The Most American Thing in America: Circuit Chautauqua as Performance

5. Performance on the Platform: Theater

In 1913 the Redpath Bureau sent the Ben Greet Players out on Circuit Chautauqua. They openedtheweekof May18nearAlbany,Georgia, and toured for almost fifteen weeks, closing near Pittsburgh.1 They had two plays in their repertoire—Comedy of Errors, “with every tart Elizabethan phrase that might wound soft sensibilities ” excised, and a similarly bowdlerized She Stoops to Conquer.2 This booking was a daring choice on the part of the Redpath Bureau. It had no wish to squander its reputation as a desirable community venture, but it did wish to further its commercial success. Theater seemed an obvious choice for audiences who, as Harry Harrison commented dryly, “wanted the thrill of the drama, the fun of make-believe . . . performers who for a rapturous hour could transport them outof adrab,mud-boundworldintofictionalfar places and other, better times.”3 The challenge was to include theater as a demonstration of Circuit Chautauqua’s conformation to community values, albeit an unusual one that chanced being viewed as a loss of respectability. Most of the rural (Protestant) churchgoing audiences thoroughly believed that theater was, according to one Chautauqua memoir, “big city evil”and“thehandiworkof thedevil.”4 Managers were understandably apprehensive because they were violating a long-standing taboo against theatrical production. Their patrons’ distrust and chapter five Performance on the Platform Theater dislike of theater as an immoral, urban, and vulgar practice were well documented . Paul Pearson noted simply, “As Chautauquas were sponsored by the churches, and organized by ministers, drama was unthought of.”5 Harrison knew full well audiences “did not want actors. They had seen what they called ‘actors’inthatdisreputablefreemedicineshowlastyearandalltheothertawdry outfitsthatstraggledintotowntocorruptimpressionableyouth.”6Yet,withtheir hearts in their mouths, Redpath managers elected to send the Ben Greet Players out on the Circuits, even though the introduction of theater risked the distinctionstheyhadmadebetween “disreputable”entertainmentsandtherespectability Chautauqua had established and the trust it had earned. Other Chautauquas had tried to introduce theater with little success and muchuproar.SoonaftertheNewYorkinstitution’sfoundingin1874,forexample , the Reverend J. M. Buckley inveighed against theater, claiming that those attending a national touring production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s H.M.S. Pinafore were “selling out their whole Christian influence.”7 Buckley “expressedhissenseof shockatlearningthatachurchchoirfromPhiladelphia had gone out to act it [Pinafore] ‘all over the country.’”8 When the New York Chautauqua subsequently produced Pinafore, it was as a concert, not a full- fledged production. Buckley’s denunciation was typical of the Chautauqua Institution’sstanceontheater.Evenaslateas1910MaxEisenstat,managerand director of the Cleveland Playhouse who eventually ran the Chautauqua Institution’s theater programs, noted that Chautauqua “shared the opinion, then common among many church-going people, that there was something inherently sinful in the production of plays and in the acting profession.”9 Integrating theater loomed as a risky departure for Chautauqua. The enormity of this venture was not lost on Redpath and Harry Harrison. They recognized that this could be a turning point for Chautauqua audiences if handled carefully by the managers. Harrison wrote Greet: “You know Mr. Greet I believe in putting on good plays with good people. I mean good both off and on the stage. They will do much to bring the church and the stage together and away from the prejudice that is now in the minds of most of the better thinking people.”10 Introducing theater was not done naively, and there was more than a whiff of missionary intent behind what would turn out to be a sound business decision. The introduction of theater to Chautauqua did not go quite as Redpath and Harrison expected. “With hands cupped to ears Redpath waited for the reaction . The storm of moral indignation that had been feared did not materialize. Instead came shouts of praise. By the time the company reached [the end of itstour]crowdsweregatheringatthebigbrowntenttwohoursbeforethepro188 : Performance on the Platform: Theater gram.”11 Ratherthanprotestsoroutcry,Chautauquafoundthataudienceswillingly welcomed the theater. Harrison says simply, “People liked both the play [Comedy of Errors] and the players,” suggesting that it was a combination of Shakespeare and Ben Greet’s specific approaches to production.12 The theater succeeded beyond their greatest hopes. Charles Horner noted later that the “experimentwassosuccessfulafterthefirstattemptatplayproducing,almost everyChautauquaprogramincludedadramaof somesortandoftenmorethan one. . . . Plays were so popular and drew so well, that when we had begun to offer them there was no way to stop.”13 Redpath set the pace, and other managersandCircuitcompaniesquicklyjoinedRedpathinthepresentationof fully produced plays. Theater was a success, and in the late 1920s it would be the primary draw for audiences. As chapter...