A Sourcebook on Naturalist Theatre
Page 32
(1) G to LC FRANK. … Let me introduce – my father: Miss
Warren. (1)
(2) V to C
(3) F to L
(4) W down to RC
(5) V a step up Vivie (going to the clergyman and shaking his hand) (2) Very glad to see you here, Mr Gardner. (3) Let me introduce everybody. (4) Mr Gardner – Mr Frank Gardner – Mr Praed – Sir George Crofts, and – (5) (As the men are raising their hats to one another; Vivie is interrupted by an exclamation from her mother, who swoops down on the Reverend Samuel).
(6) W to G MRS WARREN. (6) Why, it’s Sam Gardner, gone into the church!
These movements comprise a shifting picture which begins with Mrs Warren, in a crowded centre area, almost hidden by Frank and Vivie. The centre area becomes less congested when Frank moves to stage left. Mrs Warren gradually gains more prominence: she moves toward Gardner, Vivie then clears the way for her, and finally she goes directly to centre-stage to greet him. The gradual shifts can be seen in a series of plans (only the first of which Shaw drew in the margin of his script). At the beginning of the dialogue, when Vivie asks Frank to introduce her to his father, the focus is on her and Frank; Mrs Warren is almost hidden.
When Gardner and Vivie meet each other – (1) and (2) – the focus is on them, but Vivie’s movement provides Mrs Warren with space: she becomes more prominent and we can observe her.
After Vivie introduces herself to Gardner, Frank moves to the left (3), in sufficient time to clear the space so that his father and Crofts can see each other when they are introduced. The central area is now less crowded; Mrs Warren is set off by more space.
During these introductions, as Gardner turns from downstage right to upstage left, Mrs Warren begins to move toward him (4): she can now do so without being observed by him. Gardner first looks downstage right, at Praed.
Vivie then moves upstage a step (5), giving the focus to her mother and Gardner, who is at this point looking upstage left, at Crofts.
Mrs Warren steps forward to Gardner, calling his name and making him turn in a sweeping movement from upstage left to stage right.
Mrs Warren has moved from upstage to stage centre as Vivie and Frank relinquish the centre area and Gardner turns more than 180 degrees to focus on her. Shaw the director has fulfilled the requirements of the scene, and the entire process occurs so quickly and smoothly that the stages are unobtrusive.
The movements in this scene derive from a basic situation in the text (one character is introduced to other characters) as well as from two explicit stage directions (Vivie going to Gardner and Mrs Warren swooping down upon him). Early in the first act, when Vivie and Praed discuss Mrs Warren, Shaw the director – in order to delineate character and help generate atmosphere – suggests movement where the stage directions indicate only that Praed rises.
PRAED rises – down to float [footlights] – back to PRAED. … Of course you and your mother will get on capitally. (He rises, and looks abroad at the view). What a charming little place you have here!
audience. VIVIE (unmoved) If you think you are doing anything but confirming my worst suspicions by changing the subject like that, you must take me for a much greater fool than I hope I am.
Pup to VIVIE – intimately. PRAED. Your worst suspicions! Oh, pray dont say that. Now dont.
VIVIE. Why wont my mother’s life bear being talked about?
(1) Away a little R from V.
(2) Up, fidgetting. PRAED. Pray think, Miss Vivie. It is natural that I should have a certain delicacy in talking to my old friend’s daughter about her behind her back. (1) You will have plenty of opportunity of talking to her about it when she comes. (Anxiously) (2) I wonder what is keeping her.
(3) P down again to her, protesting. VIVIE. NO: she wont talk about it either. (Rising) However, I wont press you. (3) Only, mind this, Mr Praed. I strongly suspect there will be a battle royal when my mother hears of my Chancery Lane project.
(4) P stock still. PRAED (4) (ruefully) I’m afraid there will.
All of the movements in this scene are stimulated by Praed’s attitude to Vivie, which is based on who she is and what she does not know. Although the text indicates urbane replies to Vivie’s questions and charges, the subtext implies nervousness, for Praed fears she will learn the truth. Shaw creates movement from this subtext. As Vivie dominates the situation by remaining strongly anchored in the same stage area, Praed nervously moves about – going downstage, moving to and then away from Vivie, walking upstage as he fidgets, returning to her. The tension between text and subtext is enhanced by the movement devised by the director.7
6.3.4 Letter to Harley Granville Barker, 31 December 1901
You are losing sight in the last act of the new attitude of Vivie, hard as nails, and fiercely intolerant of any approach to poetry. Being of a poetic turn yourself, you have a constant tendency to modulate into E flat minor (which is short for Eugene [from Candida] flat minor) which is steadily lowering the tone of Frank, until he seems fairly likely to end as Hamlet. Instead of being incorrigibly good-for-nothing, you are incorrigibly the other thing. I have serious thoughts of having you to dinner on Sunday and making you very drunk; only I fear that you would become pious in your cups instead of gay. Instead of getting boundless amusement out of everything disastrous, you become the man of sorrows at every exhibition of human fraility, and seem to be bitterly reproaching me all through for the flippancy of my dialogue. Two rehearsals more, and you will draw tears even in the third act.
Figure 6.2 The capitalist and the Lovers, Act III: Granville Barker and Madge McIntosh with Charles Goodheart,. The Stage Society 1902
There is one passage which is particularly dreadful because it has absolutely no sense unless its mood is perfectly conveyed. “What do YOU say, govnor, eh?” You express neither curiosity nor amusement here; and far from singing “good Old Crofts” like a lark in the heavens, you convey the impression that you know the man well and habitually talk of him and to him in that way.
In short, you need not be afraid of overdoing the part: the real danger is underdoing it. You have a frightful air of a youth in love – with Ann Leete probably.
It is a question of feeding, perhaps: you must come to lunch oftener.
When I was unable today to conceal the shock with which I saw you suddenly hit on the idea of playing that scene with Vivie exactly like the scene with Prossy in Candida, you sank into despair like a man whose loftiest inspiration has been quenched and whose noblest motives brutally misunderstood.
IT was really the fault of your cold, not mine. You nearly made Miss Brough cry.
It only wants lifting the least bit in the world. You should soar not gravitate. If you let the part weigh on your mind much more, you will find yourself breaking into the Seven Ages of Man on the night …
We begin tomorrow with the fourth act – Vivie and Frank.
Figure 6.3 The confrontation in Act IV: Chrystal Herne and Mary Shaw, New York 1905
The first public performance of Mrs Warren’s Profession was staged by the American producer Arnold Daly, one of the earliest champions of Shaw in the United States, who had already mounted successful productions and tours of Candida and The Man of Destiny in 1903. Shaw wrote How She Lied to Her Husband specifically for Daly to perform in his 1904–5 New York season, together with three other plays by Shaw, the last of which was to be Mrs Warren’s Profession. Shaw had inserted a special clause in his contract with Daly, specifying that “the Manager shall endeavour as far as may be practicable to apprise the public of the fact that the Play is suitable for representation before serious adult audiences only” – but the unexpected failure of John Bull’s Other Island meant that Mrs Warren’s Profession was put hurriedly into rehearsal. There was no attempt to educate the public about the social value of the play, so publicity consisted of an exchange of letters with Anthony Gomstock, the Secretary of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. Threatened by legal prosecution if he persisted in his “intention to put upon t
he stage one of Bernard Shaw’s filthy products, entitled Mrs. Warren’s Profession” Daly responded that the play was “a strong sermon and a great moral lesson” (The New York Times, 25 October 1905); and Shaw commented:
Let him imprison Daly by all means … the scandal of his imprisonment would completely defeat Comstock’s attempt to hide the fact that Mrs. Warren’s “profession” exists because libertines pay women well to be evil, and often show them affection and respect, whilst pious people pay them infamously and drudge their bodies and souls to death at honest labor.
Because I have been striving all my life to awaken public conscience to this, while Comstock has been examining and destroying ninety-three tons of indecent postcards, it is concluded that I am a corrupt blackguard and Comstock’s mind is in such a condition of crystal purity that any American who reads, sees, writes, or says anything of which he disapproves or which he is “dogonned it he understands” must be put in prison.
(The New York Times, 27 October 1905)
The play tried out in New Haven, and achieved front page headlines: BARRED IN NEW HAVEN – “MRS. WARREN’S PROFESSION” SHOWN ONCE THEN STOPPED – TOWN IN AN UPROAR. When the production reopened three days later in New York, the sensation crested crowds at the box-office and scalpers selling tickets at up to three times the regular price, while one of the New York newspapers (The World) distributed voting-slips to the audience: Approximately 60 percent of the audience responded, with just over half voting the play to be “fit” – although this was certainly not the official view.
In your opinion is “Mrs. Warren’s Profession” a play fit to be presented on the American stage?
FIT
Erase one
UNFIT
This card will be collected as you leave the theatre.
The police attended the first performance, and warrants were issued for Daly and the management of the Garrick Theatre, charging a violation of the Penal Code relating to “offending public decency”. Although no charges were actually laid, the play was closed, and a notice posted on the theatre doors: “Further Performance of Mrs. Warren’s Profession will be abandoned, owing to the universal condemnation of the press.”
6.3.4 Banning the play in America
The New York Times, 29 October 1905
The first night’s performance was all New Haven could stand of Arnold Daly’s production of “Mrs. Warren’s Profession,” by Bernard Shaw. There was an uproar here to-day over any further presentation of the piece from all quarters – the newspapers, the police, those who had seen the performance last night, and the public generally. Because of this Mayor John P. Studley at noon directed Chief of Police Wrinn to revoke the license of the Hyperion Theatre as long as Daly was in town. The police then sent word to Mr. Daly that he could not present the play at the scheduled matinée this afternoon and to-night on the ground that “Mrs. Warren’s Profession” was “grossly indecent and not fit for public presentation”.
Mr. Daly, his manager, his press agent, and a squad of attorneys made every effort to get Mayor Studley to change his mind, but he was obdurate. Mr. Daly left New Haven in high dudgeon late this afternoon, saying before he went: “New York will stand for the play if New Haven will not.”
[…]
New Haven papers this evening are severe in their condemnation of “Mrs. Warren’s Profession.”
The New Haven Leader says it is “the most shockingly immoral dialogue ever publicly repeated” and that “the words, suggestions – the whole rotten mess of immoral suggestions – have no place on a public platform.”
The New Haven Register says to-night: “The play itself is fit for publication only as a document for the sociologist and reformer, and even the most ardent of Mr. Shaw’s admirers cannot plead that as a justification for putting it in dramatic form. Acted, it is incredibly worse. The full force of the utterance and gestures only add to its vulgarity and the necessity of acting up to the parts makes it equally repulsive, one would imagine, both to those who live without and to those who live within the world it describes. On these facts alone its pretended value of moral purpose must rest: To ask a hearing for it on the time-worn plea of artistic realism would be simply grotesque. The play drew last night, in a large part, the type of audience that it was seeking to reprove, and their behaviour indicated that they went away more pleased and amused than rebuked. The fatuous sophistry, by which Mrs. Warren defended her conduct to her daughter, was greedily observed and approved of by an element that clearly wished to believe in it. A spectator at last night’s performance who failed to note and be impressed by this quality of the audience, must have been densely ignorant of human nature.
[…]
Distinction may have to be drawn sharply as to plays that are to be read and plays that are to be acted, but such a play as ‘Mrs. Warren’s Profession’ cannot under any circumstances be given before a mixed audience.
The New York Times, 1 November 1905
SHAW’S PLAY STOPPED; THE MANAGER ARRESTED
———
McAdoo Galls the Piece Revolting and Indecent.
———
WARRANTS FOR THE PLAYERS
———
Tickets Still on Sale Late in the Day, Notwithstanding Condemnation by the Press.
———
Police Commissioner McAdoo took steps yesterday which stopped the further presentation at the Garrick Theatre of “Mrs. Warren’s Profession,” George Bernard Shaw’s play. Mr. McAdoo saw the performance on Monday night, and the first thing he did when he reached his office yesterday morning was to report to Mayor McClellan that the production was “revolting, indecent, and nauseating where it was not boring.”
After talking with the Mayor Mr. McAdoo wrote to Arnold Daly, ex-Senator Reynolds, who is said to be the owner of the theatre, and Samuel W. Gumperts, its manager, telling them that he would prevent a second performance and arrest those participating therein. Later a warrant was issued by Magistrate Whitman calling for the arrest of Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Gumperts, Mr. Daly, and the other actors and actresses in the cast, which was served by Inspector Brooks in person.
[…]
The warrant charged a violation of that section of the Penal Code which relates to “offending public decency.”
[…]
Attached to the papers in the case were affidavits signed by Inspector Brooks and Detective Sergeant Cohen. There was also a typewritten report made by Commissioner McAdoo. The report, which was addressed to Magistrate Whitman, read:
“Last night I attended in person, accompanied by Inspector Nicholas Brooks and one or two other police officials, the play known as ‘Mrs. Warren’s Profession’ by George Bernard Shaw, at the Garrick Theatre. The play is in four acts. I saw three of them. There are six characters in the play. The leading characters profess to have led and are leading immoral lives, and defend their position with all the cleverness and ability of the author; they are and they continue prosperously immoral to the end of the play.
“The daughter and son condone the immorality of their parents, for both of whom otherwise they express contempt and hatred, and hold them up to ridicule in public. The clergyman is portrayed as a hypocrite, sneak, sniveling blackguard, and promiscuous adulterer. Mrs. Warren defends her profession successfully to the close of the play. Her daughter condones her mother’s mode of living and accepts her own shame with indifference until her pride is stung by the fact that her mother has deceived her as to her present sources of income.
“Mrs. Warren and her tided partner conduct in European capitals high-grade disorderly houses, which in the play are called hotels, something like the disreputable Raines law hotels, I presume. The conduct of these houses is a cold business proposition in which they make a great deal of money and at the close of the play they both avowed that they would give more attention hereafter to their business for the profit that is in it.
“The whole play, to my personal view, is revolting, indecent, and nauseating where it is not bo
ring. It tells working girls that it is much better to live a carefully calculated life of vice rather than of honest work. No character in the play, not even the clergyman, has one word for the cardinal virtues in man or woman. Played at the Academy of Music, in the east side, or at the Grand Opera House, on the west side, at popular prices, the effect on the public morals would be most pernicious. I doubt, however, if the hard-working and plain-minded heads of families in those neighborhoods will permit it to be played.
“That the audience last night did not hiss the play off the stage or engage in mob demonstrations against it was due I think to the fact that the audience was not a representative one. Even in the galleries seats sold as high as $5, and in the afternoon $35 was asked for one seat in the orchestra. There was nothing during the evening that could really be called applause. Some young women present, from foolish bravado, applauded a little at certain points; but as the dialogue grew stronger and ranker, even this ceased. I think the play is distinctly against public morals, and decency, and utterly discreditable to the managers and those taking part in it. If artfully and cleverly acted, so much the worse.”
A duplicate of the report had been sent to Mayor McClellan earlier in the day. The Mayor referred it to Corporation Counsel Delaney, and late yesterday afternoon the Commissioner received the following letter:
My advice is to immediately notify the managers of the play that you consider it indecent and immoral, and that if they produce it tonight you will cause their arrest. This threat will undoubtedly cause them to procure an injunction against you, and by so doing you will be in a much better position than if you went to court yourself. If you apply for an injunction the court will be apt to say that if this play is indecent and immoral it is your duty and not the court’s duty to suppress it.