ALS: Monday, June 15, 1931

Northport, Long Island.
June 15th 1931

Dear Maurice:

I am writing you to take up again the question of how best to open the trilogy. I have been giving the matter the devil of a lot of thought lately, and talked it out thoroughly with Bob Sisk, and the more I think the more decided my opinion becomes, looking at it from all angles, that my original idea of an opening week in which the whole work would be unveiled, two nights to each play, is the absolutely right scheme and the Guild's notion of starting week by week is all wrong.

Let's get down to cases: What do you gain by your scheme? One extra Sunday write-up, possibly; no more for you would be bound to get two by my plan since the first Sunday could cover only the first and second play and the following Sunday would have to cover the whole thing. You also gain an easier method of getting the trilogy on -- and perhaps a week or two less of paid rehearsals. But my point here is that this is a difficult thing to produce and the more difficultly you produce it (as per "Interlude") the greater the reclame and sensation will be -- a big asset to start with! As for paid rehearsals, this drama is very obviously not one the Guild can afford to economize on in any way. It would not pay to do so, in the long run.

Here's what I think you lose: In a word, the driving impact of a trilogy concentrated in one week -- a bigger "Interlude" in that sense! Week by week, it becomes an ordinary, unstartling episode -- just three plays produced on three Mondays! You also lose -- a very grave fault! -- all the benefit of my careful construction of suspense form play to play. The week by week opening really ruins my trilogy, you know -- for it is a trilogy and not three separate plays, and I want it seen and criticized as such. Once the whole thing is given in a week, then a week by week plan becomes justifiable. Then you will have the benefit of the smashing impact of that first week, of the whole work, to compel an interest in the public which can sustain suspense over weekly intervals. Do you get my point? I'm convinced when you have you and the rest of the committee will agree.

As for the difficulty of getting an audience in for three nights that first week, I can't see it. After all, you give them a choice of two nights to see each play. I think you will find that first week will become "the thing to do", an occasion your subscribers will want to be in on. If they know far enough in advance, among the subscribers there ought to be more than enough who would make their dates for that week accordingly. As for the difficulty in rehearsing so that the trilogy can be given this way, I agree it is difficult. But, given proper time, it isn't any more impossible than "Interlude" was. And, in this case, we have everything to gain by doing the seemingly impossible and may well loose out by doing what is comparatively a commonplace stunt, done before with Shaw's Methuselah with no great result.

It is well for the Guild not to loose sight of the greatest element in starting "Interlude" on the right road -- doing what looked to be impossible! -- daring and theatre guts! -- originality with original material!

Think this all over and pass on this letter or a copy to the others. Remember especially that you owe me, in fairness to this work I have slaved at so long, that it should be given as near to three consecutive nights as possible -- at least once in the beginning. It was written that way, and now my scheme for a preliminary week of two nights to a play is really a compromise. To follow with week by week is a tremendous compromise made to U.S. theatre conditions. But to cut out my first trilogy week altogether is really too big a compromise to ask of me!

Again I pound my big point: The greatest chance of success the trilogy has is to hit New York a concentrated smash that will preserve the unity of the work as a whole, concentrate interest on the unusual sustained strength of the work as a whole, and not allow interest and suspense and enthusiasm to diffuse and peter out over a two and half week period with other plays opening all over the place in the intervals. In one week you can make the lasting impression that will carry on and count. In one week you can send two audiences full of press agents out to talk about the whole work so that future weekly audiences will have the expectation of the whole in their minds.

And that's that. I feel strongly about this. I know, not only from the artistic but also from the practical N.Y. theatre standpoint, that I am soundly right!

We are settled comfortably here in a small house easy to run, plenty of ground and privacy, a nice clean private beach to bake on. I am beginning to relax and rest already, after four days of it, and so is Carlotta. We were lucky to find it -- just the place we needed. We both hope you and your wife will be able to get over and pay us a visit later on. We were too fagged out, as you undoubtedly realized, to take advantage of your invitation that time in New York.

Carlotta joins in all best!

As ever,

Gene

P.S. I
Phone no. here is 440 Northport -- if ever necessary.

P.S. II
Shouldn't we hear from Phil soon? Gish will be back in N.Y. middle of July and we can then all of us see her possibilities.

P.S. III
Jed Harris is dickering with me about starting an O'Neill repertory season of 20 weeks this coming year. Seems serious about it. Of course, I'd try and hold that off until after the trilogy opened. Haven't seen Harris yet -- all by letter & via Madden so far. I confide this to you so you won't think there is anything secret about it if you hear it from other sources.