No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“It Brought the World to this Coast”: The World Premiere of Eugene O'Neill'S Lazarus Laughed at the Pasadena Community Playhouse
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2010
Extract
Almost two years after its completion in May of 1926, Eugene O'Neill's Lazarus Laughed received its premiere production—not in New York. This “Play for an Imaginative Theatre,” clearly the most theatrically demanding of all of O'Neill's works, made its first appearance in California, at the Pasadena Community Playhouse, opening April 9, 1928. Not since the days when his earliest one-act plays were produced at the Wharf Theatre in Provincetown, Massachusetts, had an O'Neill play failed to result in a New York production.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1988
References
NOTES
1 “Praises Star-News Review of ‘Lazarus,’” Pasadena Star-News, April 27,1928 (10:96). (See note 4.)
2 The first trade edition of Lazarus Laughed (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1927) bore this subtitle, as did the Playhouse program (though the press frequently misread it as “imaginary” theatre). Neither the limited edition of 1927 nor the later reprinting in Nine Plays by Eugene O'Neill (New York: Liveright, 1932) contained the subtitle.
3 I am using the information given in the Appendix to Bogard, Travis, Contourin Time: The Plays of Eugene O'Neill (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 455–474.Google ScholarChris Christophersen never got beyond its out-of-town opening in Atlantic City, New Jersey, but the production was New York-bound; this play eventually became “Anna Christie,” which was presented in New York. Several other productions began outside New York in tryouts.
4 I am very grateful to Susan Naulty, of the Rare Books Department of the Huntington Library, for generously allowing me access to this collection and in many ways helping me to understand and make use of the materials. The papers were officially turned over to the Huntington in 1987, where they are being catalogued and prepared for use by qualified scholars. The collection should be fully accessible by 1990. The 118 scrapbooks cover the entire history of the Playhouse until its cessation of activity in the late 1950s, as well as a file of around 5000 photographs. There are 73 document case boxes of production files (programs, clippings, and promotional material)—44 for mainstage productions, 18 for non-mainstage, 6 oversize boxes; also, one box of material related to the Savoy Players, Gilmor Brown's professional group that preceded the formation of the Pasadena Community Players, and 10 boxes of School publications, records, and photographs. There are also 5 to 7 boxes of photographs (mainly negatives) by one of the Playhouse's commissioned photographers, C. Gordon Spalding. There are 12 file drawers of correspondence, including some portion of the files of Gilmor Brown, Fairfax Proudfit Walkup (Dean of Students), and Earl Messer (long-time secretary of the Board of Trustees). Finally, there is a ledger book recording Playhouse productions (cf. note 104). (A small collection of papers at UCLA, concerning the efforts made in the 1960s to solve the financial difficulties of the Playhouse and reopen it as a theatre, supplements the Huntington collection and completes the organization's entire history until its recent reopening.)
The clipping books of the Pasadena Community Playhouse contain pasted clippings in roughly chronological order, often with a stamped date (presumably supplied by a professional clipping service or by someone on the staff of the Playhouse). Almost always the clippings are presented apart from or without a printed title of the periodical, but usually a stamped title is attached or the title is handwritten. I have trusted the accuracy of these identifying devices, except where it was practical to check. Occasionally the title of the article is incomplete or missing; only rarely does a page number appear. In these notes, I include whatever bibliographical information is available and always refer to the volume and page number of the scrapbook where the clipping appears, indicating first the volume number, then the page number (volume: page).
5 O'Neill, Eugene, “The Theatre We Worked For”: The Letters of Eugene O'Neill to Kenneth Macgowan, ed. Bryer, Jackson R. with the assitance of Alvarez, Ruth M., with introductory essays by Board, Travis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 112.Google Scholar Subsequent references to this volume will be designated by TWWF.
6 Bogard, , Contour in Time, pp. 278–80.Google Scholar
7 TWWF, p. 128.
8 TWWF, p. 118.
9 TWWF, p. 127.
10 TWWF, p. 134.
11 Quoted in Sheaffer, Louis, O'Neill, Son and Artist (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1973), p. 230.Google Scholar
12 TWWF, p. 121.
13 TWWF, p. 128.
14 TWWF, p. 141.
15 TWWF, p. 140. In an interview with Richard Watts, Jr., O'Neill listed Alexander Moissi along with Chaliapin, and, Watts reported, “He can think of no American actor qualified” (“Realism in Drama Is Doomed, Eugene O'Neill Believes,” Dallas News, February 12,1928(9:200)).
16 Eugene O'Neill letter (Letter 192) of September 11, 1927, to Agnes Boulton, in Harvard Theatre Collection
17 The first mention of this scheme in the correspondence is in O'Neill's letter to Macgowan on December 7, 1926, responding to Macgowan's “news from Chicago”; TWWF, p. 136.
18 “The Great World Theatre,” Theatre Arts Monthly, Vol. XI, No. 3 (March 1927), p. 163. Most of the negotiations on this ultimately unsuccessful venture can be gleaned in the papers of the Kenneth Macgowan Collection at UCLA, which contains virtually all of the correspondence coming from Chicago and carbons of many of Macgowan's responses, as well as the contract and other materials. There is also a carbon of a letter from Macgowan to O'Neill that is not included in TWWF, detailing nuts and bolts of the Chicago negotiations. At this time the Chicago Play Production Company was trying to persuade Macgowan and possibly O'Neill to join its board in an advisory capacity. Macgowan seems to have agreed to this. The terms of the eventual contract were 5% on the first $4,000 of gross, 7.5% on the next $2,000, and 10% on everything over $6,000. The rights were limited to Chicago. A four week guarantee was discussed. It is clear that some actors were signed, some were even on payroll; by January 1927, they expected the production to get under way at any moment. One interesting detail was that Gering agreed to leave all film rights out of the deal. Also, at one point the Chicagoans suggest that Reinhardt direct the project in Chicago, then take the American production to Germany! What better way to show the world the strength of the American theatre? One term of negotiation that was disputed back and forth was the amount of money the CPPC was willing to commit to a budget. Initially, Gering was willing to undersign $20,000, but Macgowan insisted on $30,000. The CPPC produced a tentative budget, listing 5–7 thousand for sets, 4.5–7.5 for costumes, 2–3 for masks, and 3–4 for properties. The budget, which totaled $31–38,000, also mentioned $3,000 for Geddes' fee, $500 for the composer, and $ 1,500 for the Advisory Counsel (i.e., Macgowan). Toward the end of the negotiations it becomes clear that the board has lost confidence in Gering as its director; there is talk of replacing him with B. Iden Payne (Director of the Goodman Theatre). Finally, in February 1927, CPPC proposes to postpone the production until October, and the project collapses.
19 TWWF, p. 144.
20 “Inviting Your Subscription to the Chicago Play Production Company's First Season,” publicity brochure (in Macgowan Collection, UCLA). The brochure also promised “one stage picture dissolving into another,” as in a “motion picture” and 800 costumes, 700 masks, and a musical score specially composed by Ruth Warfield, all to be offered on the “largest stage in Chicago”—the Goodman Theatre.
21 TWWF, p. 146.
22 TWWF. p. 146.
23 Theatre Ans Monthly, Vol. XI, No. 3 (May 1927), pp. 321–24. Two of Geddes'costume sketches were also shown in this issue, pp. 331–32.
24 TWWF, p. 157.
25 Simonson, Lee, The Stage is Set (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1963), p. 344 and p. 337.Google Scholar
26 Waldau, Roy S., Vintage Years of the Theatre Guild: 1928–1939 (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1972), p. 45.Google Scholar
27 Letter from Richard J. Madden to Kenneth Macgowan, December 3, 1928 (in the Macgowan Collection, UCLA); the Berkman translation was completed and is in the Beinecke Library at Yale University. A letter from Carlotta Monterey to Saxe Commins on August 16, 1928, mentions her hope that a man named Calmy will be “in his bones a poet” and so suitable to translate “my adored ‘Lazarus’” into French. (“Love and Admiration and Respect”: The O'Neill-Commins Correspondence, ed. Dorothy Commins (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986), p. 37.)
28 Quoted in Arthur, and Gelb, Barbara, O'Neill (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 602.Google Scholar The Gelbs also mention that O'Neill offered Lazarus Laughed to George Pierce Baker as the play to open the new Yale University Theatre, without result (p. 604). Ina September 4, 1927, letter to Agnes Boulton (Letter 191, Harvard Theatre collection), O'Neill mentions that he is seeking an English production. He also reports the possibility of Maurice Schwartz doing the play at the Jewish Art Theatre, but his next letter says the idea came to nothing: “They were afraid down there it would offend their Orthodox audience” (Letter 192). A September 7, 1929, letter from O'Neill to [Eric?] Wettergren suggests that the Royal Swedish Theater had expressed interest in the play (Beinecke Library, Yale University).
29 “O'Neill Going to Coast,” New York Times, February 8, 1928 (9:193).
30 “Eugene O'Neill Coming West to Direct His Play,” Santa Monica Outlook, January 31, 1928 (9:177). On March 25, this paper reported that O'Neill “has arrived” (“South Branch to Aid O'Neill Drama” (9:231)).
31 This rumor came from Gilmor Brown himself, who had “heard from a friend who had seen the writer in San Francisco on his way to Carmel” (Monroe Lathrop, “Eugene O'Neill Badly Spread Out by Rumor,” Los Angeles Evening Express, March 21, 1928 (10:36)).
32 San Francisco Bulletin, May 21, 1928 (10:143).
33 Ebel was on the faculty of the University of Redlands and recalled that they were “fast friends” (“Noted Dramatist May Visit Old Redlands Friend,” The Redlands Daily Facts, April 7, 1928(10:57)).
34 To Shane he said he was going to “watch them putting on another play of mine” (quoted in Gelb and Gelb, O'Neill, pp. 664–65).
35 New York Post, February 14, 1928 (9:193).
36 “World Premier [sic] Tonight At Community Playhouse,” Pasadena Morning Sun, April 9, 1928 (10: 52). The same article advised: “Those who know O'Neill say he will be in the theatre, but he will do everything to hide his identity.” On May 21, the San Francisco Bulletin reported: “Carl Van Vechten arrived in Hollywood shortly before the famous world premiere, ‘I think you will find that O'Neill has gone to France,’ said he knowingly” (10:143).
37 Quoted in Bowen, Croswell (with the assistance of Shane O'Neill), The Curse of the Misbegotten: A Tale of the House of O'Neill (New York: McGraw Hill, 1959), p. 181.Google Scholar This story was effectively leaked to the newspapers, appearing in Monroe Lathrop's column, “Moscow Will Next View the Lazarus Play,” Los Angeles Evening Express, May 10, 1928 (10:120).
38 Pasadena Community Playhouse News (playbill), Vol. III, No. 18 (April 9 to April 21, 1928), pp. 16–17; “Critic Calls Production of O'Neil [sic] Drama Epochal Event,” Santa Barbara News. March 23, 1928 (10:47).
39 “Drama Group to Appear in Plays,” Glendale News Press, April 7, 1928 (10:56); “Pichel Picked For Lazarus,” Los Angeles Evening Express, March 3, 1928(9:211); these and similar articles often refer to Benjamin De Casseres’ article on O'Neill, in Theatre Magazine, Vol. 47, No. 323 (February 1928), pp. 12–13, 62.Google Scholar
40 Los Angeles Evening Express, March 24, 1928 (10:37); “O'Neill Play to Follow ‘Wild Duck’ at Pasadena,” Los Angeles Record, March 24, 1928 (10:37).
41 “Shakespeareans Hear Reading of Play by O'Neill,” Pomona Progress Bulletin, March 6, 1928(9:218).
42 “Proofs of Drama Sent to Director,” Pasadena Star-News, April 3, 1928 (10:44). Brown was perhaps the most outspoken leader of what was called (in Theatre Arts Monthly) the “Tributary Theatre,” expounding its aims frequently in the leading theatrical journals, including The Little Theatre Monthly (of which he was an Advisory Editor).
43 A superficial and incomplete study of Brown, Gilmor is available in Gilmor Brown: Portrait of a Man—And an Idea by Green, Harriet L. (Burns Printing Co.: Pasadena, 1933).Google Scholar A similar work on the Pasadena Playhouse is Book of the Pasadena Community Playhouse, ed. Green, Harriet L., assisted by Chapinand, Robert F.Marshall, Everett C. (Pasadena Playhouse Press, 1934).Google Scholar A more recent study by Alexander, Diane, Foreword by Burr, Raymond, Playhouse (Los Angeles: Dorleac-MacLeish, 1984)Google Scholar is filled with good anecdotes, especially of the later years of the organization, and first-hand reports by many of the stars who have worked at the Playhouse, but it is not properly a history and occasionally falls short on accuracy. Most important is a 1968 UCLA dissertation by Shoup, Gail Leo Jr, “The Pasadena Community Playhouse: Its Origins and History from 1917 to 1942.” Oral histories of Gilmor Brown (covering only his early life and the very early years of the Playhouse)Google Scholar, Lenore Shanewise, and several others connected with the theatre are also available at UCLA.
44 Brown, did boast that it was “the only paying little theater in America” (“‘Lazarus’ Now in Hollywood,” Los Angeles Times. May 13, 1928(10:131)).Google Scholar
45 These dimensions are given in Hersey, F.W., “Lazarus Laughed,” The Drama, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May 1928), p. 244Google Scholar (10: 147). Green, in Book of the Playhouse, says the stage was 80' wide, 31' deep from the curtain line, with a proscenium arch 31.5' by 20' and a 67' flyloft.
46 Brown, Gilmor, quoted in “‘Lazarus’Now in Hollywood,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1928 (10:131).Google Scholar Photographs of the model can be seen in “‘Lazarus Laughed’: Out of O'Neill's Melting Pot,” Southland, April 1928 (10:81) and also in the 27–'28 volume of the series of the Pasadena Community Playhouse photograph albums in the Huntington Library.
47 Hersey, , The Drama, p. 245.Google Scholar Hersey gives a precise and complete description of just how the scenes were created with these Craigian units. A note accompanying his by line in a Denver Post story indicates that Hersey was an employee of the Playhouse (“Pasadena Players Faced Task Producing ‘Lazarus Laughed,’” Denver Post, n.d. (10:146)). See also Kehoe's, M.E. account of how Hyde “followed the Gordon Craig principles,” along with a detailed description of the set changes, in Theatre Magazine, Vol.47, No. 328 (July 1928), pp. 42–44.Google Scholar
48 Lathrop, Monroe, “‘Lazarus Laughed’ Author Outshone By His Producer,” Los Angeles Evening Express, April 10, 1928 (10:61).Google Scholar
49 Pasadena Star-News, April 11, 1928 (10:59). The reviewer added: “I have never seen light used to more effective dramatic purpose.”
50 Johnson, Jessie, “Colorful Play Seen Through Other Eyes,” Pasadena Evening Post, April 10, 1928(10:61).Google Scholar
51 Bogard, , Contour in Time, pp. 467–68Google Scholar, lists 15 actors who played 18 named parts and 159 players who doubled in the approximately 420 chorus and crowd roles; a few from the first list also appear in the second.
52 The masks of the principals were built by students from Chouinard Art School, those of the chorus by UCLA art students. See “Remembering the Pasadena Playhouse: Lenore Shanewise,” interviewed by Bernard Galm in 1974 (UCLA Oral History Program, 1980 transcript). Shanewise reports that the masks were later destroyed in a warehouse fire. On the subject of the double-sized masks, O'Neill wrote to Macgowan, : “My objective was to approximate the effect of the Greek masks and give plenty of room for a megaphone effect inside the mouths that would give a distinctive volume & sound to the chanting and help to carry across each word distinctly… My notion was that the masks should be double in every sense—the Chorus as utterly distinct (visually) from the crowd…a strange & unreal intensification of the crowd… But remember the megaphone… The Chorus chant must sound different from the chant of Crowd” (TWWF, p. 148).Google Scholar Shanewise recalls that the masks ‘of the crowd muffled the voices too much, and holes had to be cut into the masks (quoted in Alexander, , Playhouse, p. 99).Google Scholar Monroe Lathrop noted that the effect of “weird unreality” created by the masks was “heightened still further with the muffling of voices behind the masks to hollow, sepulchral tones” (Lathrop, , Los Angeles Evening Express, April 10, 1928 (10:61)).Google Scholar
53 “Detail Aids O'Neill Play Atmosphere,” Pasadena Evening Post, April 24, 1928 (10:90).
54 “Playhouse Drama Has Much Detail,” Pasadena Star-News, April 24, 1928 (10:91).
55 “Lazarus’ Robe Most Beautiful in O'Neill Play,” Pasadena Morning Sun, April 12, 1928 (10:59). The robe was described as “white…with weirdly beautiful spray design in yellow and green gold and silver, which seems to burst into darting flame when the light strikes it.” (“‘Robe of Life’ Wins Attention in Drama,” Pasadena Star-News, April 12, 1928(10:65)).
56 “Lazarus Laughed to Show Scenes of Grandeur,” Pasadena Morning Sun, April 6, 1928(10:49).
57 Ussher, Bruno David, “‘Lazarus Laughed’ Author Outshone By His Producer,” Los Angeles Evening Express, April 10, 1928 (10:61).Google Scholar On the Oriental theme of the music, one critic wrote: “There were no Jewish wails in a minor key, which would have been historic but depressing” (Burford, Fern, “‘Lazarus Laughed’—Masterpeice of Art Being Discussed,” South Coast News, May 4, 1928 (10: 116)).Google Scholar
58 All three of these quotations are from Josephine Feutinger, “Correlation of the Incidental Music with the Action in the Production of ‘Lazarus Laughed’” (insert in playbill of the revival), April 1,1929, n.p. I was unable to locate Alexander's score, buta photostat of the first page appears in Shoup, “The Pasadena Community Playhouse,” p. 210.
59 “Possibilities of O'Neill Play as Opera Discussed,” Pasadena Morning Sun, April 14, 1928 (10: 68); Bortrait, Vocha Fiske, “Pasadena Players Achieve Success in O'Neill's Play,” Daily Californian (U.C., Berkeley), April 16, 1928 (10: 75).Google Scholar Bortrait compares the score to those of Georges Auric.
60 Greene, Patterson, “‘Lazarus’ Close Kin to Opera,” Los Angeles Examiner, April 15, 1928 (10: 75).Google Scholar
61 Miller, Llewellyn, “Fine Stage Characterizations in ‘Lazarus Laughed’ at Pasadena,” Los Angeles Record, April 14, 1928 (10: 72).Google Scholar Edson was instructor in movement at the Playhouse School; she had studied ballet in Russia and taught for two years at the Denishawn School.
62 Warren, George C., “New O'Neill Play Scores at Pasadena,” San Francisco Chronicle. April 10, 1928 (10: 65).Google Scholar This piece, which was carried by the New York Times on April 10, has been reprinted in O'Neill and His Plays, ed. Oscar Cargill, N. Bryllion Fagin, and William J. Fisher (New York: New York University Press, 1961), pp. 178–80.
63 Schauert, Edwin, “O'Neill Play Spectacular,” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1928 (10: 64).Google Scholar
64 Lathrop, , Los Angeles Evening Express, April 10, 1928 (10: 61).Google Scholar
65 Graham Runyon, F., “Feast for Dreamers Is Seen in Lazarus,” Pasadena Evening Post, April 10, 1928 (10: 60).Google Scholar
66 O'Neill's letter to Arthur Hobson Quinn on “the Greek dream in tragedy” was quoted by “L. B. W.” in Southland, April 1928 (10:81). The letter is reprinted in Cargill, , et al., O'Neill and His Plays, pp. 125–26.Google Scholar
67 Bristol, Edith, “World Premiere of ‘Lazarus Laughed,’” San Francisco Call & Post, April 7, 1928 (10: 51)Google Scholar; “‘Lazarus Laughed’ Opens April 21 [sic] at Pasadena Playhouse,” Monrovia News, April 6, 1928 (10: 64). Two long and erudite paragraphs from Hiram Kelly Moderwell's The Theatre of To-day on the regisseur, “the autocraft of the modern theater,” were released by the theatre and were picked up and printed in their entirety or at least paraphrased by quite a few newspapers (cf. Pasadena Star-News, April 3, 1928 (10: 44)); the paragraphs were excerpted from pp. 64–65 of the 1927 Dodd, Mead and Company edition. This is a good example of the remarkable cooperation between the theatre's publicity department and the regional newspapers—an abiding interest in the ideas of this theatre.
68 Miller, , Los Angeles Record, April 14, 1928 (10: 72).Google Scholar
69 Rall, Pearl, “Theaters,” Saturday Night, April 14, 1928 (10: 89)Google Scholar; Hollywood Magazine, April 27, 1928 (10: 99). On opening night, the performance ran from 8:15 (moved from the usual 8: 30) until after midnight; Brown claimed the piece was originally three and a half hours long, from which he cut one half hour—he did not indicate how he managed to do so. See “Lazarus Laughed,” Variety, April 18–28, 1928 (10: 86), and also “Irving Pichel Has Role at Playhouse,” Pasadena Star-News, April 13, 1928 (10: 69). A letter from Irving Pichel to Kenneth Macgowan on April 10, 1928, says the “first performance ran till exactly midnight. We will gain half an hour on intermissions and on early start to-night” (Macgowan Collection, UCLA). Runyon, in the Pasadena Evening Post, April 10, 1928, wrote: “never was more sincere applause given to any body of actors than that which followed the first scene of this interesting play. It could have ended there and rested on the laurels of being one of the greatest of one-act plays. But it didn't end and we were glad it didn't. However, it should have ended sooner than it did” (10: 60). According to the playbill, the interval between the second and third scenes required five minutes, and ten minutes were taken at the mid-point; otherwise, the breaks were all of three minutes.
70 The critic for Los Angeles' Saturday Night, Pearl Rall, theorized that “the children [Miriam] had borne him, long dead, were ever in her mind, so that the creed of constant joy was hard to accept” (April 14, 1928 (10: 89)). Egil Tornqvist quotes a few of O'Neill's notes on this character; she is sad “with the aged sadness of her race” and cannot laugh “because of her memory of the grief when he [Lazarus] was dead and her fear of his dying again” (A Drama of Souls (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), p. 170n). Part of the ad copy used during the 1929 revival suggests another interpretation: “Poor, frightened but loyal Miriam following timidly behind the resurrected Lazarus, feels fate's clutching hand closing about her heart, yet she goes on into the swirl of the mob, into the iniquitous den of Caesar—and dies, only to live— ‘There is no death’” (Pasadena Star-News, April 11, 1929 (12: 246)). Shanewise was Associate Director of the theatre at this time; over about 40 years with the company she directed some 150 productions, acted in many others, and taught in the school.
71 Warren, , San Francisco Chronicle, April 10, 1928 (10: 65).Google Scholar Jerome Coray took over as Caligula in the third week after Jory was forced to leave the production to follow through on a commitment to appear in the annual production of Ramona in Hemet (“Drama School Graduates Busy,” Los Angeles Examiner, April 15, 1928 (10: 75)).
72 “Lazarus Laughed,” Variety, April 18–28, 1928 (10: 86).
73 TWWF, pp. 37, 43. Pichel later worked as a Hollywood screenwriter, actor, and director, and was instrumental in the hiring of Macgowan at RKO in 1932.
74 Modern Theatres (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1925), an enlarged version of On Building a Theatre (New York: Theatre Arts Monograph, No. 1, 1920).
75 Letter of November 24, 1926 (in Macgowan Collection, UCLA).
76 Letter of March 17, 1927 (in Macgowan Collection, UCLA). Fritz was probably Fritz Leiber, an American Shakespearean who made much of his career in Chicago, and who is mentioned by O'Neill (“I am strong for Fritz Lieber [sic]”) in TWWF, p. 149; also, TWWF, p. 153.
77 Letter of July 17, 1927 (in Macgowan Collection, UCLA). “The Rockefeller Doctor Hamilton” would be Gilbert V. Hamilton, in whose studies of modern marriage O'Neill and Macgowan (and possibly Pichel) participated, and whom Macgowan assisted in the writing of What Is Wrong with Marriage.
78 Letter of December 11, 1927 (in Macgowan Collection, UCLA).
79 Burford, , South Coast News, May 4, 1928 (10: 116).Google Scholar
80 Runypn, , Pasadena Evening Post, April 10, 1928 (10: 60).Google Scholar
81 Green, H.L., “Lazarus Laughed,” Pasadena Spectator, May, 1928 (10: 117).Google Scholar
82 Brown, Gilbert, “O'Neill Play Scores in Hollywood,” Los Angeles Record, May 17, 1928 (10: 137).Google Scholar
83 Stechan, H.O., “The Theatre,” California Graphic, April 14, 1928 (10: 110).Google Scholar Another version of Stechan's criticism, which is in general exceptionally harsh, said that Pichel played Lazarus “in a stereotyped Christ-like manner” (“Lazarus Laughed,” Billboard, 40, April 21, 1928 (10: 82), reprinted in Playwright's Progress: O'Neill and the Critics, ed. Jordan Y. Miller (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1965), pp. 61–62). Stechan was the original business manager of the Playhouse, starting in 1919; he took charge of publicity around 1921 (cf. Green, Book of the Playhouse, p. 9); by 1934, Monroe Lathrop, who was the dramatic critic for the Los Angeles Evening Express in 1928, ran the publicity department. I have not been able'to determine who held the post in 1928, except that it was obviously not Stechan.
84 “O'Neill Drama Is Great As Literature,” Pasadena Star-News, April 4, 1928 (10: 46).
85 “Life of O'Neill Is Portrayed by Actor,” Pasadena Evening Post, March 2, 1928 (9: 211).
86 “O'Neill Drama Is Great As Literature,” Pasadena Star-News, April 4, 1928 (10: 46).
87 Letter of April 9, 1928 (in the Macgowan Collection, UCLA).
88 Quoted in “‘Lazarus’ Now in Hollywood,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1928 (10: 131).
89 Davis, W.L.Y., “Lazarus Laughed,” Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1928 (10: 122).Google Scholar
90 Crosby, Sumner, “God's Eternal Laughter,” South Coast News, May 4, 1928 (10: 121).Google Scholar
91 Davis, , Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1928 (10: 122).Google Scholar
92 “The Theatre,” California Graphic, February 4, 1928, p. 13 (9: 198).
93 Miller, , Los Angeles Record, April 14, 1928 (10: 72).Google Scholar
94 Feutinger, Josephine, “Correlation of the Incidental Music with the Action in the Production of ‘Lazarus Laughed,’” insert in Pasadena Community Playhouse News (playbill for revival), April 1, 1929.Google Scholar
95 Green, H.L., “Eugene O'Neill's ‘Lazarus Laughed,’” unknown publication, [April 1928] (10: 82).Google Scholar
96 Crosby, , South Coast News, May 4, 1928 (10: 121).Google Scholar
97 Block, Ralph, “Zarathustra in Hollywood,” New York World, June 10, 1928 (10: 172).Google Scholar
98 “Rialto Gossip,” New York Times, April 8, 1928, sec. 8, p. I.
99 Letter dated April 10,1928, published under the title “Regarding ‘Lazarus Laughed,’” New York Times, April 15, 1928, sec. 9, p. 4. Edgar B. Davis was a Texas oil millionaire who produced a play called The Ladder in 1926. The play did not succeed, but Davis kept it open, making it free to all comers, for nearly a year and a half, losing some $750,000 (cf. Show Biz from Vaude to Video by Abel Green and Joe Laurie, Jr. (New York: Henry Holt Company, 1951), pp. 298–99. Atkinson's book review said the play “recovers some of the primordial impulses of drama” and “takes rank with heroic poetry,” adding: “Each one of Mr. O'Neill's plays pushes further away from literature to the theatre of movement and sound. If ‘Lazarus Laughed’ seems a little turgid to the reader, it should be strangely grand to the playgoer if the script can be brought to life behind the footlights as Mr. O'Neill has planned it” (Brooks Atkinson, J., “Man's Challenge to Death in ‘Lazarus Laughed,’” New York Times, November 27, 1927, sec. 4, p. 5.)Google Scholar O'Neill thanks Macgowan for his letter on April 27 (TWWF, p. 175)).
100 “H.J.M.,” New York Times, April 22, 1928, sec. 9, p. 2.
101 Pasadena Evening Post, March 26, 1929 (12: 250). A story in the New York Review said that the production “continues to be the Mecca of all the high-brow theatregoers… Of course, you will see it in New York next season, where it will undoubtedly prove another sensation” (“‘Lazarus Laughed’ Still Is Sensation in Los Angeles,” April 21, 1928 (10: 98)).
102 “Community Play to Run Fifth Week,” Pasadena Evening Post, May 1, 1928 (10: 100).
103 “O'Neill Play Sets Record in Pasadena,” Pasadena Evening Post, April 23, 1928 ( 10: 86). No one seems to have made the still more apt comparison to James O'Neill's Christus in the David Belasco production of The Passion in San Francisco in 1879.
104 All of this information came from a ledger book in the Huntington Collection that lists all mainstage productions from 1917–18 through 1955–56, giving attendance figures and gross from 1921–22 on. Expenses are listed for some of the productions from 1923 through 1926. The ledger is divided into ten sections—Main Stage; East & West Balcony; Patio; Playbox; Television Plays; Radio; School Assemblies; State Players Theater; Tournament One-Act Plays; Coleman Concerts—and includes titles and grosses for many of the non-mainstage events. The gross receipts for 1927–28 were $127,337.09 for 315 performances of 27 productions, which can be compared with $105,988.28 for 292 performances of 30 plays the year before, and $102,972.07 for 312 performances of 25 plays the year following.
The treasurer's report for 1927–28 showed that receipts exceeded disbursements by $9515, but “dues for various forms of membership” came to $9691, so the Playhouse came within $ 176 of meeting its operating expenses through the box office. Total operating budget for the year was reported as around $100,000. By means of gifts and other sources of revenue the “funded debt” was reduced by $7,500 (“Playhouse Year Successful,” California Graphic, July 7, 1928(10: 211)).
105 “O'Neill Play May come to U.C. Theater,” San Francisco Examiner, May 16, 1928 (10: 119); Lathrop, Monroe, “Beautiful New Houses Enrich Duffy's String,” Los Angeles Evening Express, August 31, 1928 (11: 28)Google Scholar; “Lazarus Laughed May Be Produced in Rose Bowl As Municipal Entertainment,” Pasadena Morning Sun, May 16, 1928 (10: 127).
106 “O'Neill Play to Be Moved to Hollywood,” Pasadena Evening Post, May 1, 1928 (10: 101).
107 “Play Proves Success in Hollywood,” Pasadena Star-News, May 16, 1928 (10: 128).
108 inside Facts (Los Angeles), May 26, 1928 (10: 148). Shoup, in “The Pasadena Community Playhouse,” reported that the PCP Association lost money on the Hollywood venture despite a gross of over $14,000.
109 Runyon, F.F., “Our City,” Pasadena Evening Post, July 18, 1928 (10: 211).Google Scholar
110 Cf. New York Sun, June 7, 1928 (10: 169).
111 I was not able to establish exactly how many performances were given in Hollywood, but the celebration on the final weekend was partly to mark its 50th performance. If the Pasadena schedule (8 shows per week) were followed, then the number would be 16, making a total of 51 performances for the entire run. It should be noted that an inaccurate figure (28) appears in the following O'Neill reference works: O'Neill and His Plays, éd. Cargill, et al.; …The O'Neill-Commins correspondence, ed. Commins, Dorothy; The Eugene O'Neill Companionby Ranald, Margaret Loftus (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1984)Google Scholar; and Eugene O'Neill and the American Critic: A Bibliographical Checklist by Jordan Y. Miller (Hamden, Ct.: Shoe String Press, 1973).
112 MacGowan, Kenneth, Footlights Across America: Towards a National Theater (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1929), p. 241.Google Scholar He adds that it would have cost $50–75,000 on Broadway.
113 Lathrop, Monroe, Los Angeles Evening Express. June 1, 1928 (10: 155).Google Scholar
114 September 15, 1928. I have taken the text of this letter from a photocopy of the original manuscript, in the O'Neill Collection, Beinecke Library, Yale University. A carbon copy typescript of the letter is in the Huntington Library. The original has not been located. The Playhouse released this letter to the newspapers (cf. “Playhouse Has Dramatist's Approval,” Pasadena Star-News. November 15, 1928 (11: 93)).
115 “Kahn May Finance New O'Neill Play,” Detroit Free Press. June 10, 1928 (10: 172).
116 Los Angeles Evening Express, November 1, 1928 (11: 83).
117 “O'Neill Gets First Reading Here,” Zits (New York), November 24, 1928 (11: 112). The story was picked up from the New York Times of November 19,1928 (p. 19), where it bore the more modest title, “Reading Of O'Neill Play”; the story specified that the “reading was primarily for the purpose of furthering the plans for such a large-scale production” by the Provincetown Players.
118 The Pasadena Community Playhouse News of April 1, 1929, formed the playbill. The most important changes in actors were: Jerome Coray as Caligula; Helen Hardison and Josephine Campbell sharing the role of Pompeia; Charles Levison as Marcellus.
119 “O'Neill Drama Opens Run at Playhouse,” Pasadena Star-News, April 2, 1929 (12: 32).
120 “O'Neill Play May Be Given Yearly,” Los Angeles Record. April 6, 1929 (12: 38).
121 See note 104. Shanewise(UCLA oral history) speculated that the decrease in response had to do with economic uncertainty at the outset of the Depression.
122 “Macgowan, Drama Expert, Coming On Double Mission,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 3, 1928 (12: 18).
123 “Playwright Plans to Visit Theater,” Pasadena Star-News. March 29, 1929 (12: 26).
124 TWWF. p. 192. See note 53.
125 MacGowan, , Footlights Across America, p. 17.Google Scholar
126 Quoted in Gelb and Gelb, , O'Neill, p. 720.Google Scholar O'Neill's notes on this project, tentatively assigned to 1931, are given in Eugene O'Neill at Work: Newly Released Ideas for Plays, edited and annotated by Virginia Floyd (New York: Frederick Ungar), p. 224.
127 Chabrowe, Leonard, Ritual and Pathos—the Theater of O'Neill (Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press), p. 58.Google Scholar He writes: “Here, too, everything was done on an amateur basis, the participants being mainly students and local workers. Yet there was an added element. The preparations, which lasted more than seven months, reportedly had a religious atmosphere similar to what characterizes those for a passion play or native Indian ritual drama. The latter of these was and possibly still is the most popular form of drama in Mexico, which might explain the enthusiasm Lazarus was able to evoke with its masks and dancing.”
128 Eugene O'Neill Collection, Beinecke Library, Yale University.
129 Quoted in Chabrowe, , Ritual and Pathos, p. 56.Google Scholar
130 Chabrowe, , Ritual and Pathos, p. 56.Google Scholar
131 Bogard, , Contourin Time, p. 289n.Google Scholar Another scaled-down version was offered at the University of California in Los Angeles in 1964 (Chabrowe, , Ritual and Pathos, p. 207n).Google Scholar