07 May 2009

The Group of Hissed Authors


On Tuesday evening, 14 April 1874, five illustrious writers--novelists and short-story writers, essayists and journal writers, and poets--gathered around a “table bien garnie” in the Café Riche at 16 Boulevard des Italiens in Paris. The men, four Frenchmen--Émile Zola, Gustave Flaubert, Alphonse Daudet, and Edmond de Goncourt--and Ivan Turgenev, an honorary Frenchman, came together to celebrate, if you will, their common failure. 

You see, for all their success in letters, these men, perhaps the most renowned writers in France at the time, had all suffered the ignominy of hearing their first efforts at writing for the theater booed off the stages of Paris (or, in Turgenev’s case, Moscow and St. Petersburg).

Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons (1862) is considered one of the finest pieces of 19th-century fiction ever written. His play A Month in the Country (produced in 1872) was a major success and remained in the repertoire of theater troupes throughout his life and after. But his early dramatic forays were of a decidedly romantic nature, often in verse, and were far less well received. 

Where It Is Thin, There It Breaks was produced at St. Petersburg’s Alexandrinsky Theater in 1851; Broke (or A Poor Gentleman), also at the Alexandrinsky, was staged in 1852; and The Family Charge (or The Parasite) premièred at the Bolshoi Dramatic Theater, Moscow, in 1862. None were successes--though Daudet quipped of Turgenev’s reported theatrical failures: “Russia’s far away, we can’t go there and see.”

(The truth of Daudet’s observation is, as it happens, part of the explanation for the difficulty in pinning down the details of the first productions of Turgenev’s early plays. While there is documentation for the Paris premières of the stage works of the French writers, 19th-century records from Moscow and St. Petersburg are hard to come by. 

(The other part of the problem is translating and transliterating the titles of his plays: there are just too many permutations. More precise information is certainly available in Russian, but my computer doesn’t handle Cyrillic type very well and my Russian is weaker than my French.)

The Brothers Goncourt, Edmond and his younger brother Jules, were famous for their Journal des Goncourt, a fascinating (and often very personal) view of the Paris society of their age from 1851-96, the blog of its day. 

They also endowed the Prix Goncourt, France’s most prestigious literary award. But in 1865, Edmond’s play Henriette Maréchal was panned at the Comédie-Française (though it was revived more successfully in 1885). It opened at the house of Molière on 5 December and closed after a hostile reception on 16 December.

Daudet wrote L’Arlésienne (The girl from Arles) in 1872, based on one of his sketches in Lettres de Mon Moulin (Letters from My Mill, 1869), and it failed miserably (until Georges Bizet, composer of Carmen, put it to music and it became a minor hit in 1885). It was first performed at the Théâtre du Vaudeville on 1 October 1872 and withdrawn after fifteen performances (21 October). Daudet returned to novel-writing and never tried to write another play.

Zola’s novel Thérèse Raquin, his first major work, was published in 1867. The writer became renowned as the founder of literary Naturalism (which influenced Ibsen, who transferred the writing style to the stage). 

Zola, wanting “to kick life into the theatre's moribund procedures,” adapted his own novel for the stage; the play opened at the Théâtre de la Renaissance on 11 July 1873--and promptly closed after nine performances. 

Thérèse Raquin was not revived for ten years after its initial failure, but it continued to be played afterwards and has been recognized as an early example of stage Naturalism, a precursor to Strindberg (who acknowledged its influence) and Ibsen (who didn’t).

Flaubert’s attempt at playwriting, Le Candidat (The Candidate), a dramatic comedy, appeared on the stage at the Théâtre du Vaudeville on 11 March 1874 and, after critics complained of the wooden dialogue and flat, caricaturish characters and audiences stayed away in droves, it closed on 14 March after only four performances. It was the only play Flaubert, author of the classic Madame Bovary (1857), ever wrote on his own and the only one staged during his lifetime.

It was apparently Flaubert’s notion, after Le Candidat was “booed off the stage,” that the would-be dramatists meet at what he dubbed “Dinners for Hissed Authors” and the first colleague he invited to join him was Zola. The gang eventually grew to five and Turgenev came up with the sobriquet le Groupe des Auteurs Sifflés

The Group of Five (or simply “The Five”), as they were also called, sometimes met at Daudet’s home at the Hôtel de Lamoignon at 24 Rue de Pavée and occasionally at cafés, but they usually met on a Sunday at Flaubert’s house at 240 Rue du Faubourg St.-Honoré. 

There was always plenty of good food and drink, and the hissed authors were undoubtedly well lubricated with wine and brandy. (Hey, they were French, weren’t they? Mais, bien sûr!) Turgenev was usually the first to arrive, and Flaubert would “embrace [him] like a brother.” The long, raucous evenings often lasted until 2 or 3 a.m.

It has been in the back of my mind that writing the scene that depicts these extraordinary gatherings would be a fruitful task. It has to be innately theatrical given the personalities involved and the milieu--a well-oiled, wide-ranging, unrestrained, and literate conversation. Perhaps not a lot of action, but the wit should flow almost endlessly! 

I even have a companion piece for the scene: In the summers of the early 1940s, Tennessee Williams vacationed in Provincetown, Mass., on Cape Cod. He and his drinking buddies used to gather in the evening at Captain Jack’s Wharf, a wooden pier that jutted out into P’town Harbor behind a bar above which Williams rented a room. 

This group was composed of a really varied crew, including painter Jackson Pollock; Lee Krasner, a student of Hans Hofmann's P'town art school and later Pollock’s wife; Kip Kiernan, Williams’s dancer-lover who modeled at Hofmann’s school; Joe Hazan, another dancer friend who modeled for Hofmann’s students; Valeska Gert, a German immigrée nightclub owner who performed satirical political caricatures; poet Robert Duncan; Fritz Bultman, the New Orleans-born painter and another student of Hofmann; Bultman’s wife Jeanne; music and dance critic Edwin Denby; and maybe even Hofmann as the elder statesman. 

(Williams at this time also became friends with Tallulah Bankhead while she was appearing at the Cape Playhouse up the Cape in Dennis, so she could make an appearance, just for the theatricality of it.) Unhappily, I’m no playwright, so I haven’t really attempted to write the scenes--just imagine them. (Anybody got a holodeck I can use?)

The meetings of les Sifflés, full of wit and satire by all accounts, continued monthly until Flaubert’s death of a brain hemorrhage on 8 May 1880. The men were all more than mere colleagues and fellow writers--they were friends; Flaubert and Turgenev were even best friends and Zola was considered Turgenev’s spiritual son. Their stage failures only served as an excuse to tease one another and dream and theorize with great enthusiasm. 

“From three o’clock to six o’clock we went at a gallop through different subjects,” wrote Zola. De Goncourt, for example, once scolded Turgenev that he was “saturated with femininity,” to which the Russian writer replied, “With me neither books nor anything in the world could take the place of a woman. How can I make that plain to you?” 

(Turgenev, by the way, never married, but one of the reasons for his long stays in Paris is often said to have been his lifelong love of a married woman, the singer and actress Pauline Viardot (1821-1910) whom he first met when he heard her sing in Russia in 1843. He followed her to Paris two years later.) 

On another occasion, de Goncourt records, “We began with a long conversation on the special aptitudes of writers suffering from constipation and diarrhea.” But much of the conversation was literary. According to Henry James (1843-1916; American-British novelist), a friend and occasional visitor to the salon, the Dîners des Auteurs Sifflés went like this:

What was discussed in that little smoke-clouded room was chiefly questions of taste, questions of art and form; and the speakers, for the most part, were in æsthetic matters radicals of the deepest dye. . . . This state of mind was never more apparent than one afternoon when ces messieurs delivered themselves on the subject of an incident which had just befallen one of them. "L'Assommoir" of Emile Zola had been discontinued in the journal through which it was running as a serial, in consequence of repeated protests from the subscribers. The subscriber, as a type of human imbecility, received a wonderful dressing, and the Philistine in general was roughly handled. There were gulfs of difference between Turgenev and Zola, but Turgenev, who, as I say, understood everything, understood Zola too, and rendered perfect justice to the high solidity of much of his work.

Les Sifflés were a somewhat motley bunch, however, despite their connection as men of letters (and failed playwrights). For all Turgenev’s seriousness and intellectuality, Daudet, for instance, was something of a roué and reprobate. The youngest of the Five, born a month after Zola, Daudet lost his virginity at 12--and he is rumored to have slept with all his friends' mistresses. He died of apoplexy brought on by advanced syphilis at the age of 57.

Ivan Turgenev (1818-83) was something of the éminence grise among les Sifflés, it seems. Even as a foreigner, as one of les Cinq he was accepted almost as a French writer. An imposing figure--he was 6’ 3” with an athletic build--he was known among his comrades as “that Russian giant.” 

But he was soft-spoken, with an almost feminine voice. He was handsome and charming, but timid, restrained, and gentle. Despite the prominence of the others, however, even Zola seemed to feel Turgenev’s leadership. 

He cherished harmony and restraint, avoiding extremes of manner in both his life and his art, and remained a balanced, cultured gentleman all his life. He held himself aloof of political and philosophical creeds, and espoused a kind of agreeable atheism. Guy de Maupassant (1850-93; master of the short story), another visitor, recounts:

Tourgenev [sic; the French spelling of his Russian name] used to bury himself in an arm chair and talk slowly in a gentle voice, rather weak and hesitating, yet giving to the things he said an extraordinary charm and interest. Flaubert would listen to him with religious reverence, fixing his wide blue eyes upon his friend's fine face and answering in his sonorous voice, which came like a clarion blast from under that veteran Gaul's moustache of his. Their conversations rarely touched upon the current affairs of life, seldom wandered away from literary history.

Turgenev was born into a wealthy, aristocratic, landed family and was sent abroad for his education; after studies at both the Universities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, he went to the University of Berlin where he read philosophy. 

(Most of the other Sifflés either left school at young ages or finished only a secondary education. Only Flaubert, the son of a successful surgeon, had a comfortable youth and was sent to Paris to study law--a profession for which he determined he was unsuited.) 

Fluent in French, German, Spanish, English, and Italian, the Russian would bring along books by Goethe, Pushkin, or Swinburne and translate poetry from them. He regarded Flaubert as the most extraordinary writer in France and Madame Bovary the most forceful piece of writing of the century. Like Zola, Turgenev wished to make his mark on the world as a dramatist rather than as a novelist (though his theatrical reputation is founded on a single play, A Month in the Country). 

The oldest among the Group of Five, Turgenev served as a sort of unofficial ambassador to the Russian émigré community in Paris, helping out young writers, often at his own expense. 

Like all the Five, he had a wide and varied circle of acquaintances, even in Paris: in 1879, he was, for example, invited by the actual Russian ambassador, Prince Nikolai Orlov (1827-85; Russian ambassador to France, 1871-80), to lunch at the embassy with Czarevich (crown prince) Alexander--later Czar Alexander III (1845-94; reigned: 1881-94), father of the last Czar (Nicholas II [1868-1918]; reigned: 1894-1917).  

(On the other hand, he feuded with two of the other most illustrious writers of Russia, Leo Tolstoy [1828-1910] and Fyodor Dostoyevsky [1821-81], until shortly before his death.) 

A lifelong hypochondriac, he was diagnosed with an actual fatal illness, spinal cancer, as early as 1876. He died of the disease just shy of the age of 65.

Gustave Flaubert (1821-80), it seems, liked to read aloud at the gatherings. He especially liked to read examples of bad writing and jeer at the author’s poor sense of rhythm. He’d point out needless repetition, clichés, and infelicitously resonant passages. 

The author of Madam Bovary had the build of a guardsman but his health had been precarious since childhood. He was neurotic and worked in hermit-like seclusion, devoted to his writing. Like Daudet and Jules de Goncourt, Flaubert was infected with syphilis. 

But it was bouts of epilepsy that endangered his life, and he was constrained from strenuous activity and, especially, emotional excitement. For this reason, he felt he must become an observer of life, not a participant, and he became a tireless worker who imposed upon himself high standards for his art. 

He worked in solitude, sometimes taking a week to complete one page. He was famous for persistently searching for le mot juste--the appropriate word. 

Flaubert was also shy, though extremely sensitive and arrogant. He could pass from silence to indignant rage, emitting a flow of language. Flaubert detested anything bourgeois, petty-respectable, platitudinous, or self-satisfied. He can be said to have made cynicism into an art form.

Edmond de Goncourt (1822-96) was the elder half of les Frères Goncourt, who collaborated so closely that even after the death of Jules (1830-70), they were almost never mentioned separately. 

Neither brother ever married, and they prided themselves on sharing a Rubenesque blonde mistress. Polished, aristocratic, neurasthenic, Edmond was of an artistic and nervous temperament and, with his brother, cultivated a sense of persecution. 

Their first novel, En 1851, was published the day after the coup of 2 December 1851 (which brought Louis Napoleon [1808-73; nephew of Emperor Napoleon I (1769-1821; reigned: 1804-14 and March-June 1815)] to power as Emperor Napoleon III [1852-70] and in which Daudet’s patron, the duc de Morny [1811-65], had been instrumental) and quickly sank into oblivion.

The next year, the brothers were arrested and tried (but acquitted) on the charge of outrage à la morale publique for quoting a mildly erotic 16th-century verse in an article; and when Henriette Maréchal opened in 1865, it generated anti-government demonstrations when students from the Latin Quarter lined up on opening night to jeer the play because the de Goncourts were considered anti-Republicans and intimates of Princess Mathilde (1820-1904), a niece of Napoleon I.  

The student-protesters believed that only the influence of the princess had made it possible to stage the play.  Gradually the furor over the play died down, but then an attack was mounted from the opposite camp.  Empress Eugénie (1826-1920; Empress of the French: 1853-70), wife of Napoleon III and an enemy of Princess Mathilde, succeeded in having the play banned on 17 December 1865. 

Between 1851 and 1870, the brothers published their famous Journal together, a chronicle of the Belle Époque (1871-1914) in Paris as they witnessed it at first hand.  As a last tandem effort in the Goncourt Journal, Edmond recorded the details of Jules’s excruciating death from syphilis. 

Edmond continued the Journal on his own until his own death, when he endowed the Académie Goncourt, a group of ten writers of great esteem in France who each December award the Prix Goncourt, the most prestigious French literary award, given for "the best imaginary prose work of the year" in the French language. Winners have included Georges Duhamel (1884-1966), Marcel Proust (1871-1922), André Malraux (1901-76), Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), Romain Gary (Lithuanian-born French; 1914-80), Michel Tournier (1924-2016), and Marguerite Duras (1914-96).


Émile Zola (1840-1902) became friends with future Impressionist painter Paul Cézanne (1839-1906) when they were youths, but the friendship foundered over Zola’s portrait of Cézanne in L’Œuvre (The Masterpiece, 1886). 

He worked as a political journalist and was very opinionated, a harsh and outspoken critic of the government (until the establishment of the Third Republic in 1870). Like Victor Hugo (1802-85), to whom the younger writer was a sort of political apprentice and follower, Zola did not hide his dislike of Napoleon III, who had used his presidency of the Second Republic (1848-52) as a springboard to become emperor in 1852. 

At the same time, though an intense moralist, he was staunchly anti-Catholic. He was, nevertheless, a best-selling author and a French literary star in his day and appeared among the literary elite of Paris as a statesman and bon-vivant. 

Zola was intrigued by contemporary scientific theories, especially Charles Darwin’s (1809-82) evolutionary system (On the Origin of Species, 1859; The Descent of Man, 1871) but also the writings of Prosper Lucas (1808-85) on heredity (Traité philosophique et physiologique de l'hérédité naturelle [“Philosophical and physiological treatise on natural heredity”], 1847-50) and the ideas of critic and historian Hippolyte Taine (1828-93). 

He was struck with the relevance of Darwin's theories to everyday life, particularly the life of the poor, who had to struggle constantly to survive. (Zola’s early existence in Paris was direct experience of this reality.) 

The writer, considered the founder of the Naturalist literary movement (though he began writing as a Romanticist), believed that the tenets and methods of science were applicable to other disciplines, including art and writing, and that artists should use their art and other means to construct "the best society." Toward this end, Zola sought to reveal social injustices and societal failings in his novels and plays. 

Zola championed a "slice of life" drama presented with a minimum of artifice, applying what became known as “scientific naturalism.” He believed that the quickest and surest way for a budding author to achieve recognition was through a successful play so, like Turgenev, it was in the theater that Zola wanted to make his mark. 

In “L'Argent dans la littérature” (“The Influence of Money in Literature,” 1880; part of The Experimental Novel), Zola writes that financial rewards in theater are greater than a novelist could ever hope to achieve and such "bread-and-butter" considerations were as important in the author’s decision to write for the stage as was his genuine passion for the theater. 

At the end of his life, Zola’s most notable act was his advocacy for Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935), a Jewish army officer accused in 1894 of treason and imprisoned on Devil’s Island, the only prisoner there. 

In behalf of Dreyfus, whose actual guilt was dubious from the start, Zola wrote “J’Accuse” (1898) and campaigned for Dreyfus’s exhonoration (which came in 1906, four years after Zola’s death). 

During the process of Zola’s advocacy, however, he became a target of the government himself and was sentenced to imprisonment for libel in 1898. He escaped to England, and only returned in 1899, after Dreyfus had been cleared and the charges against Zola had been dismissed. 

The great author died of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty chimney (though there always remained suspicions that he had been murdered by political enemies). Dreyfus attended the funeral, but had to come in disguise.

Alphonse Daudet (1840-97) was short of stature: Charles Dickens (1812-70), to whom Daudet was often compared, called him "my little brother in France" and de Goncourt called him "mon petit Daudet." 

Born in Nîmes, he grew up in Provence (hence, L’Arlésienne--"The girl from Arles"), the same region that enraptured Vincent van Gogh (Dutch Post-Impressionist painter; 1853-90). Daudet came to Paris in 1857, at the age of 17--and almost immediately contracted syphilis from a lectrice de la cour, a woman employed to read aloud at court. (At least, he bragged, his disease came from “a classier, indeed more literary, source” than that of his friends.) 

In 1861, Daudet became a private secretary to the duc de Morny, the Minister of the Interior and illegitimate half-brother of Napoleon III, then Emperor of the Second French Empire; he remained in that position until de Morny’s death in 1865. 

(De Morny had helped organize the coup d’état of 2 December 1851 which brought Louis Napoleon to the throne, a circumstance which Daudet’s future colleague, Zola, abhorred.) 

Daudet collaborated in writing a number of one-act plays (La Dernière idole, 1862; Les Absents, 1864; L'Œillet blanc, 1865), all helped toward the stage by de Morny's influence. 

Despite his reputation as a reprobate, however, Daudet was kind, generous, and sociable. He was a passionate observer of his surroundings and an unstoppable talker. He was an intimate friend of Edmond de Goncourt, who seemed to have adopted Daudet as a surrogate sibling after his younger brother, Jules, died of syphilis. 

(Ironically, de Goncourt would have to witness his dear friend suffer the same affliction that took his brother.) De Goncourt died in Daudet’s house, 18 months before Daudet himself died, collapsing at the dinner table and expiring almost instantly of a cerebral hemorrhage. 

Today, Daudet’s writings are mostly overlooked, though he kept a remarkable account of the progress of his illness which wasn’t published in France (as La Doulou, the Provençal word for la douleur, or ‘pain’) until 1930 and wasn’t translated into English (as In the Land of Pain) until 2002.

That’s the cast of characters. The setting would be Flaubert’s house, of course, around the dinner table and in the salon after the meal as the men smoked and drank and jousted. (All the participants being writers--most of them chroniclers and reporters of one sort or another as well--many of them recorded their accounts of this time one way or another; many also left letters that have been published.) 

The larger setting, however, the world of Paris and Europe around the Five, was a busy and tumultuous place during this period, giving the writers plenty of material to talk about. In the 30 years between 1850 and the end of les Dîners des Sifflés in 1880, much of their world shifted drastically. 

The Second Republic, born in 1848, came to an end in 1852 when Louis Napoleon took the title Emperor Napoleon III and launched the Second Empire. Napoleon III put a puppet emperor, Maximilian I, on the throne of Mexico in 1864, only to see him overthrown and executed in 1867. 

Shortly before the Dîners began, France was engaged in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) and Paris was occupied by German troops through 1872. This ended the Second Empire and the Third Republic, which would last until World War II, was declared in 1870. 

A year later, the Paris Commune, a coalition of the working class, took over the government of France for three months.

Turgenev’s native Russia went to war against France, England, and the Ottoman Turks in the Crimea from 1853 to 1856 and then saw the serfs freed, an act for which Turgenev had long campaigned, in 1861. 

Next door, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the Dual Monarchy, was formed in 1867 and elsewhere on the continent, Italy was unified as a kingdom in 1861 and Germany as an empire in 1871. 

From 1877 to 1878, Russia was again at war with the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War. On the other side of the world, Japan, the Floating Kingdom, was somewhat forcibly opened to the West in 1852. Karl Marx published Das Kapital in 1867, a small event that would soon help change the world for decades.

Politics wasn’t the only field in which turmoil was enlivening the world in those few years. Science and medicine were making huge advances with discoveries by the likes of Louis Pasteur (French; 1822-95), Joseph Lister (English; 1827-1912), and Gregor Mendel (Austrian; 1822-84). 

Darwin published On the Origin of the Species, a profound influence especially on Zola’s thinking, in 1859. Anthropologists and archeologists were making discoveries about the human past almost annually it seemed. 

And the world les Cinq were learning more and more about was getting smaller at the same time: steamships were replacing sail and increasing in size and speed; railroads were opening all over Europe and the rest of the world; the Suez Canal opened in 1869 shortening the time to travel between West and East by weeks. 

And communication was getting better and faster: the telephone was invented in 1876 and the telegraph was tying the world together ever more tightly: the Transaltlantic Cable was completed in 1866. 

Newspapers were proliferating: The New York Times was founded in 1851, Figaro became a daily in Paris in 1854, the Daily Telegraph began in London in 1855, the Atlantic Monthly was launched in 1857, The Nation in 1865, the same year as both the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner

At the same time, photography was becoming so simple that even amateurs were able to take pictures of all the new worlds they were visiting and show others exactly what things were like in exotic, far-way places.

The effect these technological developments had on the worlds of art and literature was shattering. The curiosity over what other parts of the earth looked like and how the people there really behaved and lived began to shift the perspective of writers from Romanticism, the world of dreams and flights of imagination, to Realism and Naturalism, the world of facts and observation. 

The Five were at the forefront of the shift, forming the conventions for the new writing and spreading the principals abroad and into the field of dramatic writing. Witnesses to the changes in politics, technology, and industry, les Cinq were the movers of the change in written art.

Around them, other changes were happening, too. In painting and sculpture, Realism was giving way to Impressionism--almost an opposite reaction to that of the writer’s art. 

My theory has always been that the spread of photography was greatly to blame for this. As long as it was decreasingly the responsibility of the artist to capture life as it is, and increasingly the job of the photographer, then the artist was driven to do what photographs didn’t do: portray the world as only an artist could see it. 

As objectivity became the domain of the photographer (and eventually the cinematographer), the artist turned to subjectivity: impressions. (There were other influences, too, of course. The focus on the middle and working classes, for example, and on the workaday world, the world of the street, the field, the café, were often the subjects of the Impressionists--but seldom of the Realists or the Romanticists.) 

In 1863, the official, established galleries in Paris mounted an exhibit of the approved artists, rejecting work by new aritists. Napoleon III decreed that these artists, who included Gustave Courbet (French; 1819-77), Edouard Manet (French; 1832-83), James McNeill Whistler (American; 1834-1903), Camille Pissarro (French; 1830-1903), and Zola’s school chum Paul Cézanne, should show their work in a gallery adjacent to the main Salon. It became known as the Salon des Refusés, the “exhibition of rejects.” 

(Zola wrote a fictionalized account of this event, L’Œuvre, the work that split him and Cézanne.) 

Eleven years later, the year les Sifflés began their gatherings, the Exhibition of the Impressionists--so titled by an art critic who took the name from one of Claude Monet’s (French; 1840-1926) paintings, Impression: soleil levant--was the sensation of Paris. The Impressionists had arrived and successfully stormed the gates of Paris.

This was the world in which les Cinq met each month, the world they wrote about, talked about, and argued about.

30 April 2009

'Chasing Manet'

On Thursday, 16 April, my friend Diana and I went to 59E59 to see the last of our subscription shows at Primary Stages, the world première of Tina Howe's Chasing Manet. I'm not a big fan of Howe--not that I have anything against her work, I just don't follow it much. I think the last thing of hers I saw was Coastal Disturbances with Tim Daly (brother of Tyne) and a then-unknown Annette Bening, a good many years ago. (I remember that I saw it at the time I did an interview with Carole Rothman, co-artistic director of Second Stage and director of the production. I was editing Directors Notes, a newsletter for directors/artistic directors, at the time. That was way back in the middle '80s.) The Times had already run its review of Manet, of course, and it was middling, though Ben Brantley had some good things to say about Jane Alexander's acting and that of her stage partner, Lynn Cohen. A feature on Howe's long friendship with Alexander had appeared in the Times the day before and it had hinted at some aspects of the play that didn't bode well for me, so I guess I was primed to read what Brantley said the next day. As my friends already know, I have a problem with Brantley's reviews and I distrust his evaluations, but this case seemed like the adage about the stopped clock.

I'm sad to report that both Times pieces were right. (The article on the friendship wasn't meant to be an evaluation of the production; it just let some kitties out the sack.) Chasing Manet, which is old-fashioned dramaturgy, a well-made play, just isn't terribly exciting, either dramatically or theatrically. One review quipped that it's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest meets The Golden Girls--the TV comedy came up a lot in coverage--and I'd agree to an extent--though I'd add Heroes, I think. It's simplistic, but not inaccurate. Like Heroes, Manet's a study of the loneliness of age and the response of not going gentle into the night (with apologies to Dylan Thomas, whoever he was). As a theme, even ignoring the recent Heroes, that's been pretty well worked over, I think. There are scores of plays, movies, and TV shows that dissect that aspect of life from just about every angle and unless the writer has a really new perspective to jig things up some, she's covering well-plowed ground. The best acting in the world probably won't liven that up a whole lot. (I guess I could really just stop here, couldn't I? But I'm logorrheic, so I won't.)

Chasing Manet is the story of Catherine Sargent, a once-famous modernist painter, who now lives in the Mount Airy Nursing Home in the Bronx ("where they have that vulgar cheer")--Riverdale, her son emphatically reminds her--because, among her other ailments, she is virtually blind. The matriarch of a patrician Boston family, she is a cousin of John Singer Sargent and was once a lover of André Malraux. Her son, Royal Lowell, has installed her in this residence so she can be nearer to him (though he doesn't visit as often as he planned). Royal's something of a disappointment to Catherine: he's a professor at Columbia where, instead of writing poetry, he just teaches it. Catherine chants, "Out! Out! I want out!" and there's no place she'd rather go off to than the Paris of her youth and her dreams. When the play opens, her previous roommate has just died during the night, and Catherine gets a new one, a Jewish woman named Rennie with a swiss-cheese memory and focus. (She insists Rennie's short for Ramona, but her daughter keeps reminding her that that's her mother's name.) Rennie suffers from dementia and hallucinates; she thinks she's at a hotel and spends a lot of her time in conversation with her deceased husband, Herschel. Catherine persuades Rennie to act as her accomplice in an escape to Paris on the QE2: Rennie will be Catherine's eyes; Catherine will be Rennie's legs. (I won't say whether they succeed--unless you decide you're never going to see the play and insist I give away the ending.)

The two main characters are polar opposites, which seems quite contrived. Catherine is taciturn, erudite, aristocratic, self-centered, somewhat arrogant, depressed, and lonely. She spends the first several minutes of the play asleep in a near-fetal posture with her face to the wall. She's a little misanthropic, but though she says little most of the time, she has all her wits. Her body is failing, but her mind still works fine. Rennie, on the other hand, is loquacious, happy, friendly, loving and loved, and comfortably middle class. She's confined to a wheelchair or, for short distances, a walker, but it's her mind that's failing more than her body. But she's always surrounded by family who come to visit in packs. Just about every characteristic that's displayed is made a study in contrasts: Catherine dresses in a white satin nightgown--Rennie is partial to cotton flowered prints, sort of a Jewish Edith Bunker; Catherine wears her snow white hair long and flowing--Rennie is never without a hat over her nebbishy gray mop; Catherine is elegant--Rennie is dowdy-cute.

It turns out that much of this is drawn from Howe's own life and family. Catherine, a character the playwright has penned before in different guises, is based on Howe's Aunt Maddy but salted with aspects of a family friend, Margaret Holland Sargent, who was, in fact, a distant relative of the famous American painter and who dumped her husband in Paris. In the 1980s, when the play is set, Aunt Maddy was confined to a home in the same New York neighborhood as Catherine and she also kept to her bed as Howe and her brother visited in attempts to comfort her--much as Royal tries to cheer his mother in the play. At the same time, Howe's husband's 100-year-old uncle, a Jew like Rennie, was in an assisted-living residence where his family would gather by the dozens and gossip, eat, joke, and tell family stories. Furthermore, Howe and Alexander were college chums at Sarah Lawrence where Alexander directed and then appeared in Howe's first play, Closing Time. After graduation in 1959, the two pals sailed together for Europe, Alexander going off to Edinburgh (to study math--she was going to be a computer programmer!), but Howe, like her heroine four decades earlier, headed for Paris and the Sorbonne (to study philosophy). In Paris, as Catherine Sargent was drawn to the Louvre and Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe, Howe was taken by Ionesco's The Lesson and The Bald Soprano (which had opened in 1957 at the Théatre de la Huchette and are still running there today). Howe is recorded as having proclaimed, "It changed my life. It was like a bolt of lightening going through my head." (Actually, I can imagine a little of that: I was knocked on my ass the first time I saw Waiting for Godot at my college theater a few years after Howe had her epiphany in Paris. I saw my first Ionesco, Exit the King, a few years later at the same theater.)

Anyway, it seems Howe is doing a lot of recycling for Chasing Manet: her life, her family and in-laws, and previous plays. Maybe that's part of the problem. When I wrote about Charles Busch's Third Story, I complained that he had too many balls in the air because he seemed to have done a little house-cleaning in his file of unused plot ideas. I think Howe may have done the same thing--pulled together a whole bunch of ideas she wanted to use one day and put them all into one play. They only fit together with a lot of hammering and wrenching.

As I said, I'm not a fan of Howe's work, so I don't have the continuity to make generalizations, but according to most of the reviews and commentary, her most frequent theme is the celebration of "human (and particularly female) eccentricity and willfulness." According to Howe's own statement, "The play is about all those far-flung journeys of the departing soul, [the] longing for adventure, movement, for something else." The two most dramatic moments in the play, both monologues, are about striking out and experiencing the most profound moment in one's life. Catherine explains to the family of Rennie her favorite painting, Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe, a copy of which hangs over her bed--and which she says has always been with her as a talisman. With great passion, Catherine shows them that it was not the nude woman in the painting that was shocking, but the nude woman in the context of the family picnic, that she was so casually out of place. “It wasn’t the fact of her nakedness that was so shocking, but its implausibility,” Catherine tells her attentive audience. “Placing a naked woman in a public place sounded the call for artistic freedom, telling the artist he could paint not only what he wanted, but how." I suspect that was how the Ionescos had made the playwright-to-be feel when she first saw them 50 years ago. I think it's also meant to be the play's statement of its own theme.

The other poetic moment, delivered by David Margulies (an actor who was once one of my teachers at Rutgers a little over 30 years ago) as Henry, a near-silent patient who has up to this point uttered only variations on "I need help!" Suddenly he snaps into a riveting monologue that reveals he was an archeologist who discovered a mystical treasure at a dig in the Fertile Crescent. He launches into a passionate reverie of how he saw “flying dinosaurs singing actual lyrics.” Like Catherine and the Manet, this is Henry's transcendent moment, the one that's emblematic of how we're all supposed to live, but while Catherine's lecture on Manet has a rationale within the play, as wonderful as Henry's speech is as a piece of dramatic writing, it is a set piece--dropped in to an otherwise arbitrary scene of residents in an art therapy session. It comes out of nowhere, astonishes us for a moment, and then disappears, leaving no repercussions. (I'll bet it shows up in a lot of acting classes and audition sessions, though!)

As far as the production is concerned, I can't say that director Michael Wilson did anything wrong. The problems I had with the play are in the script, not in the staging. I don't believe Wilson could have done a better job, even if he didn't really do anything noteworthy or remarkable. The work of the cast is fine, so Wilson discharged that part of his job perfectly well. The set (designed by Tony Straiges with lighting by Howell Binkley), which is an open view of Catherine and Rennie's room and the L-shaped hallway downstage and stage right, is overshadowed with wheelchairs hanging from the ceiling--the one truly absurdist touch in an otherwise conventional play. (If Ionesco had such a profound impact on Howe, I'd hope his influence would shake up her dramaturgy more.) The set functions well enough, though it does make the therapy scenes, played in the downstage "hallway" area, a little cramped and unlocalized.

As for the acting, the five-actor ensemble who play all the other patients, the attendants and staff, and Rennie's visitors, are fine. The characters they have to play are often sketchy and flat, but each cast member finds at least one moment where she or he can fill out the outlines, like David Margulies's memory speech. On the whole, though, not much is demanded of them except quick costume changes and distinct vocal characterizations. (Vanessa Aspillaga, for instance, changes accents: she's a Latina as Esperanza, the attendant, and French as Marie-Claire, the art therapist. It's not subtle, but it does the trick.) Jack Gilpin, as Catherine's son Royal, has a thankless role: it's his job to stand in Catherine's room and let her scold him for being ineffectual. He plays three other roles, but Royal is his principal assignment. The two leads, of course, have more substantial fare to chew on.

I know I've seen Lynn Cohen before--I recognize her cherubic face from somewhere, but I can't begin to place her. (It turns out I haven't seen any of the New York shows she lists in her bio, and though I must have seen her in some of the TV and movie work she lists, I can't picture her.) She certainly bottles up the sweetness aspect of Rennie, and the bubbliness. She's more than believable whether she's being Mrs. Malaprop ("We create a division--then we make a break for it while everyone's distilled," she says to Catherine when they begin to plan their escape), chatting with Herschel, or talking about a dip in the hotel pool. Rennie's a little like Estelle Getty's part in Golden Girls in that she slips in and out of the conventional world. Sophia Petrillo couldn't censor her thoughts, which she spoke uncontrollably; Rennie can't distinguish between reality and her delusions and pops in and out of lucidity in an instant. Cohen handles this perfectly and makes it plausible, not to mention often funny. The problem is--and this isn't Cohen's fault--the laughs are cheap. In fact, they're much like Getty's on TV--the sight of a cute little old lady behaving irrationally is funny the way 12-year-olds find potty jokes funny. Mark Twain, it's not!

Finally, Jane Alexander. She's nothing if not professional, and she takes Catherine and runs with her. Her work on stage can't be faulted as far as I'm concerned. She makes the curmudgeonly Catherine not just believable but sympathetic and intriguing. The character's not one-note, but she isn't more than three or four, and Alexander wrings all the variety she can out of them. She does her friend proud--only Howe has let her down. The character doesn't really warrant the star-quality that Alexander brings to it. Tennessee Williams had a thing about Alma Winemiller--he identified with her and couldn't let her go. He wrote two plays for her, Summer and Smoke and then Eccentricities of a Nightingale. Howe has a comparable attraction for Catherine or Maddy or whatever Howe names the character, but while Williams gave his character two good vehicles (some would say at least one of them great), Howe has relegated Catherine to a contrived, middling, shallow little work, not worthy of her or the theme she articulates. (I wonder if this is why I've never become a fan of Howe's plays. D'ya think?)

Chasing Manet left little immediate impression on me; while I was watching it, I found my mind wandering and I had to make myself concentrate on the play. I looked at some of the other reviews on line and the Times was among the kindest. Only Back Stage actually praised the play; Show Business, the New York Post, and the Daily News were cool to cold, mostly summing the effort up as "a mildly pleasant diversion," "a strained dark comedy," and "a trivial pursuit." Variety was the absolute cruelest. Its opening line declared that "'Chasing Manet' almost makes you envy its mentally ill characters the good fortune of not knowing where they are. Everyone else in the theater is aware they're watching a bad example of the nursing home drama." It goes downhill from there!

26 April 2009

'Woman of the Year' (1981)


[Marilyn Cooper died Wednesday night, 22 April. She was 74 and was living at the Actors Fund Home in Englewood, N.J. A journeyman character actress, Cooper played on Broadway and Off-Broadway in the chorus and the ensemble, in featured roles and as a replacement for leads over 25 years, always laboring in semi-obscurity, recognized only for her talent, seldom her name--she was never famous. Until one night. In 1981, Cooper was cast in Woman of the Year as Jan Donovan, the second wife of the first husband of the show’s lead character, Tess Harding (played by Lauren Bacall). On opening night, Sunday, 29 March 1981, Marilyn Cooper walked away with the whole damn show--right from under Bacall’s nose! As The New York Times put it in her obituary on Saturday, she did it in “just a few minutes of showstopping hilarity” for which she ultimately won a Tony for Best Featured Actress in a Musical and a Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical. As it happens, I saw that production in July 1981, and here’s what I wrote about it all, including Cooper’s moment in the spotlight:]

Those of us who remember the original Ring Lardner, Jr.-Michael Kanin film of Woman of the Year (and who with a television doesn’t) remember it as one of a string of Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy vehicles, in which the billing was shared equally, and with a certain equity in screen time and character weight. The new musical stage version written by Peter Stone with music and lyrics by John Kander and Fred Ebb is, however, very much a one-star vehicle. Lauren Bacall is handed center stage and a spot light for the opening (and title) number and she never relinquishes either. We know we are in for a treat, and a class act it is, too.

The story of the film remains basically unchanged: Tess Harding (Bacall), now a savvy Barbara Walters-type TV interviewer, and Sam Craig (Harry Guardino), a newspaper cartoonist, publicly disagree, meet, fall in love, marry, clash, separate and, to no one’s surprise, get back together. Except for up-dating and the change in professions, the only other real changes are in the form of minor omissions. The result does not suffer in the least from such judicious cutting.

Bacall is, of course, magnificent, a true star of the first magnitude, and she owns the stage at the Palace Theater. Though her acting is better than her singing or dancing, her personality and charisma are far better than all three, and I loved it. There is, however, another “star” of’ this production. Special credit and high praise must be given to the team who created Woman of the Year, Tony Walton’s sets are resourcefully appropriate, ranging from the stark elegance of Tess Harding’s apartment to the seedy comfort of the cartoonists’ hangout, The Inkpot, with its Sardis-like wall of caricatures. I especially liked the moment in scene two when Tess’s TV studio and Sam’s workshop are juxtaposed, with Tess “appearing” on a huge TV screen in Sam’s office. And while we’re in Sam’s studio, I have to mention Michael Sporn’s inspired animation of Sam’s creation, Katz, the social-commenting cat. I wish he had not disappeared so soon in the first act: he was a perfect foil for Sam and the Quintessential New Yorker. Most of all, I found the musical numbers, staged by Tony Charmoli, marvelously insidious: they snuck up on me before I knew it. I was particularly engaged by “Happy in the Morning,” a number in Act II where Russian dancer Alexi (a delightfully mercurial Eivind Harum) advises Tess on love and life while the “corps de ballet” is behind him, doing their barre. Soon they are exercising in time to the song, and then, without the slightest hitch, they are in the midst of an energetic production number.

What is so remarkable about these accomplishments is that each one has been blended by director Robert Moore into a confection of intricate control and selection. The result is a whole far more effective than the sum of all its wonderfully clever parts. For this restraint alone, Moore should be congratulated and heartily thanked, but he has far more than mere technical control. He has brought together an ensemble of players unquestionably fit to back up his star. It has been a long time since I have seen a cast so evenly talented, so painstakingly assembled and so obviously lovingly directed as this one: Guardino could not be more human and secure as Craig, and his rendition of the ballad “Sometimes A Day Goes By” is as warm as ever a love song can be; Grace Keagy and Roderick Cook are both self-important and protective as Bacall’s maid and personal secretary. But among all this high-level evenness, there is a show-stopper, and it belongs to Marilyn Cooper as the current wife of Tess’s ex. In “The Grass Is Always Greener,” when Miss Cooper asks “what’s so wonderful” about her middle-class life as compared to Tess’s glamorous adventures, we have no doubt what that life entails. She is, in one shot, an Erma Bombeck-cum-Julia Childs-cum-Heloise. Whom better for poor Tess to ask how to keep a husband?

If there is anything wrong with Woman of the Year, aside from occasional difficulty hearing some of Guardino’s and Bacall’s spoken dialogue, it is that it is over too soon. Tess Harding may be the Woman of the Year, but Woman of the Year is the play of the season.

[Cooper went on tour with Woman with Bacall following its Broadway run and then on a national tour with Barbara Eden (Jeannie of I Dream of . . . .) in 1984. She continued to act until 1998 (2000 on TV and in movies), but there was never another moment like the one in Woman.

[Several of the people named in my 28-year-old report have left the stage permanently. Robert Moore, the director of Woman of the Year, died in 1984; Roderick Cook in 1990; Harry Guardino in 1995; Peter Stone in 2003; and Fred Ebb in 2004.]

22 April 2009

JFK Inaugural Snowstorm


After we compared notes on the last winter snowstorm of the past season, I got a message from my friend Helen in Tel Aviv. It's remarkable to me that she can sit in the Mid-East and watch news and weather reports from New York City! Anyway, she commiserated with our weather conditions, and mentioned having been caught in Brooklyn in the blizzard of '83. That reminded me that I was caught in that same blizzard--but in Jersey City where I was rehearsing Bell, Book, and Candle for a local troupe. Helen described the trek back to her apartment in Park Slope, and the scene recalled to my mind another snowstorm I experience almost 50 years ago in Washington, D.C. I can even pinpoint the date because it was the evening of President Kennedy's inauguration: Friday, 20 January 1961; I was 14. Now that we’re safely (?) ensconced in spring, I thought looking back at one winter storm might be (masochistic) fun. Here's what I recall to have happened:

I don't remember when the snow started to fall, but after school, I had a doctor's appointment downtown on I (“Eye”) Street at about 20th, right where Pennsylvania Avenue intersects--the heart of the government office district. I took the trolley downtown to my appointment after school (Washington still had trolleys when I was in school) and my mother usually picked me up afterwards. During the time I was at the doctor's, the snow had accumulated to the degree that the government offices all closed so the workers could get home. When I left the doctor's office to meet my mom on the street, the downtown area was flooded with people trying to get home in the heavy snowfall; public transportation was all backed up, of course, and auto traffic was a mess as usual in D.C. when it snows. (Washington, though it gets the same weather that New York City does most of the time, still thinks of itself as a southern town and has never learned how to prepare for snow. No one in the city knows how to drive on snow, and the city has never--at least not in my childhood--purchased a fleet of snow plows or salt-spreaders.)

Mom was driving our Ford station wagon and my little brother, six days from his twelfth birthday, was with her. She had gone shopping before she met me and the groceries were in the cargo part of the wagon. Somewhere along the line, Mom picked up a couple of government office workers; I don't remember if they were already in the car when I came down from the doctor's or if she picked them up as we were going back up Pennsylvania Avenue. I don't recall, but they must have lived more or less near us or on the way to where we lived, out on the D.C.-Maryland border in what was colloquially known as "Chevy Chase, D.C." because it was right across Western Avenue from that Maryland suburb. (It was actually known as Barnaby Woods.) In any case, there were five of us in the station wagon, making our way slowly through the traffic and snow-filled roads from downtown Washington to the northwest edge of the city.

I don't remember exactly anymore how long we were in the car, but it took hours and hours to get through the clogs and navigate the slippery and unplowed streets once we got off the big avenues. I recall that my dad was home by this time and had no idea where we were. (I think Mom remembers that Dad was out of town or something and had called home to check in, but we often differ on details of family history.) In either case, there was no way to let him know where we were or that we were safe, so he was frantic. Meanwhile, my brother and I were getting hungry--it was by now well past 6 or 7 in the evening--so we climbed into the back of the station wagon and started raiding the grocery bags for any food we could eat right out of packages we could open in the car--sandwich meat, cereal, cheese . . . whatever.

As we got into the northwest residential areas of the District, the hour had gotten late and the snowfall had stopped, but we started seeing all the toffs in their evening clothes, planning to go off to the inaugural balls, sliding along slick streets and sidewalks, pushing cars out of drifts or frozen gutters. The sight of both men in tails--some even in top hats--and women in elaborate evening gowns and high heels behind slipping, sliding, careening cars, pushing them, wheels spinning on the snow and ice, out of parking places or up slippery inclines will remain with me forever! I can't tell you how often I see a period movie or TV show set on that date and in that place and note that the moviemakers never include the snow and the disaster that made of the festive evening. For some reason, the JFK Inaugural Snowstorm is not part of our popular history. But I remember it.

17 April 2009

Is 'Waiting For Godot' Trash?


On Sunday, 27 November 1988, playwright Robert Patrick wrote a column for the “Week in Review” section of The New York Times. Patrick, who had had one Broadway success with 1975’s Kennedy’s Children, labels Waiting for Godot “trash and trivia” and a “mediocrity” and sets about to denigrate both the play and Samuel Beckett, whom he calls “a pleasantly lugubrious, collegiate skit writer.” The all-star Lincoln Center production of Godot had closed on the day the essay appeared, and of course there had been a lot of coverage starting even before the 11 October opening, spurred by the brief appearances at the Newhouse Theatre of such film and stage stars as F. Murray Abraham, Robin Williams, and Steve Martin. When I read Patrick’s screed, two things struck me: one, he seemed to me to have been dealing from jealousy and professional disappointment; and two, his argument, if that’s what you can call what he presented, was logically weak in many respects. Since I had recently been a writing teacher, I was prompted to analyze Patrick’s statements and see if I could point out the writer’s fallacies and deficiencies.

I guess I should confess here, if it hasn’t become obvious from previous posts, that I think Beckett was a genius and that Godot is a masterpiece. I can’t ignore those feelings entirely, of course, but I’ve tried to put them aside when I debate Patrick on his assertions and claims in “’Godot’ and Other Trash.” You’ll determine how successful I’ve been.

With respect to my first impression of Patrick’s essay--that he was coming from personal jealousy--I can only observe that though Patrick had had some success as an Off-Off-Broadway playwright in the ‘50s and ‘60s, starting at the Caffe Cino where he was something of a fixture, and moving into the OOB arena of the early and middle ‘70s, especially in the realm of gay theater. (There used to be several significant gay and lesbian theater companies in New York City as well as a relatively prominent gay bi-weekly newspaper, The New York Native. Briefly in the 1980s and ‘90s, I wrote reviews for the Native, covering mostly OOB productions and some Off-Broadway shows. My editor was the late Terry Helbing who ran one of those gay theaters in the decade previous.)

Kennedy’s Children ran at the John Golden Theatre on Broadway from 3 November 1975 to 4 January 1976; Shirley Knight won the 1976 Tony for Best Featured Actress in a Play for her performance. After Kennedy’s Children, Patrick’s work returned to the OOB theaters and he began, in my opinion, to rewrite the same play--mostly based on his own life as a gay man--over and over again. In October 1986, two years before Patrick wrote his New York Times column on Godot, I was reading scripts for the 1987 Rockefeller Foundation Fellowships for American Playwrights Program in the prescreening stage of selection for residency grants. One of the plays I read was Patrick’s The Trial of Socrates, a two-act play modeled on classic theater ostensibly examining the real reason Socrates was tried and condemned. (That’s what Patrick would assert. Actually, I maintain it was really about what happens when you deny a kid a homosexual affair. The plot centered on Socrates’ infatuation with the young Alkibiades.) In my evaluation, I wrote: “. . . This is pretentious dreck dressed up to be poetic drama. Patrick is simply presenting a brief for gay love, with a little (frustrated) voyeurism thrown in for good measure.” (Before anyone charges that I was acting out of some form of homophobia, let me say that I added that there were many better gay plays and gay playwrights who could benefit from a grant. It had been Patrick’s dramaturgy, not his theme that had turned me off.)

In October 1990, I was assigned by Terry Helbing of the Native to cover Patrick’s “Hello, Bob” at La MaMa under the author’s own direction. Like Kennedy’s Children, “Hello, Bob” is a series of monologues, all of which relate in some way to the success of the Broadway play and the effect of that success on Patrick. Whereas Kennedy’s Children considered “the death of the idea of heroes as guides for our lives,” according to Patrick’s note in the published text, “Hello, Bob” seemed only to be concerned with praising Patrick--the man, the artist, the Samaritan, the lover. There were many references to Patrick as a “great guy” and to his “great play.” Over and over again, the playwright showed himself as a tireless teacher, dauntless crusader for noble causes, and unwavering friend. In most of the speeches, the playwright portrayed himself as persecuted by opponents and enemies; The New York Times characterized the impetus as “paranoia.” Aside from Patrick’s need to revisit this event 15 years later, what astonished me most was the opprobrium he heaped on Shirley Knight (a character in the play is an actress named “Shirley”)--bordering, in my opinion, on libel. He said terrible things about her in the play! Was Patrick envious that Knight had won a Tony for his play and he hadn’t? (The play had been nominated for a Drama Desk Award that season, but didn’t win. Patrick himself received no nominations of which I am aware.) Did she do something during the production of Kennedy’s Children that pissed Patrick off? Was he just mad because after that taste of mainstream success, he fell back to near obscurity and he took his anger out on Knight, whose career moved forward, with TV and movies as well as stage work? I don’t know, of course, but I have always wondered why Patrick so viciously attacked Knight in “Hello, Bob” for work I had found strong and appealing. (I saw Kennedy’s Children in December 1975. I even bought the script because I thought the monologues would be good material for acting classes. Neither The Trial of Socrates nor “Hello, Bob” have been published, though some monologues from the latter that weren’t used at LaMaMa appeared in Stages magazine in July/August 1991.)

Did Patrick then do the same thing with Beckett and Godot, railing at a more successful and respected artist because Godot was getting so much press and Patrick couldn’t get arrested by 1988? Patrick wrote in the Times: “Those working outside the canon are denied space or are defused by being placed among the space junk.” That sure sounds to me like that’s what he was doing. I’ve seen it before, of course: an artist who isn’t getting the attention he thinks he deserves turning on the establishment and blaming some bunch of villainous gatekeepers for barring him from his just recognition. For one playwright, the villains were the dramaturgs and literary advisers who blocked his way; for Patrick, it was a cabal of “ambitious young critics” who promoted bad writers over worthy ones in order to aggrandize themselves.

(Amusingly, it’s worth noting that in the late 19th century a group of French poets and novelists of considerable renown and repute who had nonetheless failed as playwrights formed a semi-formal conclave which met for elaborate dinners once a month. These writers were Ivan Turgenev--an honorary Frenchman--Émile Zola, Gustave Flaubert, Alphonse Daudet, and Edmond de Goncourt and, because their first dramatic efforts had been booed off the stage, they called themselves the Group of Hissed Authors--le Groupe des Auteurs Sifflés. They didn’t blame anyone for their lack of success. They just found an excuse to party!)

But now, leaving aside if possible the dramatist’s apparent emotional investment, let’s see if I can refute Patrick’s logic.

It might be easier to discuss Patrick’s reasoning if I reproduced all or most of his column, but I won’t do that. I’m not even sure that would be permissible, and to make matters worse for the reader, the essay isn’t available on the New York Times website or elsewhere on the ‘Net. (Aside from the microfilm of the issue, the column can be found in the databases ProQuest Historical Database or ProQuest Historical New York Newspapers & Magazines, but only if you go to the whole page on which it appeared. Except for a clipping file somewhere, those are about the only sources I know of.) So, I will do my best to outline Patrick’s argument as scrupulously as I can.

Patrick’s argument against the importance of Beckett as a writer and Godot as theater literature is made up of three major points supported by various assertions:

Part A.
  1. Beckett is a minor writer. [Paragraph 1 of Patrick’s essay]
  2. Critics of the ‘40s & ‘50s created the impression of value in such artists. [¶ 2]
  3. The young were fooled into accepting the values. [¶ 3]
  4. Audiences took the critics seriously. [¶ 4]

Part B.

  1. Artists not accepted by the establishment are ignored. [¶’s 5 & 9]

Part C.

  1. Standards are “incoherent,” thus so is the art. [¶’s 8 & 7]
  2. Our art is becoming shallow. [¶’s 12 & 10]

Now, the logical connection among the three parts of the argument is weak. Part A is developed through several steps: a syllogism based on unsubstantiated opinion. If you buy the assertion that Beckett and the other writers Patrick disparages are low-level artists, the syllogism might hold. But Patrick’s characterization is an assertion for which he offers not only no proof, but no criteria. By what standards are Beckett and his fellow modernists “mediocrities”? Why should we take Patrick’s judgment without question when he unabashedly scolds us for accepting the judgment of the critics? If you take a look at my earlier post, “History of ‘Waiting For Godot’” (20 March), you’ll see that not all critics agreed among themselves; quite a few didn’t like Godot or Beckett’s kind of writing. So, what are we left with then? We can listen to critics who agree with Patrick, but not those who disagree with him? That may be a supremely human stance, but it’s not rational argument.

Part C, on the other hand, only follows if you accept that the “canon” is made up of unworthy artists. Patrick offers no cogent argument that Jasper Johns or Beckett are inferior artists to van Gogh and Picasso, or Tennessee Williams, Lanford Wilson, and Harvey Fierstein, the artists Patrick holds up as worthier vessels than Beckett. Again, what are Patrick’s criteria? This is the question Patrick continually begs, of course. (Williams, by the way, was a great admirer of Beckett, who influenced Williams’s later, non-realistic works. Williams’s absurdist play Camino Real, by coincidence, came out the same year Godot was performed in Paris.) Indeed, if we apply even a general standard to judgment, say international renown and artistic staying power, we can see that the three playwrights on Patrick’s list aren’t even of equal stature among themselves, much less in comparison to Beckett. Williams is, by almost all measures, one of the two or three most important American dramatists of the middle of the 20th century. When Patrick asks, If you give Beckett a Nobel Prize, “what are you going to give” the other three, Williams could conceivably have been a contender. Lanford Wilson? He writes good plays, which I like a lot, as it happens, but is he of comparable stature to Williams? The Nobel is given for literature, not theater (the Pulitzer’s awarded for drama), and I don’t know that Wilson writes great literature. And what about Harvey Fierstein, a friend and sometime collaborator of Patrick’s? Is he Nobel material, do you think? Let’s also remember that the Nobel is awarded for a career of achievement, not a single work (that’s the Pulitzer again). Does Fierstein have a body of work that competes with, oh, say, Eugene O’Neill, the only American playwright to win a Nobel Prize for literature? Fierstein’s written some fun, interesting, and even moving plays, but I couldn’t put him in the same category as Williams much less O’Neill.

We can glean some of Patrick’s criteria for worthiness from other statements. In a 1979 interview with Bernard Weiner of the San Francisco Chronicle, the playwright complained, “If you absolutely refuse to relate your theater to life, the grants doors open wide.” The work such artists make is “a dead-end; it’s for people who take drugs and stay up late.” So, we can infer that Patrick’s theater canon would consist of plays that “relate to life.” From the work of the artists he deprecates in the same interview--Robert Wilson, Andrei Serban, Winston Tong, Richard Foreman--we can deduce that what Patrick doesn’t like is theater that is experimental or innovative in form and idiosyncratic in structure. Looking at the writers he admires so fiercely, who also include David Mamet, David Rabe, Christopher Durang, and Michael Weller, what he apparently likes, is some form of Realism: straightforward Realism, enhanced Realism, lyrical Realism, but Realism nonetheless. “These people [the experimentalists] are getting grants to work with tinker toys,” he charged. “It’s super-chic trash, and it will only stop if someone comes out and says so.” There’s little question who that someone is, I guess. “Change,” Patrick urges in the Times essay, “must come from on high.” Oh.

Patrick also embeds a red herring in his case against the avant-garde. While the opening (and the headline, assuming Patrick had a hand in composing that) of his Times essay lead us to expect that he will argue the demerits of Beckett as an artist and Godot as a play, an argument that might be hard to marshal (especially without evidence or stated criteria), Patrick moves into an assault on the neglect of home-grown playwrights whom he feels don’t get enough stage time. They are, he claims, being displaced by “Soho performance art twaddle.” But even if Mamet, Rabe, et al., are pushed aside undeservedly, that is not the same as arguing that Beckett and Godot are unworthy of being staged and viewed. It’s much easier to make a case for paying more attention to supporting American playwrights; theater artists have been saying that for several decades. (Of course, in 1988 writers like Mamet were just beginning their careers; the writers on Patrick’s list have since become almost household names--if there’s a theater devotee in your house, that is. Mamet just had two major revivals here in New York, Durang’s new play recently opened at the Public to excellent reviews, and I saw a new Weller play Off-Broadway a few months back in a top-flight production--though I didn’t end up caring much for the play, but that’s a different issue. Lanford Wilson was the subject of a Signature Theatre season in 2003, including a stunning revival of 5th of July.) Even if Patrick’s complaint about the neglect of domestic writers were true (and Patrick essentially begs this question as well, offering only an assertion without proof), it amounts to a more easily-handled distraction from his originally-stated contention: that Becket is a mediocre writer and Godot is trivial art. Besides being a red herring, the issue, even if Patrick proved it, is beside the point since Beckett’s merit has little to do with how other writers are treated and or vice versa.

Moreover, Patrick protested in the Chronicle interview: “America has turned its back on its dramatists.” But we haven’t: Patrick has set up a false dichotomy here by implying that we can either like Godot or appreciate other, less-experimental, domestic authors, but not both. That’s just not so: both Williams and Wilson won Pulitzers for drama. Wilson won in 1980 for Talley’s Folly; Williams won twice, once in 1948 for Streetcar and again in 1955 for Cat. Wilson is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and all three of the writers Patrick dubs as underrecognized by society have won Tonys or Obies and other performance awards. Furthermore, as I noted, only one American dramatist has ever won a Nobel, so it’s not as if these three have been singled out for this slight. Arthur Muller has never won a Nobel; neither has Edward Albee or Maxwell Anderson or Robert Anderson or James Baldwin or Horton Foote or William Inge or Lorraine Hansberry or Lillian Hellman or George Kaufman or Clifford Odets or William Saroyan or Neil Simon or Wendy Wasserstein or Thornton Wilder or August Wilson. (The list of prominent non-American dramatists who never won Nobels is very long as well: Anouilh, Brecht, Cao Yu, Chekhov, Cocteau, Dürrenmatt, Fugard, Gorky, Havel, Ibsen, Lorca, Rostand, Strindberg, Synge, Tendulkar, Witkiewicz--just to name sixteen.) Just because American dramatists, O’Neill aside, haven’t received Nobel recognition, doesn’t mean American society has “turned its back” on its dramatic writers; one award lacking isn’t sufficient proof of overall neglect. (This is really another question Patrick begs.) Patrick thus commits the fallacy of the hasty generalization. Specifically, he slants the evidence by using as his support the one award American playwrights have failed to win. The many other literary and theatrical awards his favored writers have won, from the Obies and Tonys to the Pulitzers, the Rockefeller and Ford grants, the fellowships, the MacArthur “genius grants,” and all the other honors America has heaped on its preeminent and emerging playwrights, including Williams, Wilson, and Fierstein--Patrick himself won a Rockefeller residency grant in 1973--are not mentioned in Patrick’s thesis, so we don’t see that most of the writers he champions are well-rewarded in public praise. That Beckett got a Nobel Prize may irk Patrick, but it’s not evidence that we overlook all other writers.

Part B is slipped in without much development, an assertion made by every artist ignored or panned by critics and the art establishment. It may, however, be Patrick’s real central point, but he’s afraid to compare himself openly to Wilson, Fierstein, and Williams, not to mention Beckett. Patrick returns briefly to B by inference in Paragraph 9, but doesn’t make the connection explicit.

The overall syllogism might look like this:

  • Premise 1: Artists like Beckett are mediocre.
  • Premise 2: Critics promote mediocrity.
  • Conclusion: Good artists are overlooked.

The logic alone, on its surface, might work, but the truth of the Conclusion depends on the truth and accuracy of all the premises. The fallacies are that Premise 1 depends on Patrick’s judgment alone and is unprovable; Premise 2, the middle term, is undistributed, referring only to some critics, not all. For the middle premise to be distributed, there would have to be a conspiracy among all the world’s critics! (Are there meetings of the International Association of Theatre Critics at which such plans are discussed and developed? Does Homeland Security know about this conspiracy?)

Furthermore, when Patrick argues against artists he doesn’t like, he makes sweeping generalizations about them, committing the fallacy of nonqualification. While some artists like Beckett--meaning, I presume, Postmodern, experimental, and non-traditional writers--may be mediocre, Patrick cannot hold that all such artists are mediocre. (He obviously doesn’t think Williams is a mediocrity, yet Camino Real and many of Williams’s later plays are extremely experimental and non-realistic.) In tandem with nonqualification, then, Patrick commits the fallacy of composition by determining that since Beckett is a mediocre artists (if we accept Patrick’s judgment for the sake of argument), then all similar artists--that is, Postmodern experimentalists--are also mediocrities. Even if Patrick’s estimation of Beckett were correct, you can’t assert that what’s true of the parts are necessarily true of the whole. In logic, one bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch.

And as far as the critics’ promotion of mediocre artists, including, in Patrick’s estimation, Beckett, the fallacy here is the false cause. Just because some critics have praised Beckett and Godot, and even if many of them have, there is no proof of a connection between that fact and Beckett’s or Godot’s acceptance into the canon. First of all, as I pointed out above, not all critics concur on the merits of Godot. Second, other groups have also embraced the writer and his play, such as academics, other artists (including other writers), and, ultimately, audiences around the world. Have they all been led by the nose by a cabal of “ambitious” critics bent on “making mediocrities a cause” through “standards tossed out cynically”? Patrick asserts we all have been “hypnotized,” but is there proof? He claims that “young people . . . drove themselves nuts delving into these mediocrities” and “accepted as great a whole stable of writers, painters and composers whose work is variously pleasant, witty or vacuous” because they were “tangled in seaweed strands of abstruse criticism.” I, for one (perhaps atypical), can attest that I fell in love with Godot as a teenager when my college theater staged it when I was a freshman or sophomore, and I had never read any criticism of either Beckett or Godot at that time. As for the more mature of mind (“the old”), Patrick believes they “tried or pretended to understand” because they were embarrassed by the rejection of “the original avant-garde,” the Impressionists. Ummm, how old does Patrick think these people are? Impressionism arose in France in the 1870s, 110 years before Patrick wrote his column and 80 years before Godot hit the stages of Paris. (After Impressionism emerged--and was at first disparaged, as Patrick notes--several other artistic movements came along, more proximate to theatrical Absurdism, and were similarly rejected at first. Consider Dadaism--1910s and ‘20s--and Abstract Expressionism--1950s and ‘60s.) Isn’t it just as likely that various individuals simply gravitated to this new form of theater in the culturally stagnating ’50s (even as others were being repelled by it) and embraced something that excited them?

There are other emotional fallacies in Patrick’s argument as well. For one, he engages in a (perhaps mild) version of the argument to the club (there are long Latin names for all these fallacies--this one’s argumentum ad baculum--but I’m not inclined to use them here if I can avoid them) which implies a threat of harm (though in this case, not actual violence) if the proponent doesn’t get his way. Here Patrick suggests that our whole culture is headed for hell in a handbasket if we continue to listen to the nefarious critics and boosters of Absurdism. We’ll be “submerged in trash and trivia” as we “produce . . . meaningless muck,” devaluing the meaningful art that is overshadowed and will “remain unknown.” “We face a world of sorcerers’ apprentices in the emperor’s new clothes,” declares Patrick. “Our common culture is barbaric.” (Danger, Will Robinson!) His final warning: “We have turned the earth over to idiocy and we may not turn it back.” At the same time, Patrick indulges in a lot of name-calling, a form of ad hominem attack. He belittles Beckett as a “collegiate skit writer” and a “mediocrity.” He dubs Godot as “vacuous” and “trash and trivia.” He labels the critics he blames for Beckett’s elevation “charlatans” and “careerists” and the art they praise as “space junk.” Thus Patrick makes sure that we know his targets are unworthy of defense or even attention. Most of his attack is deadly serious in tone, but there is also a touch of ridicule when he invokes such silly images as “the emperor’s new clothes” and calls the press attention a “wee brouhaha,” making light of the issue. Silly things aren’t worth our consideration, after all.

Somewhat more subtly, Patrick also engages in an argument to the people, a kind of last-refuge-of-scoundrels approach. The abused artists, the ones who are neglected and ignored, are all American, while the artists promoted over them are foreigners--and so is the one critic Patrick names. Now, he doesn’t say this overtly, of course, and he implies, in fact, that some of the boosters of Beckett and the experimenters are domestic transgressors, but the only name he gives us is Kenneth Tynan, an Englishman, whom Patrick names twice and implies is the ringleader and instigator. Beckett, of course, was not only Irish, but he wrote in French. Patrick never mentions nationality in the essay, but by embracing artists who are all American (not to say all-American) and denigrating artists and their supporters who are all foreign, the (jingoistic) point is made. And Patrick reinforces this tactic by calling up a little pity (fallacies often reinforce one another): the poor, neglected home-grown playwright--he's being snubbed in favor of interlopers who are getting all our grant money and stage time. (Patrick doesn’t raise the issue of grants and funding in the Times directly, but he’s very specific on the subject in the Chronicle interview.)

So, out of my list of 39 logical and emotional fallacies, Patrick employs 13, a full one-third of those available, in his indictment of Beckett and Godot. For me, that makes a very weak argument and I don’t think I’m being too biased if I add, a totally invalid one. I’m sorry Patrick doesn’t like this writer and this play; I think he’s missing something way terrific, but, as my father used to like to point out, de gustibus non disputandum est--there's no accounting for taste. I doubt Patrick could ever get me to agree with him, but “’Godot’ and Other Trash” doesn’t even leave the starting gate.

In his essay “The Abstractions of Beasts,” Carl Sagan, rebutting John Locke’s affirmation that “Beasts abstract not,” posits that animals do, indeed “abstract,” only they do so in a form and at a level different from humans. Sagan suggests that our conviction that animals don’t reason is based on the assumption that since we can’t understand other species, they must not be communicating anything at all. Sagan contends that “we simply equate the absence of our style of expression of intelligence with the absence of intelligence.” Then he quotes French philosopher Montaigne: “The defect that hinders communication betwixt [animals] and us, why may it not be on our part as well as theirs?” In other words, just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that it’s meaningless--maybe it’s our fault for not speaking the right language, as it were. This always reminds me of the Russian word for ‘German‘: nemets. You see, the Russian adjective nemoi means ‘mute’ or ‘dumb’; to the Russians who first met Germans, the German tongue was unintelligible, so they concluded that those Teutons just couldn’t speak a proper language and must be mute. Because the Russians couldn’t understand German, they simply decided that Germans weren’t capable of intelligent communication. (In contrast, the ethnic group to which Russians belong, the Slavs, may get its name from the Slavic word for, well, ‘word’: slovo in Russian. So to the Slavs the Germans were “people who can’t speak” while to themselves Slavs were “people who know words.”) Is that what Patrick’s engaging in with Absurdist and other experimental theater? Maybe, like the animals in Sagan’s essay or the Germans who first met the Russians, they just communicate in a different way from his “style of expression” and he fails to comprehend. If he wants to walk away from Absurdist theater in disgust or frustration, fine, that’s his prerogative. But he doesn’t get to proclaim that it’s “meaningless muck,” its creators are “charlatans,” and its supporters “hardboiled careerists.” Not without evidence, he doesn’t. (Sagan also quotes George Berkeley, the Irish philosopher, who suggested, “If the fact that brutes abstract not be made the distinguishing property of that sort of animal, I fear a great many of those that pass for men must be reckoned into their numbers.” Hmmmm.)

The late Julian Beck, co-founder (with Judith Malina) of the Living Theatre, depicted avant-gardists as artists “who took the risk of exploring strange lands and of bringing back the unfamiliar things they had created out of their discoveries for all to see.” But Beck also perceived that “because [the avant-gardist] makes this voyage, he is mocked as an alien is usually mocked. Because he rejects the popular way of doing things in favor of new forms that may aid him to make his discoveries, he is regarded with hostility.” My impression is that Patrick simply doesn’t understand the Absurdists and Postmodernists, so he rejects them. In his Theatre of Mixed Means, artist, critic, and writer Richard Kostelanetz submits that “a truly original, truly awakening piece of art will not, at first, be accepted as beautiful” and observes that audiences are more willing to “acknowledge” familiar art than to consider something they do not understand. Patrick asserts, for instance, that plays like Godot don’t “relate to life,” but, of course, they do--even profoundly. What could be more relative to human life than the feeling of helplessness, the irrepressible nature of hope, the yearning for salvation, or the instinct to survive? Kostelanetz points out that Patrick’s is the kind of judgment of Postmodern theater often made by observers who anticipate a traditional theatrical performance, do not get one, and are unwilling or unable to probe an unfamiliar form. Viewers knowledgeable about only one performance genre, says Kostelanetz, are “monoliterate,” which is the same, in his estimation, as “illiterate” with respect to Beckett’s kind of theater. Those who judge this theater by what they’ve always seen (or created), Kostelanetz cautions, should glean what a particular piece is attempting. Because Patrick doesn’t understand the medium these artists use, he dismisses their work as meaningless drivel instead of copping to his mystification--or setting out to learn something. (He puts down those who have tried to learn and says of those who get it that they only “pretend to understand.” In Patrick’s epistemology, responding to Postmodern theater is either a fruitless attempt or a pretense.) Perhaps it’s viewers like Patrick whom Russian playwright Mark Rozovsky had in mind when he said: “There will be some who understand thoroughly, and some who understand nothing at all”--or as philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus put it: “Many people learn nothing from what they see and experience, nor do they understand what they hear explained, but imagine that they have.”