Robert Brustein - Influential Theatre Critic and Idealist
A Tribute
In 2011, Robert Brustein received the National Medal of Arts at the White House from President Obama along with Van Cliburn (pianist), Meryl Streep (actress), Harper Lee (author), Sonny Rollins (musician), James Taylor (songwriter), Quincy Jones (producer), Donald Hall (poet) and the Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival. Creative Commons License.
On October 29th, Robert Sanford Brustein died at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His journey to prominence in the theatre began in Brooklyn on April 21, 1927. Throughout his long life (96 years), he battled the theatrical establishment and founded two not-for-profit, professional theatre companies associated with two of America’s leading universities, Yale and Harvard. The results of his idiosyncratic views about not-for-profit theatres survive him as the Yale Rep and the American Repertory Theatre (A.R.T.). Both are alive and healthy and serve as a living tribute to Brustein’s passionate devotion to his ideal of independent theatres not wedded to the commercialism of the ‘for-profit’ theatre associated with Broadway and touring productions.
Throughout his life, Brustein battled with theatre titans. As a critic, he had his pick of distinguished adversaries, such as playwrights Samuel Beckett and August Wilson. With Beckett, Brustein–in the role of director–battled for his right to mount his own mise en scene, even though it differed from the playwright’s. With Wilson, Brustein’s quarrel took on racial overtones. Wilson insisted that Black themes required Black artists to interpret them. Brustein felt that Wilson’s view was too limited, and the theatre should explore “the workings of the human soul,” which Brustein stated had “no color.” Thus, he reaffirmed his position of being the quintessential critical authority, the position he had held as drama critic for the periodical The New Republic. Brustein was a professor and playwright as well as the author of several books: The Theatre of Revolt, The Third Theatre, and Reimaging American Theatre and numerous plays.
In World Theater After 1700, Robert Brustein is mentioned in Chapter 8 and in Chapter 11. Although we both earned our doctorates at Columbia University, we met only once, at a Theatre Communications Group (TCG) conference hosted by Columbia. In 1981, Brustein was the Guest of Honor at a luncheon at which I was the nominal host. We sat together at the head table. His book Making Scenes, A Personal History of the Turbulent Years at Yale 1966-1979 was out, and it helped to spark the Group’s interest. His remarks that afternoon were in keeping with his already well-known position that not-for-profit theatres ought to remain autonomous, that is, free from anything that smacked of commercialism. It was a made-to-order audience for Brustein, and nothing memorable transpired. Brustein was clearly in his element, surrounded by admirers and preaching to the choir, each of whom sought his personal acknowledgment announcing name, position, and theatre in roughly that order.
Had I thought of it earlier, there was no reason to expect anything more from the occasion, however, I remember feeling disappointed. “Why was that?” I wonder forty-odd years later. The answer lies, not in the man or the occasion, but in the profound influence Brustein had on my early development. As an undergraduate, I took out a subscription to The New Republic so I could read his column. At the time, I perceived him as an enfant terrible warring with the establishment. I also subscribed to The Nation to read the column of Harold Clurman, whom I also admired. I felt that between these two critics, I had a thinking man’s approach to the theatre even though I resided in “Chicagoland.” Later, when I became a graduate student at Columbia, my mentor, Bernard Beckerman would allude to “Bob” Brustein frequently, and I suspected that Beckerman and Brustein had become friends while earning doctorates there years earlier. Both men admired the great canon of dramatic literature left to us by the Greeks, the Elizabethans (Shakespeare in particular), Ibsen, Strindberg, Chekhov, Shaw, Pirandello, O’Neill, Brecht, and Genet. However, unlike Beckerman, Brustein believed that theatre had an obligation to serve as an agent of social change, not simply to reflect the myriad forces that surrounded it.
The only thing that gave me pause about “Bob” was his fear of commercial success. Crafting a play–as all playwrights do so that it can be more effective in front of a larger and more critical audience–does not necessarily mean “selling out.” And there is no reason why those who try to make a living in theatre must take a vow of poverty. Brustein’s own success in his long and significant career suggests otherwise. When it appears opportune, I would advise young theatre professionals to heed what Brustein wrote about Brecht in The Theatre of Revolt, “But if Brecht sometimes sacrificed his personal integrity to a collective falsehood, then this was in order that his individualism could still be secretly expressed. His drama remains the final measurement of this achievement …” And so, shall it be said of Brustein. He has left us an incredible legacy, and I shall pay tribute to him by re-reading some of my favorite titles.
For More On Robert Brustein:
For a full biography of Robert Brustein and his plays see Concord Theatricals.
If you wish to learn more about Robert Brustein, you might want to consult the IMDb and view the official trailer: Robert Brustein: A Celebration – documentary.