The Masculine Transformations of "Genial" John McCullough

\ The Masculine Transformations of “Genial” John McCullough —K ARL M. KIPPOL A The Irish-born “Genial”John McCullough (1832–85) began his theatrical success as a protégé of the United States’¤rst great star,Edwin Forrest,whose passionate bombast marked a uniquely American style. While McCullough’s imitation of Forrest might have been a pale one, his great physical stature, powerful voice, and genial nature led to success as an actor and theatre manager (¤g. 1). As audience tastes changed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, McCullough adapted his acting style (with at least moderate success) to embrace the principles of the Delsarte system and the emotional restraint most frequently associated with Edwin Booth. A brief examination of McCullough’s life and career provides insight into changing notions of masculine identity and behavioral expectations . Mirroring the nation’s emphasis on individualism and self-made manhood in the ¤rst half of the nineteenth century, Edwin Forrest, the ¤rst native star of the American stage, offered himself as a representative personality—a largerthan -life masculine ideal that initially appealed across class boundaries as a shining example of the young, robust, and vigorous republic. “The masses are with him,” praised a critic from the Albion, “and if acting, as an art, is supposed to be an exponent of nature, Mr. Forrest, . . . must have touched the chords which vibrate in the breasts of men as a body.”1 The urban, working-class male audience (who were to become his primary supporters by the middle of the century ) especially embraced Forrest, loudly applauding the egalitarian message of the American dramas he encouraged.2 Forrest was a massive, overpowering presence, and his romantic, heroic acting style—sometimes referred to as “strenuous realism”—was marked by a { 22 } booming voice and muscular physique; he often showed a similar lack of emotional restraint outside the theatre.3 The New York periodical Spirit of the Times noted in 1849 that in addition to possessing the requisite tools and abilities, Forrest was suited ideally in temperament to ful¤ll the performance demands and gender expectations of an audience in the unique social and political atmosphere of his time: “The class of passions for which his powers are best adapted are consequently those that dwell in the depths of the soul, and demand strong expression—revenge, hate, scorn, indignation. Those that belong to the ‘melting pot’—that move to pity and subdue with sorrow lie farther beyond the circle of his genius and resources.”4 Historian and authority on Shakespearean actors of Victorian America Charles Shattuck suggests that the composition and demands of the middleclass audience were changingbythemiddle of the nineteenth century: “theatrical taste was turning toward elegance; audiences were being described as ‘cultivated ,’‘critical,’‘wealthy,’‘intellectual’; women were attendingplays in increasing numbers; decorum and delicacy, moderation and re¤nement were coming to be Figure 1. “Genial” John McCullough. Photo courtesy of the author. MASCULINE TR ANSFORMATIONS OF “GENIAL” JOHN MCCULLOUGH { 23 } prized above brute strength.” Cultural historian Benjamin McArthur argues that, in fact, the very nature of the theatre experience changed: “The active, participatory role of audiences in the ¤rst half of the nineteenth century quieted as the century wore on, replaced by a stricter sense of decorum.” The New York Tribune recognized that within this evolving audience dynamic Forrest’s demeanor and muscular style were ill-suited to the restrained gentility and delicate sensibility of the image-conscious middle class: “He may have drawn many a responsive cheer from man, but has never drawn a sympathetic tear from woman.” This sense of gender disconnect suggests perhaps the biggest reason for Forrest’s inability to build on his audience base: his failure to connect emotionally with re¤ned women, the arbiters of middle-class taste. Ultimately, this de¤ciency diminished the potential range of Forrest’s audience appeal, limited the scope of his social and theatrical success, and placed severe limitations on his viability as a masculine model across class boundaries by midcentury.5 In The Feminization of American Culture, Ann Douglas notes that the role of women in shaping the genteel behavior of the middle classes dramatically increased as “a genuine redemptive mission in their society...