Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967 - 43

note the Howard Johnson effect. The season exhibits a
frightening uniformity, from the layout and content, to the
promotional material, to the choice of plays and personnel.
Theatre is merchandised like every consumer commodity.
The following appeals are all quotes. "Eight plays for the
price of five." "Three plays free." "You save eight dollars." "The biggest entertainment bargain in town." "5, 000
subscribers can't be wrong." "Sit with your friends."
"Join." "Have." "EnJoy." "Participate." Those last four
words represent the basis for the Danny Newman approach
to the subscriptions. It is safe to say that well over half of
the professional resident theatres in the United States have
wholeheartedly adopted this slogan and thereby all the implications which infest it.
No one is certain what causes the bandwagon approach to
manufacturing and selling theatres; the directors are partially at fault and the managers are partially, if not primarily,
guilty of such commercialism. They continually tend to play
it safe in establishing their theatres-whether out of cowardice, or out of the instinct of preservation or because of the
lack of a goal or perhaps a combination of these. The managers, who had a firm, philosophical statement of their purposes, apparently feel that they must bend a little to the
supposed expectation of their supporters, the solid citizen of
the middle and upper-middle class. But theatre cannot be
equated with business. The theatre is not simply a can of
spray-deodorant; like it or not, it's an art. The only thing
that is worthwhile in the theatre happens because some individual normally working against the advice and opinions of
everybody, particularly experts in the field, decides that, if
he wants something badly enough, he can break all the rules
and, if he's talented and persistent enough, he will succeed.
There is no question that starting and running a theatre requires practicality; but this is a very feeble word for the assortment of drives and neuroses needed by the manager.
The basic questions that must constantly be asked and answered are: What is the essential nature of this theatre 7
What battles must be fought and won? When should confl icts be avoided 7
I think the resident professional theatre is the only hope for
the survival of the theatre in this country. Without going into
the tired reasons of why Broadway is virtually incapable of
breathing any life into our theatre, it suffices to say that
Broadway is unequipped for mature "show biz." This almost
precludes the possibility of anything of theatrical worth being
produced there, except by accident.
I think it is the most heightened example of the phenomenon that sociologists call the American pseudo-event. The
pseudo-event is an almost fictitious occurrence which allows
the receiver, the audience, to indulge their senses with an
intense fascination. However, they savor only the background of the color and fantasy of the event rather than concerning themselves with the fact of the event. But resident
theatres as they presently exist, with a few rare exceptions,
are merely little Broadways. These theatres smack of that
show business which is inimical to the production of serious
theatre. Perhaps because it's too hard to buck the conditioning of their audiences and their directors, they succumb
to all the "hoopla," all the waste of energy and talent. They
fight to stay alive, but they fight the wrong battles with the
wrong ammunition. Schneider points, rightfully I think, to
the system, the structure, the corruptions, the properties,
and the struggles of the American society. He constantly
uses England and Germany as examples of countries in
which both systems co-exist, countries in which serious

OCTOBER, 1967

theatre is very relevant and most certainly exciting. These
countries have commercial and regional theatres, but they
are well established, as a rule. Each offers a different value
and style, and each prospers.
Many have suggested the following theatrical goal: a network
of theatres stretching across our country, each familiar with
the work of the others, but intent on its own course, on its
ideals, with a unique point of view. Some theatres should
perform the classics, attacking them with an individual style
and attempting to in terpret them for today's audiences. Some
would be experimental in developing audience participation;
others would emphasize contemporary problems; and a few
would focus on the new play. Emphasis should be placed
on finding and developing new plays and playwrights. The
writer should be offered the best possible opportunities to
see how and why his script comes to life.
Training for the theatre, which has been handled poorly by
the professional schools and is now being offered in a number of universities, should be an integral part of the professional theatre. Not only does the theatre receive nourishment from new actors and directors but also from the constant questioning of goals and methods. In short, what is
needed is a group of "driven demons" -managers, directors, and actors-who will violently wrench the theatre
from its present unresponsive state into a chaotic but vibrant
revital ization in quest of answers.
I think America is still in its adolescence in the arts and
theatre. I don't think we can compare ourselves at this moment with the English and German adult cultures. Things will
change only when somebody wants them to change, when
the circumstances and conditions change. The American
theatre is not in the background. The problem of the American theatres has really become a problem of the United
States. We are still young; we have a chance.
BIRKENHEAD: Mr. Edelstein, I think you've set yourself up
as the man to be attacked this morning. There's a line forming. I now wish to present Mr. George C. White of the
O'Neill Theatre Foundation.
WHITE: Well, I hate to follow that. It was very eloquent.
One thing we are trying to do at the O'Neill Theatre Foundation is to devise programs that will help combat certain
problems in the theatre, one of the problems certainly being
managers. The one thing that distresses me particularly is
the so-called "battle" between the professional Broadway
theatre and the professional regional theatre. There is a
place for both of them. Both the regional and the Broadway
theatres are doing good work. Their being at odds distresses
me because if the theatre continues to battle itself, it is
going to lose what audiences remain. Basically, the American public would rather sit home and watch the Giants on
TV and drink beer. If we continue the battle of the regional
theatre versus Broadway, the audience and the public is going to say, "Well, go fight it out; we'll go somewhere else
while the television and the motion pictures and you destroy
yourselves. "
The second thing I want to consider is the training of managers. We are trying to get a grant to create a degree
course in theatre management. Our purpose is to send a
person to a university to be trained as a theatre manager;
and the training would be more than just learning union
rules; it would be learning to run a theatre. Every shopping
center has the potential for either a movie theatre or a
regional theatre; the theatre buildings are there but, as it is,
no one is going in to manage them. Therefore, managers
must be trained. A manager has got to be very, very fast on

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967