Download Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the

RODICA PIOARIU, Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the 20 th Century
ROMANIAN REACTIONS TO THE AMERICAN THEATRE
IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY
Lector univ. drd. RODICA PIOARIU
Universitatea “1 Decembrie 1918”, Alba Iulia
The present paper is meant to be an analysis of the intellectual, political and social
background that favoured the penetration of the American culture in Romania, in the 1st half of the
20th century.
Another central aspect we`re dealing with regards the reaction of the literary and dramatic
criticism to Eugene O`Neill`s drama and its reception by the Romanian public.
A phenomenon of such complexity as that of literary reception is certain to be a rather
difficult undertaking, but so much the more we would characterize it as a truly fascinating,
rewarding spiritual exercise.
In the 30`s and 40`s the American drama was mainly represented in our country by Eugene
O`Neill`s theatre that had been prevalent on the Romanian stage for years, enjoying tremendous
success. Its reception in our culture was a complicated matter that manifested itself in many and
varied ways, both in the field literacy criticism - through studies, articles, reviews or commentaries
published in cultural newspapers and magazines, literary dictionaries or other types of literary
critical works – and by means of significant translations or stage representations.
This process of American drama`s reception in Romanian literature and culture could be
placed in a broader, more extensive context of European or world culture reception in Romania. A
close scrutiny of this subject – matter could be relevant, indeed, of the spiritual preoccupations of an
entire epoch, closely linked in fact to the Romanian society`s general progress. We witness our
culture coming to maturity, laying the foundations of a strong coherent national literature that
proved to be perfectly synchronous with the art and literature of the civilized world. Browsing
through a wide range of cultural magazines and journals we discovered more, not only about our
spiritual development, but also about the factors that favoured our connection to the universal, ever
– lasting values of humanity.
The element bearing the greatest relevance to the matter in hand is undoubtedly the
evolution of the Romanian public`s aesthetic taste, in its capacity of direct receptor and beneficiary
of such values.
The penetration of the American drama in our country was first of all possible thanks to the
efforts of a national intelligentsia, aware of its own responsibilities for promoting the Romanian
culture`s availability and honest openness to getting integrated into the great culture of mankind.
Therefore, under the circumstances, improving its inherent quality appeared to be, undeniably, a
“sine qua non” for our own literature and culture. They started from the premise that “a nation`s art
is always enriched if it is open to stimuli coming from the outside”,1 as Grigore Vereş had put it in
one of his writings dealing with the Romanian – British literary relations. The same idea is
emphasized by Traian Herseni in his famous work Sociologia literaturii (Sociology
219
RODICA PIOARIU, Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the 20 th Century
of Literature) in which he points out the idea that such a wish could be fulfilled only if an essential
condition was met: the existence of a “correspondence between the literary work and the needs and
requirements of the respective cultural spaces”.2
Such considerations could provide a possible explanation for the success Eugene O`Neill`s
dramatic creation enjoyed in Romania both in the 30`s and 40`s and latter in the 60`s and 70`s. The
issue under discussion, its specific approach and the manner in which the dramatic conflicts were
rendered and solved by the American playwright were in accordance not only with the epoch`s
mentalities, but also with the horizon of expectations of both our reading and theatre going public.
But what`s happened here was far from being an isolated phenomenon. On the contrary
we`ll see that the indisputable American dramatist`s genius could not remain unknown to Europe,
even if there were voices such as Petru Comarnescu`s complaining about a wrong, insufficient
reaction to O`Neill`s creation on the “Continent”. In one of his critical writings he accused the lack
of any serious deep analysis of O`Neill`s work, despite his being awarded the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1936 for his masterpiece Mourning Becomes Electra and four Pulitzer Prizes for the
plays Beyond the Horizon (1920), Anna Christie (1921), Strange Interlude (1928) and Long Day`s
Journey into Night (1956).
In fact, as it is well-known, Comarnescu was the incontestable leader of O`Neill`s exegists
producing a number of prestigious studies on the latter`s dramatic creation and one of our first
intellectuals to promote the American culture and civilization in Romanian context. In the late 20`s
and 30`s he had benefited from a generous scholarship in the USA offered by Mrs. Helen Kimberly
Stuart, through the Rockefeller Foundation.3 Thus, in 1929, while Mircea Eliade, Comarnescu`s
former famous colleague, was bound for India in an attempt to do anthropological research,
Comarnescu started on his long voyage to the States in order to prepare his Ph. D. at the Southern
California University, in Los Angeles. This direct contact with American lifestyles, mentalities and
culture will be turned to good account and brilliantly revealed to the Romanian public in two
famous books: Homo Americanus sau tipurile reprezentative ale socităţii americane (Homo
Americanus or the American Society Representative Types) and America văzută de un tânăr de azi
(America Seen by a Young Man of Today) published in 1933, and 1934, respectively. Moreover,
while still in the States, he used to write articles and reports for prolific cultural magazines, such as
Viaţa Românească, Adevărul literar, Universul literar, Revista Fundaţiilor Regale or Vremea – to
mention just a few – in which he would introduce the American spirit to the Romanians, so as to get
them acquainted with a new way of life and attitude to the essentials of human existence.
On his coming back home he founded Criterion, a famous cultural association that was to
initiate debates on the age`s most controversial cultural, political or economic issues, involving
outstanding Romanian personalities like Mircea Vulcănescu, Mircea Eliade, Ionel Jianu, Emil
Cioran, Mihail Sebastian, Dan Botta, Mihail Ralea, C-tin Rădulescu Motru, a.s.o. The polemic spirit
of the discussions proved to be extremely beneficial for the so-called “golden generation” of the
Romanian culture – as it was often rightly named. The truth is that such an attitude did not restrict
to Criterion only; it was equally true of the conferences organized by the Romanian – American
Friendship Society (Amicii Statelor Unite) founded in 1923 or The University Group for the United
Nations (Gruparea Universitară pentru Naţiunile Unite). Still, by the year 1932, during a period of
political – social unrest and unrestrained anger, violence and intolerence, Criterion is said to have
been “the last free platform” for contradictory viewpoints to be expressed freely on a diversity of
political, philosophical or literary topics. One of the most memorable conferences they organized
tackled on Reevaluating the American Spirit (Valorificarea spiritului american). It was the result of
remarkable, prominent cultural personalities` contributions, such as Eliade`s who focussed on the
issue Asia versus America (Asia faţă de America); Mircea Vulcănescu concentrated on Europe
versus America, Paul Sterian on Romania versus America whereas Petru Comarnescu dealt with
America versus Itself.
220
RODICA PIOARIU, Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the 20 th Century
The common denominator of all these points of view was the honest desire of understanding
the essence of the American spirit, the major idea around which the American people`s spiritual
unity was formed, in an attempt to find a reasonable explanation for the tragicalness inherent in the
American literature – seen as the final revelation of the nation`s interior life.
According to Thomas A. Perry, the great American specialist in Romanian studies who
undertook extensive research on the American Literature Translated into Romanian,5 it was P.
Comarnescu who made the most significant contribution to getting American literature known in
our country, in the 1st half of the 20th century. He produced excellent translations and critical
commentaries on the new American theatre – mainly on E. O`Neill`s work) that made all the
difference in the matter. The penetration of the American literature in Romanian context becomes
stronger and stronger after 1934 when “The Romanian – American Friendship Society” founded the
monthly Buletinul Institului American (The American Institute Journal). Comarnescu, appointed to
its editorial board for its second issue wrote his first articles on American contemporary literature,
untitled Note despre poezia americană. His critical evaluations of modern American poets were
meant to reveal once again the true American spirit through poetry, which he considered to be a
“development out of English poetry” but “oriented toward the idealism and humanist romanticism
that has characterized «the more noble of the men in this New Orld»”.6 Another remark should be
necessarily made here: even Nicolae Iorga had taken a certain interest in modern American poetry,
which he had translated into Romanian and evaluated in a series of articles, that threw more light on
the true nature of American culture. Its humanist spirit had persisted fertilized by Anglo – French
political idealism and reflecting a national and social conscience.7 (Thomas A. Perry, Bibliography
of American Literature Translated into Romanian, 1984).
As far as the American drama is concerned, it became better known to the Romanian public,
mainly after 1937, although a couple of American plays, such as The Trial of Mary Dugan and
Street Scene by Elmer Rice had been staged in Bucharest in 1929 and in Iaşi in 1933, respectively.
Comarnescu first called attention to Eugene O`Neill in 1937 in two remarkable articles: Drama
vieţii şi cunoaşterii la Eugene O`Neill and Neoclasicismul lui Eugene O`Neill, just after O`Neill had
won the Nobel Prize. The American playwright was practically unknown in our country, but
Comarnescu had become familiar with his work back in the United States. Another aspect of utmost
importance was the fact that the first translations of O`Neill`s work were published at the same time
as the French, German or Scandinavian versions, while the first European analysis of O`Neill`s
theatre appeared only in 1938, i.e. a year later than Comarnescu`s commentaries. It was written by
Otto Koischwitz and published in Germany. Once more it was Comarnescu who reviewed and
published it in “Revista Fundaţiilor Regale” in 1939, under the title O monografie germană despre
dramaturgul O`Neill.
The Romanian expert`s mind consists mainly in his talent of revealing not only the basics of
a controversial dramatic creation, but also similarities with some of the most treasured works of the
world literature. And yet, the uniqueness and originality of such an impressive creation –
distinguishing itself primarily through the richness of its symbols and the special, genuine treatment
of the subject – matter – is enthusiastically hailed as something completely new, as truly American
in dozens of other brilliant studies and articles scattered in famous cultural magazines of the epoch..
In spite of the fact that certain European critics have detected in O`Neill`s plays influences
of Strindberg, Wedekind and Freud, there were other voices praising him for being the foremost
dramatists of the New World; not only was he a great theatre artist and a genuine innovator in the
dramatic art but also a tireless searcher for truth. Comarnescu`s commitment to O`Neill was
definitely for a lifetime, since he further increased his valuable contributions with a series of other
studies and the publication of O`Neill`s Complete Works in a three – volume collection, translated
into Romanian, in 1968.
Nevertheless, there were a lot of other Romanian literary analysts who highly valued
O`Neill`s creation in a number of essays, dramatic notices or reviews. Their favourable opinions
221
RODICA PIOARIU, Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the 20 th Century
prevailed over the few more cautious attitudes expressed by Isabella Sadoveanu who saw in O`Neill
a sort of “theatre iconoclast” or even worse a thoroughly demolishing viewpoint assigned to Eugen
Lovinescu, the leading exponent of Romanian literary criticism. He completely denied any literary
value to O`Neill`s dramatic work in an article published in “Aqua Forte” (1941). Except for Strange
Interlude he apparently refused to read any other O`neillian play, reproaching them “a pretence of
technical experiment in the American theatre”.
However, the greatest majority of the Romanian criticism managed to produce really
pertinent analyses thus proving their responsiveness to the general flow of ideas that renewed the
field of literature and world spirit, at large. They gave it new value and meaning through
exceptional contributions bearing the stamp of Margareta and Paul Sterian, Eugene Schilern, Alice
Voinescu, Pericle Martinescu, Theodor Scarlat, Dan Grigorescu, Mihnea Gheorghiu, B. Elvin or
nowadays, Maria Vodă Căpuşan and Odette Blumenfeld to mention just a few famous names.8
Besides the above – mentioned aspects, extremely relevant for of public`s high degree of
responsiveness to O`Neill`s creation we should also point out its stage representations that give us a
more faithful glimpse of the theatre audience`s horizon of expectations and their role in the
production – reception relationship. The first O`neillian play to be represented in Romania was
Beyond the Horizon. It was staged in Cluj (1939) by Victor Papilian and some years later, in
Bucharest (1943) by Ion Sahighian. The latter`s achievement had a significant echo for the audience
and theatre experts, such as M. Carandino. He revealed Sahighian production`s strong points among
which his exquisite sense of the author`s “tragical vigour” who brilliantly turned to account ancient
myths and motifs just to reveal the implacable, indissoluble dramatism of modern contemporary
life. In Carandino`s opinion the tragic tradition represented by Sophocles, Eschylus, Euripides,
Shakespeare or Racine naturally extended into our present times to show once more that man`s
tragic potential had hardly vanished; on the contrary it got new strengths and values peculiar to our
modern`s time tensions, contradictions and aspirations.
In order to make a genuine transfer of the old themes and motives in the 20th century attitude
and thinking O`Neill successfully reshaped them in such a manner as to correspond to modern
man`s essential concerns, and his specific patterns of thinking and feeling. Carandino also brought
to light the “miracle” that fed O`Neill`s creative talent endowing him with such powers as to
definitely revigorate a supposedly declining art by bringing it important resources of life and new
original dramatic techniques able to last for centuries9 (see N. Carandino, Teatrul aşa cum l-am
văzut, 1935 -1945), 1986 (nota 2).
The next productions were Anna Christie staged at Teatrul Mic in May 1943, followed by
Desire Under the Elms translated by Comarnescu and staged by the same Ion Sahighian, in
Semptember, 1943.
But the true revelation of O`Neill`s genius will be the representation of Mourning Becomes
Electra on the National Theatre stage in Bucharest, starting with December 22, 1943. The trilogy
benefited from the excellent translation of Petru Comarnescu and Margareta Sterian, who managed
to render faithfully both the character`s inner conflicts and the true spirit of the play, thus ensuring
its tremendous success and giving it the significance of a unique, exceptional artistic event,
O`Neill`s “phenomenon”.
Electra attracted an impressive number of theatre-goers, lasted about 5 hours and 30
minutes, statistics recording more than 100 stage representations with full houses all over, for
months, since December 1943 to April 1944. According to Ioan Massof, the specialist in the
Romanian theatre history, a kind of “psychosis” seemed to have occurred in Bucharest, for people
of all social walks provided with some food, lots of patience and inexhaustible thirst for shoer
performance eagerly witnessed the Mannon`s misfortunes and tragic tale totally ignoring the airraids over the city. An excessive demand for tickets followed, by far exceeding the supply. The
National Theatre Director was even manaced with getting sued for “biassing” a certain category of
theatre-goers at the expense of the others. In order to avoid further annoyance and discontentment
222
RODICA PIOARIU, Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the 20 th Century
another box office was opened and the daily evolution of ticket sales used to be published. Under
such circumstances one can`t avoid an inevitable question: How could such a state of affairs be
logically explained?, What intimate springs were released in the soul of the common, hopeless
Romanian so tragically affected by the horrors of war, without the slightest perspective in life, to
see in getting access into the theatre hall a possible salvation from the hell of everyday life. A
reasonable answer could be found in the indisputable link existing between the theatre and the
social – political background in which it takes place. A fact that is not at all surprising if we admit
theatre to be “a vivid reality” with a number of serious implications in the epoch`s destiny, a faithful
reflexion of the contradictions hidden in the human conscience. Modern man cannot remain
indifferent to the great existential tragedies as he cannot escape from his own human condition.
What he`s looking for is just a world of make – believe to give him the illusion of self – salvation
and foster his frail glimmer of hope for some more human dignity. He apparently finds them in the
specific theatre universe which becomes a kind of refuge, a place of oblivion or even an elusive
flight from the ugly, distressing reality, ruthlessly crushing the desperate, lonely, contemporary
man. Yet, this new way of life in an artificial paradise was and still is just a false, self – delusive,
short – lived illusion that will ultimately enhance that individual`s distress and anxiety.
To let the theatre carry out its primordial cultural function and satisfy this huge demand for
genuine artistic activities, the 5 o`clock performance became the rule, but unfortunately, there were
cases when the text, unlike the performance had lost part of its significance.
Still, this exceptional success of O`Neill`s masterpiece in our country was a real fact. The
inference is then clear and more than obvious: the Romanian public was one of refined taste, vivid
curiosity, high sensitivity, in fact derived from some deep thirst for knowledge that invalidated the
accusations of superficiality or even worse of incapacity of rising to the rarefied spiritual spheres of
the few so-called rare, noble spirits.
The public`s power of discrimination, or his ability of grasping the essence of things by self
identification with the issues dealt with is in fact unquestionable even if such qualities would have
needed to be more intensely cultivated and stimulated. It got all the blame for his “lack of
refinement” but it was hardly his fault (or not entirely his) after all. What he was most often offered
was nothing but mediocre creations and he was almost completely ignorant of the classical theatre
repertoire on account of an obvious lack of interest its spiritual training and mainly in its
professional initiation into the secrets of genuine art.
Other successful stage representations followed – we refer here mainly to the plays Welded
performed at Teatrul Nostru in 1946, Where the Cross IS (1945) another Electra in the 1945 – 1946
theatrical season on the “Teatrul Victoria” stage – enjoying a similar irrefutable success and high
esteem proper to the previous representations of 1943.
Staging the Mannons` tragedy in Romania was a great display of forces with heroes acting
and inevitably colliding in their desperate efforts of surpassing their own condition, violent passions
and instincts, steadily striving to “escape”. What for? Just to finally become mere puppets in the
hands of “destiny”, “coincidence” or their own human constraints – that are eventually the “heroes”
of all o`neillian plays. In Morning Becomes Electra destiny should not be looked for in the outside
world but rather inside the contemporary, modern man`s conscience, torn up by irreconcible
contradictions and fears. This modern Electra shaped on the pattern of the Greek tragedy was
illustrative for the modern soul oscillating between confortable satisfactions and great doubts as the
most outstanding critical voices repeatedly emphasized.11
We`ll conclude by saying that the inter-war period Romanian public was certainly very
lucky to have witnessed exceptional, unequalled artistic events that turned to good account the great
myths of the Ancient World confering them all the tragic dimension and tension of contemporary
life and their author the privilege of being the greatest tragical author of our present times.
223
RODICA PIOARIU, Romanian Reactions to the American Theatre in the First Half of the 20 th Century
Notes
1. Grigore Vereş, Opera lui Charles Dickens in România, Editura Minerva, Bucureşti, 1992,
p. 132.
2. Traian Herseni, Sociologia literaturii, Editura Univers, Bucureşti, 1973, p. 260.
3. Comarnescu was not the only one to have benefited from such a scholarhip. Like him
other Romanian young people went to study in the States; they were Ion Costin and mMica
Paraschivescu who attended social work studies. In 1932 professor Nicolae Mărginean from
Cluj – Napoca joined the Romanian group to get trained in psychology, which enabled him
to do about two-year-research for the Rockefeller Foundation when he came back home.
C.f. P. Comarnescu, Chipurile şi priveliştile Americii, Ed. Eminesu, Bucureşti, 1974, p. 253.
4. In 1940 the author will gather all these articles, studies and correspondence Chipurile şi
priveliştile Americii to reprint it in 1947 under the title in America Lumea Nouă - Viaţa
Nouă.
5. See Thomas Perry, Bibliography of American Literature Translated into Romanian,
Philosophical Library, New York, 1984.
6. cf. Idem, The Contribution of Petru Comarnescu, in “Southern Europe”, 1980, p. 94.
7. Ibidem, p. 94 – 95.
8. See Bibliografia relaţiilor literaturii române cu literaturile străine în periodice (1919 –
1944), vol. I, Editura Saeculum, I.O., Bucureşti, 1997
9. Thomas A. Perry, Op. cit., p. 125.
10. cf. N. Carandino, Teatrul Nostru: Dincolo de zare, de Eugene O’Neill, în „Bis”, anul II,
nr. 33, 2 mai 1943, p. 3.
11. Teodor Scarlat, Eugene O’Neill – arta şi lumea lui, în „Almanahul teatrelor”, Bucureşti,
1944, pp. 73 - 75.
224