A Historical Study of Gilmor Brown's Fairoaks Playbox: 1924-1927

Roger Monroe Altenberg

January, 1964


INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

In the seventeen years since the end of World War II during which central staging has become increasingly prevalent, two alternative approaches to play production have also been developing. Both share in the movement away from proscenium staging. These alternatives have been efforts to retain the actor-audience intimacy of central staging without the rigidity of the pure arena theatre. One of these approaches is horseshoe staging in which the audience surrounds the acting area on three sides making possible the use of scenery at the open end of the “horseshoe,” The other approach includes within its province both central and horseshoe staging as well as other forms. This is the production concept called flexible staging,

In flexible staging no single arrangement is considered as permanent for a theatre. The space allotted to actors and audience is changed to suit the needs of each production. Thus the seating and acting areas may assume a number of configurations limited only by the potentialities of the theatre building.

While the concept of complete flexibility may be traced back to proposals made by Adolph Appia around 1921, flexible theatre as a general trend has acquired momentum principally in the past ten years. In 1953, Gassner pointed out the advantages of flexible staging for non-commercial and educational theatres interested in arena productions:

Indeed the ideal solution for the `little theatre' it has been proposed is flexible staging rather than invariable central staging; the stage could then be an arena when central staging seems most feasible, but could be played differently when a different type of production is deemed preferable.\footnote{John Gassner, Producing the Play, rev. ed., p, 538.}
In the same publication, the experienced arena producer, Kelly Yeaton, affirmed that “the trend today seems to be toward the flexible policy, although most flexible theatres operate with their acting areas largely surrounded by audience.” \footnote{Kelly Yeaton “Arena Production” in Gassner, op. cit., p. 544.}

It is too early to discern whether adaptable structures will become the dominant mode of theatre architecture for the future, but there is no question of the importance of the concept at the present time. In the United States a recently constructed flexible theatre is the Harvard Drama Center which can be adjusted for central, horseshoe, or proscenium staging. One of the new theatres to be built for the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts in New York City

will be a flexible theatre. Furthermore, several of the designs for “ideal theatres” produced by the participating teams of leading stage designers and architects under a 1959 Ford Foundation grant have included provisions for flexibility. The George Izenour-Paul Schweikher plans call for

... mechanical walls, and flexible ceiling lighting to allow a director to carve any desired shape room. By means of computer controls the room can change shape during the performance. The large theatre uses fixed sections of seats mounted partially on large movable platforms to transform the proscenium shape into three- or four-sided seating.\footnote{Leon G. Shiman, “Theatres for Tomorrow,” Saturday Review, April 28, 1962, p. 45.}

Flexible theatres have also been built recently on a much more modest scale. Occidental College in Los Angeles, for example, has within the past three years opened its “Papermill Playhouse” which provides for central staging, end staging and other variants, without any elaborate equipment.

In England, interest has existed for some time in the “open stage,” a horseshoe arrangement using a raised platform. Flexible staging, however, has also been pursued. According to Richard Southern, Southampton University was scheduled to construct an adaptable theatre in 1961. Ten years earlier Southern had designed one which was built for the University of Bristol.\footnote{Richard Southern, The Seven Ages of the Theatre, pp. 290-291.}

In Germany, a small theatre has been constructed at Mannheim which is a “very ingenious structure providing for at least six variations of seating and performance areas.” \footnote{Theodore Hatlen, Orientation to the Theatre, p. 265.}

As one looks backward, several theatres constructed in the United States in previous decades appear as landmarks in the development of flexibility. In 1951 Frederick Koch, Jr. opened his Ring Theatre at the University of Miami which combined peripheral revolving stages with a central arena. At the University of California in Los Angeles in 1942 Ralph Freud converted a basement room into a theatre which has used a great many staging arrangements.\footnote{George Altman, et al.. Theatre Pictorial, item \# 516.} In 1941, Paul Baker established his Studio Theatre at Baylor University with stages built around the sides of a room with the audience seated in swivel chairs.\footnote{“The Technician's Workshop,” Theatre Arts Monthly, July, 1941, P. 547.}

As the history of flexible staging is traced backwards in this country it finally comes to a stopping place. This point is in 1924 with the founding of Gilmor Brown's Playbox theatre within his home on Fairoaks Avenue in Pasadena.

This extremely intimate theatre, according to all the presently available evidence, appears to have been the first flexible playhouse in the United States. The historians Macgowan and Melnitz have credited it as the originator of the form in this country, pointing out that it preceded Okhlopkov's efforts in the Realistic Theatre by a number of years.\footnote{K. McGowan and W. Melnitz, The Living Stage, p. 501.}

Under Brown's direction. The Fairoaks Playbox and its successors achieved the greatest longevity of any American flexible theatre to date. The Playbox Theatre presented plays for thirty-three seasons, between 1924 and 1959. The Fairoaks Playbox was moreover an important early practitioner of central staging. As Indicated by Margo Jones in her survey of theatre-in-the-round, the first Playbox presented centrally staged productions approximately eight years before Glenn Hughes began his work in a Seattle Penthouse. Margo Jones found only two sources of central staging in the United States which preceded the Fairoaks Playbox, These were Azubah Latham and Milton Smith's productions at Columbia University dating from 1914, and T. Earl Pardoe's productions at Brigham Young University in 1922.\footnote{Margo Jones, Theatre-in-the-Round, p. 38}

Since the Fairoaks Playbox theatre has become recognized as the pioneering flexible playhouse in the United States and a significant contributor to the development of central staging, it might be expected that the student of theatre history would have access to a considerable amount of information concerning it. The reverse of this situation is actually the case. Pew details have been presented in generally available publications. More, but not a great deal, has been written about Brown's second Playbox theatre on Herkimer Street, which was constructed in 1930.

This study was undertaken to penetrate the obscurity which presently exists concerning the exact nature of the Fairoaks Playbox. The purpose was to give a detailed production history which would serve as a step toward more clearly defining the role of the Fairoaks Playbox in the development of central and flexible staging*

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study has two principal aspects:

  1. What experiences and influences led Gilmor Brown to establish an intimate flexible theatre?
    1. What was the nature of Brown's theatrical training and general background?

    2. What was his previous experience in forms departing from conventional proscenium staging?
    3. What specific influences stimulated Brown to found the Playbox?7
    4. What was the relationship of the Playbox to the Pasadena Community Playhouse?
    5. What was the nature of the physical plant selected by Brown for his intimate flexible theatre?

  2. I. What was the production history of the Fairoaks Playbox?

    For each production the following inquiries were made:

    1. Who directed the play?

    2. What was the nature of the play?

    3. How was the play staged?

      1. Where were the sets placed in the room?

      2. Where did the audience sit?

      3. What were the patterns of movement and grouping of actors?

    4. What were the characteristics of the scenery, properties, lighting, and special effects?
    5. What was the nature of the acting?

      1. To what extent was it representational or presentational?

      2. What adjustments were made for the unusual intimacy of the theatre?

      3. Who were the individual actors?

    6. How did audience members react to the performances?

      1. How did the general audience react?

      2. How did the critics react?8

Definition of Terms

A number of specialized terms were used In this study. Some of them are commonly used by theatre historians, while others have been more recently added to our growing theatrical vocabulary, The following list includes those terms most prominently used, briefly defined within the context of this study.

Significance of the Study

This study was undertaken to give the first detailed account of Gilmor Brown's first Playbox theatre which has been recognized as the earliest known flexible playhouse in the United States. Since there is now a growing interest in the flexible use of theatre space, additional knowledge concerning the American roots of the movement should be of value to students of theatre history. Furthermore those wishing to produce plays in intimate flexible theatres may find some practical assistance in studying the production record of the Fairoaks Playbox.

Along with the historical record and reconstruction of the staging at the Fairoaks Playbox, this study has brought forth a more precise and extensive account of Gilmor

2 Brown's background than has hitherto been available. In addition to founding the Fairoaks Playbox, he was prominent as the founder and long-term Supervising Director of the Pasadena Playhouse. He was a leader in the non-commercial theatre in America.

Review of the Literature

Other than the four pages by Gilmor Brown contained in an autobiographical essay published in 1957, the specific literature dealing with the Fairoaks Playbox consists of brief references ranging from a few sentences up to a few paragraphs.

The first mention of the Fairoaks Playbox, other than references contained in purely local sources, apparently was made in The Little Theatre News, a nationally distributed publication of the New York Drama League. In January, 1925 the periodical described the Fairoaks Playbox as a tiny, intimate theatre presenting unusual plays.\footnote{Little Theatre News, January 26, 1925.}

In 1928 Brown described the role of the Fairoaks Playbox within the comprehensive program of the Pasadena Community Playhouse, declaring that it was an experimental theatre. Its experiments, however, were more advanced than those of either the Workshop or Mainstage of the Playhouse.

3

It demanded a more advanced audience, he claimed, one “rich in discrimination and free from popular bias.” \footnote{Statements of Brown quoted by F. W. Hersey in “unusual Aspects of the Pasadena Community Playhouse,” Drama, 19:50, November, 1928.}

In her Master's thesis entitled “A History of the Pasadena Community Playhouse,” May Rose Borum in the following year presented some significant general statements on the use of central staging in the Fairoaks Playbox and the use of various parts of the room for acting areas during a performance. She obtained her information from interviews with Gilmor Brown. The thesis also contained a brief but important quotation of Brown's opinion of the acting technique required for the Fairoaks Playbox; the necessity for trained actors who had absolute control and concentration in their performances.\footnote{May Rose Borum, “A History of the Pasadena Community Playhouse” (unpublished Master's thesis. The university of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1929), p. 104.}

Kenneth Macgowan, in his informative survey of American community theatres published in 19S9, very briefly referred to the experimental work of the Fairoaks Playbox. He noted that this intimate theatre was one in which the audience and the stage were confined in the same room.\footnote{Kenneth Macgowan, Footlights Across America, P. 152. }

In an article in Theatre Arts, concerned primarily with the Herkimer Playbox, Harriet Green told of the first 4 three seasons of the theatre In the Fairoaks studio. She indicated in a few sentences of description that the plays were given -without a stage, and with meticulous attention to “detail and finish of performance.” She observed that a strong factor in the theatre's success had been the discovery by audiences that under favorable conditions illusion could be heightened rather than dispelled by close proximity to actors.\footnote{Harriet Green, “Gilmor Brown's Playbox,” Theatre Arts, July, 1935, p. 512.}

In 1942 Glenn Hughes acknowledged that Brown had preceded him in staging productions “with the play intruding Itself into the audience, with the stage and auditorium merged.” Hughes asserted, however, that the Pasadena producer had not “established and maintained an arena.” \footnote{Glenn Hughes, The Penthouse Theatre, p. 12.}

The first of Brown's two significant descriptions of the work of the Fairoaks Playbox appeared in a 1945 article published in a Journal devoted to the interests of the non-commercial theatre and circulated mainly among its leaders. In “Confidential Theatre,” Brown described the beginnings of the Fairoaks Playbox in a large room in his home, a room which had formerly been a painter's studio. He reported his discoveries concerning the technique of acting required for such an intimate theatre, as well as 5 his theory on the “personalizing” and heightening of audience response to the situations of the play, He revealed that the Herkimer Playbox was built with a design embodying a number of the characteristics of the Fairoaks studio, but arranged to provide even greater flexibility.\footnote{Gilmor Brown, “Confidential Theatre,” National Theatre Conference Bulletin, August, 1945, pp. 20--26”.}

As national interest in central staging flared up following the success of Margo Jones' Theatre '47 in Dallas, a number of articles and books appeared which referred to the status of the Fairoaks Playbox in toe evolution of the arena theatre. Kenneth Macgowan wrote in an essay published in the Mew York Times in 1948, that Glenn Hughes had credited his idea of central staging to Macgowan and Jones' book Continental Stagecraft. It was the description of the Circus Medrano in Paris as a potential arena theatre which had impressed Hughes. Macgowan instated that the credit belonged rather to “the Playbox which Gilmor Brown and Ralph Freud created as an adjunct to the Pasadena Playhouse around 1925.\footnote{Kenneth Macgowan, “Theatre in the Round,” New York Times, March 21, 1948.}

In the same year, Freud contributed an article to a journal of college and high school dramatics, discussing his contact with central staging in the Fairoaks Playbox. Freud stressed, however, that the Playbox concept included more 6 than just the central staging form. Intimacy and flexibility were the highly important features.\footnote{Ralph Freud, “Central Staging is Old Stuff,” Players Magazine, December, 1948, p. 52.}

Among a number of reports on arena theatre in the October, 1950 issue of Theatre Arts, one by Albert McCleery attributed the origin of central staging movement in the United States to Brown's 1924 Playbox theatre. McCleery averred that

from that initial venture in fluid staging grew the Penthouse Theatre of Glenn Hughes, Margo Jones' Theatre- in-the-Round in Dallas, Ralph Freud's U.C.L.A. project, the arena I conducted at Fordham for some years, as well as dozens of other arena stages.\footnote{Albert McCleery, “An Invitation to Action,” Theatre Arts, October, 1950, p, 48.}

In 1951 Margo Jones reviewed the modem development of central staging, referring to the Fairoaks Playbox as bringing more renown to the technique following earlier efforts at Columbia University and Brigham Young University.

She pointed out that the Fairoaks Playbox laid the groundwork for the flexible playhouse built by Brown in 1930.\footnote{Margo Jones, Theatre-in-the-Round, p, 38.} She herself had wanted to establish a flexible theatre in Dallas instead of the pure arena form.\footnote{Ibid., pp. 58, 188.}

In the 1953 revised edition of John Gassner's Producing the Play, Kelly Yea ton discussed the values of flexible staging. 7 He referred to its use at the Pasadena Playbox and spoke of the Influence of the Playbox on other West Coast theatres.\footnote{Kelly Yeaton, “Arena Production,” in Gassner, Producing the Play, rev. ed., p. 544.}

Frank M, Whiting in 1954 emphasized the fact that ”Gilmor Brown's original Playbox was as revolutionary in its flexibility as in its intimacy.” \footnote{Frank M. Whiting, An Introduction to the theatre (1954 ed.), p. 199.}

Joseph Golden's 1955 doctoral dissertation on the development of arena theatre credited the Fairoaks Playbox with being at its inception the meet important American experiment in non-proscenium staging which had thus far taken place. Although the study was very carefully written, Golden erred in his description of the interior of the Fairoaks Playbox. He had inadvertently described the interior of the Herkimer Playbox.\footnote{Joseph Golden, “The Position and Character of Theatre in the Round in the united States” (unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Illinois, 1955)}

Macgowan and Melnitz in 1955 pointed out that the variant form of arena theatre known as the flexible playhouse began to take shape in 1924 when the first Playbox was created in Pasadena. They stated that it was clearly a 8 predecessor of the Russian Okhlokov's flexible Realistic Theatre founded in 1932.\footnote{Kenneth Macgowan and William Melnitz, The Living Stage, p. 501.}

In 1956 the first book devoted to a detailed discussion of flexible staging techniques, as well as those of central staging appeared. This was Walden Boyle's Central and Flexible Staging, Boyle reiterated the pioneering status of the Fairoaks Playbox in his excellent, though brief, historical coverage.\footnote{Walden Boyle, Central and Flexible Staging, p. l6.}

With so many general statements made about the significance of Brown's theatre but so few concrete details published, it was salutary that the founder himself attempted to provide more information for the public. In 1957, three years before his death. Brown wrote an essay on his life's work, in which he traced a few of the influences which inspired him to found the Fairoaks Playbox. He stated that he had become interested in central staging through reading Macgowan's suggestions concerning the Cirque Medrano, that he had practiced the technique in the Fairoaks Playbox, and that he had in turn suggested the form to Glenn Hughes as “suited to the planning of the intimate theatre that he was to have in a Seattle hotel.” \footnote{Gilmor Brown, “A Dream on a Dime,” in David H. Stevens, Ten Talents in the American Theatre, p. 171.} Brown 9 Indicated that the Playbox was not simply an arena theatre but stressed flexibility.

For the first time in the literature on the Playbox, Brown listed the actual repertory of his theatre, giving the names of fourteen plays produced during the first two seasons. He also provided a detailed quotation from the program of the first production explaining the purposes of the intimate theatre.

This unfortunately was the extent of the specific information given by Brown. The remainder of the material relating to the Fairoaks seasons was in the form of general statements concerning such aspects as the limited properties, the slight indications of locale, the “eavesdropping” reaction of the audience. Neither Brown nor any of the previously mentioned writers had described the actual size and architectural features of the Fairoaks Playbox, revealed which plays were centrally staged, or, for that matter, provided any detailed information on the variants of flexible staging used in any of the productions. The names of the directors and actors participating in the three pioneering seasons had not been mentioned.

After surveying this literature, one can conclude that the goals and historical significance of the Fairoaks Playbox have been reported in a number of significant publications, especially in recent years. It is evident, however, that the actual nature of the theatre has never been depicted In such a way that its productions can be visualized, The general absence of photographs has not helped in this regard. Here then is a theatre which has become famous while its work is really unknown.

Sources of Material

A large number of primary sources were consulted in this study. The purpose of this section is to describe the nature of the sources and their significance to the study.

The Fairoaks Playbox Building

While the Herkimer Playbox was torn down in 1958, the building at 251 South Fairoaks Avenue, in which Brown established the first Playbox, is by some happy quirk of fate still standing. In the summer of 1959 the present investigator had a series of photographs taken of its interior and exterior. At that time a email area had been partitioned off within the studio at the Fairoaks end, the walls had been covered with plaster board, and one fireplace had been removed. The covering over the rear porch had also been removed, according to Maurice Wells. Except for these few changes the building was in very much the same state as at the time of its use as an intimate theatre*

Since 1959 the studio has undergone further remodeling with a celling installed which now hides the original exposed-rafter construction and cross beams. A partition extends completely across the width of the studio cut ting off a section of the room near the Fairoaks end. With the studio In this state, this investigator made detailed measurements and drawings in the fall of 196l. Allowing for the modifications, he attempted to accurately reconstruct the original condition. The 1959 photographs were most helpful aids in this process.

Records of the City of Pasadena

Important sources of material for corroborating findings on some of the physical characteristics of the Fairoaks Playbox were the records of the Building Department of the City of Pasadena and the Office of the City and County Assessor.

Fairoaks Playbox Scripts

A very helpful source of information for the reconstruction of the staging was the collection of Fairoaks Playbox scripts containing stage directions, which the investigator was able to assemble. No one at the Pasadena Playhouse knew of the location of the scripts used in the Fairoaks productions. At one time, however. Brown had recorded the fact that he had donated Playbox scripts to the Playhouse. On the assumption that some of these may have been from the Fairoaks years, a persistent search was made throughout the Playhouse Library, which unfortunately was in the process of being completely re-catalogued. All individual copies of plays, and collections containing Playbox titles, on the regular shelves, on storage shelves, and in boxes were examined for evidence of connection with the 1924-27 productions. The result of this search VJBS the assemblage of ten scripts containing stage directions, diagrams, property lists, and other information relevant to the Fairoaks Playbox productions.

Scrapbooks

Three different sets of scrapbooks formed a major source of information. These books were immediately accessible as regularly classified portions of the Pasadena Playhouse historical source collection.

Two sets of scrapbooks had been assembled by Mademoiselle Jeanne Richert in 1948. She Informed the investigator that in 1948 she had found the material for the first set in boxes at Brown's house and with his permission and consultation had organized it into four separate volumes. These scrapbooks comprise the set relating to the life and work of Gilmor Brown. The first three volumes are referred to in abbreviated form in the footnotes of this study as GB1I, II, and III. The fourth volume is called “Gilmoriana” following the title given to it by Mademoiselle Richert.

The second set of scrapbooks contains the Playbox volumes from 1924 to 1950. The first volume covering 1924 to 1931, includes programs, a few photographs, and reviews and articles from newspapers and periodicals dealing with the Fairoaks Playbox and the beginnings of the Herkimer Playbox. The Playbox scrapbooks are designated in the footnotes as PB I, II, III, and so forth.

The third set of scrapbooks used in this study was the enormous collection of material which constituted the Pasadena Community Playhouse volumes. These books were begun in 1919 and have been kept up until the present time. The scrapbooks contain newspaper clippings, magazine articles, and advertising matter related to all the activities and personnel of the organization. A great source of difficulty for this research study was the fact that Playbox items were generally mixed in without any separate identification among all the other clippings. The process of searching for the rare Playbox clippings was thus something like pearl diving. These Playhouse scrapbooks are referred to in the study by the abbreviations POP 1, 2, 3, and BO forth.

Playhouse Photograph Albums

A photographic record of the early efforts of the Pasadena Community Playhouse proved useful for an analysis of Brown's pre-Playbox staging techniques, especially in outdoor productions. These photographs were available in separate volumes, the first two being particularly pertinent to the content of this study.

Governing, Board Minutes

The two volumes of minutes of the meetings of the Governing Board of the Playhouse were significant sources of Information concerning the relationship of the Playbox to the Playhouse. They also provided valuable information pertaining to the Playbox directors.

Gilmor Brown' s Correspondence and Other Papers

The files of Gilmor Brown's correspondence, which could perhaps have been of great value, were disappointingly incomplete. Only a. few random items have been preserved from the years prior to 1930, almost none of which have any bearing on the Playbox. From 1930 to 1938 a slightly larger number of letters have been saved, while the entire file of letters from 1938-40 has been kept intact. The correspondence which had been on file in Brown's office during the years immediately preceding his death, approximately 1952 to 1959, was also preserver?. From these last years a number of letters pertinent to this study were found. In addition to the correspondence. Brown's financial papers, copies of his income tax returns from 1921 through 1958 and a group of documents relating to his ownership of various real estate properties, including the Fairoaks building, were preserved in the Playhouse collection of Brown's papers. From these items it was possible to obtain data concerning Brown's financial status, although there was an absence of information concerning the operating costs of the Fairoaks Playbox.

Interviews

Since the first Play-box closed its doors thirty-five years ago, this study was a race against time so far as some of the individuals associated with the theatre were concerned. The main emphasis in the interviewing was devoted to the producer and the directors of the Fairoaks Playbox. Gilmor Brown was still alive, and in spite of failing health granted the investigator a number of interviews between 1957 and 1959. He died in January, 1960. A range of topics was covered in the interviews with Brown, with especial attention paid to the producer's earlier years. While there were a number of areas in which Brown's memory could be of little help, he was surprisingly acute on other topics. A crucial area for this study toward which he could contribute few details, was the staging of specific productions at the Fairoaks Playbox.

In the case of Maurice Wells, the situation was quite different. Through a great stroke of fortune as far as this study was concerned. Wells had just returned to California from the East coast after an absence of thirty years, and had settled again in Pasadena. Since he was in his early twenties at the time of his connection with the Playbox as co-director, he was still under sixty years of age at the time he was interviewed. Furthermore he had an extremely accurate and detailed memory of the days of the Fairoaks Playbox, an appraisal which was reached through the repeated corroboration of his remarks by other evidence.

Ralph Freud, Brown's other directing associate, was also available for interviews and was close to the same age as Wells. Having had a greater concern with production processes and the direction of plays throughout his career, he provided a number of unique details concerning the Fairoaks Playbox performances.

In addition to the above directors fifteen other individuals were interviewed, some of whom gave information concerning Gilmor Brown, while others had contributions to make in regard to the Fairoaks Playbox. Among these were: Dr. Roger Stanton, Professor of English at the California Institute of Technology, who had been an actor at the Playbox during the 1925-26 season.; Dr. Fairfax P. Walkup, Vice- President of the Pasadena Playhouse and formerly Dean of the School of the Theatre, who had acted in a Playbox production in the 1924-25 season. Associate Professor Emeritus Cloyd Dalzell of the Department of Speech of the University of Southern California, spoke of several Playbox productions in which she had acted. The former “Star-Hews Critic,” the play reviewer for the Pasadena newspaper, Mrs. Alice Haines Baskin, told of her years covering productions at the Playbox and the Playhouse. Film character actress Elisabeth Patterson revealed pertinent facts about Brown's days at drama school and his early years as a leading man and director of his own touring company, a period in which she was an active participant. Ruth Burdick, the retired Art Supervisor and stagecraft teacher in the Long Beach, California schools, told of her observation of Playbox productions as an audience member, and of her subsequent efforts in flexible staging in Long Beach, Mademoiselle Jeanne Richer!, the manager of the Herkimer Playbox for a twenty year period, provided many details concerning Gilmor Brown and the Playbox idea. Others who told of Brown's work and personality were Morris Ankrum, Thomas Browne Henry, Charles Lane, Julia Farnsworth, and Mary Greene. Of this last group only Morris Ankrum, however, had known and worked with Brown prior to 1929.

Methods

In conducting the research for this study, the usual methods of external and internal criticism of historical sources were used. To indicate some of the techniques employed, a few of the specific problems encountered and the steps taken to solve them are briefly discussed.

External Criticism: Verification of the Identity of Sources

Newspaper Articles, Reviews

In the Gilmor Brown scrapbooks and occasionally in the Playbox scrapbooks, newspaper clippings were pasted in without an indication of the name of the newspaper, the name of the drama critic, or the date. When it could be ascertained that the newspaper was one of two or three in a particular city, the printing style of each was compared with print in the slipping. From this evidence the newspaper could often be identified. When the date was not given on the clipping* references within the article often provided an approximate date,

In the reviews of the Fairoaks Playbox, a number of clippings from the Pasadena Star-News did not carry a by-line for the name of the reviewer. From interviews with Alice Haines Baskin and Maurice Wells, it was learned that Mrs. Baskin went by the title of the “Star NCWB Critic,” while the other reviewer for the newspaper used his own name if any credit for the review appeared. The other critic was the Scottish-born Alexander Inglis. When neither the title of “Star Hews Critic” or Inglis' name appeared, it was necessary to determine the author ship through the style of writing and the frame of reference of the reviewer. In general the differences between the two writers was clear, making the identification not overly difficult. Inglis had a great Interest in England and English literature. In addition his writings revealed certain stylistic peculiarities. Mrs. Baskin was much more interested than Inglis in the technical aspects of production, and tended toward a lyrical mode of expression at times.

Fairoaks Playbox Scripts

The verification of the Identity of a script of a play as one which had been used at the Fairoaks Playbox was a most Important matter. Hot only did the script need to be validated for Its connection with the studio theatre, but the specific notations and diagrams within it had to be shown to be these for the Fairoaks production and not an earlier or later performance given elsewhere. Procedures used included the following:

  1. Each script was examined for identification of a Playbox director's handwriting. In most of the scripts found this meant either the writing of Gilmor Brown or Maurice Wells. Known samples of each were carefully studied for identifiable characteristics, Brown in particular possessed a very distinctive style of handwriting.

  2. The content of the material in the director's writing was analysed for references to matters connected with the Playbox production or connected with other events occurring at the time of the production. For example, in Maurice Wells' copy of Justice he made notations for the casting of minor characters in Cyrano, which was in the final stages of rehearsal on the mainstage at the time Justice was being prepared for the Fairoaks Playbox.

  3. Diagrams and stage directions placed in the scripts were examined for their relationship to the structure of the Playbox theatre. Since the architectural features of the Fairoaks Playbox were quite different from other theatres, numerous diagrams conforming to the structure could not easily fit other productions. In the scripts of “Desire,” Bernice and The Dragon there were highly unconventional ground plans which fitted the Fairoaks Playbox perfectly, but would have been very peculiar sets elsewhere.

  4. The diagrams and stage directions in the scripts were also compared with the extant photos of Fairoaks Playbox productions. This was done with The Discovery and The Ship, where no contradictory facts emerged. When a script of The Truth About Blayds was compared with the photographs of the Fairoaks Playbox performance it became obvious that the setting and movements indicated in the script were not for that production.

  5. which could be obtained concerning the settings, the theatre, the staging for the non-Playbox performances. The Tragedy of Man, The Discovery and The Ship appear to have been given only at the Fairoaks Playbox. A number of other productions, however, were given at the Playhouse after the intimate theatre performances, Thus the scripts of Anthony and Anna and Justice had to be carefully examined in light of the known facts concerning the Playhouse productions. Xn the case of Justice there were photographs of the Mainstage performance which showed some discrepancies with the evidence in the script. At the same time there was material in the script which more closely matched the Fairoaks Playbox. Combined with other evidence the conclusion could be reached,with some assurance, that the particular script did indeed contain the director's notes for the Fairoaks Playbox performance.

Internal Criticism

Reconstruction of the Staging

An especially strong goal of this study was the reconstruction, so far as possible, of the manner of staging of the twenty-two productions given at the Fairoaks Playbox. To accomplish this purpose, even to a limited extent, a rather detailed procedure of internal criticism had to be followed. Among the steps taken were the following:

  1. All of the plays given in the theatre were read with the exception of two which were not available: “The Trackwalker's Child” and “Song With Wings.” \footnote{In this study the titles of one-act plays and unpublished full-length plays are enclosed within quotation marks. The titles of published full-length plays are underlined.} Both of these were original plays.

    The plays were analyzed for the basic staging demands required “by the dramatic action. The playwright's descriptions of settings and stage directions were also examined.

  2. All of the contemporary descriptions of the Fairoaks Playbox performances were analyzed for the types of settings, the use of space, the movement of actors, and other aspects of the staging,

  3. The small number of extant photographs were examined in detail for information concerning the part of the room used, the nature of the furniture groupings, the relationship of the set to the audience area, as well as for the subsidiary purpose of noting the identity of the actors, their costuming and makeup.

  4. Scripts which met the tests of verification as copies used in the Fairoaks Playbox productions were studied in complete detail. Every notation was examined for its value as a clue to the staging process. These were then recorded in their entirety on separate cards and sheets of paper in order to more clearly observe the groupings and patterns of movement. Fitting together the mosaic of references to parts of the Fairoaks Playbox, ground plans of the settings, the dimensions of the acting and seating areas, were gradually reconstructed,

  5. Individuals who had participated in the productions as directors or actors, and those who had seen the performances as audience members, v;ere interviewed for the evidence they could present concerning the staging. This information was then compared for consistency with the evidence from the contemporary records. Furthermore, when two or more persons interviewed presented information concerning the same production or staging technique, this evidence was examined for consistency among the individuals interrogated.

  6. Conclusions regarding the settings were recorded in ground plans drawn to a one-quarter-inch-to-a-foot scale. The patterns of movement and groupings of actors were described in summarizing accounts for each production, accompanied where necessary by diagrams to clarify the finding.

“Reconstructions” of the Acting

The problem of reconstructing or evaluating the acting from the distance of thirty-five years by one who was not an eyewitness to the performances was* obviously., a difficult one* The best that could reasonably be done in such a situation was to record and interpret the descriptions and evaluations provided by the contemporary critics, as well as the evidence given now by the persons interviewed. To arrive at some satisfactory level in the conclusions drawn, these procedures were used:

  1. Where more than one critic reviewed a Fairoaks Playbox production, the comments on the acting were compared for differences of opinion, and for insight into the level of frankness of each. It was especially useful to compare the comments of those who appeared to be “supporters” of the Fairoaks Playbox and the Pasadena Playhouse, with those critics who seemed to be more neutral in their attitudes. In general, the critics for the Pasadena Star-News, Alexander Inglis and Alice Baskin, wanted to encourage the efforts of the Pasadena Community Playhouse and its intimate theatre adjunct. This did not prevent them, however, from making very candid comments on the nature of the acting. They endeavored to phrase their remarks in tactful language. The general body of critics from outside Pasadena did not tend to be as concerned with diplomacy and therefore provided a useful basis of comparison*

  2. Wherever there were reservations about the acting, no matter how politely worded, an attempt was made to penetrate the meaning of the observations. Since Inglis and Baskin tended to be “supporters,” their negative comments took on extra significance.

  3. Reviews of performances by Fairoaks Playbox actors in other theatres formed a supplementary background for interpreting the evaluations of their work in the Fairoaks Playbox, This broader range of comment was an aid in seeing through the veil of Journalistic diplomacy. Most of the Playbox performers appeared in productions of the Pasadena Community Playhouse, and were subject to reviews by critics from the greater Los Angeles area.

  1. Download complete dissertation as a PDF file [3 MB]
  2. Scan of original as a PDF file [29 MB]
  3. Continue, viewing page scans