The Group Theatre: An Enduring Legacy

American theater in the 1930s often receives short shrift. Prevailing opinion has Eugene O’Neill meteorically rising in the 1920s only to become a recluse during the Great Depression. We then must wait almost another generation before Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, and O’Neill (from the grave) arrive to save American culture from a theatrical desert. I exaggerate, of course. But only a little. As a scholar who has centered my research on the 1920s to the 1950s, I have encountered the spirit of this opinion many times. Yet Harold Clurman referred to the Depression years as “fervent.” Indeed, bold experimentation was taking place during the 1930s in such organizations as the Group Theatre and the Federal Theatre Project. American theater was hardly a barren cultural wasteland awaiting a new messiah. But this raises a tantalizing question. What if O’Neill had not ventured into self-imposed exile in the early 1930s? Would the Group Theatre’s artistic philosophy and experimental methods have emboldened O’Neill to return to his Provincetown roots and work with a new set of radicals?Mark Connelly’s new book does not answer my questions but does acknowledge that there has been no shortage of documentation related to the Group since Clurman published The Fervent Years in the 1940s. Connelly references not only notable studies by Wendy Smith and Helen Krich Chinoy but also biographies, autobiographies, and histories related to Group Theatre alumni. When one adds scholarship available on the Actors Studio (and Connelly does), it may lead one to wonder what else, exactly, needs to be said. Fortunately, Connelly makes his purpose clear on page 1: “The aim of this book is to examine the history and the enduring legacy of the Group Theatre in one volume.” Accordingly, the book is divided into two parts: History and Legacy. The first five chapters cover the general history of the Group’s existence. The remaining nine chapters delve into the legacy, highlighting myriad ways the Group influenced and continues to influence American theater today. The book concludes with an encyclopedic collection of information on every Group Theatre production as well as career profiles of the major players. Thus, a critical point to bear in mind in approaching the book is that Connelly aims to condense rather than expand.The chapters covering the Group’s history draw from standard sources and are presented in an accessible manner. Connelly avoids jargon and minutely detailed analyses from any theoretical lens. He takes us through the Group’s journey, from Clurman’s pseudo-religious talks that inspired its creation to the financial struggles and personal acrimonies that contributed to its demise, with clear organization easily digestible for most readers. Those scholars who are well-versed in the Group Theatre’s history might find themselves underwhelmed by the lack of anything new. The first paragraph of the first chapter, for example, contains fifteen footnotes, most of which derive from standard sources. Connelly demonstrates deft skill at synthesizing those sources and presenting a competent history of the Group, which aligns with his goal.Though the goal is summation, there are times when the writing becomes somewhat repetitive and perhaps could have benefited from some measure of expansiveness. Such was the case in chapter 4, entitled “Six Plays,” wherein Connelly covers the Clifford Odets canon. Each play receives a thorough plot synopsis followed by a summary of critical reaction. For specific critical comment, however, Connelly quotes Brooks Atkinson time and time again while other critics are usually generalized. Atkinson’s position as the principal drama critic for the New York Times, a position he held for decades, certainly renders him a critic of some significance. However, in a city brimming with daily newspapers as well as various weekly and monthly publications, most of which also covered theater, defaulting to Atkinson unnecessarily limits the scope of critical opinion. Moreover, it becomes predictable and, thus, somewhat tiresome.Part 2, surveying the legacy of the Group, arguably represents the book’s greatest strength. The first chapter offers life and career summaries of most of the Group alumni. In addition to principals, Connelly includes coverage of lesser-known artists such as Margaret Barker, Ruth Nelson, Russell Collins, William Challee, and Howard da Silva. Providing broad overviews of many of the minor players accentuates Connelly’s purpose and, moreover, emphasizes the spirit of the Group’s ideal. That ideal being a company of actors without stars, who all contribute to the development of a whole theater rather than an individual production. Recognizing the careers of minor players, many of whom went on to extensive careers in theater, film, and television speaks to the pervasiveness of the Group’s influence. Connelly shows us early and reinforces throughout part 2 that the Group Theatre’s impact on American drama stretched far beyond its closure.Chapter 7 moves from individual careers to the still urgent need for unity many Group alums possessed after the theater closed. Connelly elucidates the dissonance among those who dashed off to Hollywood for more lucrative opportunities yet despised commercialism and longed for a return to the noble purpose fostered by the Group. Franchot Tone, Elia Kazan, and Odets are held up as the poster children of this dissonance. The appeal of the Group’s philosophy led many former members to establish the Actors’ Laboratory Theatre in 1941 as a descendant of the original Group. Here Connelly comes to sorting out one of the Group’s more controversial and misunderstood aspects: its politics; or rather, its alleged politics. The degree of communist influence in the Group has long been a question, especially considering Kazan’s infamous testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Connelly highlights that the Actors’ Lab was much more open in its political motivations, a fact that led to its dissolution once it came under scrutiny of the California state legislature in 1948. Connelly does an excellent job tracking how this event served as a prelude for the more well-known congressional committee hearings that would dominate the American political landscape in the 1950s.In the next three chapters, Connelly moves into the formation of the Actors Studio, the HUAC hearings, and the reemergence of Lee Strasberg. Connelly proves dexterous at handling potentially touchy subjects. Kazan’s testimony, for example, is handled with relative fairness. The author manifests little interest in condoning or condemning Kazan’s choice or motives. Rather he presents the facts of the testimony and offers reactions from Kazan and his contemporaries. Connelly’s handling of Odets’s testimony is especially moving without being judgmental. Likewise, Connelly takes an honest look at Strasberg, one of American theater’s most polarizing figures. He acknowledges Strasberg’s influence while also highlighting the mythology that has grown around him. Whether Strasberg and his Method was good or bad, the author takes no firm position. Evidence and testimony are presented without a specific authorial point of view. Connelly here, as he tends to do throughout the book, leaves the reader to decide. This aspect may seem passive, but it stands in keeping with the author’s stated purpose, which is to present a single-volume history of the Group.The succeeding chapters contend with the Group’s legacy more broadly with a focus on the significant teachers the Group spawned and various documentary projects covering the Group’s history. Among teachers other than Strasberg (who receives adequate coverage in the Actors Studio chapters), Connelly highlights Robert Lewis, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. Each is taken in turn with a summary of their techniques and listing of major schools and theaters across the world that subscribe to their methodologies. Herein the writing becomes somewhat tedious. The section on Meisner, for example, includes summaries of no fewer than thirty-one individual practitioners, studios, and theaters that subscribe to the Meisner technique. The information reads like a directory and seems better suited to an appendix rather than the body of a chapter. Similar results are given for both Lewis and Adler. This information serves comprehensiveness and some may well find it useful, but it tends to disrupt the flow of the prose.In terms of my speculation about O’Neill posed at the start of this review, it seems unlikely he would have found an amiable home in the Group. By this point in his career, O’Neill was an established name in American theater whereas most of the Group members were not. In that respect, the conflicts the Group experienced when one of their members, such as Tone and Odets, became famous would likely have been more exacerbated with O’Neill. Moreover, it seems unlikely that O’Neill, notorious for his exacting and immovable will when it came to his plays, would have found the Group ideal to his liking. For one thing, the Group was founded on the notion of a holistic theater that would function as a company rather than a single play enterprise. I am reminded of one of O’Neill’s Provincetown contemporaries who once complained that O’Neill was more focused on plays than he was on theater. This attitude would have run against the communal ideal of the Group. Furthermore, the Group contained within its ranks its own set of strong personalities. O’Neill and Strasberg, for example, most certainly would have clashed. One also imagines that Stella Adler speaking her mind would be as much to O’Neill’s chagrin as it was to Strasberg’s.In conclusion, Connelly’s book achieves what its author intended. It is an excellent comprehensive, single-volume treatment of the Group Theatre and its legacy. Scholars in search of exciting new interpretations are likely to be disappointed. But fresh interpretation is not the book’s purpose. This book would well serve anyone attempting to gain greater familiarity with the Group Theatre for the first time. A graduate student seminar or, perhaps, an undergraduate course in theater history seeking to highlight the Group would be well-served by Connelly’s book. The book might also be of use to anyone interested in studying American acting theory. Connelly does an excellent job of synthesizing various available sources to deliver a fully comprehensive examination of one of American theater’s most legendary institutions.