea, whereas the Prince and Karsky
pitted against them have evil connotations. The situation
is the more damning in that these avowedly meaningless terms
are taken here in their simplest, oldest, and most conven
tional sense. Sartre has indicated that the Marxists are
not changing any basic moral values but simply eliminating
certain of the old values (such as God) in order to abide
by the very same moral directions as before the useless
amputation: they are in fact adhering to a very positive
and stable order of ideas. But the problem remains insol
uble for the existentialist as long as he must express
values for which there are no ready-made terms while using
302
The majority view of Sartre's characters as melodrama-
tized, one-dimensional beings was contested by World Tele
gram. Nation (Suvage), and New Republic. World Telegram
maintained that Sartre had endowed his characters with
dramatic stature and genuine theatrical quality:
. . . the vacillating Hugo, impassioned but morally
limited, and Hoederer, who has stamped out of his soul
any personal flexibility and any need except for his
ultimate political good.
As to Hugo's murdering Hoederer, it illustrates his need
for summoning passion to lend him the moral courage for
such an act. Although his personalized motive for killing
Hoederer may seem extraneous, it actually "strengthens the
picture of this harassed boy who in the end is never quite
sure why he pulled the trigger." Nation (Suvage) and New
Republic observed that Sartre's characters were well drawn
and well motivated in the original, unemasculated, and non-
Americanized Les mains sales. Referring to Jessica, Nation
(Suvage) wrote that because of puritanical American editing
we get no clue to her seductive femininity:
. . . one of the most seductive characters in the drama
of Sartre, a character at once real and theatrical,
symbols familiar in another form to the audience which he
is attempting to reach." The Self-Conscious Stage in
Modern French Drama, pp. 136-137.
303 j
anchored in those poetic spheres where Sartre the philos
opher touches the brilliant, winged lightness of a Girau-
doux or a Pirandello.-*-^
Comparing the Broadway production of Gloves with the Sartre
original, New Republic held that the original was a well-
constructed play because the characters are interesting and
j
credible: j
I
I Even if one misses its philosophical point, the play
! stands up as an arresting study of human motives under j
modern circumstances. The boy is an impassioned ideal- |
ist (the real hero of the play), his wife a girl waiting j
to be brought to life by some real experience of it, the j
assassinated party leader a tempered, thoroughly impres- j
sive human being. !
j j
! With exact reference to the translation of Taradash,
the language of Sartre 1s play proved something of a lin- ;
i
l
guistic storm center. As indicated by several critics, |
!
Sartre had vigorously repudiated the Taradash translation, |
i
stating that it misrepresented his play both in letter and j
|
spirit. Sartre to the contrary, most critics ignored the j
issue of a faulty translation, indicating in the absence of }
i
i
i i
^ Jarrett-Kerr speaks of the absence of satisfactory
interpersonal relationships among Sartre's characters: "Why
does Jessica seduce Hoederer? When I first saw the play I
thought it was a pretence on her part, another way of saving
her beloved husband Hugo. But alas, on reading the play
carefully it won't do; Jessica is genuinely being unfaith
ful to the husband she is passionately fond of, and being
unfaithful for purely irrelevant and temperamental reasons.
Sartre has produced only one more bitch." "The Dramatic
Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre," pp. 45-46. j
iany comment that Gloves was a reasonable facsimile of Les
mains sales. Among the seven critics who commented on the
translation, Daily Mirror made mention of the Sartre-
Taradash controversy but remained noncommittal on the rela
tive merits of Sartre's case. New York Star and New Yorker
expressed the belief that Taradash had been faithful to
Sartre. New York Star observed: "My guess is that nearly
all of the ironies and plot factors of the Dalrymple Red
Gloves were a part of the Sartre Red Gloves to begin with."
New Yorker voiced a similar opinion:
I find it hard to believe that the play was ever much
good in any form, the faults and absurdities in it seem
ing too basic to be the result of any misdemeanors of
translation, editing, or directing.
In the opinion of Saturday Review, the Taradash translation
was poorly done. But this in no way altered the fact that
Sartre had written a bad play:
My conviction is that M. Sartre's play— in Paris or in
London— was never any good; that indeed it is as dull
and synthetic a phony as has so far been written about
one of the greatest and most tantalizing themes of our
times.
However, to Forum. Nation (Suvage), and New Republic.
Sartre had written a good play; what contributed, among
other things, to make it a bad one was the Taradash
18
translation. Forum called the American production of Red
Gloves a travesty of the Sartre original. Nation (Suvage)
wrote that Taradash had destroyed and distorted Sartre1s
ideas by a specious cutting of Hugo's and Jessica's parts,
so that "these characters are no more than hollow puppets
floating where the surviving lines take them, scattered and
haggard and emasculated." Only Hoederer's part was uncut,
evidently because it was played by Boyer. According to New
Republic. the Sartre original was an effective theatre piece
with a philosophical point: "All it needed to prove as
successful here as it has been in London and Paris was a
proper translation and a good cast." But in the American
production, the action is made unbelievable and melodramat
ic, there is no sense of reality or of motivation in the
characters, and the anti-communist implications of the play
are misunderstood.
Evaluation
One of the more unique features in the premiere recep
tion of Gloves was the over-all approval of Sartre’s play
expressed by New York Star. World Telegram, and Catholic
^ - 8Clurman refers to Red Gloves as "a stupid adaptation"
of Les mains sales. Lies Like Truth, p. 204.
World. The approval was unique in that all other critics
looked upon Gloves with intense disfavor. For whatever
reason— the acting, the directing, the translation, the
basic text— Gloves was regarded by eighteen out of twenty-
one critics as a melodramatic hodge-podge compounded of
old-fashioned plot devices, stale ideas, and badly drawn
characters. Indeed, for most critics, all that stood be
tween Sartre and artistic oblivion was the acting of Charles
Boyer.
Hence, the question of major critical consequence in
the premiere reception of Gloves was this: Were the glaring
faults in the play structure and characterization, noted by
almost every critic, generic faults? Or were they the re
sult, as Sartre himself claimed, of a specious tampering
with the letter and spirit of Les mains sales? By actual
count, thirteen out of twenty-one critics ignored the ques
tion. In the absence of any comment, they implied that the
play faults to which most of them called attention were
generic and indelible. Of the eight critics who considered
the question of Sartre's being misrepresented, one critic
(Daily Mirror) remained noncommittal. One other critic
(Saturday Review) admitted that Gloves was badly produced
but not misrepresented: so poor a play would still be poor
307 |
‘ no matter how it was produced. Two more critics (New York
Star and New Yorker) felt that for better or worse Sartre
had been fairly represented. Four critics (Forum. Nation
[Suvage], New Republic, and Theatre Arts) stood squarely
behind Sartre in his claim that the American production had
violated Les mains sales in letter as well as in spirit.
What complicates an evaluation of the relative merits
of these conflicting views, pro- and anti-Sartre, is a
dearth of critical reference, whether to the basic text of
Les mains sales or to the play as it may have appeared in
the London and Paris production. It must be said, however,
that the dearth of critical reference lay more on the side
of the anti-Sartre forces than with those who favored his
cause. Saturday Review, for example, was "convinced" that
the London and Paris productions were as bad as the American
one. This "conviction" of Saturday Review was based entire
ly on the American production of Sartre's play. Palpably,
it did not include any reference to the basic text, nor was
it substantiated by comparative data drawn from the London
and Paris productions. The same pattern of critical non
reference was followed by New Yorker. No director or trans
lator could be held responsible for the faults and absurdi
ties manifest in the American production of Gloves.
308 ;
Therefore, the faults and absurdities were ipso facto proof
of the basic worthlessness of Sartre's basic play.
On the pro-Sartre side of the controversy, Forum and
Theatre Arts rested their defense of the play on the some
what more related factor of Sartre's past performance. As
a skilled craftsman, and a playwright of considerable dis
tinction, Sartre would be incapable of writing so wretched
a piece of claptrap melodrama. But like Saturday Review
and New Yorker, neither Forum nor Theatre Arts provided a
frame of critical reference, whether to the basic play text
or to the play as it may have appeared in Paris and London.
In this sense the only critics who did provide some frame of
reference were Nation (Suvage) and New Republic. According
to Nation (Suvage), Sartre's main theme was an exploration
of Hugo's psychological motives for accepting the role of
assassin; the secondary political theme involved a debate on
the human inacceptability of the principle that the end
justifies the means. Both of these themes were distorted,
the ideas they brought forth were destroyed, because the
parts of Hugo and Jessica were cut out of all countenance.
Evidence of the cutting was a reduced running time of the
play; two hours on Broadway, over three in Paris and London.
Results of the cutting were to rob Hugo of his motivation,
Jessica of her femininity. Hugo kills Hoederer for who
knows what reason, and for the same reason goes to his own
death. Jessica, especially in the crime passionnel se
quence, looks more like a love-starved gawk than the highly
seductive female Sartre had made of her. Following a simi
lar line of referential reasoning, New Republic also called
attention to the over-cutting of Les mains sales whereby the
characters are left without motivation, the anti-communist
implications of the theme without meaning. As against the
"conviction" of Saturday Review that Sartre's play was a
failure in Paris and London, New Republic pointed to the
record of overwhelming success which the play had in both
these cities.
The limiting of referential criticism to Nation (Su
vage) and New Republic provides the premiere reception of
Gloves with yet another instance of the unique and the un
usual. Unique and unusual are mild enough words when one
considers that Sartre's repudiating Gloves— certainly a
question of major critical consequence— was ignored or mis
handled by all but two critics. That Nation (Suvage) and
New Republic upheld Sartre's views on the American produc
tion is beside the critical point. To the point is that
critics ostensibly engaged in reviewing a play production
310 |
^should pass over or treat off-handedly the repudiation of
that production by the playwright. One may wonder, as did
New Republic about the direction, whether the premiere
critics were animated by some unconscious sense of rivalry
with the author or by some hidden envy of his accomplish
ments .
The main trends of premiere criticism in Gloves may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
« »
Production Criticism
The physical aspects of production met with a mixed
reception: to some critics, the sets were effective
and authoritative; to others, they were dull and pro
saic. The direction was likewise commended and con
demned; it infused life into a lifeless script; it
emphasized physical action to the detriment of ideas
which underlay that action. Boyer received wide
critical acclaim. In the opinion of most critics,
the play's only virtue was his virtuoso performance
as Hoederer. A minority of critics found that Boyer's
overpowering performance not only destroyed all act
ing ensemble but threw the dramatic emphasis on Hoe
derer instead of Hugo.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
For a majority of critics, Sartre had proposed an
examination of totalitarian ideology, of the falla
cies inherent in the philosophy of the end justifies
the means. Two other views of Sartre's theme were
that it involved a conflict of idealism (Hugo) and
realism (Hoederer) or that it was a psychological
character study of Hugo faced with the existentialist
problem of moral commitment. Regardless of what view
the critics took, the general feeling was that Sartre
had treated his theme in a melodramatic fashion which
left untouched the serious ideas he proposed to exam
ine .
Play Form
Most critics found fault with the highly charged sus
pense aspect of Sartre's play construction, its empha
sis on physical action, its factitious overtones of
philosophical meaning. Forum. Nation (Suvage), New
Republic, and Theatre Arts contended, along with
Sartre himself, that the play had been completely
misrepresented by a poor production and an inaccurate
translation. It is worth noting that Hugo's slaying
of Hoederer was the subject of much adverse criticism
as a plot device which was both illogical and con
trived.
Characterization
Most critics took the same view of Sartre's characters
that they had of his dramatic construction: except
for Hoederer, the characters were melodramatized
beings who bore little or no resemblance to living
reality or symbolic truth. However, to World Telegram.
Hugo's moral vacillation, his uncertainty as to why
he had killed Hoederer, was dramatically convincing
in terms of the character Sartre had given him. In
the opinion of Nation (Suvage), puritanical editing
had robbed Jessica of her femininity and to the same
extent obscured her relationship to Hoederer in the
crime passionnel sequence.
Language
Although Sartre himself had repudiated the Taradash
adaptation, the issue of a faulty translation was
ignored by most critics. New Yorker and Saturday
Review held that accurate or inaccurate, the trans
lation could not have materially altered so bad a
play as Gloves. Forum. Nation (Suvage), and New
Republic maintained that specious cuts had made a
travesty of Sartre's ideas and characters.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
312
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
Boyer's performance was more of a display than an
interpretation. As a result, Hoederer never appeared
as Sartre had conceived him (Clurman).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
What Sartre really intended, using Hugo as a sympa
thetic victim, was a satire on the way that Marxist
practice goes against Marxist theory (Jarrett-Kerr).
Part of the play's fascination and truth lies in the
ambiguity of Sartre's choice between idealism, which
he satirizes and yet inclines toward, and material
ism, which he rejects and yet secretly admires (Clur
man) . Hugo's predicament reflects the existentialist
need for meaningful choice, Because everything he has
done has turned against him, Hugo sees the absurdity
of life, the urgent need to strip himself of self-
delusion. For this reason he commits murder, hoping
that by so extreme an act he will be forced to find
a motive for having committed it and at the same time
find a meaning for his own existence (Ridge).
Play Form
On one level, Gloves is a suspenseful politico-
detective drama; on another, it is a drama of sus
penseful motivation. In either case, the element of
suspense is: Why did Hugo kill Hoederer? But the
structure of the play is such that Sartre transitions
from detective melodrama to a drama of motivation in
which, non-melodramatically, there is no resolution.
In this sense, Hugo's motives are revealed as complex,
not simple, after the fact of the murder rather than
before it (Guicharnaud).
313
Characterization
Sartre's depersonalization of character, his illus
trating abstract thoughts by means of concrete sym
bols, runs afoul of the spectator who misappropriates
the symbols and misinterprets the moral significance
of the author's existentialist questions (Grossvogel).
The absence of satisfactory interpersonal relation
ships, particularly on a sexual level, deprives
Sartre's characters of any real vitality. With ref
erence to his women, such as Jessica, Sartre makes
them into mere bitches (Jarrett-Kerr). Hugo is a
believable and tragic figure, faced with a legitimate
problem of self-realization. Hoederer is equally
believable and, in his selfless devotion to a cause,
even admirable. As for Jessica, her development from
puppy love for Hugo to a mature attachment for Hoeder
er is movingly portrayed (Jones).
Language
The adaptation of Taradash completely misrepresents
Sartre’s Les Mains sales (Clurman).
Comparing the main trends of premiere criticism to
subsequent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. It would appear that the New York production of
Gloves was either specifically geared to the acting
talents of Boyer, or that these talents were of such
a nature that they overshadowed the other actors,
making the play into something of a one man show.
Thus it was Hoederer, not Hugo, who emerged as the
central figure of Sartre's play.
2. Boyer's making Hoederer into the central figure
of Sartre's play may also have influenced the pre
miere critics in their judgment that the substance
of Sartre's theme was an examination of totalitarian
ideology. Certainly, it was with Hoederer, the
steady-minded Communist boss, rather than with the
vacillating Hugo that most critics identified. The
effect of this identification was to place Hugo in
the subservient position of a dramatic foil, a mere
314
cog in a conventional melodrama which dealt with the
machinations of a conventional Communist power grab.
3. With reference to the feeling shared by most pre
miere critics that Sartre's characters rang false,
further consideration should be given to the statement
of Grossvogel: Sartre's depersonalization of his
characters supposes an audience whose philosophical
beliefs parallel those of Sartre himself. Whatever
the "philosophical" beliefs of an at large American
audience, this much remains clear that the solitude-
freedom-responsibility format of Sartrian existential
ism runs counter rather than parallel to the group
conscious, socially oriented, fundamentally optimistic
outlook to which most Americans subscribe. Under
these circumstances, the socially alienated Hugo
appeared to most premiere critics as a philosophical
will-o'-the-wisp. And for this reason, Hugo's exis
tentialist problem of meaningful choice (to which
Ridge called attention) became a trumped-up dramatic
contrivance bearing no relation to the individual's
need of adjusting to the society in which he lives.
4. The issue.of Hugo's motive for killing Hoederer,
and its special significance in connection with the
crime passionnel sequence, was central to premiere
criticism of Sartre's play form. Most premiere
critics maintained that the murder was unmotivated,
hence unbelievable and melodramatic. Having set out
to kill Hoederer for political reasons that were at
least understandable, Hugo then proceeds to spare
him. For sexual reasons, which made no sense what
ever, Hugo does turn about and kill Hoederer. The
consensus view was that Sartre "needed" the murder
to finish off his sensational melodrama on a high
note of sex and murder. Here, again, we may observe
with Grossvogel how the spectator misappropriates
Sartre's symbols and misinterprets the moral aspect
of any question he treats existentially. As indicated
by Guicharnaud and Ridge, Hugo's real motive for
killing Hoederer was after the fact of the murder and
not before it. But the symbolic nature of the murdex'
act, its connection with Hugo's existentialist search
for moral and intellectual certainty, was entirely
missed by most premiere critics. In their opinion,
the murder appeared as a purely gratuitous plot
device. Supposing Hugo to be other than a madman, he
must necessarily have killed Hoederer for some more
substantial reason than a search for moral and in
tellectual certainty to which, in any case, he never
succeeded.
CHAPTER IV
SAMUEL BECKETT: CRITICISM
Waiting for Godot (En attendant Godot) 1956
Translated from his original French text by the author;
Settings by Louis Kennel; Costumes by Stanley Simmons?
Directed by Herbert Berghof? Produced by Michael Myerberg
by arrangement with Independent Plays Limited at the John
Golden Theatre? Opened April 19, 1956; Closed June 9, 1956
(60 per formances).
THE CAST
Estragon (Gogo)
Vladimir (Didi)
Lucky ........
Pozzo ........
A B o y ........
.......... Bert Lahr
. . . . E. G. Marshall
. . . . Alvin Epstein
......... Kurt Kasznar
Luchino Solito de Solis
316
WAITING FOR GODOT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robert, N.Y.T.C., April 20, 1956, p.
321.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., April 20, 1956, p. 322
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, April 20, 1956, p..
320.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, April 20, 1956,
p. 322.
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., April 20, 1956
p. 320.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., April 20,
1956, p. 319.
New York World Telegram. Hawkins, William, N.Y.T.C., April
20, 1956, p. 321.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, May 12, 1956, pp. 182-184.
The Catholic World. Wyatt, Euphemia, June 1956, pp. 227-228
The Commonweal. Hayes, Richard, May 25, 1956, p. 203.
Life. (Unsigned), May 7, 1956, pp. 155-156.
The Nation. Clurman, Harold, May 5, 1956, pp. 387-390.
The New Republic. Bentley, Eric, May 14, 1956, pp. 20-21.
317
318 i
Newsweek. (Unsigned), April 30, 1956, p. 76.
The New Yorker. Gibbs, Wolcott, May 5, 1956, pp. 89-90.
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, May 5, 1956, p. 32.
Time, (Unsigned), April 30, 1956, p. 55.
319
Production Criticism
Except for New York Times and New Republic, the physi
cal aspects of production were passed over without comment.
New York Times referred to the sets as spare and in keeping
with the over-all spirit of the play. New Republic took
exception to the lighting:
. . . of that "modern" sort which is now old-fashioned
and was always awful: you don't see the actors' faces
properly and every time an actor moves he is either
moving into much less light or much more.
Berghof’s direction was praised by almost all critics.
To Herald Tribune, the direction was "sensitive, considered,
surprisingly firm"; to New York Post. Berghof had "directed
admirably"; and to World Telegram, the play was "substanti
ally directed." New York Times wrote that the drama is
puzzling, but "the director and the actors play as though
they understood every line of it." Nation, New Republic,
and Saturday Review called attention to Berghof's original
ity and verve in handling a difficult script. According to
Nation. the play presented different staging possibilities:
Herbert Berghof's way of doing it is admirably under
standing of its dual aspect: the farcical and pathetic.
I missed certain depths of feeling and poetic exaltation,
a certain anguished purity which the play may have, but
I am not at all sure that this should be ascribed to the
play's direction.
New Republic wrote that Berghof1s direction "shows the
320 i
|
imprint of an individual human personality." This appears
in Berghofs non-realistic blocking and stage business, and
is so subtly interfused with the style of the acting that it
gives "the evening its special aroma and dignity." Saturday;
Review referred to Berghof1s skillful use of expressionistic
techniques which keep "the vitality level high onstage."
Less sparing in its praise, Commonweal labeled the produc
tion
an act of responsible audacity, if not the total account
of a singularly difficult play that one might wish: gen
erally its accents of farce are too heavily stressed and
its monochromatic lyrical pathos inadequately marked.
In a minority of one, New Yorker consigned the direc
tion, and with it the whole play, to an artistic limbo:
Bert Lahr . . . has been quoted as saying he has no idea
what the damn play is about. His statement brings up the
curious picture of a director who presumably does under
stand his script, failing to share this useful knowledge
with one of his stars.
Lahr1s performance in the part of Estragon was regarded1
by all critics as a major highlight of the production. To
Daily News. Herald Tribune. America. Newsweek. and Time. it
was Lahr, rather than Beckett, who provided the audience
with any insight into the meaning of the play. Daily News
wrote that the most charming feature of Godot was the oppor
tunity it gave for Lahr "to have enough range and depth to
show his fine qualities as an actor." In the opinion of
Herald Tribune, the real center of attention was Lahr and
not the play. His ability to put the audience in touch with
Beckett's esoteric message was what made the evening inter
esting and meaningful. Following the same line of thought,
America observed that Lahr's burlesque approach "gives the
play the illusion of significance." Newsweek stated that
"The miracle of Godot is less the calculated obfuscation of
the script than the lovable skilled performance of Bert
Lahr." According to Time. Lahr suggested far more than
Beckett, "all dislocated humanity in one broken-down man.1 1 ^
This minority opinion that Godot minus Lahr equalled
nothing was explicitly attacked by New Republic . Referring
to the Lahr-over-Beckett school of critical thought as an
unhappy example of American anti-intellectualism, New Repub
lic maintained that Lahr's vaudeville training, though use
ful, was by no means the only reason for the success of
Ijohn Gassner writes that "a Broadway comic such as
Bert Lahr (blessings on his innocence) thought nothing of
taking on one of the major roles. Lahr's playing of the
childishly naive and petulant tramp Estragon was a work of
innocence as well as standardized clowning at which this
veteran of the vaudeville and musical-comedy stages is a
supreme master. He actually overcame much that is negative
and despairing in Beckett's work." Theatre at the Cross
roads . pp. 254-255.
I Godot: |
The triumph here is partly due to his bringing to the
script a respect which has not been shared by all the
commentators on it.
The estimate of Lahr, as a skilled interpreter rather than
an actor in lieu of a playwright, was shared by most other
critics. New York Times wrote that Lahr upholds splendidly
the tradition of comic pantomime: his movements and facial
expressions are infinitely varied "in order to make the
story interesting and theatrical and touching, too." Lahr1s
mastery of comic pantomime was also commented on by World
Telegram: "Mr. Lahr's great performance reveals what a
thin line there is between what is funny and what is sad."
In much the same vein, Nation considered Lahr "a true and
wonderful clown with a face that conveys all."
In a minority of two, Commonweal and Saturday Review
expressed some doubt as to the validity of Lahr1s comic
approach to his role. Commonweal wrote that though Lahr's
performance was surely one of the finest ever given in the
contemporary theatre, "he does sacrifice some of the role's
pity to his own poetic.sense of the grotesque." To Saturday
Review, the pathos and pretension-puncturing humor which
Lahr brings to the part of Estragon "too often punctures the
pretensions of the play itself."
Marshall was commended by most critics for his solid .
acting in the "straight man" role of Vladimir. Daily Mirror
observed that Marshall was excellent as Lahr1s philosophi
cally-minded foil. To New York Post, both Marshall and Lahr
were "superb as the tramps." America found Marshall "at
once wistful and absurd as he delivers empty phrases with
the air of a philosopher." In the opinion of Commonweal.
Marshall played "with a quizzical alertness, very good in
deed." But to New Republic and Saturday Review. Marshall's
performance was marred by his over-intellectualizing the
part of Vladimir and by a self-conscious diffidence. New
Republic stated that Marshall's "acting seemed to me defen
sive— and therefore, as things work out on the stage, a
little self-destructive." Saturday Review maintained that
Marshall "plays Vladimir in a consciously intellectual man-
2
ner and his embrace of Estragon becomes purely symbolic."
Except for Time (the supporting cast seems "a little
too studied grotesque or Middle European in style"), Kasznar
o
Gassner ascribes the performance of Marshall as an
other reason for the production success of Godot: "E. G.
Marshall . . . collaborated in winning a victory for an
affirmation that is all the more affecting because unaccom
panied by pomp, rhetoric, or platitudes." Theatre at the
Crossroads. p. 255.
i ... ’. 324 i
i
J
.as Pozzo and Epstein as Lucky were generally well received.
America wrote of Kasznar that he "invests the character of
Pozzo with the aspect of an ogre, a sinister caricature of
cruelty, self-indulgence, gluttony and inordinate pride."
To Commonweal. the performances of Kasznar and Epstein were
the most faithful of all in terms of Beckett's intention.
Newsweek found that Kasznar "compounded the confusion mas
terfully." However, to New Republic and Saturday Review.
Kasznar overacted his part and played like a stereotyped
stage villain. New Republic was also critical of Epstein,
who "threw away the most effective speech in the play."
But to New York Post and New York Times. Epstein's long
f
philosophical speech in the first act was excellently done.
Catholic World wrote of Epstein that his performance as
Lucky was "one of the most eccentric and accomplished to be
seen." This estimate of Epstein was also shared by Saturday
Review: he gives "an expert and compelling performance and
3
seems closest of all to the spirit of the play."
Gassner calls attention to the paradox of Godot as the
heart and poetry of the play: Beckett affirms humanity and
yet negates it. The affirmative aspect of Beckett's paradox
is manifest in Vladimir's insistence "on maintaining human
decency despite the indignity of his and Estragon's situa
tion. . . . This effect, furthered by the rest of the small
cast (Kurt Kasznar as the bullying master, Pozzo, and Alvin
325;
i
Dramatic Criticism
For most critics, the surface simplicity of the play's
literal content obscured rather than clarified the inner
complexities of its theme. Beckett had obviously intended
the endless and aimless chitchat of the two tramps about
everything in general and nothing .in particular as a mere
overlay. Beneath the overlay were the moral and philosoph
ical problems— God, death, happiness, misery, hope, despair
— which constituted the theme proper. But in the consensus
view, the precise nature of these problems was never clearly
related to the terms in which it was stated. More often
than not, what the tramps said and what they did went in one
direction. What they meant, or seemed to mean, went in
another. It was as if the author had made his two tramps
into a kind of deliberately blurred focal point through
which audience might catch a glimpse, but never a clear one,
of a vast philosophical and moral spectrum painted against
4
a background of infinity or of utter nothingness.
Epstein as his servant Lucky) under Herbert Berghof's poig
nant direction, won my respect and affection for the work."
Theatre at the Crossroads, p. 255.
^Robert Champigny compares the existentialist point of
view presented in Godot with that of Sartre and Camus: "De
ce point de vue qui depasse la fiction theatrale, le sens
326
This seeming lack of relation between literal content
and inner meaning caused a large number of critics to look
on Godot with considerable disfavor. Daily Mirror wrote
that the play is superficial in its approach and "fails to
illumine the problem it considers." Moreover, Beckett
offers no hope for man and openly sneers at life. Comparing
Saroyan to Beckett, "the amiable Armenian has genuine affec
tion for people, the sardonic Samuel seems to despise
5
them." According to Daily News. Beckett has over-symbol-
de la piece est comparable a celui d1oeuvres telles que La
Nausee ou L 1Etranger. II s1agit de reveler I1existence, ou
du moins un existential choisi: non pas l'attente de ceci
ou de cela, mais l'attente; non pas la categorie cognitive
du Temps,, mais l'attente vecu, c'est-a-dire non temporelie;
non pas l'espoir, le desir ou la crainte, mais l'attente
indifferenciee. L'attente est la maniere fondamentale de
vivre 1'aspect a-vivre, 1'aspect gerondif, de 1'existence.
De ce point de vue il ne peut y avoir ni optimisme, ni pes-
simisme: la vie n'a pas de sens, c'est qu'elle est le
sens." "Interpretation de En attendant Godot." PMLA. June
1960, p. 331.
Leonard Pronko observes that Godot "dramatizes effec-
tiveJ.y two basic human relationships: that of friend to
friend, and that of master to slave. The latter is shown to
be immoral in the sense that it leads to decadence in both
master and slave." Avant-Garde: the Experimental Theatre
in France (Berkeley, 1962), p. 37. Later (p. 39), Pronko
writes that Beckett intimates "the only rewarding relation
ship in life . . . is that of friend to friend. Man cannot
bear life alone, but when he shares his suffering with oth
ers it becomes tolerable. Unfortunately, those moments when
we need affection rarely coincide with those of our friends:
when Vladimir wishes to embrace him, Estragon is not in the
mood; and when he does feel like it, Vladimir no longer
327 I
’ j
ized and over-extended a relatively simple theme: Godot is ;
death and nothing the tramps say or do means anything until
death arrives. Herald Tribune found that once unraveled
Beckett's inner meanings were superficial* obscure, and
oversimplified. On the basis that men are always waiting
for something that never comes, Beckett put together a
pastiche of hints and suggestions. What he suggests in the
person of his two tramps is that there
. . . are two disparate but inseparable aspects of in
dividual man that can be read variously and furiously
as Christian, existentialistic, or merely stoic alle
gories. The hints fly in all directions. But the play,
asking for a thousand readings, has none of its own to
give. It is in the last analysis a veil rather than a
revelation. It wears a mask rather than a face.^
wishes to."
^Martin Esslin defines the Theatre of the Absurd in
terms of "the out of harmony" position in which modern man
finds himself. Cut off from his religious and philosophi
cal roots, "man is lost, all his actions become senseless,
absurd, useless." Broadly speaking, the theme of the plays
of such writers as Beckett, Adamov, Ionesco, and Genet is
"this sense of metaphysical anguish at the absurdity of the
human condition." The dramatic themes of Giraudoux, Sartre,
Salacrou, Anouilh, and Camus convey "a similar sense of the
senselessness of life, of the inevitable devaluation of
ideals, purity, and purpose." Where these writers differ
from the dramatists of the Absurd is in this respect: "They
present their sense of the irrationality of the human condii
tion in the form of highly lucid and logically constructed
reasoning, while the Theatre of the Absurd strives to ex
press its sense of the senselessness of the human condition
and the inadequacy of the rational approach by the open
328
: Time conveyed much the same idea in stating that Godot
was at once an intellectual catchall and a self-conscious
exercise in symbolic mumbo-jumbo.
Under Godot's metaphysical counterpane, believing Chris
tian, doubting pessimist, left-winger and existentialist
all find reasons to nestle for warmth. . . . the play has
not a casual but a thematic plotlessness, and not an un
intentional but a planned garrulity.
Compared to Moby Dick and Don Quixote, which communicate a
sense of living reality, Godot wears its symbolism on its
sleeve. In Mobv Pick and Don Quixote.
. . . the symbolism brings added depth and resonance to
an always three-dimensional creation. Godot lacks any
large creativeness; Beckett suffers a little himself
from the blight that constitutes his theme and subject
matter.^
abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought."
The Theatre of the Absurd (New York, 1963), p. xix.
^Jacques Guicharnaud finds that there is no evidence in
Godot of abstract philosophizing or expressionistic gim
micks. In the case of the two tramps, "we witness an effort
toward ideas, toward memories, toward a rough intellectual-
ization of feelings or impressions— so that our interest is
not in their reasoning, but in the effort they make to
reason. The vague ideas they express are not there for
themselves. They have a purely dramatic function; they are
one of the poles toward which the characters desperately
strain. There is neither debate nor confrontation, as in
Giraudoux, Anouilh, or Sartre; there is merely the repre
sentation of the vacuum that separates the characters from
what they want to attain." Modern French Theatre from Gi
raudoux to Beckett, p. 194. Later (p. 212), Guicharnaud
observes that "the universe revealed by the play is one of
insignificance. The drama that gives it tension is the
! 329 i
: • 1
j
The notion that in one way or another Beckett's theme
was superficial, obscure, and oversimplified was also ex
pressed by Catholic World. Newsweek. New Yorker. and Satur
day Review. Catholic World wrote that Godot was at best |
"high level clowning with the liberal excuse of an idea
behind it." To Newsweek. the fact that nothing happened in
g
the play was a good indication that it was without meaning.
In the opinion of New Yorker, the play lacked any coherent
purpose: "in a critical sense I have seldom seen such
meagre Moonshine stated with such inordinate fuss." Exem
plifying the fuss and Moonshine are Gogo and Didi (they
conflict between insignificance and man's effort to have
meaning despite everything. The metaphor of waiting is the
best form of expression for that conflict, in which lies
Beckett's final definition of man. En attendant Godot is
not an allegory, an incompleted Pilgrim's Progress. It is
a concrete and synthetic equivalent of our existence in the
world and our consciousness of it."
^Pronko maintains that "Beckett’s genius has been to
present this so-called static play, where 'nothing happens,'
in such a way that it sustains our interest from one end to
the other. When destructive critics claim that absolutely
nothing happens in this play, we might answer, says the
brilliant young Spanish playwright Alfonso Sastre, 'Does
this mean no small achievement to you? This is precisely
the fascinating thing about Waiting for Godot: nothing
happens. It is, in this sense, a lucid testimony of noth
ingness. And it cannot be denied that, while many dramas
of intrigue in which a great deal happens leaves us cold,
this "nothing happening" of Godot keeps us in suspense.'"
Avant-Garde. p. 30.
: 330 i
: I
represent the mass of men who wait in deluded fashion for
the coming of God) and the God-indifferent Pozzo and Lucky,
who stand for wealth and the artist destroyed by it. Satur
day Review saw the theme as an enigmatic rehash of the ideas
of Freud and Marx. The disparate nature of the characters, ;
yet the fact that they are bound together, suggests that the
play
. . . is primarily concerned with the basic problem of
human dualism whether it be psychological, social, or
economic. . . . The American theatregoer is apt to find
"Waiting for Godot" an exasperating play whose allegories
fascinate but never quite decipher.^
For a second group of critics, the puzzling discrepancy
between Godot’s literal content and Beckett's inner meaning
was not necessarily a fatal flaw. Pointing to the heavily
symbolic quality of Godot as a legitimate expression of
Beckett's fundamental pessimism, Journal American wrote
. . . that the author is taking this tortuously oblique
^Edith Kern refers to the nature of Beckett's charac
ters in relation to how they express man's need for his
fellow man: "The characters of Waiting for Godot are cer
tainly never engages or committed, never the god-like crea
tors of their essence as men. Beckett's characters in this
play glorify rather the all-surpassing power of human ten
derness which alone makes bearable man's long and futile
wait for a redeemer and which, in fact, turns out itself to
be the redeemer of man in his forlornness"Drama Stripped
for Inaction," Yale French Studies. Winter 1954-55, p. 47.
.. 3 31 I
path to show us the futility of life. We crash about,
fumble, fall, and rise again, always waiting for some
form of fulfillment which never comes.
New York Post admitted the possibility that the play was
utterly meaningless, a deliberate hoax on the self-styled
intelligentsia. But against this possibility was the ob
viously deep concern with which Beckett viewed the plight
of his tramps and through them the whole human condition.
Thus, while the play reaches a dead end of static despair,
it "does capture an odd emotional poignancy that is haunting1
and powerful." In the opinion of New York Times. Beckett's
use of symbolism was frequently elusive but never obscuran
tist. The symbolism was elusive because it adumbrated,
rather than expressed, the indefinable relationship between
human experience and human aspiration. What seems fairly
certain, however, is that Godot stands for God and that
those who wait in vain by the withered tree are waiting for
salvation. In this sense the play could be saying that
faith in God is a necessary illusion, "as though Mr. Beckett
sees very little reason for clutching at faith, but is un-
10
able to relinquish it entirely."
■^C. Chadwick writes: "There is no doubt that as far
as the two tramps are concerned Godot is a god; whether he
is not merely a god but God in the higher sense depends on
America and Commonweal were agreed that while there was
no logical meaning in Godot. it was yet a memorable play.
America wrote that the theme was unclear, "the mysterious
wrapped in the unintelligible." But baffling and exasperat
ing as it is, the play has real depth and "is almost incred
ibly fascinating." To Commonweal. the excellence of Godot
lies "not in its metaphysical pretensions but in the grasp
ing power and domination of its images." It is these dra
matic images which constitute the poetry of Godot. They
evoke a sense "of man's smallness and his hope of the human
tenderness which alone succors his outcast state." And they
serve to relieve the otherwise desolation which is central
to Beckett’s nihilistic vision of life, his chronic attitude
of disintegration leading to the abolition of time and logic;
whether Vladimir or Estragon are something more than just
a couple of tramps." "Waiting for Godot: a Logical Ap
proach," Symposium. Winter 1960, p. 252. Later (p. 257),
Chadwick identifies the desperate aimlessness of the two
tramps with Pascal's "misere de l'homme sans Dieu." And the
abject servitude of Lucky, Chadwick considers as an ironic
turnabout of Pascal's "la fdlicit£ de l'homme avec Dieu."
Chadwick concludes that "far from being a Christian play
. . . Waiting for Godot seems to me to be a profoundly anti-
Christian play telling, allegorically, the story of mankind
waiting for a merciful God to bring salvation but waiting
in vain since God is a malevolent and jesting tyrant who is
callously indifferent to the fate of his creatures."
333
11
his calculated exploitation of impotence.
World Telegram. Nation. and New Republic offered the
minority opinion that the theme of Godot was revealed, rath
er than obscured, in the surface simplicity of its literal
content. According to World Telegram. Godot is not a story
but "a portrait of the dogged resilience of a man's spirit
•^Esslin finds that "the Theatre of the Absurd . . .
tends toward a radical devaluation of language, toward a
poetry that is to emerge from the concrete and objectified
images of the stage itself. The element of language still
plays an important, yet subordinate, part in this concep
tion, but what happens on the stage transcends, and often
contradicts, the words of the characters. . . . The Theatre
of the Absurd is thus part of the 'anti-literary' movement
of our time, which has found its expression in abstract
painting with its rejection of 'literary' elements in pic
tures; or in the 'new novel' in France, with its reliance
on the description of objects and its rejection of empathy
and anthropomorphism." Theatre of the Absurd, p. xxi.
Later (p. 46), Esslin refers to Beckett's entire work "as a
search for the reality that lies behind mere reasoning in
conceptual terms. He may have devaluated language as an
instrument for the communication of ultimate truths, but he
has shown himself a great master of language as an artistic
medium. . . . For want of better raw material, he has molded
words into a superb instrument for his purpose. In the
theatre he has been able to add a new dimension to language
— the counterpoint of action, concrete, many-faceted, not
to be explained away, but making a direct impact on an audi
ence. In the theatre, or at least in Beckett's theatre, it
is possible to bypass the stage of conceptual thinking al
together, as an abstract painting bypasses the stage of the
recognition of natural objects. In Waiting for Godot and
Endgame. plays drained of character, plot, and meaningful
dialogue, Beckett has shown that such a seemingly impossible
tour de force can in fact be accomplished."
334 j
!
in the face of a little hope." Hence, the clue to the
nature of what Godot really means is simple; "It is a play
not about what people are, but what they do." Nation ob
served that the abstract clarity and logic of Beckett's
underlying idea is not difficult to grasp:
Since life is an incomprehensible nullity enveloped in
colorful patterns of fundamentally absurd and futile
activities (like a clown's habit clothing a corpse) it
is proper that we pass our time laughing at the spec
tacle. . . . We pass the time, Beckett tells us, wait
ing for a meaning that will save us from the pain, ugli
ness, emptiness of existence.
Beckett's idea is readily accepted by Europeans as imaging
a mood of despair which reflects the general disarray of
contemporary life, politically, socially, and morally. What
makes the idea difficult for Americans "is because there is
no immediate point of reference for it in the conscious life
of our people." A further source of confusion for Americans
is that in the sense of abstract art Beckett's idea is so
simple and direct; "As soon as we perceive the play's de
sign, everything else appears supererogatory." It is this
demand for complication, even in the face of utter simpli
city, which confuses Americans and sets them searching for
12
the trees instead of the forest.
^Gassner comes to much the same conclusion; "To all
335 i
|
New Republic maintained a similar view of Beckett's !
theme:
I do not think that the play is obscure except as any
piece of rich writing is obscure. . . . enough is clear
from the first not only to arouse interest but to com
municate the sense of a unified and intelligent view
of life.
The view of life which Beckett presents is existentialist
and may be compared with that of Anouilh and Sartre:
. . . a philosophy which underscores the incomprehensi
bility, and therefore the meaninglessness of the uni
verse, the nausea which man feels upon being confronted
with the fact of existence . . .13
this tohu and bohu about the profundity and difficulty of
the play my reply is simply that there is nothing painfully
or exhilaratingly ambiguous about Waiting for Godot in the
first place. It presents the view that man, the hapless
wanderer in the universe, brings his quite wonderful humani-*
ty— his human capacity for hope, patience, resilience, and, ]
yes, for love of one's kind, too, as well as his animal
nature— to the weird journey of existence. He is lost in
the universe and found in his own heart and in the hearts
of his fellow men. The play also presents the social out
look of the author, an outlook filled with the double-edged
disillusionment of a large number of contemporary intellec
tuals . I call the attitude double-edged because the author
impartially cuts down both master and servant, as well as
both the past and the present (and probably also the future)
social order." Theatre at the Crossroads. p. 253.
l^Kern observes that Godot propounds the existentialist
view that there is no God and that the universe is confused
and meaningless: "As such the play is a vivid dramatization
of the paradox of the condition of man, whose intellect
makes him aware of the universe's slighting of reason and
makes him long for a state where reason shall be conferred
upon the universe: a paradise of beauty and order created
336 !
(
So far as the allegedly excessive symbolism of Godot, the i
A
charge is unjust.
Beckett's finest achievement is to have made the chief
relationships, which are many, so concrete that abstract
interpretations are wholly relegated to the theatre
lobby. He gives us not tenets but alternatives seen as
human relationships (between bum and bum, master and
slave); also as ordinary human attitudes to God, Nature,
and Death on the one hand, and, on the other, to the
"trivialities" such as clothes, defecations, smells
14
« ■ •
It is the audience, then, which complicates the meaning of
Godot and not the author. What Beckett has stated clearly,
simply, directly, the audience confuses and complicates in
terms of a non-existent symbolic meaning. The why and how
of such a gross misreading indicates more than anything a
typical American reaction to intellectualism. It is a
by a saviour." "Drama Stripped for Inaction," p. 47.
-^David Grossvogel holds to a similar view of Beckett's
elemental, non-symbolic approach to his subject: "The words
remain simple, idiomatic, slangy, now and then even vulgar
(sex is an illusion like the rest) but with little meaning
of their own beyond the dramatic rhythm which they impart to
the action. . . . And as the common words that have already
lost their individual meaning now lose their common signifi
cance, individual parts of the prosaic talk become a probing
and desperate refrain of "What do we do now?" — "Nothing. .."
The consummate skill with which this play is written
achieves poetry through barrenness: the rough and occasion
ally awkward form of Ionesco and Adamov does not attain this
degree of artistry; their plays appear rudimentary rather
than essential." The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern French
Drama. pp. 329-330.
337 j
;reaction characterized by a Babbitt-like optimism, by scorn,i
indifference, and dislike for any serious treatment of the
15
problems of life.
With reference to play form, Godot was variously con
sidered tragi-comedy, intellectual vaudeville, and a play
of mood. However, what proved of most concern to the crit
ics was the level of artistic consciousness on which Godot
had been structured. On the one hand was its patently anti
theatre aspect manifest in the endless and aimless chitchat
of the two tramps. On the other was a sense of underlying
play pattern, of order in the midst of disorder, which
stood at permanent odds with the nature of Beckett's mater
ial and the way in which he treated it. To Herald Tribune
and Time, the anti-theatre aspect was a clever, would-be
intellectual front which concealed the basic artificiality
and sophistication of Beckett's approach to playwriting.
l5Esslin calls attention to a performance of Godot
given for an audience of 1,400 convicts at San Quentin pen
itentiary. Despite misgivings that the play would be "over
the heads" of the 1,400 convicts, it proved an instant suc
cess . Esslin quotes from a lead article in the prison pa
per which reviewed the play: "It asked nothing in point,
it forced no dramatized moral on the viewer, it held out no
specific hope. . . . We're still waiting for Godot, and
shall continue to wait. When the scenery gets too drab and
the action too slow, we'11 call each other names and swear
to part forever— but then, there's no place to gol" The
Theatre of the Absurd, p . xvi.
338 |
Herald Tribune labeled Godot "a cryptically philosophical
1tragi-comedy' . . . a painstakingly formed plastic job for
the intellectual fruit bowl." Time saw the play as "a
neatly-fingered exercise in wit and a pointillist rendering ;
of humanity's dark-forest moods," In the opinion of Daily
Mirror and Daily News, the anti-theatre aspect of Godot was
squarely in line with old-time vaudeville bolstered by
Beckett-produced intellectual overtones. Daily Mirror re
ferred to the play as "a lengthy vaudeville act, an attempt
to over-simplify eternal philosophical concepts." Compared
with a fifteen-minute vaudeville skit by Moss and Frye, How
High Is Up. Beckett's quest for sense in nonsense is second-
rate and fulsome. According to Daily News. Godot is a
vaudeville stunt "but not without its charms." More charm
ing yet was Ring Lardner's mid-1920's sketch, The Tridaet
of Greva. in which three fishermen sat in three rowboats and
carried on a fascinating, and a la Godot. utterly disconnec-
ted conversatxon.
^Guicharnaud writes that Godot not only "represents a
true insight into a way of feeling typical of our times, it
goes even further and formulates a definition of man that
transcends our times. It invents a new form of dramatic
expression; in fact it would seem like the end result of a
long search— through the bitterness of naturalistic plays,
the mysticism of Catholic drama, the transcendency of
339 j
But to most critics, Godot was neither sophisticated
artifice nor philosophical slapstick. Rather it was plot
less and intangible; it established a mood, but in conven
tional dramatic terms resisted classification. Following
this line of reasoning, Journal American. New York Post.
New York Times, and World Telegram could find no evidence of
dramatic pattern in what Beckett had written. Journal Amer
ican stated that Godot "denies every law of conventional
play structure." New York Post spoke of how the play estab
lishes a mood, sets it down "in the bitter terms of sad
faced vaudeville, and leaves the rest to the audience." To
New York Times. Beckett was no charlatan; he has genuine
feeling for human degradation. Yet Godot is an unprepos-
poetic theatre— in the attempt to express man's fundamental
drama. With Godot theatre avoids anecdote and established
ideology without falling into abstraction." Modern French
Theatre - p. 193. Later (p. 197), Guicharnaud calls Godot
"a new form of static drama in which three levels are con
stantly interwoven: (1) the level of words and actions
(poetry, clownish tricks, embryonic scenes); (2) that of the
direct significance of those words and actions (love, mis
ery, hunger, the role of the intellectual, the dialectic of
master and slave, the dimness and confusion of memories,
fear, bad faith, even a certain 'miserabilism'); (3) that of
the waiting which levels everything off. As raw material,
Beckett used comedy and the drama of the bum, similar to
Chaplin or to Fellini's film La Strada: a farce about pov
erty or solitude, based on realistic observation, in which
the spectator is asked to recognize an image of his own
condition."
i 340
sessing, inexplicable allegory "written in a heartless mod- ;
ern tone. . . . an uneventful, maundering, loquacious dra
ma." Agreeing that the play lacked plot, story, crisis, or
action, America and Saturday Review differed in their esti- I
i
mate of the play's theatrical value. To America. Godot was .
dramatically weak but theatrically fascinating. To Saturday
Review, the structural faults of Godot made it basically
untheatrical, an after-the-theatre conversation piece in
stead of an in-the-theatre experience. World Telegram
reached the conclusion that Godot was hard to classify be
cause its purpose, to create a mood rather than to make a
statement, is so different from other plays. What Godot
mainly does is to set forth a tragic view, "yet in the per
formance most of it is bitter comedy."
Commonweal. Nation. and New Republic held that the
structural basis of Godot was theatrical and not dramatic.
Commonweal referred to Beckett's eclectic use of varying
patterns:
Prom Chaplin and the music hall, Beckett has taken the
controlling images of the tramps, of shoes that pinch
and hats that itch,17
l^Wallace Fowlie finds that "the two tramps of Beckett,
in their total disposition and in their antics with hats and
tight shoes, are reminiscent of Chaplin and the American
341
According to Nation. Godot was a poetic harlequinade in the
tradition of the Commedia dell'arte:
. . , full of horse play, high spirits, cruelty, and a
great wistfulness. Though the content is intellectual
to a degree, the surface which is at once terse, rapid
and prolix in dialogue is very much like a minstrel show
or vaudeville turn.
In the opinion of New Republic. Godot was undramatic but
highly theatrical, a quality which is characteristic of
many modern plays.
Essential to drama, surely, is not merely situation but
situation in movement. A curve is the most natural
symbol for a dramatic action, while, as Aristotle said,
beginning, middle, and end are three of its necessary
features. Deliberately anti-dramatic, Beckett's play
has a shape of a non-dramatic sort; two strips of ac
tion are laid side by side like railway tracks . These
strips are One Day and the Following Day in the life
of a couple of bums. There cannot be any drama because
the author's conclusion is that the two days are the
same.
burlesque comedy team. Pozzo and Lucky, the master and
slave, are half vaudeville characters and half marionettes.
The purely comic aspect of the play involves traditional
routines that come from the entire history of farce, from
the Romans and the Italians, and the red-nosed clown of the
modern circus." Dionysus in Paris, p. 211.
^-®Pronko points out that "if action is, as Aristotle
states, the principle and soul of tragedy, then Waiting for
Godot is not a play without a principle and a soul but one
in which, paradoxically, the conviction that nothing really
happens, that there is no such thing as action, forms the
fundamental action of the play. And this is represented in
the very structure of the work, for it is a precisely struc
tured play." It is, then, through its very lack of
; 342 I
i
Beckett's use of language was dismissed by Saturday
Review under the general heading of "unremarkable dialogue."
Herald Tribune and Time found that Beckett's style was arti
ficial and sophisticated and on the whole much too precious..
But to New York Times. America. CommonwealT and New Repub
lic. the language of Godot was a matter of critical conse
quence. New York Times wrote that since the play has no
simple meaning
. . . one seizes on Mr. Beckett's exposition of two
’ worlds to account for his style and point of view. The
point of view suggests Sartre— bleak and disgusted. The
style suggests Joyce--pungent and fabulous.
According to America, the cumulative effect of Beckett's
language made for bewitching theatre. Countering this
cumulative effect was an almost complete breakdown in normal
communication:
Nothing that any of the characters say, except the mes
sages brought by the boy, has any relevance to anything
in the play. The lines slant off at tangents, enveloped
in symbolism too subtle for common wits to grasp.^
conventional categories— exposition, inciting moment, rising
action, turning point, falling action, and climax— that
Godot emphasizes human suffering in the face of a universal
disorder personified by the two tramps. Avant-Garde. p. 26.
^ ■ 9Pronko writes that Beckett’s major theme of eternal
recurrence without meaning or purpose is represented on its
most significant and constant level in the dialogue. An
example of this monotony and motionlessness is brought out
343 ;
In the opinion of Commonweal. Beckett's use of language
. . . has something of Gertrude Stein’s intensity, her"
succinct, hovering implication; the long Joycean farra
go— a compost heap of Western thought— spewed forth by
the bestial Lucky wakes with a start of horror out of
Finnegan.
Also in evidence is the interweaving of vaudeville humor and
cosmic allusion which "recall the infallible adjustments of
tone and elevation in 'Sweeney Agonistes' and 'The Cocktail
Party.'" But whatever its cognates, the style of Godot is
eminently original: "its pattern is drawn with notable
purity of draughtsmanship, its poetry is secure." Agreeing
with Commonweal that Beckett's use of language was highly
cognated, New Republic maintained that the influence of
Joyce was dominant.
If Russian literature is cut from Gogol’s Overcoat.
Irish literature is cut from those coast of many colors,
Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake.
By reason of this manifest influence, Godot is not an origi
nal play; hence it is not a great one. It is, however,
20
historically important and theatrically interesting.
in the six-times repeated refrain between Estragon and
Vladimir: "Let's go." "We can't." "Why not?" "We're
waiting for Godot." Avant-Garde. pp. 28-30.
^Guicharnaud relates the language of Godot to Beck
ett's inherently theatrical view of life: "Beckett's char
acters silently struggle toward forms of being or structures
344 |
t
Evaluation
Perhaps the best summing up of the premiere reception
of Godot was voiced by Herald Tribune: the play asks for
"a thousand readings but has none of its own to give." Cer
tainly the bewildering multiplicity of critical "readings"
offers eloquent testimony to the words of Herald Tribune.
As the central figure of Beckett's play, Godot was variously
identified with God, death, hope, despair, misery, and
happiness. Or if none of these, Godot was a mere figment
spun out of dreams and wishful thinking. There was also the
gnawing possibility that even as an illusion he was meaning-
4
less, that the whole play was a deliberate hoax on the self-
styled intelligentsia, conceivably on the critics them-
that are suddenly disclosed by a gesture or in words. Lyri
cism, eloquence, invectives, and cliches are like fixatives
which make existence intelligible and temporarily 'save' it,
The words hesitatingly move on from image to image toward
the greatest possible precision or toward an enrichment or
transformation of reality. Screams and swearing are often
meant to 'fix' a gesture or an impression. The poetry of
the language is not in its profuse imagery but in its pre
cision, in the music of intersecting voices, in the calcu
lated alternation of pauses and transparent words. But the
fixatives are ephemeral and the words fall back into si
lence, just as water subsides to form a new wave. The pul
sation of effort, forever repeated and forever vain, gives
Beckett's works their rhythm, their balance, their form.
When all of life is a game, theatre, the game par excel
lence, has the last word." Modern French Theatre, p. 220.
345 !
selves. In support of this possibility is the fact that
Godot never sets foot on the stage. Not only does his
identity remain ever ill-defined and nebulous, but his dra
matically crucial relationship to the two tramps is equally
unclear. Compounding the confusion are the enigmatic Lucky
and Pozzo. They, too, lack identity and have no apparent
relationship, whether to the corporeal tramps or the incor
poreal Godot. Hence, for a majority of critics, the play
was a devious and difficult allegory, at best obscure and
at worst obscurantist. Susceptible of a thousand readings
and with none of its own to give, it presented the unique
spectacle of a playwright whose main purpose was to engage
his audience in a frustrating game of meaning-meaning-who's-
got-the-meaning.
As to its virtues, Godot was thought by most critics
to combine an antic humor with a certain clown-like pathos.
Together, the humor and the pathos lent the play a wistful
charm reminiscent of the sad-faced comics of vaudeville.
In this regard, Lahr's burlesque performance in the part of
Estragon was considered a perfect complement to Beckett's
vaudeville intention, to his meaningless meaning and his
formless form. Referring again to the juxtaposition of
antic humor and clown-like pathos, a few critics found
evidence therein of a serious view of life. To Journal
American - New York Post, and New York Times. the ’ ’ pratfall"
ups and downs of the two tramps were likely enough a means
to an end. In the luckless Estragon and Vladimir, Beckett
may well have conveyed his underlying concern for the human
condition, for the absurdity and futility of life and the
anguish man endures in the face of an inexplicable world.
America and Commonweal, in particular, professed admiration
for the theatrical qualities of Godot. though to neither
critic did the play have any logical meaning. Commonweal
was especially struck by Beckett's use of poetic images
which evoke a sense of the tragic plight of man and his need
for human tenderness in an alien world.
Contrary to the majority opinion that Godot was con
fusing or confused, and perhaps both, World Telegram. Na
tion . and New Republic maintained that the play was clear
in meaning, precise in structure, coherent in its incoher
encies . As expressed by World Telegram. Beckett wrote about
what people do, not what they are: whence the seeming aim
lessness of Godot. its irrelevancies, its lack of over-all
purpose. This idea of the mirror up to nature was elabor
ated on by Nation. Since life is an incomprehensible nulli
ty- filled with futile activities, Beckett gives us nothing
347 I
I
I
i
more nor less than a carbon copy of the nullity that life ’
]
is. He shows the futile activities of his futile charac- I
I
ters, above all their futile absorption m waiting for a
i
non-existent meaning. He offers no comment; he only sug- j
gests that with laughter we can relieve the pain, emptiness,|
j i
land ugliness of our existence.
i . I
; i
| A similar conclusion was reached by New Republic;
j
Beckett proposes a unified, intelligent view of life which j
I
Underscores the meaninglessness of the universe. For the
very reason that life is incomprehensible and meaningless, |
Beckett wastes no time in analyzing his characters or in j
providing us with abstruse philosophical ideas. All that he;
!does is present simple and concrete relationships— of people
to people, such as master and slave; of people to things, i
i
I
isuch as clothes and smells; of people to attitudes, such as j
| i
iGod, Nature, and death. Thus, in the opinion of both New
! !
Republic and Nation. it was Beckett's American audience
which complicated the meaning of Godot. not the author. !
The why and how of this unnecessary complication relates to |
a typical American attitude characterized by a Babbitt-like
optimism and an avid anti-intellectualism. Such an atti- j
i
tude is largely responsible for an American rejection of I
■ I
i
the conscious pessimism of contemporary European thought I
i 348 I
and of the abstract, stripped-down expression of that pessi
mism manifest in the sometime non-dramatic approach to
dramaturgy of the contemporary French theatre.
What emerges, then, from the premiere reception of
Godot are two main lines of critical thinking. The first
and more dominant line followed a conventional approach:
because Godot violates the heretofore accepted rules of
dramatic writing it thereby defies analysis and for the same
reason is completely inexplicable. Underlying this approach
was what Nation and New Republic pointed to as an American
rejection of conscious pessimism and of the non-illusionis-
tic, non-dimensional treatment of reality which is a marked
feature of the contemporary French theatre. The second line
of critical thinking, limited to World Telegram. Nation.
and New Republic, maintained that since Godot was intention
ally non-dramatic it could not properly be judged by conven
tional standards. In effect, Beckett has presented rather
than represented, theatricalized rather than dramatized.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Godot may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
Only two critics commented on the physical aspects of
production: New York Times approved the spare set
tings; New Republic claimed that the sets were badly
349
lighted. Except for New Yorker, the direction was
considered firm and sensitive. Lahr was unanimously
acclaimed for his vaudeville-pantomime approach to
Estragon. Some critics felt that Lahr's performance
represented the personal triumph of a master vaude
ville comedian in the face of a muddled and meaning
less script. New Republic referred to this estimate
of the play as an unhappy example of American anti-
intellectualism. Marshall was commended by most
critics for his "straight man" approach to the philo
sophical Vladimir. New Republic and Saturday Review
maintained that Marshall's Vladimir was faulty be
cause it over-intellectualized an essentially non
intellectual character. Epstein and Kasznar were
generally well received.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
For most critics, the surface simplicity of the play's
literal content obscured rather than clarified the
inner complexities of its theme. In this sense, the
lack of relation between literal content and symbolic
meaning— between what the tramps said and what they
meant— proved a source of much critical confusion.
The conclusion most critics reached was that Beckett
had either deliberately obfuscated his meaning or that
he proposed no meaning whatever. World Telegram.
Nation, and New Republic offered the minority opinion
that the theme of Godot was revealed in the surface
simplicity of its literal content rather than obscured.
World Telegram wrote that Godot is a play about what
people j|o, not what they are. The existentialist im
plications of this statement were reiterated by Nation
and New Republic, who held that Godot presented an
intelligible view of man's plight in an absurd uni
verse,. a view that was non-conceptual, non-symbolic,
and relatively uncomplicated.
Plav Form
Godot was variously classified as tragi-comedy, intel
lectual vaudeville, and a play of mood. Acknowledging
that Godot was a tragi-comedy, Herald Tribune and Time
350 ;
I
found fault with its anti-theatre aspect as a contrived
and painstaking effort which concealed a spurious
intellectualism. To Daily Mirror and Daily News. the
anti-theatre aspect of Godot amounted to a not-too-
funny, philosophical version of old-time vaudeville.
In the opinion of most critics, Godot was a play of
mood, plotless and intangible, which in conventional
dramatic terms resisted classification. Calling at
tention to the theatrical, deliberately non-dramatic
structure of the play, Nation identified it with the
tradition of the Commedia dell'arte. New Republic
wrote that like many modern plays, Godot emphasizes
a static, non-Aristotelian approach to dramatic ac
tion .
Characterization
Most critics agreed that in keeping with the devious
allegory set forth by the author the characters were
symbolic. But as to what the characters symbolized,
there was much critical uncertainty. The futility
of man's search for God, an embittered comment on
human folly, a compassionate view of the human condi
tion were among the possibilities mentioned by various
critics. Saturday Review referred to the disparate
nature of Beckett's characters, yet the fact they were ■
bound together, as indicative of a Freudian-Marxist
approach. Relative to the rehash of Freud and Marx
which Godot suggests, the characters would seem to
represent the basic problem of human dualism, be it
psychological, social, or economic.
L a n g u a g e
Again, the main critical question was why and to what
avail Beckett had evolved an utterly disconnected dia
logue as a means of elucidating an esoteric inner mean
ing. To Herald Tribune and Time. Beckett's colloquial
and seemingly offhanded style was precious and artifi
cial because it ran counter to the author's esoteric
meaning. Most critics, however, were willing to grant
a measure of theatrical effectiveness to Beckett's
use of language. But as summed up by America. the
cumulative result of the disconnected dialogue, along
with its undertain reference to some unknown meaning,
351 i
made for an almost complete breakdown in normal com
munication. Commonweal and New Republic called atten
tion to the play's poetic quality, particularly its
striking dramatic images. Both critics also agreed
that the language of Godot was heavily cognated {Joyce
was considered one of the principal influences).
Mainly because of the Joycean influence, New Republic
referred to Godot as historically important, theatri
cally interesting, but not a great play since it was
not an original one.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
*
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
Sympathetic performances by Lahr and Marshall, together
with Berghof's poignant direction, overcame much that
was negative and despairing in Beckett's work. Hence,
the production was successful because it stressed the
affirmative side of the paradox which Godot presents:
Beckett's compassion for humanity rather than his in
difference to it (Gassner).
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
Godot presents (as distinguished from representing) an
existentialist point of view epitomized in the act of
meaningless waiting. Therefore, the sense of life
that Godot conveys is neither pessimistic nor optimis
tic, but simply that life itself is senseless (Cham-
pigny). Compared with Giraudoux, Anouilh, Sartre, and
Camus, who demonstrate the senselessness of life in
the form of lucid and logically constructed reasoning,
Beckett and the dramatists of the Absurd express the
same idea by the open abandonment of rational devices
and discursive thought (Esslin). The metaphor of
waiting is the best expression for the play's dramatic
conflict— between human insignificance and the effort
to find a human meaning— in which lies Beckett's final
definition of man (Guicharnaud). Beckett's'major
theme is eternal recurrence without meaning or pur
pose: what the tramps do, they have done and will
continue to do and all to no avail (Pronko). Godot
is an anti-Christian play, telling allegorically and
ironically, the story of mankind's waiting for a man-
indifferent God to bring salvation and for reason to
confer order on an unreasonable universe (Chadwick,
Kern). The meaning of Godot is neither involved nor
ambiguous: it presents the view that because man is
lost in the universe, he can only be found in his own
heart and the hearts of his fellow men (Gassner).
Play Form
Because Godot represents nothing more than the vacuum
which separates its characters from what they want to
attain, it is not an allegory. Non-abstract, non-
symbolic, it evolves a new form of static drama. Based
on realistic observation, Godot images the spectator's
own condition. In effect, it is a concrete and syn
thetic equivalent of our existence in the world and
our consciousness of it (Guicharnaud). As compared
with the "much-happening" drama of intrigue, Godot
maintains interest through its suspenseful revelation
that "nothing happens." Hence, the fundamental action
of the play is that there is no such thing as action
(Pronko). Beckett's elemental, non-symbolic approach
to his subject— a study of nothingness— is made theat
rically effective by virtue of the consummate skill
with which the play is written. By expressing its
sense of elemental nothingness on a high artistic
level, Godot achieves a formal perfection not present
in the plays of Adamov and Ionesco (Grossvogel).
Characterization
Existentially speaking, Beckett's characters are never
the god-like creators of their essence as men. What
they express is the a11-surpassing power of human
tenderness as a saving factor in man's forlornness
(Kern, Pronko). The physical appearance and the clown
like antics of the two tramps are reminiscent of Chap
lin and American burlesque. Pozzo and Lucky are half
vaudeville characters, half marionettes. Apart from
353
Chaplin and vaudeville, the characters derive from
classical farce and the modern circus (Fowlie).
" ' Language
The Theatre of the Absurd, as represented by Godot.
tends toward a radical devaluation of language, toward
a poetry that is to emerge from the concrete and ob
jectified images of the stage itself. Beckett, in
particular, has managed to add a new dimension to
language— the counterpoint of action— which in its
direct impact on the audience makes it possible to
bypass conceptual thinking just as an abstract paint
ing bypasses conventional recognition of natural ob
jects (Esslin). The monotony and motionlessness,
integral with Beckett's major theme, is underscored
in the refrain-like repetitiveness of certain portions
of the dialogue (Pronko). Beckett's inherently the
atrical view of life is revealed in his use of words.
The images which these words create are aimed at
establishing a self-sufficient and intelligible un
reality which contrasts with an unintelligible outer
reality (Guicharnaud).
Comparing the main trends of premiere criticism to
subsequent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. The general tenor of subsequent criticism indicated
that the meaning of Godot was not only clear but self-
contained. What the play meant was almost exactly what
it set forth: life is meaningless and absurd; we pass
the time, like Estragon and Vladimir, waiting in vain
for a revelation that never comes. Hence, the meaning
of Godot is non-symbolic, non-allegorical because it
is presented in terms of an outer reality rather than
an inner one: what the tramps do is synonymous with
what they are, namely, the living epitome of human
anguish, physical and metaphysical. Apart from WorId
Telegram. Nation. and New Republic, the premiere crit
ics held to an opposite view. Godot was a devious
allegory whose inner meaning was at best obscure, at
worst non-existent: what the tramps do and say seems
at permanent odds with what Beckett is getting at.
Typical of this attitude were the critical reactions
354
of Herald Tribune. Time. and New Yorker. Herald Trib
une and Time referred to Beckett as a poseur, a liter
ary dilettante who concealed a specious intellectual-
ism under the artful cover of a seemingly simple story
To New Yorker, Lahr1s reported statement (Newsweek).
"I have no idea what the damned play is about," pro
vided proof positive that Godot was a self-intended
hoax: Lahr didn't know Beckett's inner meaning be
cause Berghof didn't know it, for the simple reason
that Beckett didn't know it either.
2. In comparing these divergent views of the meaning
of Godot— clear and self-contained, obscure or non
existent— prime consideration must be given to this
one factor that in advance of its New York premiere
Godot was heralded as an "off-beat," avant-garde type
of play. Under these circumstances, there were more
than sufficient grounds for a critical preconception
that Godot was thereby imbued with some esoteric inner
meaning. Such a preconception was plainly indicated
in the chip-on-shoulder, prove-it-to-me attitude (New
Republic identified it with American anti-intellec-
tualism) manifest in what many premiere critics wrote
about the play. Chagrined and disgusted at their
inability to find Beckett's inner meaning, most pre
miere critics reached the conclusion that the meaning
was unclear or non-existent.
3. Yet despite its supposed lack of clarity, its
maundering form, Godot was theatrically effective, a
fact of which the premiere critics were obviously
aware. Inescapably, some valid reason had to be found
for the play's theatrical effectiveness. So it was
that production values, particularly Lahr's perform
ance as Estragon, were credited with a success that
was denied the play itself. What emerges as an end
result of this production success versus critical
failure estimate of Godot is a judgment of the play
which implicitly works quite to the contrary of what
the premiere critics explicitly intended. Willy-nilly
in the very act of puncturing the imagined intellec
tual pretensions of Godot. the critics succeeded in
puncturing their own pretensions and arrived, via the
back door, at an understanding of the elemental ab
surdity, the vaudeville-burlesque-marionette
senselessness which lies at the center of Beckett's
play. Far from heing extraneous to the meaning of
Godot. the earthiness, the vulgarity, the music-hall
pantomiming of Lahr were directly on target. The
nature of that target, whatever its philosophical
or theological tangents, was the mimical imaging,
from stage to audience and from audience to stage,
of the topsy-turvy absurdity of man in the universe.
CHAPTER V
ALBERT CAMUS: CRITICISM
Caligula (Caligula) 1960
Adapted by Justin O'Brien; Settings and Costumes by Will
Steven Armstrong; Lighting by Jean Rosenthal; Music by
David Amram; Directed by Sidney Lumet; Produced by Chandler
Cowles, Charles Bowden, and Ridgley Bullock at the Fifty-
Fourth Street Theatre; Opened February 16, 1960; Closed
March 19, 1960 (38 performances).
THE CAST
.................. Frederic Tozere
.................... Sorrell Booke
............■ . . . . Edgar Daniels
..................... James 0'Rear
..................... Edward Binns
.................. Philip Bourneuf
. ................Clifford David
.................. Gene Pellegrini
.................... Kenneth Haigh
................. Colleen Dewhurst
................ Frederic Warriner
................... Victor Thorley
...................... Sandra Kazan
...................John Ramondetta
.................... Paul Cambeilh
........................ Ralph Lee
.................. Roger C. Carmel
. . John Wynne-Evans'
...................... Dal Jenkina
356
Octavius
Darling . .
Lucius . .
Cassius . .
Helicon . .
Cherae . .
Scipio . .
Guard . . .
Caligula
Caesonia
Major Domo
Mucius . .
Mucius1 Wife
Metullus
First Poet
Second Poet
Third Poet
Fourth Poet
Fifth Poet
THE CAST (Continued)
'sixth P o e t ..................................... Gene Gregory
Wives ................... Francesca Fontaine, Barbara Hall,
Marion Baker
Patricians .................... Wyley Hancock, Al Kavanagh,
Al Leberfeld, Nick Saviah
S l a v e s ...............Henri Leon Baker, Michael Baseleon,!
Ralph Newman, Garth Pillsbury
Soldiers ............. . . . Matt Bennett, Gordon Blackmon,
Cliff Cornell, Bill Fletcher, Frank Koomen,
Grant Michaels, J. T. Murphy, John Tryanos
CALIGULA BIBLIOGRAPHY
i
Newspaper Criticism
Daily Mirror. Coleman, Robertj N.Y.T.C., February 17, 196 0,
p. 368.
Daily News. Chapman, John, N.Y.T.C., February 17, 1960, p.
365.
New York Herald Tribune. Kerr, Walter, N.Y.T.C., February
17, 1960, p. 360.
New York Journal American. McClain, John, N.Y.T.C., February
17, 1960, p. 368. 1
New York Post. Watts, Richard Jr., N.Y.T.C., February 17,
1960, p. 367.
The New York Times. Atkinson, Brooks, N.Y.T.C., February 17,:
1960, p. 367.
New York World Telegram. Aston, Frank, N.Y.T.C., February
17, 1960, p. 366.
Magazine Criticism
America. Lewis, Theophilus, March 26, 1960, pp. 775-776.
The Christian Century. Driver, Tom F., March 23, 1960, pp.
352-354.
Life. (Unsigned), March 7, 1960, pp. 85-88.
IThe Nation. Clurman, Harold, March 5, 1960, pp. 213-214.
358
! 359 j
The New Republic. Brustein, Robert, February 29, 1960, pp.
21-22.
Newsweek. (Unsigned), February 29, 1960, p. 90.
!
The New Yorker. Tynan, Kenneth, February 27, 1960, pp. 92-
96 .
The Saturday Review. Hewes, Henry, March 5, 1960, p . 36.
Theatre Arts. Bohle, Bruce, April 1960, p. 59.
Time. (Unsigned), February 29, 1960, p. 51.
360 1
f
Production Criticism
Armstrong's constructivist setting was approved by most
newspaper critics and disapproved by most magazine critics. ,
To Daily Mirror, the setting "has the virtue of providing
continuity of movement and doesn't get in the way of the
actors." Daily News wrote that the production was "stun
ningly set and magnificently costumed." Journal American
referred to "the decorative costumes and an austere set,
mostly stairs and platforms, which still lend majesty to
the proceedings." In the opinion of Herald Tribune and
World Telegram, the platforms and stairways served a twofold
purpose. They gave to the whole production a sense of
classic grandeur, and they were symbolic of Caligula's rest
less striving for infinity. According to New York Times.
the sense of classic grandeur which the settings gave to
the production was somewhat out of keeping: "In view of
the modest content of the drama, it seems at the end to have
been overproduced."
This feeling that the sets were out of keeping with
the true nature of the play text was also reflected in the
opinions of most magazine critics. Christian Century made
the point that the suggestion of the infinite represented
in the intricate vastness of the sets tended to diminish
361
the stature of the play's central character. It would have ,
•been better had the sets followed the classic, geometric
order of Roman architecture: "Against such a background
the wanton arrogance of Caligula would have been more im
pressive." Nation found that the sets, lighting, and cos
tumes were spectacular, yet somehow foreign to Camus' id
iom: "They are too elaborately decorative, too mechanically
modern to be inconspicuously beautiful." According to New
Republic. Saturday Review, and Theatre Arts. Calicrula was
designed to be performed in cool, classical quiet. But the
garish detail and eye-catching gimmicks represented in Arm
strong's constructivist setting were a far cry from the
cool, the classical, and the quiet. In this sense, Saturday
Review called attention to the Theatre National Populaire
production of Lorenzaccio which appeared on Broadway the
previous year. The T,N.P. production was far superior to
that of Caligula because "the effectiveness of a streamlined
approach depended upon our concentrating on the passion of
the protagonist rather than on lurid incidental detail."
Lumet was praised by a majority of critics for his
fluid and flamboyant direction. His emphasis on a theatri- ;
cal, presentational approach to an otherwise static play
text was especially noted by Daily Mirror. Journal American. ,
362~1
and New York Times. New York Times wrote: "Out of respect j
Ifor Camus' purity as a writer of inner dialogue, Mr. Lumet |
; j
has given the play all the color and sound of a big theatre ;
style." Herald Tribune. Life and Newsweek viewed with sat
isfaction Lumet's extensive use of detail and stage movement
as a fitting accompaniment to the mad course of Caligula.
Life offered the comment: "Like a three-ring circus with
Caligula as a maniac ringmaster, the play has been incisive
ly directed by Sidney Lumet." To Newsweek the direction
made for bold, bawdy, and exciting theatre wherein "thick
thighed legionnaires, long-legged slave girls, and fumbling;
senators crowd a busy stage." Agreeing that Lumet's direc
tion was intelligent and assured, Nation and New Yorker
were critical of the production emphasis on detail and stage
movement. Nation found that the details were irrelevant;
New Yorker observed that the mob scenes were badly handled.
A minority of critics (Christian Century. New Republic.
I
Saturday Review. Theatre Arts) maintained that Lumet had
misrepresented Caligula, that the emphasis on a theatrical,
presentational approach was much closer to Broadway and
IHollywood than it was to Camus. Christian Century wrote
that Lumet's principal mistake was in making the Roman
patricians appear like fools: "This minimizes Caligula's i
, 363 |
f
■importance and makes unbelievable the character of the one •
patrician who does resist." According to New Republic and
Theatre Arts. Lumet had given the Camus work the full Broad-;
i
way treatment with some Hollywood touches thrown in for
good measure. New Republic wrote of Lumet:
Unable to soften down this dangerous play of ideas . . .
the director has chosen to drown it out, imposing over
the pop-pop of explosive thought a recurrent din of
more familiar Broadway sounds: resounding gongs,
breaking mirrors, mournful string arpeggios, dashing
cymbals, stamping feet, and vibrating drums.
In the opinion of Saturday Review, the current production
placed an unfortunate emphasis on the exotic aspects of the
action, on the spectacle of Roman barbarism, the sex orgy,
and the mad behavior of Caligula. This stressing of lurid
and unnecessary detail ran counter to Camus' intention,
which was to show that the revolt of Caligula was a didac
tic revolt, founded not upon sensualism but upon pure in-
tellectualism.
Haigh's performance in the title role was greeted with
enthusiasm by almost all critics. Haigh was particularly
commended for a vigorous interpretation and for his skillful
portrayal of Caligula's sudden shifts from petulance to
demonic fury, from philosophical introversion to unrestrain-!
ed action. Writing of Haigh's unflinching commitment to
364 I
i
his role of the mad emperor, Herald Tribune observed:
There is no thrust of his arms, no shower of speech, no
motion of retching disgust that he is not willing to
make with all of the urgency, openness, and passionate
belief at his headlong command. |
Concurring with the majority opinion that Haigh was tech
nically brilliant and that his conception of the role was
basically sound, Journal American and Christian Century
took issue with the matter of Haigh's diction. Both critics
found that Haigh sounded more like the lower class English
man he had once portrayed in John Osborne's Look Back in
Anger than the Roman emperor he was currently representing
in Camus' Caligula. Further dissatisfaction with Haigh's
performance was expressed by Nation and New Yorker. Credit
ing Haigh with sincerity and technical accomplishment,
Nation wrote that his performance lacked "the astringency
of intellectual anguish and tragic dimension." New Yorker
commented that despite the vigor and originality which
Haigh brings to the part, his acting "lacks two qualities
that are essential if the incredible role of Caligula is to
seem even momentarily believable." These qualities are an
ability to assume the regal manner and an ability to assume
maniacal obsession. With respect to maniacal obsession,
Haigh is hampered by an approach to character which stresses
365 !
i
i
!
ithe notion of psychological consistency. It is an approach :
■typical of Anglo-American actors who try to interpret Pari- ;
'sian plays. French actors, on the other hand, abhor realism
and are unhampered by the notion of psychological consisten-!
cy. Hence, they are able to switch in a flash from outright
farce to wholehearted tragedy. This ability, which Haigh
conspicuously lacks, is essential to a proper interpretation
of the see-saw character of Caligula. In a minority of one,
New Republic found Haigh's performance thoroughly unsatis
factory:
. . . as Caligula, Kenneth Haigh alternates too abruptly
between grim irony which he controls, and temper tan
trums which he doesn't while stumbling floppily around
the stage like an Eton schoolboy dizzy on his first
cigarette.
In the supporting cast, Bourneuf received favorable
mention from several critics for his polished portrayal of
the anti-Caligula patrician, Cherae. Nation wrote of Bour
neuf that his "straightforward intention and diction reach
the mind." New Yorker referred to Bourneuf's Cherae as
"the smoothest performance of the evening." Dewhurst, in
the part of Caesonia, was also favorably mentioned. News
week stated that Dewhurst and Bourneuf were equally as good !
as Haigh. America observed that Dewhurst, Bourneuf, and
Haigh all give an impressive performance without which
Caligula "would be wanting in dignity as well as obscure in ;
meaning."
Dramatic Criticism
Critics were agreed that in the person of Caligula,
Camus was attempting to give negative expression to various
of his own more cherished beliefs. The precise nature of
these beliefs, represented in the obverse symbol of the
amoral and sadistic emperor, gave rise to a considerable
difference of critical opinion. To some critics the figure
of Caligula was meant to express a kind of Hitler-Stalin
complex which symbolized Camus 1 abiding hatred for the whole
totalitarian concept. Because the monstrous Caligula stands
for the totalitarian principle of absolute power, he so
demonstrates Camus' belief that absolute power corrupts.
But for the majority of critics, Camus was making the main
point that the pursuit of individual freedom must be tem
pered with the discipline of moral responsibility. Caligu
la, the rigorous idealist, pursues freedom logically and
relentlessly, but to no avail. At the end, he finds the
fatal flaw in his logic, that to him who abjures moral
responsibility and achieves freedom at the price of slavery ;
367 i
: J
1 :
to others, freedom is empty and meaningless.
Holding to the view that Caligula was meant to express ;
a kind of Hitler-Stalin complex, Daily Mirror found that
Camus' anti-totalitarian stand presented something of a
paradox. On the one hand, Camus sees a certain nobility in
facing up to the cold facts even though this may produce a
monster. But at the same time that he admires logic and
intellect, Camus is distrustful of the consequences:
Being Gallic, he admires logic yet suspects that it can
make the world an unhappy place in which to live. It
can unleash monstrous injustices and stalking terror.
It can result in totalitarianism which strips men of
their dignity and destroys their souls.
According to Saturday Review. Caligula has two things in
^-Robert Jones finds that the play is projected on two
levels. Level one is primarily "a demonstration of Caligu
la's capricious yet logical madness in denying both the
value of human life and the world." Level two represents
Caligula "as an ordinary man, albeit an emperor, who sudden
ly comes into contact with the blind irrationality of the
universe." On this second level, which is particularly ger-j
mane to the philosophical ideas expressed in Le Mythe de
Sisyphe. we have the key to Caligula's failure. Caligula
failed and became a moral monster because he rejected the
one tenable position of revolt against irrationality which
Camus sets forth in Sisyphe as the position of the absurd
man. Unlike Cherae— a perfect illustration of the absurd
man who thinks clearly and has long since ceased to hope—
jCaligula refuses to accept freedom within human limitations.;
Seeking the impossible, symbolized by his yen for the moon,
he identifies himself with the very irrationality against
which he revolts. The Alienated Hero in Modern French Drama.
pp. 112-113. I
common with Hitler and Stalin: "power and the courage to
jpursue with ruthless logic the absolute truth of life as he I
sees it." What Camus draws from these parallels is
. . . that while the world may have every logical reason
to disbelieve in gods and to scorn human weakness and
stupidity, its only salvation is to behave as if these
things were not so.
In the opinion of New York Times. Newsweek. and New Yorker.
the Hitler-Stalin complex, manifest in the megalomania of
Caligula, is variously unbelievable, untimely, and unorigi
nal. New York Times referred to Camus' frenetic and exag
gerated piling of gratuitous horror upon gratuitous horror.
Newsweek observed that Camus 1 message on the evils of dic
tatorship is presently outdated: "If there was a formidable
point in Camus' parable two decades ago, it is considerably:
diminished now." To New Yorker. Camus' professed purpose
in showing Caligula as a monster was to prove "that it is
fruitless, as well as inhuman, to use power for power's
sake and that one cannot find oneself by slaughtering oth
ers." The idea which Camus sets forth is not a new one,
since it was already stated by Lord Acton and Max Lerner.
And in dramatic form, the idea that power corrupts was pre
sented much more effectively in Marlowe's Tamburlaine and
369 |
2 I
Ibsen's Peer Gynt. j
Assuming that the amorality of Caligula was meant to
exemplify the need for moral responsibility in the pursuit
of individual freedom. Journal American and Time felt that
Camus had indulged himself in a long-winded discussion of
an all too obvious fact. Journal American wrote that the
theme of the play— selfishness and negation of moral values
lead to destruction— made much ado about nothing: "But
however disguised in the skillful double-talk of the late
author . . . 'Caligula' impressed me as the over-extension
of a quite small idea." Time observed that by holding a
monster up to nature, Camus draws a startlingly simple moral
that one cannot be free at the expense of others:
To extract from such sick, vast-scaled cruelty and vio
lence such mere copybook wisdom seems at the same time
elaborate and insufficient.
^Henry Popkin holds to the view that Camus' basic hon
esty, as a man and as a writer, is at a distinct disadvan
tage in the theatre: "Camus' strenuous virtue is the key to
his plays and to his defective sense of the theatre. Expli-r
citly forswearing 'psychology, ingenious plot devices, and
spicy situations,1 he requires that we take him in the full
intensity of his earnestness or not at all." In this sense,
the simplicity and directness of Camus' dramas provide a
^startling contrast to the structural intricacies and the
jhighly theatrical qualities which characterize most modern
iplays. "Camus as Dramatist," Partisan Review. Summer 1959,
p. 499.
In the opinion of New York Post. Camus had shown Caligula
as a rigorously logical idealist who seeks absolute perfec
tion. As advanced by Camus, the ideas which emerge from
Caligula's quest for perfection, via the elimination of
imperfection, are comprehensible and dramatically valid.
Where Camus fails is because his ideas
. . . are often approached with such obliqueness and so
frequently present by hints and inference, that they
are dimmed rather than eliminated by the narrative.
Also commenting on the obliqueness of Camus' approach to
ideas, America found that the elusiveness of the approach
made the ideas themselves elusive. For this reason, what
seemed the clearest statement of Camus' theme was not in
the text proper but in the author's printed version of the
play: "One cannot destroy oneself without destroying oth
ers."3
. W. B. Lewis writes that the extravagance of Caligu
la's effort to humanize the universe by dehumanizing it
(wherein lay his failure) points up what is the most signi
ficant anti-theme of the whole play: "in the construction
of Caligula it is a periodic tension between the lust for
isolation and the longing for an authentic human encounter
that moves the action forward. Such an agon emerges con
sistently in the climax of each act. For the play is com
posed of a series of analogous movements, beginning in each
case with a relatively crowded stage, and thickening into a
public spectacle of some kind; and then shifting and concen
trating into the effort and the revealed failure of some
personal and private relationship. These parallel rhythms
371 i
; i
To Christian Century. Life. Nation. New Republic and
Theatre Arts, the ideas which Camus set forth in the person
of Caligula were neither simple nor obscure, nor were they
presented in such a way as to be elusive or incomprehensi
ble. Life wrote that Caligula gives a definitive and clear-
cut picture of an intellectual, maddened by the world's
greed and injustice, who "decided to play the world's game
to its logical and bitter end." A similar view of Caligu
la's intellectual disillusionment was expressed by Theatre
Arts. Because Caligula was more of a frustrated idealist
than an indifferent cynic, his disillusionment took the form
of a conviction that life was an absurdity. To prove how
absurd it was,
He sought to use unlimited power to achieve the impos
sible— unlimited freedom from all personal attack and
from everything human— only to find after endless car
nage, that freedom for the individual is useless if he
is alone to enjoy it.
are analogies to each other; but they are also synecdoches
in small of the entire and overall action— which is, exact
ly, a deliberate movement from the crowded center of a pop
ulous Empire to a position of complete solitude." Hence,
the final solitude arrived at in the closing instant, the
sense of permanent and utter alienation which surrounds
iCaligula when he dies, is the anti-theme point toward which
the play is directed. "Caligula; or the Realm of the Im
possible," Yale French Studies. Spring 196 0, pp. 56-57.
372 |
According to Christian Century. Camus had made Caligula
into a manifestation of human desire for the absolute. In j
keeping with the peculiar genius of Camus, Caligula's ap
proach to the absolute is 1 1 through murder, destruction, and
an infinity of guilt, because for Camus guilt is a clue to
the human condition." Comparing Caligula to Marlowe's Tam-
burlaine. it is evident that both Caligula and Tamburlaine
are dedicated to destruction. They differ in that Tambur
laine fights to the end against death, whereas Caligula pays
court to death in everything he does.
This is because he knows death is the only thing that
can release him from his loneliness and self-loathing.
Like many a romantic he discovers that the only real
absolutes are God and death, and since he has contempt
for God he is driven to seek death. That is why he is
a "superior suicide."
Thus Caligula represents two elements which are integral
with Camus' basic philosophy: guilt is a clue to the human
condition and the romantic yearning for death. A third
element, further connecting Camus with his protagonist, lies
in the author's designation of the play as "a tragedy of
intelligence." By negating what binds him to mankind, Cali
gula commits a fatal error in judgment. It is this error in
judgment which serves to illustrate the humanism of Camus,
who is capable of doubting everything except the need for
man's responsibility to man.
Agreeing with Christian Century that Caligula's mani
fest desire for the absolute involved a secret desire for
suicide, Nation and New Republic laid stress on the de facto'
aspect of Camus' implied humanism. To Nation. Camus was
himself an emblem of a generation in France and everywhere
in the West which signified rebellion against moral despair
and defeatism in the name of humanism. Through Caligula,
Camus was saying that a man cannot deny the humanity of
others without eliminating his own:
One cannot destroy others without creating an aloneness
more terrible than death. No individual can sever his
connection with his fellows; who says connection inevit
ably says love— no matter how the word may be distorted.
New Republic maintained that Caligula's quest for
^■Jacques Guicharnaud observes that the humanism of
Sartre and Camus is based on "the simple facts of suffering,
age, and death." The originality of these two writers con
sists in their treating the simple facts of human life
"without going back to a scientific viewpoint, a vision
limited to psycho-physiological determinism. What might
have resulted in a neo-positivism— considering the collapse
of our supposedly transcendent and absolute values— appears,
on the contrary, as an affirmation of man's privileged meta
physical position. With the added notion that philosophy
is more an object of action than of speculation, more a part
qf life than a play of ideas, the medium for existentialist i
thought became quite naturally a work of fiction: the novel
qr the theatre." Modern French Theatre from Giraudoux to
Beckett. p. 131.
freedom was intended as a study in nihilism. Camus' aim
was first to portray nihilism and to show it deficient;
then, on the basis of this deficiency, to reject it in favor
of the humanism in which he really believed. Why Camus
chose nihilism as a foil was because he recognized it as the
central position against which he had to define his own
humanism. Along with other postwar French dramatists, Camus
was well aware that nihilism was not only the culminating
point of nineteenth century thought, but was still a power
ful force in Europe. The excesses of Hitler and Stalin, the
vacillating anarchy and authoritarianism of the French gov
ernment are twentieth century examples. In any case, nihil
ism provided Camus and other contemporary French playwrights
with a dramatic means of exploring the bounds of human limi
tation and the individual's relation to his universe. This
stress on individuality may be compared to the emphasis
placed by contemporary American playwrights on a collective
view of man's function in the universe, on security, ease,
and happiness within the social unit rather than on meta
physical freedom outside of human institutions.
In consequence our plays— with their official tone,
their pious pronouncements, and their social-psychologi
cal orientation— seem to be the work of a collective
embodying the collective's distrust of freedom, heroism,
and individual salvation.
Hence, as a dramatic figure, Caligula stands at serious odds;
with the American WeItanschauung, and to the same extent is
representative of a typically French reaction to nihilism
and the individual's need for self-realization. Caligula is
also representative of Camus 1 artistic craving for clarity,
order, and form in a meaningless world. But since Camus is
a humanist, his final position with Caligula goes beyond
nihilism. By showing that just before he is assassinated
Caligula fears death, Camus demonstrates that Caligula's
freedom from memory, illusion, happiness, and the desire
for security is not pure. Because Caligula fears death when
it is upon him, and recognizes that he fears it, Camus suc
ceeds in his aim, which was to portray nihilism, show it as
deficient, and reject it in favor of humanism:
^Harold Clurman identifies the so-called "decadent"
note in the contemporary French theatre— the fact that it
deals so often with sin— as an aspect of its moral preoccu
pation, a preoccupation which has long flourished in France
and which is exemplified by such writers as Rabelais, Mon
taigne, La Rochefoucauld, Pascal, Moliere, Diderot, and
Baudelaire. In this respect, "a carefree comedy like Mister
Roberts is actually more wicked than a frightful parable
like Camus' Caligula. For while the pure entertainment in
our typical American comedy shows no awareness of a moral
problem, the deliberate terror in Camus' tragedy is wholly
obsessed by it." Lies Like Truth, p. 205.
376 |
i
. . . man must refuse the divinity he has inherited from I
a dead God in order to share in the "struggles and des
tiny of a suffering humanity.
With reference to play form, Caligula was considered
under the heading of a morality, a largely formless exercise
in theatricalism, and a play of ideas. To Christian Cen
tury , Caligula was a morality in the sense that its protag
onist denies man's responsibility to man. But however valid
Camus' choice of form, his development of that form was far
from adequate:
The play is not quite complex enough to hold its own as
a symbolic work and lacks the fullness of writing that
would shift the attention to character, situation, and
^Jones writes that the socially alienated heroes and
heroines of Sartre, Camus, Anouilh, and Giraudoux "are usu
ally forced to choose death because they seldom can attain
their objectives in their society, and their deaths only
prove again that in the drama, at least, existence is in
tolerable to a person of superior sensibility. The same
social conditions as before remain after their deaths and
the universe has not been justified. Most of these heroes
protest strongly against their society; most of them realize
that their inability or unwillingness to adjust to it is
the direct cause of their alienation. They may be right in
placing the blame on society, but much of the blame lies in
their own weaknesses, too. Had they been less egocentric
and eccentric they might have been more admirable. The
heroes of Lenormand, Montherlant, Curel, Bourdet, and Martin
du Gard would rather complain about their various maladies
and the injustices of society than accept themselves for
what they are and try to liberalize the codes of that so
ciety." The Alienated Hero, p. 117.
377 |
7 !
plot.
iTime also placed Caligula under the general heading of a
morality. As such, the play was wanting in sustained drama
and inner development; the characters were flatly allegori
cal, one-dimensional, and dehumanized. Moreover, the intro-]
duction of various theatrical elements did not materially
alter the defects of the basic play structure; "Mixing
theatricality with intellectualism, Caligula is at once too
8
much, of a mere stage piece— and too little."
7
Wallace Powlie comes to much the same conclusion;
"When it was first performed Caligula stimulated interest
and reflection, and revived the fresh memories of the Occu
pation. Today it resembles a philosophical drama of the
type that Renan wrote at the end of his life. The dialogue
is varied and direct and holds the attention of an intelli
gent audience. But the play is not a dramatic conflict.
We do not see the moral crisis in the character of Caligula.
We witness a rather elaborate spectacle commented on which
is the result of the moral crisis." Dionysus in Paris. * p.
188.
®Guicharnaud compares Sartre's le Diable et le bon Dieu
with Caligula: "Just as in Camus' play Caligula tried to
be pure evil, Goetz tried to be one hundred per cent Good.
Both are inventors and challence the order of the world.
What their social experiments leave them with is emptiness
and negation. A desire for the absolute in the name of man
leads to the destruction of man and the loss of humanity,"
’ Guicharnaud then assigns the dramatic problem of both au
thors as one of reintegration: "In Caligula Cherea, who
1 lives within the truth, without hope and without delusion
. . recognizes the relative human order in which reign
"those truths of the flesh" that are lived and not demon
strated. ' Others return to life through the concrete tasks
378 |
f
I
I
] The theatricality manifest in the structure of Caligula
j
was likewise noted by Herald Tribune. World Telegram. Ameri-j
jca, and Newsweek. Herald Tribune wrote:
Between the impossibility of moving forward when there j
is no forward to move to, and a certain readiness of tone j
and style that thin out a majestically satanic experiment j
in living, "Caligula" continually stirs interest and then j
finds its temperature falling. j
I
This phenomenon of rising interest versus a falling off of ;
dramatic intensity is apparent in such scenes as Caligula's I
impersonation of Venus and his painting a suppliant's fin-
i
gernails and bald head. These passages mean to touch the j
junspeakable, the outrageous, and ultimate defiance of all ;
moral values.
imposed by urgent problems: Goetz finally agrees to use his
talents as a military leader by helping the military rebel
lion ..." In conclusion, Guicharnaud finds that in both
Sartre and Camus the basic conflict is threefold: "the com^
edy of a world of illusions (false justifications) as op
posed to the theatre or anti-theatre of those who seek the |
absolute, and both opposed to the plain fact of existence as
it is lived or to be lived, both individually and collec
tively. In Camus existence as such is expressed more or j
less allegorically in the character Cherae in Caligula and '
the Mediterranean richness of certain images in l'Etat de >
siege and le Malentendu. Sartre expresses it less poetical-j
ly in Hoederer's vitality and relation to objects in les j
Mains sales. Hilda's love in le Diable et le bon Dieu. and j
Nekrassov's gaiety. But as it is most often outside the !
play, it can only be alluded to. Man's unchanging tragedy j
lies both in the search for it and in the tension between I
the first two elements of the conflict." Modern French I
Theatre, pp. 142-143. j
379
But the light titters that up in the auditorium suggest
that only a casual rather flighty cynicism has been
arrived at, not the soul-destroying and mirthless laugh
ter that might accompany sheer negation.®
World Telegram referred to Caligula as a potpourri of ideas
and ostentatious stage movement:
While the two acts and four scenes are built in the
tradition of brilliantly changing dialogue, there is
action noisy and fierce.
To America and Newsweek, Camus' play form was something of
a theatrical tour de force. In the opinion of America.
Caligula
is neither a true tragedy nor a truly poignant drama,
but it has the fascination of a macabre spectacle of ^
debauchery and lechery, of an impromptu dance of death.
Q
Lewis maintains that this impersonation of Venus re
lates to the unrestrained extravagance with which Caligula
pursues supreme power as a means of making the impossible
the possible. Camus' own reaction against the chaos and
disorder of the modern world is expressed in Caligula's ef
fort to surpass human limitations, to reverse the inexorable
and tragic fact that with their false gods and futile moral
izing "men die and they are not happy." Thus, the imperson
ation is meant to show that "Caligula is imperatively the
only divinity that he (or Camus) could manage to discern:
something deceitful, perverse, malicious, and utterly unpre
dictable; the dispenser of a loathsome, or betimes, madden
ingly prankish grace." Caligula's reaction to chaos and
disorder is, however, not to be confused with Camus'. Ca
mus' solution to irrationality (and his over-all work points
to this) is by means of a rational revolt. Caligula's solu-;
;tion (actually antithetical to that of Camus) is by means of
Ian irrational revolt. "Caligula: or the Realm of the Im
possible," p. 55.
_____-*-°Jones takes the view that the character of Caligula ;
Newsweek commented that the play "is largely a bravura
piece, with a Shakespearean sweep and swashbuckle for his
tory that never was and theatre as it used to be."
As a play of ideas, Caligula was castigated by Daily !
News for being an oppressive and pretentious drama which
sets up a false front of intellectuality. A contrary view
of Caligula was expressed by Life; "it has put the stage to
one of its best uses as a forum of ideas." According to
New York Post. Nation. New Yorker T and Theatre Arts. Caligu
la was a brilliant demonstration of Camus' individual gen
ius , rich in ideas, eloquent and provocative. But in the
opinion of these three critics, Caligula was not a satis-
militates against any recognizable concept of tragedy, clas
sical or otherwise: "He is not an absurd man because he
resigns himself to and becomes his fate— and he is not trag
ic in the Aristotelian sense either--because the tragic
figure must battle his fate actively and in the fray, though
conquered, give dignity to man or meaning to life. Camus'
theories of tragedy are closer to those of the ancient
Greeks than are those of any of his contemporaries. Yet in
Caligula. and it seems consciously so, he has not created a
tragedy but has rather written an indictment of the excesses
to which a basically ordinary yet intelligent man can turn
by alienating himself from the world and ignoring the value 1
of human life and man's essential dignity." The Alienated
Hero. p. 115. Lewis also maintains that Caligula is non-
tragic because it is "an extravaganza which takes as its
inner and actual subject the very idea of extravagance; that
is strictly of 'wandering outside.’" "Caligula: or the.
Realm of the Impossible," p. 53.
381 |
factory play. New York Post observed that "Camus was clear-.
;ly capable of catching dramatic effectiveness but I can't
feel here that he has sufficiently dramatized the ideas he
was proposing." Both New Yorker and Theatre Arts complained
of a discrepancy between matter and form. According to New
Yorker. Caligula is philosophical drama in which the philo
sophy and the drama are not properly united: "What is being
said seems strangely unrelated to what is being done."
■^Clurman ascribes two characteristics to contemporary
French drama, both of which are antithetical to an American-
oriented sense of theatre. The first of these relates to
the fact that French plays are "dramatizations of moods and
ideas rather than stories." Concerned with the question of
action in the face of an all-encompassing evil rather than
the dramatizing of a single example of evil, contemporary
French plays make general points and not specific ones.
Hence, these plays tend to be philosophical instead of real
istic or psychological. Because the philosophical play
grows not out of observation but reflection, and because an
indirect symbol is presented in lieu of an immediate reality,
the effect is schematic and abstract, that of an intellec
tual pattern rather than a specific dramatized instance.
All of this runs against the theatre grain of Americans who,
"more at home with concrete cases than with general concep
tions, tend to respond to the play's stories rather than to
their ideas." According to Clurman, the second character
istic of contemporary French drama "is the use of language
as a dramatic substance in itself. With us, dialogue is
employed chiefly as the conveyor of the action with subsid- ;
iary functions as a source of color and delineation. The
French playwright builds mood, meaning, tension, and excite-i
iment through language as such. This is evident in The
Flies. in Caligula. and particularly in Jean Genet's one-act
play The Servant Girls . . . Eloquence and rhetoric— the
old-fashioned tirade which may be described as a vehement
382 j
i
iPart of this unrelatedness may be due to the fact that Cali—
quia is young Camus, but more than anything the discrepancy
between matter and form is a question of literary genre:
With gnomic eloquence, Camus speaks above, around, and
beyond the action; he hardly ever permits the action to
speak for itself. "Caligula" is the work of a man superb
ly endowed to be almost anything except a playwright.12
aria— serve as an instrument of dramatic progression. Such
a use of speech strikes the American theatregoer as florid
and undramatic, and, when passion is added, as either hys
terical or hammy." Lies Like Truth, pp. 206-207.
12p0pkin speaks of Camus' stripping down of dramatic
non-essentials and attributes it to the author's unrelenting1
search for protagonists capable of free choice in their own
right. In this respect, Camus' concept of stage character
is anti-Ibsen and pro-Strindberg. As against the mainstream
of modern drama, wherein the characters’ neuroses are held
in check by the dramatist, the heroes of Camus and Strind
berg are unrestrained. Often as not, their quest for free
dom is earned at the expense of their sanity. But for this
very reason, that Camus has simplified the dramatic repre
sentation of his characters and in so doing runs counter to
the mainstream of modern drama, his plays appear stark and
undimensionalized: "Camus’ characters tear right into the
issues, and they ignore small details. Just as Lear's "Pray
you, undo this button" could not have occurred in Racine, it
also would be unlikely in Camus. Everyone in these plays is
ready for action— or, more often, for argument. Nothing may
intervene to distract, irritate, or enchant us, to explain
the character or to provide context for the events." This
passing over of dramatic conventions may be compared to the
imore sophisticated technique by means of which Camus manages
to avoid the dangers of the pamphleteer: "The defect of
Camus' plays brings to mind the virtues of his fiction in
which the method of narration always keeps us from colliding
too abruptly with his themes and, above all, with his
ideas." "Camus as Dramatist," p. 500.
383 j
I
Like New Yorker. Theatre Arts found that the very nature of I
Camus' material would have been better suited to another
I
form of expression: j
I
| i
A leaner, less spectacular production would have height
ened the intellectual content of the play. But probably
only a novel could provide a sufficiently full-length |
j portrait of the emperor, especially in his earlier hu-
i mane stages, to give some rational basis to his actions i
j 13
! • • •
Speaking of Camus’ plays in general, Nation observed that
they are important rather than good. They are important
l ;
i ■
because they signify a humanistic revolt against moral de- :
i
spair and defeatism. The plays are something less than good
| !
because they are not fully realized works. Caligula. writ
ten when Camus was only twenty-five, is typical of this
jover-all lack of recognition:
| The writing— while distinguished— does not achieve the J
| white heat or specific imagery of poetry, the characters
■^Guicharnaud finds in the plays of Camus 1 1 almost no !
transition from one vision of the universe to another. Ca- |
ligula begins with the emperor having just discovered the
world of freedom and the absurd. Had Sartre written Cali
gula, he would doubtless have shown the hero making his de- j
cisive discovery in the first act, beginning with Drusilla's
death and going on to show how Caligula was shocked by it |
and how it led up to his final experiment. In Camus' play j
the curtain goes up on an imaginary world whose dimensions !
are given from the very beginning and once and for all.
Hence the dual impression of classical economy and intran- j
sigence." Modern French Theatre, p. 147. j
384 ;
and scenes attain only a general or moralistic defini
tion .
This estimate of Camus' use of language and his inabil
ity to characterize was a fairly general one. Most critics :
felt that Camus' characters were too abstract to be believ
able and that the interplay of emotion between the charac
ters was almost nil. The absence of a unifying poetic
quality was also noted. Because Camus did not involve his
characters in a sufficient atmosphere of poetic truth, there
could be no willful suspension of disbelief. For this rea
son, Caligula seemed bare and mechanical, more an oratorical
15
debate than an inter-related dramatic structure.
^Lewis maintains to the contrary that Camus1 drama in
general, and Caligula in particular, must be taken as part
of a whole: "Camus' dramatic work . . . is not a fragment
to be isolated, for inspection, from his performance in
other genres. It is a constant dimension, constantly ex
panding, of his total artistic achievement. It was for him :
one more vocabulary, one more set of resources with which to
take hold of the shifting chaos reflected everywhere in his
pages; just as the actor was one more prototype (along with
Don Juan and Napoleon) of what Camus used to call 'the ab
surd man.' Camus' theatrical dimension was large and per
vasive; and no work, in my opinion, more rousingly illus
trates the scope and intent of it— and its dependence, for
full understanding, upon his other writings— than the first
of his plays, Caligula." "Caligula: or the Realm of the
Impossible," p. 52.
-^Popkin refers to the language of Camus' plays as
simple and eloquent, lofty and pure. What it reflects is
"the complaint Camus once lodged against out time: 'For
f
385
O'Brien's translation of the play received relatively little
attention. Daily News wrote that Caligula "has been adapted
into clear, concise English prose by Justin O'Brien." Na
tion upheld O'Brien's translation of Caligula as superior to
the recent Stewart Gilbert translation of Camus' plays.
Christian Century took issue with the changing of the origi
nal ending:
In Camus' ending, the breaking of the mirror image sym
bolized the ultimate extension of Caligula's scorn. It
said without words that if a man cuts the ties that bind
him to mankind he will end with hatred of himself.
In shifting this episode to the end of the first scene,
O'Brien and/or Lumet sacrificed a crucial point for the sake
of a good curtain.
Evaluation
Much of the premiere criticism of Caligula was con
cerned with an explication of Camus' socio-philosophical
beliefs. Since most critics felt that these beliefs found
negative expression in the person of the amoral and sadistic
the dialogue we have substituted the communique.' The dra
matist sets out to remedy this situation, but his dialogue
tends to become, especially in The Just Assassins and State
of Siege, a formal exchange of weighty remarks which too
clearly expose the dramatist's design on us." "Camus as
Dramatist," p. 503.
386
iemperor, it was on Caligula as an obverse symbol that criti-j
|cal attention inevitably focused. Thus, in the eyes of most
■ j
• i
critics, Camus' play took on the quality of an extended
j i
i
■dramatic debate: Camus the humanist engages Caligula the j
anti-humanist in an ideological battle over the meaning of ■
v ^ ■ ■
human freedom, the notion that absolute power corrupts, and
the moral implications of man's responsibility to man.
That Camus chose to present his socio-philosophical
beliefs in the form of a dramatic debate, enlivened by the
spectacle of a one-man horror show, proved a source of
chronic irritation to almost all critics. What the critics
looked for and were unable to find was some evidence of
inner growth or at least of change on the part of Caligula. ,
Without such evidence, maintained most critics, Caligula
remains static and unlifelike. For this reason, what Cali
gula stands for, and what Camus stands against, grows in
creasingly nebulous. The mere clinical cataloguing of
Caligula's atrocities becomes tedious and repetitious. The
out-of-the-play, sotto voce counterpoint of the author's
implied humanism seems more in the nature of a philosophical
comment than a valid dramatic expression of his socio-
philosophical beliefs.
This over-all estimate of Camus' play— a one- |
387 |
i
j3imensional, inherently disorganized character study ab- ;
istractly presented in the form of an implied dramatic debate
— led a number of critics to the conclusion that Caligula
was not only an unsatisfactory play but a rather poor exam
ple of Camus' ability to express and communicate ideas.
Particularly outspoken on the subject of Camus' failings as
playwright and as thinker were Daily News. America, and
Newsweek. To these critics, Caligula was obscure and its
author obscurantist. Journal American and Time also took a
dim view of both play and playwright. Camus' attempt to
present a simple-minded moral about human freedom and re
sponsibility was vastly over-extended. Under its smoke
screen of pseudo-intellectuality, and for all its blood and
thunder action, Caligula made much ado about a very obvious
nothing.
But to most other critics, the failure of Caligula as
a play was no necessary reflection on Camus' ability to
think. It was rather a question of his inability to drama
tize ideas, to illustrate them in a form which demands in
exorably some physical evidence of a relationship between
character and circumstance, of the emotional interplay of
character upon character. In this sense, New York Post.
New Yorker, and Theatre Arts found in Caligula a serious
388 |
discrepancy between matter and form. What Camus had to say j
was sufficiently valid; the way in which he said it was not . j
Had Camus chosen to express his ideas in some other form,
the ideas would doubtless have had force and precision as
well as inherent value. The dramatically undimensionalized
figure of Camus' anti-spokesman protagonist would have be
come real and lifelike, his motivations clear and purpose
ful. In novel form, for example, Camus would have had ample
opportunity to explain in terms of the past the path of
bloodshed and carnage which Caligula pursues in the present.
Without disputing the unsatisfactory.nature of Caligula
as a play, Christian Century and Nation devoted most of
their criticism to a direct explication of Camus' socio-
philosophical beliefs. According to Christian Century.
Camus set forth in the person of his protagonist three main
ideas: guilt is the clue to the human condition, a romantic
yearning for death as the only real absolute, and a human
istic belief in the need for man's responsibility to man.
In the view of Nation. Camus was himself an emblem of a
whole generation which rebelled against moral despair and
defeatism in the name of humanism. Through Caligula, Camus ‘
was saying that a man cannot deny the humanity of others
without denying his own in the process.
In a minority of one, New Republic found Caligula not
:Only a satisfactory play but a veritable storehouse of fresh
and challenging ideas. Maintaining that Caligula's guest
for freedom was intended as a study in nihilism, New Repub- j
lie identified the play with the main stream of contemporary
French drama which seeks to explore the bounds of human
limitation and the individual's relation to his universe.
As a dramatic figure, then, Caligula is representative of a
typically French reaction to nihilism and the individual's
struggle for self-realization. But accustomed as they are
to a collective frame of dramatic reference, Americans miss
the point of Camus' play, the point being that human behav-
❖
ior and with it the whole question of human freedom, is best
explained in terms of the individual rather than society.
It is, therefore, in terms of the individual, not society,
that Camus explains and at the same time repudiates the
nihilism of Caligula. Caligula fails to achieve the freedom
he desires not because he violates the precepts of society
but because he violates the fundamental law of his own in
dividuality. In short, by refusing to accept his role of
individual moral responsibility, he negates the very free
dom he seeks to affirm.
Whether this interpretation is germane to a proper
390 |
understanding of Camus, it does serve to emphasize that for
jail other critics Calicrula was at best a disparate rendering
of the author's socio-philosophical beliefs and in no sense ;
a unified dramatic work. Clearly, the dramatic debate
aspect of Caliaula— humanist author versus anti-humanist
protagonist— weighed heavily on the minds of the premiere
critics. Just as surely, what confused and irritated the
critics was their abiding conviction that dramatic debate
was an insufficient means for the matter under discussion.
The elaborate scale on which Caligula was produced may in
itself indicate an effort on the part of the director and
producer to overcome what they too regarded as an insuffi
cient means either for the matter under discussion or the
audience in question. In this respect, it is worth noting
the comment of Nation that Camus himself was supposed to
have given the "go sign" to Lumet for the full Broadway
treatment of his script. The implication is that Camus felt
the austerity of the original Paris production would prove
stark and forbidding to American audiences. How well Camus
and Lumet may have gauged the temper of their audience is,
;of course, a matter of conjecture. But judging by their
reaction, the premiere critics were neither illuminated nor
empathized by the filling-in and watering down of the basic ;
391 !
I
j stage directions. As a dramatic figure, Caligula remained
ja critical enigma; a personification, a symbol, a philo- ;
sophical comment, suspended in time but not in space, as
much alienated from his literary context as he was from a
human world of sense and substance.
The main trends of premiere criticism in Caligula may,
then, be enumerated as follows:
Production Criticism
Most newspaper critics approved the constructivist
setting on the grounds that it was functional and at
the same time conveyed a sense of classic grandeur.
Most magazine critics disapproved the setting because
its gaudiness and eye-catching gimmicks distracted
attention from the play's central character. For a
majority of critics, directorial emphasis on theatri
cality and fluid stage movement rescued from monotony
an otherwise static play text. A minority view held
that such directorial emphasis came closer to Holly
wood and Broadway than Camus and, in any case, created
the impression that Caligula's was the revolt of a
sensualist instead of an intellectual. Except for
Nation. New Republic, and New Yorker, Haigh's extro
vert, all-out-and-no-stops portrayal of Caligula was
enthusiastically received. According to Nation.
Haigh's performance lacked intellectual anguish and
tragic dimension. Both New Yorker and New Republic
referred to Haigh's inability to transition between
madness and majesty. The supporting cast, especially
Bourneuf, was well received.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
11
Critics were agreed that as a character Caligula pro
vided an anti-thematic means of expressing Camus'
philosophical beliefs. These beliefs appeared to
392
include the idea that power corrupts and that freedom
without moral responsibility is meaningless. However, ’
most critics felt that the ideas thus set forth were j
either hackneyed or elusive, or at best insufficiently ;
dramatized. Nation and New Republic laid stress on
the de facto aspect of Camus' humanism. In this sense,
New Republic referred to Caligula's quest for freedom
as a memorable study in the corrupting effect of
nihilism: by showing that Caligula failed because he
negated all human values, Camus points up the alterna
tive of humanism as the only workable answer to the
problem of our human condition.
Play Form
Calicmla was variously classified as a morality, a
formless exercise in theatricalism, and a play of
ideas. Central to any discussion of the"play's struc
ture was a chronic dissatisfaction with Camus' overly
abstract approach to his dramatic ideas. This dis
satisfaction was expressed in the oft-repeated criti
cism that Camus' ideas were diffuse and unfocused,
that the relationship between the ideas and the way
they are represented in the drama proper is elliptical
and arbitrary. As voiced by New Yorker. "What is
being done seems strangely unrelated to what is being
said.M The conclusion reached by New Yorker. with
Theatre Arts concurring, was that the nature of the
material, as well as of Camus' own talent, was better
suited to a non-dramatic form.
Characterization
Representing what was substantially a majority opinion,
Time referred to Camus' characters as flatly allegori
cal, one dimensional, and dehumanized. We see an out
pouring of physical action, most of it focused on the
fantastic exploits of Caligula. We see the how of
this moral monster but are never familiarized with the
why. The effect is at first horrifying; but apart from
its philosophical implications, the end result is
monotonous and unlifelike. Counter to this majority
view of Camus' efforts at characterization were the
opinions of Christian Century and New Republic. Com
paring Caligula to Marlowe's Tamburlaine. Christian
393 |
Century wrote that both characters are dedicated to
destruction. They differ in that Tamburlaine fights
to the end against death whereas Caligula (the seeker
of the absolute) pays court to death. New Republic
wrote that to understand the character of Caligula
one must weigh in the balance of modern society (as
did Camus) the wholesale implications of nihilism,
individualism, and humanism. But since in the full
power of their abstract meaning none of these terms
is particularly significant, or even explicable, to
a positivistic, collective-minded American audience,
Caligula on Broadway appeared little more than a
sound-and-fury monster signifying nothing.
Language
Though Camus' use of language was commended for its
clarity and eloquence, the general feeling was that
the dialogue failed to characterize the personae; nor,
as compensation for this lack, did Camus succeed in
establishing a sufficient atmosphere of poetic truth.
Again, the much-made point was raised that Caligula
was bare and mechanical, an oratorical debate rather
than an interrelated dramatic structure.
In the light of subsequent criticism, the following
observations may be related to the main trends of premiere
criticism:
Production Criticism
No comment.
Dramatic Criticism
Theme
The play is projected on two levels. The first deals
with the question of Caligula's "logical" madness.
The second represents Camus’ absurdist philosophy and
suggests the need for a rational revolt against irra
tionality instead of the irrational staged by Caligula
(Jones). The sense of permanent and utter alienation
which surrounds the dying Caligula is the anti-theme
point— one cannot humanize the universe by dehumaniz
ing it— toward which the play is directed (Lewis).
Ideas that precede rather than follow the plain fact
of human existence, such as Caligula's dream of the
absolute, are false and destructive (Guicharnaud).
To an American theatregoer, Camus typifies the un
healthy preoccupation of the contemporary French
theatre with the problem of evil. However, the total
absence of any such concern in the average American
comedy indicates a far more frightful attitude toward
morality than we find in Caligula (Clurman).
Plav Form
Camus' dramas are at a disadvantage in today's theatre
where conventions demand complication and illusion
rather than simplicity and directness (Popkin). What
moves the action forward is a periodic tension, mani
fest in the climax of each act, between a lust for
action and the longing for an authentic human encoun
ter (Lewis). Since the moral crisis in the character
of Caligula is commented on rather than shown, the
play lacks dramatic conflict (Fowlie). Contemporary
French plays, such as Caligula. tend to be philosophi
cal rather than psychological, to deal with abstract
concepts rather than concrete cases. This runs against
the theatrical grain of American audiences who re
spond to plays' stories rather than to their ideas
(Clurman). Caligula begins with an imaginary world
whose dimensions are given from the very beginning,
once and for all. Hence the dual impression of clas
sical economy and intransigence (Guicharnaud). The
play is not a tragedy because its hero neither resists
fate nor in his own person conveys a sense of human
meaning or dignity (Jones, Lewis).
Characterization
By dying for a cause rather than living to save it,
the socially alienated heroes and heroines of Sartre,
Camus, Anouilh, and Giraudoux indict their own weak
nesses as much as those of society (Jones). Because
Camus sought protagonists capable of free choice in
their own right, his characters are presented with a
minimum of psychological build-up and theatrical j
explanation. Their primary purpose is to act directly ;
and swiftly, to tear right into the issues with which j
Camus is dealing (Popkin). As a more or less alle
gorical character, Cherae represents Camus' belief in I
the transcendency of human existence over human ideo- !
logy (Guicharnaud). Cherae serves the function of a
raisonneur and is a perfect illustration of Camus'
absurd man who revolts rationally against the irra
tionality of the universe (Jones).
Language
Like other contemporary French playwrights, Camus
builds mood, meaning, tension, and excitement through
the use of language as such. To the American theatre- ■
goer, this use of language as a primary dramatic sub
stance seems florid and undramatic and, when passion
is added, hysterical and hammy (Clurman). Simple and
eloquent, lofty and pure, the language of Camus' plays
establishes a direct line of communication between
author and audience. In so doing, it reveals rather
than obscures the design of the dramatist and thus
runs counter to the mainstream of modern theatrical
conventions (Popkin).
Comparing the main trends of premiere criticism to
subsequent criticism, these conclusions can be drawn:
1. Most premiere critics felt that directorial empha
sis on theatricality and fluid stage movement rescued
from monotony an otherwise static play text. At the
same time, the premiere consensus indicated that there
was a lack of relationship between play text and stage
movement. On the face of it, these contradictory
reactions would appear something less than logical:
the staging was praiseworthy because it rescued the
text from monotony; the text was unsatisfactory be
cause it bore no visible relation to the staging.
2. Apart from any question of logic, these mutually
exclusive views of text and staging might well relate
to what Nation wrote apropos of Camus and Lumet, as
against what Clurman wrote apropos of Camus and
American theatregoers. According to Nation. Camus was |
under the impression that if Caligula were given the
same kind of austere production that it had in Paris j
the play would appear stark and forbidding to American :
audiences. Hence, it was Camus himself who gave Lumet .
the "go signal" for the full Broadway treatment of his |
script. This statement of Nation compares with Clur-
man's estimate of an innate American aversion to :
"philosophical" plays which, like Caligula. tend to
deal with abstract concepts rather than concrete casesy
with ideas rather than stories. The conclusion that
can be drawn here is that Camus was aware of the Amer
ican aversion to "philosophical" plays and hoped to
offset it by the abundant use of customary Broadway
fanfare: gongs and gals, pageantry and platforms.
3. The further incongruity of Caligula on Broadway—
a straightforward play of ideas immersed in a "Roma-
rama" setting— may be observed in what Christian Cen
tury referred to as O'Brien's unwarranted shifting of
the curtain scene to the first act. Plainly, the
smashing of the mirror, as it was placed in the origi
nal, is the final and definitive word in Caligula's
nihilist effort at total destruction. By shattering
the mirror which reflects his own image, Caligula
destroys not only the outside world but himself in this
process. Needless to say, the climactic significance
of this final destruction was altogether lost on the
New York stage and for the simple reason that it never
occurred where Camus had intended it.
4. Assuming, then, that a hat-in-hand attitude was
largely responsible for the grotesquerie that was
Caligula on Broadway, the question arises of what it
was that Camus feared would prove "stark and forbid
ding" to American audiences, which is to say what it
was Camus was driving at when he wrote his play.
Certainly, the premiere critics caught a fair-sized
glimpse of Camus' matter: Caligula as an anti-thematic
personification of the idea that freedom without re
sponsibility is meaningless. But the use to which
this matter was put, the philosophical and social im
plications of Caligula's all-out pogrom of humanity,
himself included, was for most premiere critics un
clear, inexact, and, in the last analysis, unrelated
397
to human problems, philosophical or otherwise. New
Republic, in a minority of one, was alone able to
fathom the critical enigma represented by Caligula;
the play is specifically a study in nihilism; the
dramatic conflict hangs between nihilism and indivi
dualism; and the resolution repudiates both in favor
of humanism.
5. New Republic1s estimate of Caligula comes reason
ably close to that of most subsequent criticism.
Guicharnaud put it in terms of Caligula's individual
istic quest for an anti-human absolute, the result of
which is an anti-human ideology contrary to the basic
fact of human existence. Lewis referred to the alien
ation which succeeds on any individualistic effort to
humanize the universe by dehumanizing it. Jones wrote
that the play suggests the need of a rational (human)
revolt against irrationality instead of the irrational,
anti-human, anti-existence revolt staged by Caligula.
The conclusion to be drawn here is that the very in
tensity with which Camus projects his moral abstracts
it from the particular and applies it to the general.
What results is a complex of implication and indirec
tion which on the New York stage collided with an
opposite intensity represented by the profound indif
ference, and perhaps contempt, that Americans share
for abstraction in any form.
CONCLUSION
It is worthy of note that the adverse reaction of the
premiere critics to Caligula was to a large extent repre
sentative of their adverse reaction to most of the plays
under consideration in this study. Specifically, the pre
miere critics were confused, dismayed, even disgusted by
certain qualities manifest in Caligula. And the confusion,
the dismay, the disgust were reflected in the critics'
reaction to similar qualities in the plays of Anouilh,
Giraudoux, Sartre, and Beckett.
As to what these qualities were, the critical consen
sus is sufficient to the evil thereof. Ideologically, most
of the plays under consideration expressed a pessimistic
view of life, gave superficial and cynical treatment to
serious subjects, and in the matter of their respective
themes were often unclear and unresolved. Dramaturgically,
most of the plays under consideration had an abstract,
disoriented approach to reality evidenced in an all-too-
; frequent stereotyping of character and a fondness for words
398
399
to the exclusion of action. Psychologically, most of the
iplays under consideration placed an unhealthy emphasis upon ;
the individual, making of him an animal or an Ubermensch
; i
beyond the laws of man and God alike.
i
With reference to the ideological deficiencies of the
plays under consideration, the critical consensus held to
the notion that these deficiencies revolved around a common
center. This was a pessimistic, broadly existentialist
philosophy which set forth a paradox, inexplicable as it
was repugnant: since life is futile and meaningless, we
must fight not to win but to lose. Cogent examples of ad
verse criticism to the existentialist paradox might be drawn
from a number of plays. In The Lark. Joan defies Cauchon
for no apparent reason than defiance itself and to the end
not of her salvation but her destruction. In Red Gloves.
Hugo kills Hoederer for who knows what reason. For the samd
reason, Hugo seeks his own death (again a meaningless re
demption through a meaningless destruction) at the hands of ;
his ex-fellow conspirators. In Waiting for Godot. Estragon
and Vladimir swing endlessly between boredom and pain. Just
:as aimlessly, they struggle onward toward a nebulous Arma
geddon with a non-existent Godot. Anouilh’s Joan, Sartre's
Hugo, Beckett's Estragon and Vladimir personify the ;
400 |
i
existentialist paradox. Dehumanized puppets engaged in a
spastic danse macabre, they are the creations of nay-saying,!
life-hating pessimists who have no love for humanity, no
understanding of its social needs, its spiritual aspira
tions .
With further reference to their ideological deficien
cies, most of the plays under consideration were regarded
by the critical consensus as propounding another paradox:
life is earnest, life is grim, so let us treat it with
mockery and laughter; let us also have done with solving
the insoluble problems of an insoluble universe. As in the
case of the existentialist paradox, cogent examples of ad
verse critical reaction might be drawn from a number of
plays. In Mademoiselle Colombe. the problem of a faithful
husband wronged by his faithless wife takes on the dimension
of boudoir farce. Whereas the wronged husband is deserving
of sympathy, the erring wife of scorn, we find the play
wright treating the whole affair with mockery and laughter.
Faced with the insoluble problem of adultery, Anouilh throws
up his hands and concludes by snickering at Julien and com
miserating with Colombe. In Duel of Angels, we have a simi
lar and equally unhappy reversal. Since to Giraudoux wit
is of more consequence than right, and adultery is an
401 |
: j
Insoluble problem, Lucile the pure becomes Lucile the prig;
iPaola the impure becomes Paola the warm and human.
i ,
From a dramaturgical point of view, the putative defi
ciencies of most of the plays under consideration revolved
laround this one central idea: Anouilh, Giraudoux, Sartre,
Beckett, and Camus were out of touch with the mainstream of
everyday life; they made their plays in the image of a per
sonal dream world peopled with dream-world characters,
articulate as they were unbelievable. Cogent examples of
adverse critical reaction to this dream-world approach to
reality may again be cited from a number of plays. In Ring ;
Round the Moon. Anouilh projects a shadowy half-world visit
ed by one-dimensional beings who flit hither and thither
like metaphysical butterflies; whence they came and where
they go, a dream wrapped within a dream. With Ondine. we
enter the never-never land of Giraudoux. Here, too, the
talk is long, the thought is short, the believability un
believable. Is Ondine herself part fact or all fantasy?
;Is Hans Ritter living, dying, dreaming? Or is he the un
fortunate victim of a prolonged cataleptic seizure? Final
ly, in The Respectful Prostitute, we have the dream world
I
I turned to nightmare. The metaphysical butterflies become
heavy-footed ghouls who flop hither and thither rather than ;
iflit. The sometime grace and charm of Anouilh and Girau- ;
doux give way to the lurid generalizations of Grand-Guignol I
melodrama. Bloodhounds hay, the audience quivers, and the
whole stage rocks with the hue and cry of race-hating lynch !
; i
mobs .
As a last comment on those qualities which confused,
dismayed, and disgusted the premiere critics, mention must
certainly be made of the emphasis on individualism manifest
in most of the plays under consideration. According to the
critical consensus, this was an unhealthy emphasis because
it stressed abnormality and alienation and to the same ex
tent abjured the individual from any sense of moral or
social responsibility. In effect, it was an emphasis which
made the measure of all things not God nor man but the in
dividual himself. Under these conditions of an autonomous
entity operating in a moral and social vacuum, the end
result of the emphasis on individualism is the moral monstet
Caligula.
Less lethal, but nonetheless pertinent, examples of
what the critics regarded as incipient moral monsters are
to be found among the various creations of Anouilh. The
The neurotic Antigone, the schizoid General St. Pe, his
paranoid counterpart in The Fighting Cock, finally the
I 403 |
j
masochistic Becket and the sadistic Henry provide a repre
sentative sampling. Significantly, the dramatis personae
of Time Remembered (Anouilh's one critical success) escaped !
|
this mass critical censure. Safely encased in the never-
i
to-be-shattered glass of a conventional play form, the ro
mantic Prince, the practical-minded Amanda, and the pixie
Duchess were accepted as conventional make-believe charac
ters in a conventional make-believe world.
In the case of Giraudoux, the critical consensus held
that the moral and spiritual vacuum of Anouilh and Camus was
more subtly induced, by implication rather than direction.
One might say that the critics found Giraudoux's touch
lighter and more delicate, the sense of abnormality and
alienation conveyed by the Madwoman and by Isabelle and
Ondine not so acrid and brittle as it was sad and despair
ing. One might add that the straightforward declaration of
Anouilh and Camus— we no longer despair: we reject— was
voiced by Giraudoux in the form of a protest, wistful and
poignant, which left hope hovering in the wings. To
Anouilh and Camus, for that matter to Beckett and Sartre,
the total collapse of the moral and social structure, the
nakedness and aloneness of the individual in an alien world
were a matter of clinical record. To Giraudoux (and in
404 i
Tiger at the Gates, he expressed it most eloquently) the ;
icollapse was imminent and inevitable. But it was not as
yet a fait accompli. In Tiger at the Gates, where he ex
pressed it most eloquently, Giraudoux is also most explicit ;
about his idea of a dying world not yet dead and the hero
who fights to save it. For the world of Tiger is an expli
cit world— despite its classic setting a familiar world— to
which Hector, an explicit and familiar hero, is bound in
spirit as well as body. Because Tiger was eloquent and
explicit, and because it postulated a world with which the
premiere critics could identify, Tiger was a critical suc
cess .
In retrospect, the stream of conscious pessimism which :
from Antigone onward flowed eastward from Paris to New York ;
was there met by a high wall of equally conscious optimism.
Hurled backward whence they came were the mockery and laugh
ter, the fatal indecisiveness in the face of urgent human
problems, the withdrawal from reality, the emphasis on ab
normality and alienation. Thereby was affirmed the unshak
able American belief that right shall triumph over wrong,
that what is right is real, that what is real is normal,
land that normalcy is happiness incarnate. With this stead- ;
fast affirmation, founded on the rock of this best of all
405 !
Ipossible worlds, the lie was given to the manifesto of the j
jcontemporary French theatre: legitimate questions are not
- ' !
always susceptible of logical answers, proof of which is the
question of life itself.
1
A P P E N D I X
APPENDIX
Achardf Marcel
I Know Mv Love (1949) Shubert Theatre (246 performances)
Patate (1958) Henry Miller's Theatre (8 performances)
Anouilhr Jean
Antigone (1946) Cort Theatre (64 performances)
Ring Round the Moon (1950) Martin Beck Theatre (69 per
formances )
Cry of the Peacock (1950) Mansfield Theatre (2 perform
ances )
Legend of Lovers (1951) Plymouth Theatre (22 performances)
Legend of Lovers (1953) Current Stages (12 performances)
Revival
Mademoiselle Colombe (1954) Longacre Theatre (61 perform
ances )
The Lark (1955) Longacre Theatre (229 performances)
*Thieves1 Carnival (1955) Cherry Lane Theatre (150 perform
ances )
Time Remembered (1957) Morosco Theatre (247 performances)
Waltz of the Toreadors (1957) Coronet Theatre (132 perform
ances)
408 j
|
Waltz of the Toreadors (1958) Coronet Theatre (31 perforin- i
ances) Revival
*Ardele (1958) Cricket Theatre (2 performances) Revival
*Waltz of the Toreadors (1959) Cricket Theatre (2 perform
ances ) Revival
*Leaend of Lovers (1959) Forty-First Street Theatre (32 per
formances) Revival
The Fighting Cock (1959) ANTA Theatre (87 performances)
*Waltz of the Toreadors (1959) Cricket Theatre (2 perform
ances) Revival
*Jeanette (1960) Maidman Playhouse (4 performances)
Becket (196 0) St. James Theatre (193 performances)
Ayrne. Marcel
Clerambard (1957) Rooftop Theatre (57 performances)
Moonbirds (1959) Cort Theatre (3 performances)
Beckettf Samuel
Waiting for Godot (1956) John Golden Theatre (60 perform
ances )
*Endgame (1958) Cherry Lane Theatre (104 performances)
Krapp's Last Tape (1960) Provincetown Playhouse (582 per
formances )
Camus. Albert
Caligula (196 0) Fifty-Fourth Street Theatre (38 perform
ances )
409 I
i
CocteauT Jean
The Eaale Has Two Heads (1947) Plymouth Theatre (29 per
formances )
The Infernal Machine (1954) Club Theatre (16 performances) |
*The Eaale Has Two Beads (1956) Phoenix Theatre (40 perform
ances) Revival
The Infernal Machine (1958) Phoenix Theatre (40 perform
ances ) Revival
Colette
Giai (1951) Fulton Theatre (219 performances)
Cheri (1959) Morosco Theatre (56 performances)
Second String (1960) Eugene O'Neill Theatre (29 perform
ances )
Fevdeauf Georges
Carnival in Flanders (1953) New Century Theatre (6 per
formances )
Hotel Paradiso (1957) Henry Miller's Theatre (22 perform
ances)
Look After Lulu (1959) Henry Miller's Theatre (39 perform
ances)
Genet. Jean
The Maids (1955) Tempo Playhouse (67 performances)
Deathwatch (1958) Theatre East (70 performances)
*The Balcony (1960) Circle in the Square Theatre (102 per
formances )
Ghelderoder Michel de
The Women at the Tomb (1959) Broadway Congregational Church
(8 performances)
Gheon f Henr i
Christmas in the Market Place Evangelical Lutheran
Church (7 performances)
Gidef Andre
The Immoralist (1952) Royale Theatre (96 performances)
Giraudoux. Jean
The Madwoman of Chaillot (1948) Belasco Theatre (365 per
formances )
The Enchanted (195 0) Lyceum Theatre (45 performances)
The Madwoman of Chaillot (195 0) New York City Center (16
performances) Revival
*The Enchanted (1951) Circle in the Square Theatre (8 per
formances) Revival
The Madwoman of Chaillot (1952) School of Performing Arts
(3 performances) Revival
The Madwoman of Chaillot (1953) Equity Library Theatre (2
performances)
Ondine (1954) Forty-Sixth Street Theatre (157 performances)
Tiger at the Gates (1955) Plymouth Theatre (224 perform
ances)
The Virtuous Island (1957) Carnegie Hall Playhouse (24
performances)
411 |
!
i
The Apollo of Bellac (1957) Carnegie Hall Playhouse (24 i
performances) |
l
The Enchanted (1958) Renata Theatre (32 performances) Re- j
, V - i.Y . a l j
i
Duel of Angels (1960) Helen Hayes Theatre (51 performances)!
i
I
I
Hus son j . Albert
My Three Angels (1953) Morosco Theatre (95 performances)
!
Ionesco. Eugene j
*The Chairs (1958) Phoenix Theatre (22 performances) i
*The Lesson (1958) Phoenix Theatre (22 performances) j
!
The Killers (1960) Seven Arts Theatre (16 performances) j
The New Tenant (i960) Royal Playhouse (6 performances)
i
I
Marceauf Felicien !
i
The Good Soup (1960) Plymouth Theatre (21 performances) j
! Mauriac, Frangois j
I
Asmodee (1958) Theatre 74 (32 performances) !
!
j
Obeyf Andre |
Noah (1947) Hecksher Theatre (2 performances) |
(
Noah (1949) YMHA on Ninety-second Street (2 performances) j
Revival I
i
i
Noah (1954) Broadway Congregational Church (14 perform- j
ances) Revival !
412
! Pagnol. Marcel
i
i i
I Topaze (1947) Morosco Theatre (1 performance)
I j
Fanny (1954) Majestic Theatre (239 performances) !
! , i
Roblesr Emmanuel
Montserrat (1949) Fulton Theatre (65 performances)
Roussinr Andre
Nina (1951) Royale Theatre (45 performances)
The Little Hut (1953) Coronet Theatre (29 performances)
Salacrouf Armand
Ni.ahts of Wrath (1947) Drama Workshop (26 performances)
Sartre. Jean-Paul
No Exit (1946) Biltmore Theatre (31 performances)
The Flies (1947) President Theatre (1 performance)
Red Gloves (1948) Mansfield Theatre (113 performances)
The Respectful Prostitute (1948) Cort Theatre (348 perform-;
ances)
*No Exit (1948) Cherry Lane Theatre (23 performances) Re
vival
The Victors (1948) New Stages Theatre (35 performances)
No Exit (1949) Selwyn Theatre (4 performances) Revival
f ;
; No Exit (1956) Theatre East (89 performances) Revival
Sauvaion. Marc Gilbert
Dear Charles (1954) Morosco Theatre (155 performances)
*According to the list of Off Broadway theatres pro
vided me by Michael Smith, these productions were specifi- ,
cally Off Broadway, which is to say that they were produced!
in Off Broadway houses.
1
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anouilh, Jean. Antigone. trans. Lewis Galantiere, and
Eurydice. London, 1952.
___________. Becket or the Honor of God, trans. Lucienne
Hill. New York, 1960.
______________. The Fighting Cock, adap. Lucienne Hill.
New York, 196 0.
______________. The Lark. trans. Christopher Fry. London,
1955 .
______________. The Lark, adap. Lillian Heilman. New York,
1956.
______________. Mademoiselle Colombe. adap. Lewis Kronen-
berger . New York, 1954.
______________. Pieces brillantes. Paris, 1951.
______________. Pieces costumees. Paris, 1960.
______________ . Pieces gringantes. Paris, 1960.
______________. Pieces noires. Paris, 1949.
______________. Pieces roses. Paris, 1949.
______________, Ring Round the Moon: a Charade with Music, ;
trans. Christopher Fry. New York, 1950.
: ______________. Time Remembered, trans. Patricia Moyes.
New York, 1958.
i j
Becker, William. "Some French Plays in Translation," Hudson
Review. Summer 1956, pp. 277-288.
415
jBeckett, Samuel. En attendant Godot. Paris, 1952.
: ________________. Waiting for Godot, trans. from "original
French text by the author. New York, 1954.
;Beigbeder, Marc. Le theatre en France depuis la Liberation
Paris, 1959.
Benedict, Stewart H. "Anouilh in America," Modern Language
Journal. December 1961, pp. 341-343.
Bentley, Eric. "Back to Broadway," Theatre Arts. November
1949.
_. The Dramatic Event. New York, 1954.
Blum, Daniel. Daniel Blum's Theatre World. 15 vols. New
York, 1946-1960.
Brde, Germaine. "The Madwoman of Chaillot: a Modern
Masque," Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, pp. 51-56,
Camus, Albert. Caligula and three other plays, trans.
Stuart Gilbert, with a preface written especially for
this edition and translated by Justin O'Brien. New
York, 1958.
. ______________. Le malentendu. piece en trois actes. Cali
gula, piece en quatre actes. Paris, 1950.
Chadwick, C. "Waiting for Godot: a Logical Approach,"
Symposium. Winter 1960, pp. 252-257.
Champigny, Robert. "Interpretation de En attendant Godot."
PMLA. June 1960, pp. 329-331.
__________________. "Theatre in a Mirror: Anouilh," Yale
French Studies. Winter 1954-55, pp. 57-64.
Clurman, Harold. Lies Like Truth. New York, 1958.
i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . "A Review of Antigone.1 1 Nation. April 21,
1956, pp. 347-348.
417
boindreau, Maurice. "The Evolution of the Contemporary
French Theatre," Yale French Studies. Winter 1954-55,
i pp. 27-33.
Craig, Edward Gordon. Books and Theatres. London, 1926.
J _____________________. On the Art of the Theatre . Edin
burgh, 1905.
. ____________________ . Towards a New Theatre. London, 1913.
De Laura, David J. "Anouilh's Other Antigone," French Re
view. October 1961, pp. 36-41.
Dirks, Mary Douglas. "Buskin and Farce: Notes on Pour
LucreceT" Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, pp. 31-41.
Downer, Alan S. Personal letter to me, April 2, 1962.
Drake, Alfred. "Review of Ring Round the Moon." Theatre
Arts. December 1950, p. 29.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York, 196.1.
European Theories of the Drama, ed. Barrett H, Clark. New
York, 1947.
Falk, Eugene H. "Theme and Motif in La Guerre de Troie
n'aura pas lieu." Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, pp.
17-30.
Fowlie, Wallace. Dionysus in Paris. New York, 1960.
Freedley, George. Personal letter to me, March 27, 1962.
Gassner, John. Theatre at the Crossroads. New York, 1960.
Giraudoux, Jean. Duel of Angels, trans. Christopher Fry.
New York, 1959. i
j ________________ . The Enchanted, adap. Maurice Valency. New^
York, 1950.
• ___________ . La folle de Chaillot. Paris, 1946.
418 :
!
i
i
;Giraudoux, Jean. Four Plays. adapted and with an introduc- i
tion by Maurice Valency. New York, 1958.
La Guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu. Pa
ris, 1958.
|
j _______________ . Intermezzo. Paris, 1933. !
________________. The Madwoman of Chaillot. adap. Maurice
Valency. New York, 1947.
________________. Ondine, piece en trois actes d'apres la
conte de Frederic de la Motte Fouque. Paris, 1939.
| _______________ . Pour Lucrece . Paris, 1953.
, _______________ . Theatre. edition illustree en couleurs
d'apres les maquettes de decors et de costumes des
creations. Paris, 1954.
________________. Tiger at the Gates. trans. Christopher
Fry. New York, 1956.
Griffin, Alice. "A Comparison of Fry's and Heilman's Lark,"
Theatre Arts. May 1956, pp. 8-10.
Grossvogel, David I. The Self-Conscious Stage in Modern
French Drama. New York, 1958.
Guicharnaud, Jacques. Modern French Theatre from Giraudoux
to Beckett. New Haven, 1961.
Hooker, Ward. "Giraudoux1s Last Play," Hudson Review.
Winter 1959-60,. pp. 604-611.
Jarrett-Kerr, Martin. "The Dramatic Philosophy of Jean-Paul
Sartre," Tulane Drama Review. June 1957, pp. 41-48.
Jones, Robert. The Alienated Hero in Modern French Drama.
Athens, Ga., 1962.
Kemp, Robert. La vie du theatre. Paris, 1956.
iKern, Edith. "Drama Stripped for Inaction," Yale French
Studies. Winter 1954-55, pp. 41-47.
419 |
I
, ’ |
jKnepler, Henry W. "The Lark: Translation versus Adapta- ;
tion: a Case History," Modern Drama. May 1958, pp.
| 15-28.
Leefmans, Bert. "Giraudoux's Other Muse," Kenyon Review,
Autumn 1954, pp. 611-527.
Le Sage, Laurence. "The Theatre of Jean Anouilh," The
American Society Legion of Honor Magazine. Winter 1952,;
pp. 319-324.
■Le Sage, Laurent. Jean Giraudoux: His Life and Works.
University Park, Pa., 1959.
Le Sage, Lawrence. Jean Giraudoux, Surrealism,, and the
German Romantic Ideal. University of Illinois Studies
in Language and Literature No.. Urbana, 1952.
Lewis, R. W. B. "Caligula: or the Realm of the Impossibly"
Yale French Studies. Spring i960, pp. 52-58.
Mantle, Robert Burns. The Burns Mantle Best Plavs and the
Year Book of the Drama in America. 30 vols. New York,
1946-1960.
Mason, Hamilton. French Theatre in New York 1899-1939.
New York, 1940.
May, Georges. "Jean Giraudoux and Dramaturgy," Yale French
Studies. Winter 1954-55, pp. 88-99.
Popkin, Henry. "Camus as Dramatist," Partisan Review.
Summer 1959, pp. 499-503.
Pronko, Leonard Cabell. Avant-Garde: the Experimental
Theatre in France. Berkeley, 1962.
| _______________________ . The World of Jean Anouilh. Berke
ley, 1961.
Pucciani, Oreste. "The 'Infernal Dialogue' of Giraudoux and
Sartre," Tulane Drama Review. May 1959, pp. 57-75.
Ridge, George Ross. "Meaningful Choice in Sartre's Drama,"
French Review. May 1957, pp. 435-441.
420 !
i
■Sartre, Jean-Paul. Crime Passionnel. trans. Kitty Black.
London, 1961.
; ___________________. "The Importing of Being Earnest," The
Saturday Review. January 16, 1954, pp. 30-31.
__________________ . Les mains sales. Paris, 1948.
__________________ . La putain respectueuse. Paris, 1946.
Schmidt, Sandra. Personal letter to me, March 29, 1962.
Schuyler, William M. "Anouilh and the Commedia dell'Arte,"
R4vue de Litterature Comoaree. janv-mars 1962, pp. 84-
95 .
Smith, Michael. Personal letter to me, April 5, 1962.
Swire, Willard. Personal letter to me, June 26, 1962.
Valency, Maurice. "About the Play," Theatre Arts. October
1950, p. 50.
. "Some Facts about a Myth," Theatre Arts.
December 1954, pp. 32-33.
. "The World of Jean Anouilh," Theatre
Arts - July 1957, pp. 31-32, 92-93.
Vilar, Jean. "The Director and the Play," Yale French
Studies. Winter 1954-55, pp. 12-26.
Zolotow, Maurice. "Alfred Lunt, Director," Theatre Arts.
April 1954, pp. 27-29.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Theological And Dramatic Concepts Of The End Of Man In The Middle Ages

PDF

The Literary Kinship Of Leo N. Tolstoy And Romain Rolland: A Comparativestudy Of The Epic Dimensions Of 'War And Peace' And 'Jean-Christophe'

PDF

Plutarch On The Glory Of The Athenians: A Reassessment

PDF

The Concept Of Agent Intelligence In Aristotle: A Solution In Accordance With The Traditional Problem Of The One And The Many

PDF

The Act Itself And The Word: A Study Of Abstraction Versus The Concrete In The Work Of Albert Camus

PDF

A comparison of the social milieu in Balzac's "La peau de chagrin" and Petronius' "Satyricon"

PDF

An Analysis Of Antithesis As A Basis Of Epic Rhetorical Patterns

PDF

The Poetic Styles Of Miguel De Barrios

PDF

The Literary Styles Of Jean-Paul Sartre And William Faulkner: An Analysis, Comparison, And Contrast

PDF

The Concept Of The 'Mystical Body Of Christ' In Selected Poems By Gerard Manley Hopkins

PDF

G. W. Leibniz' 'Collectanea Etymologica': Ein Beitrag Zur Geschichte Deretymologie' (German Text)

PDF

The United States Navy In The Californias, 1840-1850

PDF

Servius' Knowledge Of Juvenal: An Analysis Of The Juvenalian Quotations In Servius' Commentary On Vergil

PDF

The Critical Reception Of The Dramas Of Albert Camus In The United States, 1945-1964

PDF

The 'Quomodo' Manuscript: Historical Introduction, Translation, And Critical Apparatus

PDF

Form As Theme: A Study Of Andre Gide

PDF

A Structural Analysis Of Shakespeare'S Early Comedies

PDF

Tibullus I: Theme And Technique: "Di Tibi Divitias Dederunt"

PDF

Studies In The Influence Of The 'Commedia Dell'Arte' On English Drama: 1605-1800

PDF

The Major Plays Of Tennessee Williams, 1940 To 1960

Asset Metadata

Creator Mccarthy, Thomas Justin (author)

Core Title American premiere criticism of selected contemporary French plays produced on the New York stage 1946-1960

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Language and Literature, modern

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

Tag Literature, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Belle, Rene F. (committee chair), Butler, James H. (committee member), O'Neil, Edward N. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-161184

Unique identifier UC11359257

Identifier 6508920.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-161184 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6508920.pdf

Dmrecord 161184

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mccarthy, Thomas Justin

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