Revived Dramatics Activity Parallels Theatre Interest

In the fall of 1953 interest in Harvard drama was at one of the lowest points in the long history of College theatrical activity. For whereas at one time or another in the past, drama had occupied a high position in the undergraduate's life, it was then one of the least participated in--and least regarded--of the many extra-curricular activities at the College. The Harvard Dramatic Club, the acknowledged leader of student drama since its inception in 1908, was in bad financial shape after a barren year in which othello was its only production. There were other organizations to be sure --The Hasty Pudding was still attracting its certain audience; and two very localized House Groups, the Lowell House Opera Society and the Winthrop House Music Society.

Revival of 'Dramatic Spirit'

But even in this time of relative dramatic inactivity, there were those who cried for more interest in the art of drama at Harvard--a school that had known the famous Baker 47 Workshop, which had turned out the great Eugene O'Neil, the sensitive Robert Sherwood, and a number of other men who took prominent roles in the growth of the American Theatre in the 1920's and 30's. Behind their pleas for a revival of the "dramatic spirit" that was lacking at Harvard 1953, these advocates called for a Harvard Theatre, without which, they were sure, a revival was impossible. A CRIMSON editorial said "The need for a theatre has been a long-standing one, and undergraduate drama has suffered from lack of it. The facilities now available, Sanders Theatre, Fogg Court and the like, are pitiful and have had much to do with the recent decline of both undergraduate theatrical activity and student interest. The new building will provide a strong stimulus to both of these factors in the equation."

In the year 1956, however, these disturbed words have an ironical significance, for most theatre people still desire an actual Harvard Theatre, but whereas in 1953, there was virtually no interest in dramatic activities, some 12 different organizations are presently flourishing, possessing an exuberance and creative drive that was totally unforseen then.

These groups not only use Sanders and Fogg Court to excellent advantage, but have taken over the House Dining Halls and antiquated Agassiz Theatre to produce drama that is not only exciting but also of an unusually high quality. Last weekend for instance, four different College groups put on shows of almost equal artistic merit, varying from the definitely "off-beat" Sartre to the imposing presentation of Sophocles in the original Greek.

New Drive for Theatre

And while the drama has grown in this year to such proportions that some people fear it may eventually "explode" and destroy itself, in the last month a new revival for the long-discussed Harvard Theatre has started. The Visual Arts Committee, headed by multi-millionaire John Nicholas Brown '22, recommended in its report that the Theatre be built as part of a large-scale Visual Arts Center. The question now is not "will there be a Theatre?" but "when" and "what will it be like?" There is a general air of optimism surrounding the eventual erection of the Theatre that was unknown in 1953.

The men who are doing this actual fund raising have been very quiet, however, about the present financial situation. One of the leaders in the campaign, John Mason Brown '23, who in 1953 assumed control of the Alumni Theatre Committee, said then that over $50,000 had been pledged. His last report given to the CRIMSON two weeks ago is that pledges are "coming in very slowly." University officials have indicated that they are trying to obtain one large donor, rather than conduct an all-out campaign. It is understood that in the last year, one prospective donor withdrew his offer at the last minute.

From the days when theatre at Harvard meant a handful of dedicated participants, there are now more interested people than can be comfortably accommodated. Harold R. Scott '57, who has been a leader in this revival of spirit, playing the dual roe of actor (John of Gaunt in the Eliot Drama Group's Richard II) and director (the HDC's Something Wild), estimated that there are "about 200 people from Harvard and Radcliffe who have performed in one show or another."

Change in Attitude

Someone absent from the Harvard scene since 1953-54 would be astonished at the change in attitude toward drama. How would be compelled to ask. "What caused this change?" In 1953 if he had been told that dramatics would hold a dominant position in the University in 1956, he would have said this would only be possible with a Harvard Theatre. The reasons for the turnabout in attitudes is not readibly explainable. Walter Kerr of the New York Herald-Tribune points to the recent surge of dramatic activity throughout the country as being based on a "removal of political suppression" and "economic prosperity," but at Harvard, students who have been active in drama since 1953 have a more empirical reason.

One of the best-informed people on recent developments in dramatic activity here is Stephen A. Aaron '57, who has directed such successes as last year's The Sea Gull and Threepenny Opera and this season's Death of a Salesman. Aaron believes that the unexpected success of last year's Threepenny Opera, given by the Lowell House Opera Society, was the turning point--the signal which opened the way for the present burst of activity.

Up until 1955, the Lowell House group was a pleasant, conservative organization which produced Baroque operas and works of similar limited appeal. In 1954, for instance, the group produced King Arthur by John Dryden and Henry Purcell. The Society operated on a small budget, and was content to break even. In 1955, however, producer Fred Kimball '55 wanted to go beyond the self-imposed limitations of Lowell productions. He picked "The Threepenny" because it had a modern appeal, but still could fit within the framework of "opera." It is this same reasoning which has led the Society to produce The Golden Apple this weekend.

Needless to say, the "Threepenny" was a "smashing success" and sold out for five straight nights, the last one being added to meet an overwhelming demand. Aaron believes that this showed other House groups that performances of superior quality could be achieved in House Dining Halls, and could prove both financially and artistically successful.

The Rush Starts

This fall, the boon was on! Eliot House announced the formation of its Drama Group to produce plays meeting the demand for an "intimate theatre;" Adams House went beyond the traditional scope of House productions to present Alcestis in Sanders Theatre and its Music Society gave Virgil Thomson and Gertrude Stein's opera The Mother of Us All. The Eliot group gave three productions this year, The Tempest, Richard II, and The Merchant of Venice, all of which were very favorably received.

Eliot's Interpretation

The Eliot Drama Group has provoked much discussion this year, through its interpretation of a "House group." Up until last spring, a House group generally consisted of House members with the necessary Radcliffe contributions. The group's main function was to provide an intra-House activity for those in the House so inclines, and to attract freshmen who might be interested in such an organization.

However, the stimulus of directors and actors like Aaron, Scot, Colgate Salsbury '57, D.J. Sullivan '57, and john H. Poppy '57--students with more than amateur interest in drama--caused a re-evaluation of House productions. Quality became so important that every effort was made to "get the best man for the part," even if he were not a member of the particular House.

'As Many as Possible'

Donald Tashjian '56 one of the founders of the Eliot Drama Group, says the club tries "to get as many men as possible in a play, and if two people are equal for a part, we usually take the Eliot House man."

In the past, House groups generally have given just one production per year, but this year Eliot gave three. The reason for this was simple. By drawing its personnel from the whole University, the Drama Group was just another HDC in disguise. It had the added advantage of having a definite place to rehearse, whereas the HDC has had to move around to find adequate rehearsal space. Tashjian points out that "the support of Master Finley has been inestimable," referring to the fact that a House group has "an angel" in its Master who can usually appropriate House funds to help the group out if it is in financial trouble, as well as being ready to provide additional assistance.

This amazing success of the House Groups, which try to appeal to the same audiences as does the HDC, and which have consistently produced high quality performances, has presented theatre people with a dilemma. On one hand they recognize the "present prosperity" of drama, but on the other hand they believe Harvard must have its own University Theatre.

Ingenuity

The success of the House productions has appealed to the romantic and creative natures of drama people here. They are quick to respond to the ingenuity that a stage designer must evince every time a play is produced. Seats have been pulled from Sanders to make way for Alcestic and Willy Loman; the whole concept of leisurely dining has been disrupted by the energetic stage hands who work while the rest of the House eats. A producer must be a jack-of-all-trades at Harvard. He must know where he can rent lights for the cheapest rates, what printer will put out his program with the least delays, and he must be an architect, painter, and electrician to ready his show for an opening.

In past weeks it has become evident that the exuberance and pure number of 5David H. RhinelanderHAROLD R. SCOTT '57