Black, Cheryl. The Women of Provincetown, 1915-1922.
Noe, Marcia
Black, Cheryl. The Women of Provincetown, 1915-1922. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press, 2002.
Chansky, Dorothy. Composing Ourselves: The Little Theatre Movement
and the American Audience. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press, 2004.
Two recently published books enlarge and complicate our
understanding of Little Theatre and its influence on the development of
modern American drama. Dorothy Chansky invites us to examine an
infrequently discussed aspect of Little Theatre: its construction of the
kind of audience that would be receptive to and supportive of
noncommercial theatre. Cheryl Black focuses on perhaps the most famous
of American Little Theatres, the Provincetown Players, documenting the
many roles that women played in its development and analyzing the ways
in which they achieved, maintained, and lost power within the company.
Dorothy Chansky's Composing Ourselves: The Little Theatre
Movement and the American Audience seeks to explode stereotypical
notions of the movement as largely comprising famous experimental
theatre groups such as the Provincetown Players. She investigates
theatre reform undertaken by not only amateur theatre companies, but
committees, clubs, university theatre departments, settlement houses and
other entities that staged live performance, intended as serious art
rather than entertainment, for the purpose of moral uplift, spiritual
fulfillment, civic improvement, cultural enrichment, or social change.
She seeks to broaden our concept of Little Theatre to include a wide
range of performance activities in diverse venues; thus, she examines
not only major centers of Little Theatre such as New York City and
Chicago, but also theatre activities in Madison, Wisconsin; Dallas,
Texas; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Providence, Rhode Island, and many
other sites where challenges to commercial theatre evolved in the early
twentieth century. Throughout her study she emphasizes the pervasive
participation of women in Little Theatre, as playwrights, teachers,
scholars, editors, activists, organizers, managers, and audience members
and shows how their efforts were often dismissed, criticized, and
undervalued.
In her first chapter, Chansky establishes the parameters of her
study. She posits a time frame of 1912 to 1925, starting with the
founding of Boston's Toy Theatre and Chicago's Little Theatre
and ending with a year that by and large saw the nationwide acceptance
of Little Theatre and its ideals. Thus, she conceptualizes Little
Theatre's trajectory as % continuum rather than a golden age of
enlightenment followed by a capitulation to popular taste" (7) and
rejects the commonly accepted concept of an experimental Little Theatre
movement of 1912-1918 that devolved into community theatre in the 1920s.
Her second chapter analyzes the commentary of a number of early
twentieth-century scholars, critics, theatre practitioners, and
intellectuals that addressed the question of audience and, in so doing,
revealed their critical and sometimes prejudiced attitudes toward
theatregoers of that day. The third chapter looks at theatre reform
discourse that embraced audience reform as part of its project, focusing
on two major forces in building the Little Theatre audience: the journal
Theatre Arts Monthly and Harvard professor George Pierce Baker's 47
Workshop. The most interesting chapter, although a little off-message,
examines the "fall girls of modernism," showing how women at
all levels of theatrical involvement were denigrated and often blamed
for the poor quality of theatre audiences. This chapter also discusses
the feminist orientation of the Drama League of America and its role in
promoting culturally uplifting theatre and developing an audience
capable of appreciating and supporting it. The penultimate chapter
analyzes the role of high schools, colleges, and universities in
offering opportunities for women to become involved in noncommercial
theatre and in institutionalizing Little Theatre values. Here the
careers of teacher and scholar Dina Rees Evans and playwright and
theatre activist Alice Gerstenberg are shown to exemplify the values and
objectives of educational theatre. In chapter six, Chansky provides an
in-depth examination of the Dallas Little Theatre's 1925 production
of Paul Green's The No 'Count Boy, which, she argues,
represents the fulfillment of the Little Theatre ideal: a production of
an original American play that "challenges mainstream audiences
without alienating them" (187). She also explores The No
"Count Boy's potential, as a folk play, to change the national
concept of what it means to be an American.
Chansky asserts that despite the heterogeneity, diversity, and
diffuseness which characterized Little Theatre, efforts to produce
serious as opposed to commercial, dramas in the United States did share
some common traits, among them the commitment to develop an audience for
such plays by doing theatre in venues friendly to nontraditional theatre
goers (children, students, poor people, immigrants, and farmers), the
influence of European models (the Irish Players, the Moscow Art
Theatre), and the nurturing of new American playwrights. The
better-known groups (Washington Square Players, Chicago Little Theatre)
are discussed, but the less-studied practitioners of the movement, such
as settlement house workers and theatre professors, are also examined.
She acknowledges the influence of Little Theatre on Broadway in terms of
the innovative writers, directors, and designers that went on to succeed
in commercial theatre but emphasizes that its major contribution was the
creation of a set of attitudes and behaviors about theatre-going that
would establish a permanent audience who believed in the vital role that
theatre could play in American life. Little Theatre practitioners,
through "reformance" activities designed for the mutual
influence of initiators and recruits, sought to achieve this objective,
in order to make theatre competitive with with radio and film through
the development of a national "imagined community" of theatre
audiences. She also examines Little Theatre's influence on
regional, educational, nonprofit, and government-supported theatre,
claiming that the significance of Little Theatre rests less in the
quality of its products and more in the pervasiveness of its rhetoric
and ideology in advocating an important cultural function for theatre in
the United States.
Chansky's focus on audience is a unique and valuable
contribution to the literature of Little Theatre, but, to her credit,
she paints no rosy picture of Little Theatre's salvific role,
noting that despite its intended goal of including marginalized groups
in its audiences, Little Theatre was an overwhelmingly middle-class,
racially segregated phenomenon, and taking pains overall to demonstrate
the tensions between the ideal and the actual that characterized its
trajectory. This cogently argued, thoroughly researched, well-written,
and insightful study of Little Theatre's role in the development of
serious American drama through the construction of informed and
receptive audiences is a major contribution not only to Little Theatre
scholarship but to the scholarship of American theatre and drama.
Cheryl Black's tightly focused examination of one particular
Little Theatre, the Provincetown Players, has led her to conclude that
this group provided a woman-friendly environment during the early years
of its existence that facilitated the participation of females as
executive committee members, actors, playwrights, directors, scenic
designers, and costume designers at higher rates than those of Broadway.
She provides a chapter-by-chapter account of the Provincetown
women's contributions in each of the above categories, as well as
an analysis of the factors that coalesced to facilitate a high rate of
female involvement as the group began and a lower rate in the
group's last years. While well-known Provincetown Players such as
Susan Glaspell, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and Louise Bryant are
discussed, lesser-known female members of the company are also treated
in depth, in some cases, giving the reader access to previously
unrecorded material. For example, "Performing Women" provides
a valuable account of the work of one of the Provincetown's finest
actresses, Mary Pyne; likewise, "Staging Women" offers a
detailed and informative discussion of the Provincetown's first
salaried director, Nina Moise. Black's research took her to thirty
manuscript collections, including the little-cited depository of
Provincetown Players manuscripts in the Fales Library of New York
University. While the quantitative aspect of her study is valuable, her
analysis of the relationship between gender and power within the group
is even more enlightening. Black emphasizes that different paths to
power were effective for different women in the group who functioned as
decision makers. She concludes that when the company's initial
goals--commitment to a non-hierarchical governance structure and theatre
practice and emphasis on experimentation and the nurturing of new
American playwrights--were superseded by a compulsion to stage plays
with Broadway potential and a top-down decision-making process,
women's participation in the group declined in all categories. She
shows that as the Provincetown governance structure became more
hierarchical and less female friendly, and the company's
orientation more commercial, plays by women were reviewed less
favorably.
While Black's lively, readable discussion of the
Provincetown's women is a major strength of the book, a wonderful
bonus is its back matter, which comprises several appendices listing the
120 female Provincetown Players and their major functions, the founding
members of the Provincetown Players, the members of its executive
committee from 1916 until 1922, and chronological listings of the plays
written, directed, and designed by women. There are a few minor errors:
the size of the Provincetown's first New York stage was not 10 x 12
feet (100), but 10 1/2 x 14 feet, the mother of the woman Norman Matson
left Susan Glaspell for was not one of Susan's closest friends
(143) but an acquaintance, and Robert Rogers should have been described
as a founding, of charter, member of the Provincetown Players rather
than as "founder" (136). Overall, though, Black has produced a
thoroughly researched, well-written, accurate and much-needed study that
theatre and women's studies scholars will find extremely useful.
Both Chansky and Black add significantly to our knowledge of Little
Theatre in the United States and also provide important information and
analyses regarding the role of women, not only in Little Theatre, but in
American theatre history as well.