A dramatic and theatrical criticism of John Mason Brown.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to seek out John Mason Brown's concept of theatrical aesthetics and criticism. An additional purpose of the study is to evaluate Brown's position among other contemporary critics. Brown's critical judgment was based on an instinctive feeling as to what constitutes good and bad theatre. A critic, he believed, also employs comparative methods in judging a play and therefore needs a good background as well. Thus he acquired a wealth of knowledge, which enabled him to write with authority in an admirable blending of personal opinion and comparative facts. Brown rejected an overly intellectual approach to aesthetics. He saw theatre as a complete art, embracing all aspects, including the audience's response. He thought that theatre's function was not merely to divert. Although he was vitally appreciative of its entertainment value, he was most pleased when a drama came to grips with important ideas. Brown believed that criticism is a personal evaluation, and is not to be considered infallible. He emphasized a critic's function as that of a guide. In playwriting, he frequently discussed plot, action, characterization, language and dialogue. In the development of a drama, characterization was the most important factor to Brown. He reviewed acting, directing, and design on the basis of the artist's concept and his technical execution of that concept. As a theatre critic, Brown was relativist as well as impressionist. His reviews were impressionistic in that they attempted to describe an experience inspired in him by a given play. He was a relativist in that he tried to avoid rigid preconceptions as to what the experience should be. Brown's practical criticism was more traditional than his theoretical writings. Although he was opposed to systems in art and criticism, he seemed to be searching for a flexible aesthetic assuring the artist and critic maximal freedom without casting aside those principles which tradition may helpfully offer. His contribution considers of about 4,000 reviews and essays which, because of his determination to be specific and concrete, constitute a vivid description of Broadway theatre in the 1920's to 1950's. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.)