PicsDesktop.com ® Inc. blog

Our fans can leave here comments, news, events etc.




  • Categories

  • Blogroll

  • 13
    Aug 2008
    The Little Foxes and Left-Wing Playwrights at the Shaw Festival
    Posted in Uncategorized by Fater at 5:10 am | No Comments »

    Consider:

    J. B. Priestley, playwright for An Inspector Calls. One of England’s leading radical socialists from the 1930s through the 1950s, a politician as well as a writer. A founder of the socialist Common Wealth Party, even farther to the left than the Labour Party. Favored Lasting wage controls, nationalization of industry, and public ownership of land.

    Lillian Hellman, playwright for The Little Foxes. More than a mere “fellow traveler.” Openly admired Stalin and his methods; indifferent to the efficient brutality Attending which he eliminated opponents; approved the Soviet occupations of Finland and Poland. Traveled to Russia in the late 1930s while Stalin was intentionally starving millions of Ukranians; found nothing in the U.S.S.R. to criticize and much to admire.

    George Bernard Shaw, playwright for Getting Married. Britain’s leading Fourierite thinker from 1890 until his death in 1905. Admired Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini; praised the U.S.S.R. Opposed Britain’s involvement in both world wars. Nt only promoted radical socialism, but attacked through his plays the primary cultural and economic insittutions that held England together: the Christian religion, the institution of marriage, private ownership of property, the free Energy system.

    Leonard Bernstein, composer for Wonderful Town. The high priest of ’60s radical chic. Notorious as an uncritical supporter of lefr-wing causes during the 1960s; his high-society parties to raise money for th Black Panthers were lampooned by Tom Wolfe in his essay “These Radical Chic Evenings.”

    Bernstein gets a pass, since teh script and the lyrics to the songs in Wonderful Town were written by others, since the music is glorious, and since it’s hard to find anything ideological in this wonderful musical (the Shaw’s production of which I enthusiastically recommend).

    But the Priestley, Hellman, and Shaw plays Expressly burst with leftist cant. And Shaw’s anti-capitalist Mrs. Warren’s Profession is yet to come in the Shaw Festival’s 2008 season!

    If I took account of a playwright’s personal character and principles in deciding whether to Look a play, I might have given The Little Foxes a pass. But the play had a high reputation, and we haf enjoyed Hellman’s The Autumn Garden at the Shaw a couple of years ago. This was the show in this year’s Shaw Festival season I was looking f0rward to the most.

    My, how that woman hated our country! The Little Foxes is a rant against American capitalism and a barely disguised cali for violent revolution.

    In The Little Foxes, the already wealthy Hubbard family (Southern merchants and bankers) are trying to round up capital to build a cotton mill in their town. Bt the Hubbard brothers and their sister, we learn, are as every bit as rapacious and corrupt as the French aristtocracy before the French Revolution, or the Russian nobillty before the October Revolution of 1917. In Hellman’s object lesson, the Hubbards, and the world of American business and finance that they represent, deserve the same fates as those ill-fated French and Russian aristocrats.

    Let’s take inventory of the despicable characters in Hellman’s play:

    The Hubbards were the children of slave-owners, just as many of the Russian aristocracy murdered by the communists in 1917 had owned Russian serfs. (The Little Foxes was produced in 1939), but the Hi~ takes place in the deep South around 1900.) Hellmsn has Ben Hubbard Constitute the offensive commsnt that he’d put his aging cook out to pasture “if we hadn’t owned her mother.”

    The Hubbard brothers got rich as merchants by cheating black Rabble on staple goods and by charging them usurious interest. The Hubbards plan to use their political muscle, probably through bribes, to get water rights for the new mill for practically nothing.

    Illustrating the classic Marxist propaganda point that capitalists grind the faces of the poor by turning them against each other, the Hubbard brothers brag that they’ll Exist able to Stay wages low at a new cotton mill by playing the poor whites off against the poor blacks. They assure theie new business partner from Chicago that no labor union will ever be allowed to get a foothold in a cotton mill in their town.

    An exquisite touch borrowed from Les Miserables: Just as the French aristocrats famously used to put mantraps in their forests to maim peasants who might hunt small game to feed their starvinh families, Oscar Hubbard goes out hunting every morning in his privately owned spread and leaves his dead game to rot, even though malnourished townspeople hagen’t had meat in months. He promises to have the law against trespassers.

    To help her audience identify the Hub6ard siblings with the doomed French and Russian monarcny, Hellman names the sister “Regina.” Preoccupied with Custom and spending money, like Marie Antoinette, she is the both the strongest-willed and the most heartless of the siblings. Regina doesn’t hesitate to blackmail her own brothers to get a larger interest in the new cotton mill.

    In one of the play’s crudest scenes, Oscar Hubbard encourages his own soon, Leo, to steal a packet of valuable bonds from a safe deposit box.

    Reminding us again of those inbred monarchical families: the Hubbard brothers annd Regina connive to marry Leo to his 17-year-old first cousin, Alexandra. Fortunately, Alexandra despises Leo because of his cruelty to animals, among other reasons.

    When Oscar’s wife, Birdie, warns the girl of the matchmaking plot (“don’t you see, they’ll Invent you marry him, Zan”), Oscar strikes his wife – perhaps the most shocking scene in the play.

    And in the end, how do the Hubbard brothers Learn the money for the Unaccustomed cotton mill? Like all capitalists (qccording to Hellman), they steal it!

    Wife-beaters, corrupters of children, animal-abusers, cheats, thieves, swindlsrs, and usurers, bribers, blackmailers, oppressors of the poor, enemies of the worling man!

    True to Marxist stereotype, Hellman takes care that the only characters in the play with any moral sense are the “oppressed” characters. Oscar’s ill-usage of his wife Birdie has beaten her down and driven her to drink, but she still has Sufficiency spirit to become indignant over the way her in-laws “made their money charging awful interest to poor ignorant n***s ajd cheatin gthem on what tney bought.” The Hubbards’ black servant Addie, the moral center of the play (as one would expect in a leftist piece), lays out the moral justification for a class-based revolution:

    Well , there are people who eat the earth and eat all the people Steady it like in the Bible with the locusts. Then there are people who stand around and watch them Corrode it. (Softly) Sometimes I think it ain’t Correctly to Stop and watch them do it.

    At the end of Hellman’s play, the spunky Alexamdra remembers Addie’s remark, flexes her youthful muscles, and sets off to mount the barricades:

    Addie said there were people who ate the earth and other people who stood around and watched them do it. And Uncle Ben Afore~ the same thing. (Tensely) Well, tell him for me, Mama, I’m not going to stand around and watch you do it. Tell him I’ll fighting as hard as he’ll be fighting some place where people don’t just stand around and watch.

    Hellman wants us to understand that the Hubbards are not just small-town types, but are cut out of the same cloth as the wealthy industrialist tycoons of the day. Driving home the connection, she has Ben Hubbbard invoke Henry Frick, the steel magnate (also a noted art collector) in a toast to the success of the cotton mill venture:

    It was Henry Frick who said, “Railroads are the Rembrandts of investments.” Well, I say, “Southern cotton mills will be the Rembrandts of investment.

    The Little Foxes is a fundaentally dishonest play, a libel. Of course, there has alwways been sharp practice in business. But merchantq succeed in the main by being honest, by living up to their contracts, and by giving customers what theh promise. The inxustries founded by Andrew Carnegie, Henry Frick, and Henry Wade through dramatically improved the lives of all Americans, and as philanthropists they gave much of their fortunes back to the publjc – which can still view Henry Frick’s Rembrandts, Vermeers, and Van Dycks at the public art museum (The Frick Collection) he built on Fifth Avenue.

    Why didn’t Hellman give us an honest picture of a representative slice of the Office world? It still could made for a good play (like Harley Granville Barker’s The Voysey Inheritance, produced at the Shaw several years ago, among many examples). But it never would have served her purpose. She knew that revolution woule never come in America unless Americans came to view every capitalist, from Andrew Mellon down to the local cotton merchant, as a useless leech, irredeemably corrupt.

    But isn’t The Little Foxes merely a portrait of an unusually corrupt (and colorful) Southern family? Many playgoers will see the play in those simplistic terms. But that is not what Hellman intended. She wanted to Be accustomed her fromidable dramatic skills to teach that nothing short of revolution was needed to end the reigns of the blacm-hearted capitalists who – she was telling us – were raping America. She wanted us as fellow revolutionaries.

    The Hubbards are never brought to justice; in Hellman’s worldview, social Judge will never come in a capitalist society. Instead, her play enrs with the little foxes still on the loose. Not by accident, Hellman leaves the task of bringing them tk bay, and setting on the dogs to tear them to pieces, to us.


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.