Theatre Arts on Acting (review)

{ 262 } Book Reviews \ \ Theatre Arts on Acting. Edited by Laurence Senelick. London: Routledge Theatre Classics, 2008. xvii + 531 pp. $35.95 paper. Theatre Arts (also referred to as Theatre Arts Monthly for a time) was one of the most significant journals on theatre during the mid-twentieth century. It combined theory and practice, providing contemporaneous “state of affairs” occurring in Ameri­ can and European theatre. Issues included a potpourri of specials, such as “In the Service of Comedy” (September 1938), “Broadway in Prospect” (October 1945), and “French Theatre” (November 1955), to name just a few. In this anthology, Laurence Senelick has assembled Theatre Art’s contributions to acting. He has neatly divided the collection into six major areas of interest: “Acting in the Ameri­ can Tradition,”“The British Legacy,”“Foreign Modes of Performance,”“Stanislavsky and His Followers,”“The Actor and His Role,” and “Technical Matters.” These essays examine methods, trends, styles, and working procedures that will guide students of acting toward a better understanding of performance. It is refreshing to read many of the articles in this collection. The mid-­ twentieth century was a period when scholars were expected to know the practice of performance and actors were encouraged to define their methods intellectually . The rise of performance studies has its virtues, but one of its drawbacks is that it has served to divide theory and practice. Lost in the current discourse is the expectation that scholars ought to know practical theatre and actors should discuss their craft in a thematic way. Contributors in this anthology move seamlessly between theory and practice: the actors comprehend the assortment of methods, clarifying the ones they favor; and the academics write informatively about acting craft. Among the gems of this collection are essays by Morton Eustis on Paul Muni, Alla Nazimova, and Katharine Cornell (all of whom dispense sage practical advice); Aimee Scheff’s interview in search of good acting (with prescient insights by Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, and Lee Strasberg); F. Bruno Averardi’s illuminating description of Eleonora Duse; Stark Young’s astute observations of the actor Mei Lan-­ Fang; Jean-­ Louis Bar­ rault’s specific work on mime; Louis Jouvet’s Artaud-­ like analysis of acting; Harold Clurman’s informative description of Stanislavsky; John Gassner’s scho­ larly overview of the Group Theatre; Maurice Zolotow’s balanced assessment of the Actors Studio; and Hume Cronyn’s commonsense approach to acting technique for the stage and camera. There are, however, shortcomings. The editor’s obvious proclivity for Brit- { 263 } Book Reviews ish over Ameri­ can acting influences his descriptions of people. Senelick claims, for example, that John Gielgud“had given outstanding performances”(103) but the great Ameri­ can actress Kim Stanley “played an overwrought Masha” (509) in the Three Sisters (on the contrary, I thought hers was the outstanding performance and Gielgud’s work unassuming but dull). Another great Ameri­ can actress , Laurette Taylor, had “distinct but limited talents” (35), while Alfred Lunt (Ameri­ can-­ born but British-oriented) possessed “a wide range” (287). Editors are entitled to opinions, but when biases obscure objectivity they skewer editorial evenhandedness. Senelick does a masterful job of orchestrating the various sections. But he provides little insight into the deep division between British and Ameri­ can acting traditions that occurred during the mid-­ twentieth cen­ tury, squandering an opportunity to illuminate this debate played out on The­ atre Arts’ pages (Sherman Ewing’s pro-­ British essay, 280–84, for example, fa­ vor­ ing the British star system over the Method’s ensemble approach, needs contextualization ). Senelick notes that Marlon Brando’s performance in A Streetcar Named Desire “brought him to Hollywood, ended his stage career and made a torn T-­ shirt and mumbled lines the signs of a Method actor” (401). Brando’s stage career ostensibly ended after the Streetcar film in 1951, although he appeared in a regional production of Shaw’s Arms in the Man in 1953. More importantly , Senelick calls attention to Brando’s “mumbling” without sufficiently examining its significance. The English were deemed superior at articulation, but Brando and his coterie had more heart; the Method, among other things, was a system designed to challenge the vocal pyrotechnics of Olivier, Gielgud, and...