Abstract
The early twentieth century is a problematic era in American theatre. A key critical commonplace is that the work of this era avoided or simply ignored the seismic shifts of the world beyond the Great White Way. A few scholars, however, have shown some appreciation of the pre-1920 years of Broadway. Brenda Murphy, for example, acknowledges the period as one of transition—crucial years for establishing realistic principles in American drama (Murphy 86). John Gassner makes a case for the “sweepings” of Progressive muckraking that “fell” on the early twentieth-century American stage (Gassner viii), and the controversial feminist heroines of Rachel Crothers have garnered more than cursory interest in the past 25 years. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that Ronald Wainscott’s summation of the period is representative of—an era given “short shrift” because “what is clearly missing in most of the work is a direct assessment of or confrontation with the obvious vicissitudes and tensions of the larger world surrounding the microcosm of the American theatre” (Wainscott, “Plays” 263).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Wiebe, antedating the Ehrenreichs, does not use the term “PMC,” but he references “a new middle class,” which was common alternative parlance regarding the professional workers under consideration. See Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order: 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967) 111.
The new experts led various reforms throughout the Progressive Period, but such reforms need to be placed within the broader perspective of preserving capitalist culture. As Howard Zinn explains, “What was clear in this period to blacks, to feminists, to labor organizers and socialists, was that they could not count on the national government. True, this was the ‘Progressive Period,’ the start of the Age of Reform; but it was a reluctant reform, aimed at quieting the popular risings, not making fundamental changes.” See Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492–Present (New York: Harper Collins, 2003) 349.
See Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911).
The notion of actor as scientist probably begins more properly with the ideas of Delsarte, imported to the U.S. at the end of the nineteenth century by Steele Mackaye. In his attempt to discover how real people move and speak in various situations, Delsarte accumulated data through long-term and long-range study of people of all ages and stations, in moments of great stress as well as in ordinary situations. See Ted Shawn, Every Little Movement: A Book about François Delsarte (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Book Co., 1976) 16.
James McTeague, Before Stanislavsky: American Professional Acting Schools and Acting Theory, 1875–1925 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993).
Woodruff, in fact, claimed to be 27 at the time. See James Metcalfe, “Brown of Harvard.” Life Magazine, 8 Mar. 1906. In Selected Theatre Criticism, Volume 1: 1900–1919. Ed. Anthony Slide (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1985) 36.
See especially Bruce McConachie, Melodramatic Formations: American Theatre & Society 1820–1870 (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1992)
Copyright information
© 2009 Michael Schwartz
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwartz, M. (2009). Introduction: A Matter for Experts. In: Broadway and Corporate Capitalism. Palgrave Studies in Theatre and Performance History. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230623323_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230623323_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-38004-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-62332-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)