ArticlePDF Available

Broadway in Hollywood: film producer David O. Selznick and his theatrical ties in the 1940s

Authors:

Abstract

This article examines the theatrical activities and connections of famed Hollywood film producer David O. Selznick. Based on a study of archival materials and articles in the contemporary U.S. press, the author reconstructs Selznick's relationship to the theatre and argues that it was characterised by ambiguity. On the one hand, the producer used the theatre as a source of acting talent and a training ground for honing the skills of his contract actors; on the other hand, the theatre represented a burden in terms of time and financial resources, and its positive impact on Selznick's business and creative activities was limited, given its relatively modest audience appeal, especially compared to the mass appeal of mainstream Hollywood cinema.
Hain, Milan
Broadway in Hollywood: film producer David O. Selznick and his theatrical ties in
the 1940s
Theatralia. 2023, vol. 26, iss. 2, pp. 157-174
ISSN 1803-845X (print); ISSN 2336-4548 (online)
Stable URL (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/TY2023-2-10
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/digilib.78988
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
Access Date: 22. 12. 2023
Version: 20231130
Terms of use: Digital Library of the Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University provides access to
digitized documents strictly for personal use, unless otherwise specified.
Digital Library of the Faculty of Arts,
Masaryk University
digilib.phil.muni.cz
157
Broadway in Hollywood:
Film Producer David O. Selznick
and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
Milan Hain
Abstract
This article examines the theatrical activities and connections of famed Hollywood film producer David
O. Selznick. Based on astudy of archival materials and articles in the contemporary U.S. press, the author
reconstructs Selznick’srelationship to the theatre and argues that it was characterised by ambiguity. On
the one hand, the producer used the theatre as asource of acting talent and atraining ground for hon-
ing the skills of his contract actors; on the other hand, the theatre represented aburden in terms of time
and financial resources, and its positive impact on Selznick’sbusiness and creative activities was limited,
given its relatively modest audience appeal, especially compared to the mass appeal of mainstream Hol-
lywood cinema.
Key words
classical Hollywood, Broadway, studio system, star studies, stardom, acting, David O. Selznick, prestige
Research for this article was funded by agrant of The Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR), reg. no. 17-
06451S, ‘Starmaker: David O. Selznick and the Hollywood Star System, 1935–1957’.
Theatralia 26 / 2023 / 2 157174 
https://doi.org/10.5817/TY2023-2-10
158
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
This article explores the theatrical activities and connections of influential film pro-
ducer David O. Selznick, who is closely associated with the golden era of Hollywood
of the 1930s and 1940s. The text builds on my extensive historical research, which
culminated in a monograph focusing on Selznick’s strategies in the field of star de-
velopment (HAIN 2021). My research has argued that the producer succeeded in his
role as a maker of both films and stars largely because he was able to build a specific
corporate brand that effectively distinguished his independent production company
Selznick International Pictures (and later David O. Selznick Productions) from the
competition represented mainly by the vertically integrated major Hollywood studi-
os such as Paramount, Twentieth Century-Fox, MGM, and RKO. The strategy relied
above all on an emphasis on quality and prestige, which in Pierre Bourdieu’s concep-
tual framework represent what is known as symbolic capital.1 Selznick systematically
accumulated symbolic valorisation through several tactics, which included: (1) a focus
on adaptations of literary originals and avoiding film genres with a lower cultural
status (comedy, Western); (2) the accumulation of recognition in the form of awards
and accolades in the press; (3) the careful coordination of publicity and promotion of
his contract stars, which was to avoid association with consumer products and a cheap
(commercialised) version of glamour; and (4) the cultivation of his stars’ acting skills
and versatility, which could be achieved, for example, by associating them with the
‘legitimate stage’ (HAIN 2021: 257–275).
The aim of this text is to elaborate on Selznick’s creative and business interac-
tions with the U.S. theatrical environment. As I will demonstrate, Selznick, who from
1935 operated his own independent production company, made use of the theatre in
a number of ways. Broadway was for him a hotbed of talent, from which he consist-
ently recruited new members of his illustrious star ‘stable’ with the help of his New
York associates. Cynthia Baron (2016: 112) has noted that with the advent of talking
pictures, theatres became a major source of talented and skilled performers for Holly-
wood studios, and Selznick’s company was therefore no exception. The producer also
forged close ties with geographically more proximate theatre venues, particularly the
Lobero Theatre in Santa Barbara (some 90 miles from his company’s headquarters
in Culver City), where his actors could hone their acting techniques and gain confi-
dence in front of a live audience. In the late 1940s, Selznick financially supported the
activities of the La Jolla Playhouse founded by several of his contract players, led by
Gregory Peck. Finally, the association with the theatre served as a means of enhancing
Selznick’s own prestige, which, as I have already noted, became a key attribute of his
corporate brand. Although attendance at U.S. theatres declined dramatically in the
1930s and 1940s, and ‘film reigned supreme’, the theatre was still considered a more
1 According to Bourdieu (1984: 291), symbolic capital refers to the resources or assets that individuals or
groups possess in a social field, which enable them to gain power, influence, and social status. It encompasses
non-material and intangible assets such as reputation, prestige, honour, recognition, credentials, titles,
and qualifications, which hold value within a particular social context. Symbolic capital operates through
social recognition and validation, allowing individuals or groups to assert authority, dominance, and social
distinction. Significantly, symbolic capital can be often converted into financial terms.
159
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
respected form of cultural production, and a professional association with the stage
could strengthen one’s symbolic capital (BARON 2016: xviii).
I also argue that Selznick’s relationship to the theatre was not entirely one-sided
and positive. While stage acting was often an artistically fulfilling activity for his ac-
tors, the time-consuming theatre schedule could interfere with film commitments
or other activities that Selznick intended for his performers. Moreover, even in the
case of a successful stage production, the audience impact was limited compared to
the mass appeal of the film medium. In what follows, then, I analyse Selznick’s am-
bivalence towards the theatre based on a thorough study of archival documents,
particularly the talent files which are part of the extensive Selznick Collection at the
Harry Ransom Center in Austin, Texas, and articles in the contemporary U.S. press.
I am primarily interested in the role of theatrical activities in the broader context of
Selznick’s independent production company’s operations from the late 1930s to late
1940s. To this end, I reconstruct the producer’s decision-making process and describe
his professional relationships with his contract players. The article amounts to a ‘cata-
logue’ of the possible uses of Selznick’s theatrical connections as well as instances of
interference with star development, a key activity for the producer throughout the
1940s. In the first part, I describe how the milieu of the stage served as a source of
talented and well-trained actors who could, given a proper treatment, become stars in
Hollywood. I follow this by detailing how actors already working for film could ben-
efit from theatrical experience to enhance their acting techniques. Another type of
benefit was an increase in corporate prestige and strengthening of Selznick’s brand,
which I deal with in the third section. Finally, I summarise the negative aspects of
the issue, where the theatrical activities, due to their time-consuming nature, may
sometimes have become more of a hindrance to the development of the film careers
of Selznick’s contract actors. Throughout the article, I use as examples the careers
of prominent members of Selznick’s acting stable, particularly Ingrid Bergman, Jen-
nifer Jones, Dorothy McGuire, Vivien Leigh, Gregory Peck, Joseph Cotten, and Alan
Marshal.
Theatre as areservoir of talents
Theatre scholar Thomas Postlewait noted that
the history of [U.S.] theatre since the 1930s cannot be separated from the history of Holly-
wood. The dynamic relation between theatre and film, Hollywood and New York, shapes the
development and significance of theatre – aesthetically, socially, and economically. In other
words, much of the history of Broadway occurred in Hollywood. (POSTLEWAIT 1993: 249)
Cynthia Baron came to similar conclusions in her ground-breaking book Modern
Acting: The Lost Chapter of American Film and Theatre, devoted to the development of
acting methods from the 1930s onwards. Baron (2016) observes the historically close
160
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
relationship between Hollywood and Broadway, which manifested itself in a reciprocal
transfer of people, concepts, and ideas:
If one considers that the actors, directors, playwrights, and other theatre professionals who
found work in sound cinema actually continued to apply the craft knowledge and experi-
ence they had acquired in theatre, it is possible to see how studying studio-era Hollywood
enhances and extends an understanding of American theatre. (BARON 2016: 9)
Given these enduringly close ties, it is surprising that academic reflection of the
relationship between U.S. film and theatre (with the possible exception of the film and
stage musical) is relatively sparse (KUNZE 2017: 1).
For Hollywood studios, the theatre was an important resource of acting talent. With
the coming of sound
theatrical venues would become the primary training ground and audition site for actors
who went on to find work in studio-era Hollywood. […] the transition to sound made actors
with theatrical training valuable, for they had learned to speak clearly but naturally, without
regional accents unless called for by the part. They were also likely capable of the kind
of script analysis needed to create performances that conveyed characters’ evolving inner
experiences through the pitch, intonation, and rhythm of their words. (BARON 2016: 112)
As trained acting professionals became valuable commodities, Hollywood studios,
through designated talent scouts, closely monitored developments at leading thea-
tres on Broadway and elsewhere. According to a January 1934 issue of the leading
trade journal Variety, ‘an estimated 70% of actors […] came from the New York stage’
(KUNZE 2017: 5).
Selznick’s independent production company Selznick International Pictures (SIP)
played a leading role in this starting in the late 1930s, when it began to focus on de-
veloping its stable of stars (HAIN 2021: 21). As I will show, most of its members came
from, or had some experience with, the theatre. Selznick and his associates paid at-
tention to beauty pageants and various entertainment shows, but they concentrated
most of their efforts on the stage, because that was the area with the greatest potential
to discover a skilled actor or actress who would best meet the medium’s demand for
creating a believable fictional character and thus align with the studio’s brand based
on quality and prestige. Looks were important, but even more important were photo-
genicity (a quality different from beauty) and talent.2 As the producer stated in 1943
on behalf of his contract actress who was not considered as particularly pretty by the
industry standards: ‘Dorothy McGuire is […] worth more than a hundred genuine
beauties’ (HRC 985/9).
2 In her book The Star Machine, Jeanine Basinger defines the basic requisites of stardom (see BASINGER
2007: 3–4).
161
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
Because Selznick was busy most of the time producing films and negotiating deals
on the West Coast, he relied on his representatives in New York to find new talent.
His most important collaborator in this regard was Katharine ‘Kay’ Brown, who be-
came responsible for several key discoveries during her time at Selznick’s company
(HAIN 2021: 19). Brown’s activities included regularly attending Broadway openings
and maintaining close contacts with leading personalities of the New York theatre
scene.3 Whenever she came across a promising individual, she gave notice to Selznick,
who could then order a screen test. A positive result could lead to the signing of an
exclusive seven-year option contract and a move to the other side of the continent. In
addition to Selznick’s people actively seeking out new talent, his company received nu-
merous offers from aspiring actors, ambitious parents, and managers of various fledg-
ling theatre companies. Yet, these offerings usually went nowhere, because Selznick
preferred proven individuals who had already made some kind of professional break-
through (HAIN 2021: 268).
From her office on Madison Avenue, Brown had only a few blocks to Times Square,
around which New York’s most important theatre venues were concentrated. During
her tenure with Selznick’s company, which lasted until 1942, she was instrumental in
the engagement of several promising personalities, who were soon transformed into
valuable stars. These included Gene Kelly, Dorothy McGuire, Gregory Peck, and In-
grid Bergman. In Bergman’s case, the impetus for signing the contract was her role in
the Swedish film Intermezzo (1936), which she reprised in Selznick’s 1939 Hollywood
remake. The others, however, were discovered in the theatre.
In January 1941, Kay Brown saw a stage musical comedy Pal Joey from the book
by John O’Hara with music and lyrics by Richard Rogers and Lorenz Hart. She im-
mediately informed her boss about the talented actor Gene Kelly, who played the
title role: ‘I certainly think he is excellent in Pal Joey, and a magnificent hoofer’ (HRC
911/4). Seeing great promise in the twenty-eight-year-old performer, Selznick signed
him to a long-term contract in July of the same year and intended to cast him in an
upcoming Alfred Hitchcock film (also under a long-term contract to him) or a film
adaptation of Pal Joey. Neither plan came to fruition, however (the rights to Pal Joey
had earlier been bought by Columbia), and Selznick sold Kelly’s contract six months
later to MGM, which was eminently interested in him as a welcome addition to its mu-
sical unit centred around producer Arthur Freed (HAIN 2021: 127–131). Brown and
Selznick’s instincts were correct – Kelly’s first film at MGM, For Me and My Gal (1942),
made him a star, and the press proclaimed that he was ‘the hottest thing in town right
now’ (SCOTT 1942: 37). He went on to become a leading personality in the musical
genre and retained that status for at least another 15 years.
3 Brown’s other domain was the search for literary material for filming purposes. According to
J. E. Smyth, she ‘crisscrossed the country with assistants Dorothy Modisette and later Elsa Neuberger,
identifying and optioning the best books on the market’ (SMYTH 2018: 64). In this way, Brown secured
the rights to Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind for Selznick, which became the highest-grossing film
in Hollywood’s history. She was also involved in obtaining the rights to Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca. Both
films won back-to-back Oscars for Best Picture in 1940 and 1941, respectively.
162
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
Just two weeks after the initial information about Kelly, Kay Brown reported an-
other discovery to Selznick:
CLAUDIA BY ROSE FRANKEN OPENED LAST NIGHT WITH GIRL NAMED DORO-
THY MACGUIRE [sic!] THAT REALLY CAN ACT AND REALLY IS WORTH BREAKING
YOUR NECK ABOUT. SHE IS PERSONAL CLIENT OF LELAND HAYWARD AND HE
WILL HANDLE DEAL. LIKEWISE CLAUDIA IS A PLAY WORTH PAYING MONEY FOR.
(HRC 855/12)
After several roles in commercially disappointing productions, McGuire came to
prominence with the title role in the Broadway stage adaptation of the novel Claudia
by Rose Franken, who also directed the production (HAIN 2021: 96). In addition to
Brown’s ecstatic review, Selznick also received a positive reference from his trusted
contract director Robert Stevenson, who in a telegram recommended acquisition of
the property including a large part of the cast headed by McGuire ‘WHO IS SU-
PERBLY CAST IN AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT PART’ (HRC 855/5). Selznick im-
mediately initiated negotiations with both Franken and the actress’ agent, Leland
Hayward, and eventually succeeded in obtaining both her services and the rights to
the film adaptation (HAIN 2021: 98). Unlike Kelly, McGuire remained with Selznick
and became an important part of his star stable, even though she never appeared in
a film personally produced by him and instead was regularly loaned out to other stu-
dios. Her film debut was indeed the film version of Claudia, after Selznick sold off the
rights to Twentieth Century-Fox in November 1942, and it ended up a critical as well
as a commercial success (HAIN 2021: 102–103).
Kay Brown also informed Selznick about promising young actor Gregory Peck, who
in early 1941 was still studying at the Neighborhood Playhouse Drama School under
the tutelage of the acclaimed Sanford Meisner and Robert Ross. Brown had ‘a very
strong hunch about this boy’ (HRC 568/5) and recommended doing a series of screen
tests with him. Selznick agreed but was not satisfied with the result:
I am sorry to have to say that I don’t see what we could do with Gregory Peck. Maybe a big
studio could use him, but we would have great difficulty in either using him ourselves or in
getting other studios to use him that didn’t have him under contract. He photographs like
Abe Lincoln, and if he has a great personality I don’t think it comes through in these tests.
(HRC 3344/3)
Selznick did not become interested in the actor until a year and a half later, when
Peck had finished his studies at the Neighborhood Playhouse and had completed
a tour of Shaw’s The Doctor’s Dilemma alongside Katharine Cornell. Most of his stage
productions failed from the commercial standpoint, but his performances were
praised by the press (MOLYNEAUX 1995: 6). For example, he earned all the plaudits
for his difficult role in The Morning Star, with Variety stating that he portrayed his char-
acter ‘flawlessly’ (WATERS 1942: 42). At that time, however, other Hollywood studios
163
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
were already interested in Peck and Selznick had to settle for a non-exclusive contract.
Thanks to the ingenious tactics of agent Maynard Morris, the actor ended up hav-
ing commitments with MGM, Twentieth Century-Fox, and producer Casey Robinson
(HAIN 2021: 134–135). Even so, Peck became a prominent face of Selznick’s acting
company, particularly through his roles in Alfred Hitchcock’s Spellbound (1945) and
The Paradine Case (1947). As I will show below, his stage work meant a great deal to
him, and with Selznick’s help he strove to develop it in parallel with his successful film
career.
Joseph Cotten also joined Selznick’s company after an extensive experience at the
theatre. In 1934 he met Orson Welles, who hired him for the farce Horse Eats Hat, pre-
pared under the auspices of the Federal Theatre Project. Later, the two worked closely
together in Welles’ and John Houseman’s Mercury Theatre which was active both
on the stage and in the radio. Finally, between March 1939 and March 1940, Cotten
starred in an extremely successful Broadway production of Philip Barry’s comic play
The Philadelphia Story, where he performed the role of C. K. Dexter alongside Kathar-
ine Hepburn in over four hundred performances (HAIN 2021: 139). For the purposes
of the successful film adaptation, produced by MGM and directed by George Cukor,
he was replaced by the star of the moment Cary Grant, but Cotten still managed to
make his film debut when Orson Welles cast him in Citizen Kane (1941). By the time
the actor joined Selznick’s studio in 1942, he had therefore behind him commercially
successful or artistically acclaimed projects in both film and theatre.
Other members of Selznick’s star stable, Alan Marshal and Vivien Leigh, also had
extensive theatrical backgrounds. In all, engaging actors based on their theatrical ex-
perience was standard practice for Selznick’s company. In retrospect, the producer
rated his success in selecting these individuals very highly. In June 1948, he stated that
‘of all the talent that I have interviewed in years in New York, there are only a few
about whom I have any regrets’ (HRC 617/1). These included Beatrice Pearson, Patri-
cia Neal, Montgomery Clift, and Marlon Brando.4 About the latter two, he wrote that
‘the combination of the attractive personalities, great experience, enormous acting
ability and charm of these two actors does not come along very often’ (HRC 617/1).
While Pearson starred in only two films in her short career, Neal, Clift, and Brando
went on to become important Hollywood stars and Selznick’s sense of recognising
promising talent was thus again vindicated.
Theatre as Training Ground and Laboratory
The theatre functioned not only as a reservoir of new talent for Selznick, but also as
a training ground for actors he had already brought under contract. As Cynthia Baron
pointed out, in the era of the Hollywood studio system, it was widely accepted that
4 As early as 1944, Anita Colby, whose responsibility it was after Kay Brown to monitor Broadway
theatres, informed her boss that ‘there is a young man named Montgomery Clift [in the stage play The
Searching Wind]. He is excellent’ (HRC 856/19).
164
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
there was no fundamental difference between film and stage acting: ‘Acting manuals,
interviews, and other records […] indicate that actors working in the 1930s and 1940s
saw screen performance as essentially connected to acting in theatrical venues of vari-
ous types’ (BARON 2016: 219). Acting in the theatre could thus help refine one’s act-
ing craft, strengthen confidence and (in facing a live audience) eliminate stress or
stage fright. Moreover, a well-chosen and well-timed engagement in the theatre could
fill in the idle times in a performer’s schedule and bring the employer a profit, how-
ever modest compared to the money being made in the film business.
Of Selznick’s actors, Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Jennifer Jones, Alan Marshal,
Joan Fontaine, Vivien Leigh, and, later, Louis Jourdan all played in the theatre at one
time or another during their contracts with the producer. In the early 1940s, the task
of coordinating their theatrical activities was delegated to John Houseman, who had
been involved with Orson Welles in the Federal Theatre Project in the second half of
the previous decade. For the 1941 season, Selznick and Houseman established a part-
nership with the Lobero Theatre in Santa Barbara, chosen for its good reputation and
proximity to Los Angeles. An article in Variety announced Selznick’s ambitious plans:
David O. Selznick goes strawhat this summer, with a lease on the Lobero theatre, John Hou-
seman as production associate and a stock company comprising his own Hollywood contract
players, supplemented by picture and stage names. Idea is to produce a program of weekly
legit shows which will give Coast players an opportunity to act during the hot months wit-
hout hopping across the country. […] Selznick said shows that click in Santa Barbara would
be routed across the country before playing on Broadway. (VARIETY 1941: 2)
The bold scheme to break into Broadway did not materialise, but Selznick’s summer
stock company still garnered attention. Jennifer Jones, still under her married name of
Phylis Walker, appeared that season in William Saroyan’s one-act play Hello Out There,
which began its week-long run at the Lobero Theatre on 10 September 1941. The part
of The Girl was primarily meant to improve her technique, which she continued to
work on with acting coach Sanford Meisner (GREEN 2011: 207). Her work paid off
when she received favourable notices and, not long afterwards, won both an Oscar
and a Golden Globe in her very first film role under Selznick’s tutelage – the heroine
of The Song of Bernadette for which she was loaned out to Twentieth Century-Fox.
Theatre training was considered suitable for both newcomers and seasoned film
performers. Margaret Tallichet came to Selznick’s attention as an aspiring actress with
minimal experience. Kay Brown described her as ‘a most lovely looking girl and an ex-
cellent photographic subject’ and suggested that she be cast in ‘small parts in our vari-
ous films in order to give her the necessary experience to carry an important minor
role by the end of next year’ (HRC 985/13). However, Selznick’s company, unlike ma-
jor Hollywood studios such as MGM and Paramount, produced only a small number
of films a year, and so opportunities for Tallichet were limited (HAIN 2021: 80–81).
Therefore, it was arranged that she would receive acting training at the Washington
Civic Theatre and stock companies in Louisville and New Orleans. She also attended
165
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
lessons with Benno Schneider aimed at eliminating flaws in her technique, which
included ‘a lack of grace and physical coordination in moving about the stage’ (HRC
985/13). Tallichet made significant progress and was subsequently briefly considered
as a candidate for the role of Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind (1939). However,
she soon married director William Wyler and abandoned her promising acting career
(WILSON 2014: 52).
Shirley Temple may have come to Selznick when she was only fifteen, but unlike Tal-
lichet, she was already an experienced actress with ten years in Hollywood behind her.
However, the producer wanted to update her star image as America’s sweetheart and
make her a respected actress in line with his corporate policy. A theatrical engagement
was intended to do just that because, as Selznick claimed, ‘it improves their technique
and efficiency to occasionally be refreshed by audience contact’ (HRC 3345/12). He
was also aware that Temple’s ‘entrance into the theatre would be a tremendous event’
from the publicity standpoint (HRC 584/5). Plays considered for Temple’s theatrical
debut included Junior Miss, Kiss and Tell, and Cabbages and Kings, ‘charming and curi-
ous combination of a young love story with satirical comment on problems and topics
of today, told in terms of Alice in Wonderland’ (HRC 584/5). In the end, she did not
appear in any of them, although she did star in the film version of Kiss and Tell (1945)
for which she was loaned out to independent producer George Abbott.
For the most part then, Selznick agreed with the industry consensus that film and
theatre acting were not fundamentally different but, on the contrary, mutually rein-
forcing. Bette Davis, one of the most acclaimed actresses of her generation, put it
succinctly when she wrote, that ‘an actor’s adjustments to the specific demands of
a production context are “merely quantitative”, because stage and screen actors all
“work with the same tools. Our craft requires slight modifications in them, that is all”’
(Davis quoted in BARON 2016: 220).
Sometimes, however, the influence of theatre on film acting could have been per-
ceived negatively, especially in situations where the film medium (due to close-ups,
etc.) demanded a quantitative toning down of gestures or vocal expressions necessary
on the theatre stage. After her American debut in Intermezzo: A Love Story (1939), In-
grid Bergman was perceived as the rare personification of simplicity and authenticity,
which, among other things, originated in her seemingly effortless and natural acting
style (HAIN 2021: 70). But Selznick was afraid that she might lose this freshness: ‘The
one quality that she has above all others is an untheatrical quality, and this is the one
thing we can tear down very easily if we start mixing her in with a lot of theatre people’
(HRC 3336/2). When he was considering signing a long-term contract with Dorothy
McGuire, who had hitherto worked only on the stage, he noted with concern ‘her idi-
otic and exaggerated mannerisms, which are no doubt due to her inexperience, and
to the success that she has probably had in getting away with this stuff on the stage’5
5 In another memo, Selznick wrote: ‘The girl has got to undergo pretty substantial revisions in her technic
[sic] before a performance of this kind would be acceptable on the screen. She has the “cutes” to a great
extent […] and that prop smile of hers plus the showing of the teeth, etc. and all the other exaggerations and
emphasis that she gives is in my opinion way overboard for screen purposes’ (HRC 292/2).
166
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
(HRC 292/2). When, already as Selznick’s contract actress, she was preparing for her
film debut in Claudia, based on a play she had been acting in for two years on Broad-
way, she had to devote considerable energy to adjusting her acting style to the de-
mands of the screen (HAIN 2021: 96–97). For the most part, however, Selznick did not
question the benefits that theatrical training entailed for a successful career in film.
Theatre as aSource of Publicity and Prestige
In addition to enhancing the film acting skills of Selznick’s contract players and hav-
ing a positive effect on their performances, theatrical training also presented an op-
portunity to reinforce the producer’s corporate brand based on quality and prestige.
Selznick’s company pursued several strategies to build and strengthen its reputation
as an organisation that strived for only the highest artistic standards (its motto read ‘in
the tradition of quality’), one of which was its association with more respected forms
of cultural production, namely literature (through adaptations of celebrated novels),
and legitimate stage. The involvement of Selznick’s actors in the theatre, supported
by a well-chosen publicity strategy, led to the accumulation of symbolic capital, which
the producer could also monetise financially at an appropriate moment (HAIN 2021:
257–275).
A role in a stage production of a well-known and respected material might have
been advantageous for an actor who was not doing particularly well at the time. In the
early 1940s, for example, Alan Marshal’s career hit a dead end. Selznick registered lit-
tle interest from other studios in his services, to which he responded by, among other
things, casting him in a September 1941 production of George Bernard Shaw’s The
Devil’s Disciple at the Lobero Theatre opposite Academy Award winner Janet Gaynor
who came out of her retirement for this occasion (HAIN 2021: 120). The production,
directed by experienced actor Cedric Hardwicke, was well received by the press and
Marshal’s performance was particularly acclaimed. Hedda Hopper in the Los Angeles
Times showered him with praise, adding that ‘now David [Selznick] has himself a new
star’ (HOPPER 1941: 9). Following the positive reception, interest in Marshal was at
an all-time high. Selznick wanted to capitalise on the momentum and fuelled the ac-
tor’s publicity with various articles in the press, including fan magazines. Not long
after, the producer received several interesting offers for Marshal from MGM, Warner
Bros., and Paramount, one of which led to a major commercial and critical hit in the
romantic drama The White Cliffs of Dover released in 1944 (HAIN 2021: 121).
The theatrical experience was to have a similar effect on Ingrid Bergman’s burgeon-
ing career. In mid-1941, the actress had only three modest U.S. projects to her credit
and could not yet count herself among the leading Hollywood personalities (she had
yet to have her breakthrough success in Casablanca and For Whom the Bell Tolls – both
released in 1943). The title role in Lobero Theatre’s Anna Christie, the first play to be
staged as part of Selznick’s collaboration with the venue, conveniently coincided with
the opening of MGM’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941), where she played a supporting
167
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
role. Appearing in a quality theatrical production was meant to raise her profile and
bring her to the attention of the public and the film industry (HRC 3335/16). This
was accomplished. As the press reported, more than half of the 700 attendees were
‘Hollywood-ites’ and ‘when half of Hollywood treks 90 miles to see a play, it must be
something. It was!’ (MODERN SCREEN 1941: 30–31).
The favourable response pleased Selznick who noted that Bergman was on her way
to becoming a star, ‘which I honestly think is unparalleled in star management where
there has been no apparently great individual picture success like that of [Vivien]
Leigh in [Gone with the] Wind or [Joan] Fontaine in Rebecca’ (HRC 3335/16). Master-
ing a demanding role on stage also made it easier to promote Bergman as a skilled
and versatile actress whose success was not based solely on her attractive looks. This
dimension of her star image became more prominent in later years, when she became
one of the most celebrated actresses of her generation (she was nominated for three
consecutive Academy Awards between 1944 and 1946, and won once for Gaslight).
Selznick’s entire 1941 season at the Lobero Theatre was highly regarded. As quoted
by Mary Mallory, Variety, for example, said it was ‘the most elaborate program ever
passed out for a legitimate attraction’ (MALLORY 2015). Outside of the Lobero Thea-
tre association, theatrical credentials were also an important source of publicity for
Joseph Cotten (in particular, his association with the Mercury Theatre and Orson
Welles and his role in the Broadway hit The Philadelphia Story), Vivien Leigh (the part
of Ophelia in the London Old Vic’s production of Hamlet), and Dorothy McGuire
(722 performances in the title role in Claudia). By contrast, Gregory Peck may have
had extensive theatre training behind him when he joined Selznick, but none of his
productions ended up a box office success (MOLYNEAUX 1995: 50–60). That did not
stop him, however, from becoming one of Hollywood’s most promising newcomers
during the war. In 1945, for example, LOOK magazine named this ‘handsome gradu-
ate of several Broadway flops’ the ‘screen-discovery-of-the-year’ (LOOK 1945: 64).
A few years later, in 1947, Peck became the guiding force of the La Jolla Play-
house, a summer stock company founded in his hometown in the northern part of
San Diego.6 David O. Selznick welcomed his initiative and supported it financially
with a $15,000 investment.7 The La Jolla Playhouse became in a sense a continuation
of the 1941 season at the Lobero: the productions mixed Selznick’s contract actors
(in addition to Peck, the casts included Dorothy McGuire, Jennifer Jones, Joseph Cot-
ten, and Louis Jourdan) with complete newcomers, for whom it was an opportunity
to showcase their potential. The troupe’s activities were characterised by an intimate,
community atmosphere where ‘experienced actors work with stagehand kids, guiding
them, helping them learn, keeping their flame alive’ (O’SHEA 1950: 86). But Peck also
saw the theatre’s capacity to improve his own skills. He confided to Time magazine in
1949: ‘Hollywood is a vacuum in which criticism doesn’t exist. The only way you can
6 Initially, Peck and his partner Mel Ferrer considered starting their theatre company at Santa
Barbara’s Lobero Theatre (FISHGALL 2002: 122).
7 The company was briefly called the Selznick Actors’ Company before adopting the name ‘La Jolla
Playhouse’ (FISHGALL 2002: 123).
168
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
get a really honest opinion of your work is to get in front of an audience that pays to
see you. Then you know in a minute if you’re bad’ (TIME 1949: 59).
For Selznick, the association with the La Jolla Playhouse was a welcome source of
publicity and further evidence that he cared about his contract players striving to
develop their acting craft and aspire to the highest artistic values. The theatrical con-
nection enhanced the producer’s own prestige. By contrast, the economic aspects
were secondary for him. His players were always released for a few days’ run only,
which ruled out the possibility of the productions becoming commercial hits. As Mary
Mallory reports, the partnership with the Lobero Theatre meant a loss of $10,000 to
$15,000 for Selznick, and the La Jolla Playhouse’s activities were not profitable either
(see FISHGALL 2002: 128; MALLORY 2015).
Theatre as interference
For many Hollywood performers, working for the theatre was professionally more
satisfying than film acting. The theatre offered day after day close contact with a live
audience, which was presented with a continuous performance, whereas film shoot-
ing took place in bits and pieces on a sound stage with only the cast and crew pre-
sent, and by the time the result was finally offered to audiences on the movie theatre
screen, the actors were already preoccupied with another project. Some actors might
have also appreciated the collaborative nature of theatre and the sense of community
that came with working closely with a cast and crew. As reported by Time magazine:
‘Many Hollywood stars are stagestruck. To fill their yearning for the feel of an old-
fashioned stage, some cinemactors take an occasional fling at Broadway. Others settle
for Eastern summer stock or the hopeful little theaters that spring up in & around Los
Angeles’ (TIME 1949: 59).
Despite the above-mentioned benefits to his company and the individual careers
of the members of his star stable, Selznick’s relationship to theatre remained more
ambivalent than unreservedly positive. This is due to his specific role as a producer
and head of his own studio who had to consider the artistic/creative as well as the
business/financial aspects of his activities (VERTREES 1997: 8–9). His reservations
were twofold: a more extensive theatrical engagement might have interfered with the
making of a film, which remained his priority at all costs; and the commercial returns
and audience impact of theatre were very limited compared to the mass appeal of
cinema. This can be demonstrated by the examples of Selznick’s contractees Ingrid
Bergman and Vivien Leigh.
Before she achieved success in Anna Christie, Ingrid Bergman was released in 1940
for a New York staging of Ferenc Molnar’s Liliom alongside Burgess Meredith. But
Selznick soon regretted this move. As he stated in an inter-office memorandum from
June 1940: ‘We must all face the fact that Ingrid is simply not in demand and that all
the time she was doing LILIOM damaged us in that the initial impression made by
her in INTERMEZZO has been largely wasted’ (HRC 3335/14). Therefore, whenever
169
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
he was faced with the decision of whether the actress would benefit from a thea-
tre engagement (however prestigious) or a film role, he chose the latter, purely be-
cause of the power of audience impact. As he stated in January 1942, prior to Berg-
man’s breakthrough roles in Casablanca and For Whom the Bell Tolls: ‘Ingrid could
do three great plays in New York, and be exactly where she is, miles behind Joan
Fontaine, which is most regrettable, because I think there is every reason to believe
that she could do at least as big as Fontaine’ (HRC 3336/4). After Casablanca and For
Whom the Bell Tolls, Bergman was one of the most sought-after and admired actresses
in America, with her theatrical performances having an insignificant (if any) part in
that accomplishment.
Selznick was not averse to short theatrical engagements, ideally those that moved
from city to city in order to spread prestige in a word-of-mouth fashion across the
country. If there was a chance of a quality film, however, the theatre was side-lined,
as its short- and long-term commercial impact was usually negligible. As remarked by
Peter C. Kunze, ‘star labor was far too valuable to expend on the stage’ (KUNZE 2017:
797). After Anna Christie, Bergman returned to the theatre only after her contract with
Selznick expired in 1946. For her performance in the Broadway staging of Maxwell
Anderson’s Joan of Lorraine, she received the first-ever Tony Award. In 1948, she re-
prised the same role in a film directed by Victor Fleming, but her cultural prominence
never equalled her best years with Selznick.8
Vivien Leigh had even greater theatrical ambitions than Bergman. After the pre-
miere of Gone with the Wind in December 1939 and her Oscar win in February 1940,
she was one of the most in-demand actresses in Hollywood. Selznick wanted to take
advantage of her position and actively sought suitable film roles for her, but Leigh
consistently preferred working for the theatre. With Selznick’s reluctant approval, she
secured a part in the production of Romeo and Juliet alongside her lover (and husband
since 31 August 1940) Laurence Olivier, but it closed after 35 performances. Not even
this fiasco deterred Leigh from further theatrical aspirations. Selznick attempted to
use her interest in the staging of the drama Mary Adelaide (and his exclusive rights
to her film as well as stage roles) to get her to accept one of the film assignments he
had chosen for her, but to no avail. Moreover, the war intervened in their working
relationship: in December 1940, Leigh accompanied Olivier on a trip to their native
Britain, making her communication with Selznick (and the latter’s enforcement of his
business plans) very difficult. The actress continued to refuse Selznick’s offers of film
roles, instead starring in the successful production of The Doctor’s Dilemma. Selznick
complained that Leigh ‘adores the legitimate stage and dislikes pictures’ but not even
a lengthy suspension without pay made Leigh change her mind (HRC 3340/6). The
seven-year collaboration resulted in only two films – in addition to Gone with the Wind,
Leigh starred in the production of Waterloo Bridge (1940), on loan to MGM. Any
8 This is evident, for example, in the annual rankings of the most popular stars compiled by exhibitors.
Bergman was featured in the top 25 each year between 1944 and 1948 (with her highest position being
second place in 1946) and did not reappear on the list until 1957. See ‘Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll’
(WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS 2022).
170
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
further benefit to Selznick was purely symbolic, by virtue of his association with the
celebrated actress.9
Later, the extent of stage work was one of the disputed points in the negotiations
for a new contract for Dorothy McGuire (the actress eventually refused further col-
laboration with Selznick). Overall, the archival materials (memos and correspond-
ence) make clear that theatre was of different importance to the producer and his
contract players. While for ambitious performers like Peck, Leigh, and McGuire, the
theatre represented a lifetime passion and professional fulfilment that filmmaking
did not provide (or provided to a lesser extent), for Selznick, theatrical engagements
were a two-sided affair: for in addition to opportunities to improve his stars’ skills and
increase his company’s prestige, they also presented the threat of clashes with film
assignments and inefficient use of resources in a medium that had limited audience
impact compared to film.
Conclusion
As I argued in the preceding text, theatre was never a self-sufficient goal for Selznick –
as opposed to many of his contract actors, who saw stage activities as a suitable com-
plement to their work for film or even a more professionally satisfying form of cultural
production. For the producer, theatre was most of the time merely a useful tool for
discovering acting talent; for enhancing his contract players’ performing skills and
confidence when getting ready for film assignments; and for reinforcing his corporate
brand based on quality and prestige. His relationship with the stage was therefore
fraught with ambiguity. At some points, the positive side of things seems to have pre-
vailed which led to intensifying his ties with the theatre (his successful season at the
Lobero Theatre, his support of the La Jolla Playhouse), while at other times he was
more perceptive to the negative aspects (for example, during his uneasy collabora-
tion with Vivien Leigh). This is also why his association with the theatre environment
remained inconsistent throughout the years and was instead characterised by ups and
downs.
As a postscript and further elaboration of the above, I would like to conclude with
a short overview of Selznick’s unsuccessful attempts at producing his own theatre
shows. At first glance, these activities might seem to contradict the previous state-
ment that theatre was never a self-contained goal for Selznick. However, the surviving
documents show that he was more concerned with solving his company’s progressively
more dire financial situation than with artistic fulfilment (HAIN 2021: 177). His first
project – ultimately unrealised – was an attempt to mount a Broadway musical adapta-
9 Leigh’s professional cooperation with Selznick and her theatrical ambitions are described in detail
in my chapter ‘Beyond Scarlett: The Collaboration between Vivien Leigh and David O. Selznick after Gone
with the Wind’ in the upcoming collection Vivien Leigh: ‘I’m not a Film Star, I’m an Actress’, edited by Arnaud
Duprat and Corinne François-Denève, Éditions Universitaires de Dijon, 2023. The description used here is
based on the more detailed explanation in the said chapter.
171
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
tion of Gone with the Wind. Selznick seriously entertained the idea in the first half of
the 1940s, after the enormous success of his spectacular film and during the period of
his prolonged production hiatus. Although he strongly believed that the project could
be commercially successful, it ultimately fell through due to a confluence of reasons,
chief among them the resistance of the original novel’s author Margaret Mitchell and
her husband (see KUNZE 2017).
The show ‘Selznick Stars of 1950’, on the other hand, was indeed staged in several
cities in the U.S. The program featured a selection of second-rate personalities from
Selznick’s star stable at the end of the 1940s, namely Louis Jourdan, Rhonda Fleming,
John Agar, and Rory Calhoun, who, under the leadership of theatre producer Paul
Small, performed in a variety show consisting of short acting scenes and musical and
dance numbers. Attendance was poor during all the performances, and it is evident
from the reactions in the press that the standard of the programme was very low.
The owner of a theatre in Kansas City, which was to become the next stop on the
troupe’s tour in late 1949, let it be known, that he
DEFINITELY WOULD NOT CONNECT THE NAME OF SELZNICK WITH A SHOW OF
THIS TYPE. A NAME RESPECTED IN THIS BUSINESS AND WHICH TOOK YEARS TO
BUILD IS BEING HURT AND IT IS HURTING THE YOUNG PLAYERS WHO ARE IN
IT. (HRC 568/8)
In the end, ironically, the connection with the theatre damaged Selznick by costing
him money (‘Selznick Stars of 1950’ did not turn out a profit) as well as his reputation,
without delivering the desired benefits his company had sought with greater success in
previous years (HAIN 2021: 210–212). On the contrary, the fiasco dealt another blow
to the producer and contributed to his professional decline in the post-war period.
Bibliography
BARON, Cynthia. 2016. Modern Acting: The Lost Chapter of American Film and Theatre. London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
BASINGER, Jeanine. 2007. The Star Machine. New York: Vintage Books, 2007.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1984.
FISHGALL, Gary. 2002. Gregory Peck: A Biography. New York: Scribner, 2002.
GREEN, Paul. 2011. Jennifer Jones: The Life and Films. Jefferson/London: McFarland, 2011.
HAIN, Milan. 2021. V tradici kvality a prestiže: David O. Selznick a výroba hvězd v Hollywoodu 40.
a 50. let [In the Tradition of Quality and Prestige: David O. Selznick and the Production of
Stars in Hollywood in the 1940s and 1950s]. Praha: Casablanca, 2021.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia, box 292, file 2, memo
from David O. Selznick, 4 June 1941.
1 72
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia, box 292, file 2, memo
from David O. Selznick, 16 June 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Gregory Peck – Correspond-
ence 1945, box 568, file 5, memo from Kay Brown, 3 February 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Personal Appearances – Paul
Small Co. – Selznick Stars 1950, box 568, file 8, telegram from David O. Selznick, 5 November
1949.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Shirley Temple – Correspond-
ence 1944, box 584, file 5, telegram from David O. Selznick, 22 January 1948.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Talent, box 617, file 1, memo
from David O. Selznick, 25 June 1948.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia – Casting, box 855,
file 5, telegram from Robert Stevenson, 13 March 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia – Correspondence 3
1 of 3, box 855, file 12, telegram from Kay Brown, 13 February 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Anita Colby – Correspond-
ence, box 856, file 19, memo from Anita Colby, 30 August 1944.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Gene Kelly – Correspond-
ence, box 911, file 4, memo from Kay Brown, 28 January 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Talent, box 985, file 9, memo
from David O. Selznick, 1 October 1943.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Margaret Tallichet – Corre-
spondence, box 985, file 13, letter from Kay Brown, 3 March 1937.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Margaret Tallichet – Corre-
spondence, box 985, file 13, memo from Kay Brown, 24 November 1937.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Ingrid Bergman, box 3335,
file 14, memo from David O. Selznick, 17 June 1940.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Ingrid Bergman 1941, box
3335, file 16, memo from David O. Selznick, 21 August 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Ingrid Bergman – Picture Sug-
gestions etc., box 3336, file 2, memo from David O. Selznick, 6 February 1940.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Ingrid Bergman 1942 (2 of 2),
box 3336, file 4, memo from David O. Selznick, 28 January 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Vivien Leigh Miscellaneous,
Part 1 of 2, box 3340, file 6, memo from David O. Selznick, 15 January 1942.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Gregory Peck 1941–1947, box
3344, file 3, memo from David O. Selznick, 11 March 1941.
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Shirley Temple 1943, box
3345, file 12, memo from David O. Selznick, 19 October 1944.
HOPPER, Hedda. 1941. Hedda Hopper’s Hollywood. Los Angeles Times (6. 9. 1941): 9.
KUNZE, Peter C. 2017. Belles are Singing: Broadway, Hollywood, and the Failed Gone with the
Wind Musical. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 38 (2017): 4: 787–807.
173
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
[ yorick ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
LOOK, 1945. They Keys of the Kingdom: LOOK’s Movie Review. LOOK 9 (6. 2. 1945): 3: 64–68.
MALLORY, Mary. 2015. Hollywood Heights: Santa Barbara’s Lobero Theatre David O.
Selznick’s Summer Playhouse [online]. The Daily Mirror (8. 6. 2015). [accessed on 31.5.2023].
Available online at https://ladailymirror.com/2015/06/08/mary-mallory-hollywood-heights-
santa-barbaras-lobero-theatre-david-o-selznicks-summer-playhouse/.
MODERN SCREEN. 1941. Party of the Month. Modern Screen 23 (November 1941): 6: 30–31.
MOLYNEAUX, Gerard. 1995. Gregory Peck. A Bio-Bibliography. Westport/London: Greenwood
Press, 1995.
O’SHEA, Kathy. 1950. Peck’s 10-Year-Plan. Modern Screen 41 (October 1950): 5: 56–58, 86.
POSTLEWAIT, Thomas. 1993. Sojourning in Never Never Land: The Idea of Hollywood in
Recent Theatre Autobiographies. In Ron Engle and Tice L. Miller (eds.). The American Stage:
Social and Economic Issues from the Colonial Period to the Present. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1993: 235–249.
SCOTT, Marcia. 1942. Kelly – But Not Green. Movieland 1 (April 1943): 3: 36–37.
SMYTH, J. E. 2018. Nobody’s Girl Friday: The Women Who Ran Hollywood. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2018.
TIME, 1949. The Theater: Stagestruck. Time 54: 6 (8. 8. 1949): 59.
VARIETY, 1941. Strawhatting At Santa Barbara To Season Players, Ferret Pic Yarns. Variety (18.
6. 1941): 2.
VERTREES, Alan. 1997. Selznick’s Vision: Gone with the Wind and Hollywood Filmmaking. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1997.
WATERS. 1942. The Morning Star. Variety (9. 9. 1942): 42.
WILSON, Steve. 2014. The Making of Gone with the Wind. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014.
WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS. 2022. Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll [online]. Wikipedia.
[accessed on 31.5.2023]. Available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Ten_Mon-
ey_Making_Stars_Poll.
1 74
[ yorick ]
Theatralia [ 26 / 2023 / 2 ]
Milan Hain
Broadway in Hollywood: Film Producer David O. Selznick and His Theatrical Ties in the 1940s
Milan Hain, Ph.D.
Univerzita Palackého, Filozofická fakulta,
Katedra divadelních a filmových studií
Univerzitní 3, 771 80 Olomouc, Česká republika
milan.hain@upol.cz
Milan Hain is Assistant Professor and Chair at the Department of Theatre and Film Studies
at Palacký University in Olomouc, Czech Republic. He is the author or co-author of five
books, including, most recently, Starmaker: David O. Selznick and the Production of Stars
in the Hollywood Studio System (University Press of Mississippi). His articles have appeared
in Jewish Film and New Media, the Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance, and
Quarterly Review of Film and Video. He was aFulbright Visiting Researcher at the University
of California, Santa Barbara, and aVisiting Research Fellow at the University of Łódź.
Toto dílo lze užít v souladu s licenčními podmínkami Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode). Uvedené se nevztahuje na díla či prvky (např. obrazovou či fotografickou dokumentaci), které jsou
vdíle užity na základě smluvní licence nebo výjimky či omezení příslušných práv.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Despite the rich range of scholarship on the film musical, in-depth scholarly attention to the relationship between Hollywood and Broadway as symbolic centers of the U.S. culture industries has been surprisingly sparse. This article makes an intervention into this largely neglected history through an examination of David O. Selznick’s failed efforts in the early 1940s to stage Gone With the Wind as a Broadway musical. Fresh off back-to-back Academy Awards for Best Picture, Selznick made the innovative move to try adapting Gone With the Wind during his four-year hiatus from film production. Using Show Boat as an inspiration and Oklahoma! as a catalyst to accelerate his efforts, Selznick’s attempts ultimately failed during his lifetime, but represent an earlier inroad into cross-industrial franchising. Furthermore, few know that Selznick set up a summer stock theater in Santa Barbara in 1941 not only to hone his contracted talent, but also to prevent them from leaving southern California for the New York stage in the summer. Consequently, this article emphasizes the value of studying industrial failure for scholars of the culture industries as well as the need for greater study of the alternately generative and competitive relationship between Broadway and Hollywood – a relationship put into renewed relief recently as Broadway shows now espouse a high concept aesthetic to tell stories often with roots in film properties and fueled in part by Hollywood money.
Modern Acting: The Lost Chapter of American Film and Theatre
  • Cynthia Baron
  • Jeanine Basinger
BARON, Cynthia. 2016. Modern Acting: The Lost Chapter of American Film and Theatre. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. BASINGER, Jeanine. 2007. The Star Machine. New York: Vintage Books, 2007.
Selznick Collection, Claudia, box 292, file 2, memo from David O. Selznick
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia, box 292, file 2, memo from David O. Selznick, 16 June 1941.
Selznick Collection, Gregory Peck -Correspondence 1945
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Gregory Peck -Correspondence 1945, box 568, file 5, memo from Kay Brown, 3 February 1941.
Selznick Collection, Personal Appearances -Paul Small Co
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Personal Appearances -Paul Small Co. -Selznick Stars 1950, box 568, file 8, telegram from David O. Selznick, 5 November 1949.
Selznick Collection, Shirley Temple -Correspondence 1944
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Shirley Temple -Correspondence 1944, box 584, file 5, telegram from David O. Selznick, 22 January 1948.
Selznick Collection, Talent, box 617, file 1, memo from David O. Selznick
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Talent, box 617, file 1, memo from David O. Selznick, 25 June 1948.
Selznick Collection, Claudia -Casting, box 855, file 5, telegram from Robert Stevenson
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia -Casting, box 855, file 5, telegram from Robert Stevenson, 13 March 1941.
  • Harry Ransom Center
Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas (HRC), Selznick Collection, Claudia -Correspondence 3 1 of 3, box 855, file 12, telegram from Kay Brown, 13 February 1941.