Ohio History Journal

Melodrama in Ohio:

Avery Hopwood and Boss Cox of Cincinnati

 

By ARNO L. BADER*

 

 

 

WHEN THE OHIO PLAYRIGHT Avery Hopwood died in 1928,

his reputation was that of an immensely successful writer of

light comedies and bedroom farces which had brought him a

fortune. If anyone remembered that as a youngster he had

written The Powers That Be, a serious play attacking civic

corruption and political bossism, that fact was not mentioned

in his obituaries. Yet for one week in 1907 The Powers That

Be was very much in the news in Cincinnati, the stronghold

of "Boss" George B. Cox and his party machine, where it was

savagely attacked by the daily press. Some years later Hop-

wood attributed the failure of the play to the fact that he had

patterned one of the characters too closely after Cox: "A

cold newspaper wave blew it [the play] out of town. I had

drawn the principal character after a well known political

boss, and the newspapers recognized the drawing and took it

up with a vengeance."¹ The incident is of interest for its

recalling of a notorious era in the political history of Cincin-

nati and the free-wheeling journalism of the times, but it

also raises a question concerning the failure of the play: Was

Cox's power such that local reviewers damned the play out of

fear or loyalty, as Hopwood believed, or was The Powers

That Be simply bad drama?

 

* Arno L. Bader is a professor of English at the University of Michigan. He is

chairman of the committee on the university's Avery Hopwood and Jule Hopwood

Awards in Creative Writing.

1 "The Play-Writing Business," Green Book Magazine, VIII (1912), 222.

• 1
 

146   THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

The play itself, advertised as "the Rooseveltian play," ob-

viously derived from the muck-raking movement of the early

years of the century. The chief characters are a corrupt city

boss, Charles M. Buntz, and a young district attorney re-

former, Burton Clark, who furnish the central conflict of

the plot. Buntz had aided in the election of Clark in the expec-

tation that he would accept the domination of the "machine,"

but as the play opens the district attorney is prosecuting the

boss's subordinate for bribery in connection with a city light-

ing franchise, and the boss intrigues against Clark--trying, as

one reviewer put it, "bluff, boodle, threats, and blackmail to

turn him from his purpose." In the end, of course, reform

triumphs, Buntz's evil schemes are exposed, and Clark is

reelected.

Before its appearance in Cincinnati, the play was given its

premiere in Columbus on February 27, 1907, where, despite

the fact that it was in general well received, reviewers noted

"some slight excess of zeal" in the presentation of the play's

thesis, and a lack of convincing forcefulness in the boyish-

looking actor who played the part of the district attorney.

Although Cox's name was not mentioned, one reviewer clearly

indicated the resemblance between Boss Buntz and Boss Cox:

"Some of his [Boss Buntz's] sayings seem to have been

taken from the political history of Ohio. 'I made you and by

G-d I can unmake you,' has been said several times in this

state"^2--the point being that Cox was well known for similar

statements.3

After a two-night stand in Columbus, The Powers That Be

moved on to Cincinnati for a week's run. Hopwood, who was

born in Cleveland and who had worked for a time on the

Cleveland Leader before going to New York. would naturally

have been familiar with the political situation in Cincinnati

and with Cox's reputation. Although he said in an interview

that his Boss Buntz was a type and that "he got his ideas for

 

2 Ohio State Journal (Columbus), February 28, 1907.

3 See Henry C. Wright, Bossism in Cincinnati (Cincinnati, 1905), 44, where

Cox is quoted as having said, "Damn it, I made you, and can unmake you!"

• 2
 

MELODRAMA IN OHIO            147

The Powers That Be from conditions in many cities, includ-

ing Cincinnati,"⁴ it seems certain that by bringing the play to

Columbus and Cincinnati he intended to capitalize on the gen-

eral resemblance to Cox. Advance notice from New York,

which could only have come from Hopwood or his producer,

had made it plain that Cox was to be identified with the play:

 

George B. Cox of Cincinnati is to be the central figure in the play just

completed by Avery Hopwood, the young Cleveland dramatist, whose

first production, "Clothes," was such an immediate success. That is to

say, Mr. Cox was taken as the model for Mr. Hopwood's central figure,

for the play is to deal with politics, as understood in Ohio, and a big

masterful politician is naturally enough needed for the center of the

stage.⁵

The play opened at the Lyric Theatre on March 3, 1907,

and immediately experienced the "cold newspaper wave" men-

tioned by Hopwood. The reviews were lethal. Somehow the

play had misfired, its reforming zeal had become platitudinous

and boring, and the audience had applauded the villainous boss

and laughed at the heroic prosecuting attorney. A selection

from the reviews will illustrate:6

The Times-Star reviewer was severe:

Avery Hopwood's The Powers That Be, if written with a "mission,"

fails lamentably.... Hopwood has overstepped himself in surrounding

his idealistic young district attorney with sermons. The preachments he

utters pall on one. The audience having presumably been to Sunday

School once during the day, resents the continual sermonizing and swings

to the opposite mental state.... It was a noticeable fact that it was the

points scored by the "boss" which seemed to receive the most applause.

The Commercial Tribune was kinder and attempted to ex-

plain the failure of the play in terms of "irregularities in both

construction and handling," but its admissions were damag-

ing:

 

 

4 Cincinnati Post, March 4, 1907.

5 Cincinnati Times-Star, February 16, 1907.

6 All reviews are of March 4, 1907.

• 3
 

148    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

One character, however, rang true, and that was the "boss," Charles

Buntz, who swore himself into instant popularity with the gallery, com-

manding as well applause from the boxes and parquette. This "boss,"

indeed, seemed the real Hopwood hero.

 

The Enquirer was searing:

 

If another play comes this season to a first-class theater and appealing

to an intelligent audience which can press into the allotted time more

inanities, more crudities, more high-sounding platitudes, and more rank

nonsense than the play which last night "fearlessly" unfolded itself at

the Lyric the writer wants to be spared seeing the agony.... This latest

play(?) is only a few days old. It ought to have died a-bornin'.

 

The Post resorted to savage ridicule, beginning with the

headline:

OH! OH! HOPWOOD! WHY'D YOU DO IT!

"THE POWERS THAT BE" AND PROCTOR, THE STAR

VIE WITH ONE ANOTHER FOR BOOBY PRIZE

AT LYRIC

The review itself was equally outspoken:

 

As for the piece itself--rotten! There is but one way to say it and

say it quickly. There is but one character in the outfit that has even the

glimmer of reason about it, and this is the boss.... People laugh at his

strongest scenes when it is evident that the author's intention is to have

them grip their chairs.

 

It would be difficult to imagine a more complete failure of

the writer's intent. What had happened? Had the theater

been packed with Cox's followers, who deliberately applauded

the villain boss? And had the reviewers to a man derided the

play because it condemned Cox by implication?

Understandably this explanation recommended itself to

Hopwood. A number of important facts, however, militate

against it. First of all, the unanimity of the reviews is worth

noticing. Of the four Cincinnati papers, the Post was a fear-

less and avowed opponent of Cox, yet its reviewer attacked

the play more severely than any of the others. If the play was

• 4
 

MELODRAMA IN OHIO         149

being judged according to political rather than dramatic stand-

ards, as Hopwood implied, the Post should have defended it.

Again it is a curious fact that Cox had a financial interest

in the Lyric Theatre, at which The Powers That Be was pre-

sented. In the same edition of the Post which contained the

slashing review of the play, there appeared an interview with

Hopwood--friendly in tone and emphasizing the playwright's

youth and earnestness of purpose--which concluded as fol-

lows:

When it [the interview] was all over the lad took his way over to see

his newest play about grafters, bossism, rotten politics, and kindred

things in a house leased by a concern backed by George B. Cox.

Funny, isn't it?

The oblique shot at Cox is unmistakable, but the assertion

that Cox was financially connected with the Lyric Theatre is,

though surprising, true. Cox was a wealthy man of wide-

spread business interests, which included holdings in several

theatrical chains in Cincinnati, Louisville, and other cities.

Presumably, had he so wished, he could have kept Hopwood's

play out of Cincinnati.

A reading of The Powers That Be strengthens the view that

the play was at fault rather than the political sympathies of

the reviewers. The play is, as some of the reviewers main-

tained, melodrama of a fundamentally unconvincing sort, both

in plot and characterization. It is also, again as both the

Columbus and Cincinnati reviewers maintained, full of plati-

tudinous preachments which weary a reader and undoubtedly

wearied an audience. These weaknesses are to be put down

to Hopwood's inexperience; he had had one Broadway suc-

cess, his comedy Clothes, but this success he owed in part to

an experienced collaborator, Channing Pollock. The Powers

That Be was his first venture as an independent playright,

and its imperfections were in all likelihood easily apparent to

an audience in a city such as Cincinnati which possessed an

established theatrical tradition. The fact that a New York

producer of considerable reputation, George Foster Platt, was

• 5
 

150   THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

hurriedly summoned to serve as a "play doctor" is a tacit

admission of the shortcomings of the play.⁷

It seems obvious, too, that the star of the play, David Proc-

tor, was miscast. Granted that many of his lines were lifeless

and preachy, he nevertheless gave audience and reviewers the

impression of being too immature, too lacking in strength to

triumph over Boss Buntz as played effectively by Edwin Holt.

The Post described him as a "never-waser" with a high-

pitched Voice, who rejected the blandishments of Boss Buntz

"with the conviction of a schoolgirl refusing a second dish of

ice cream." The Enquirer found him "hopeless." The Times-

Star was more explicit: "The district attorney is an idealist,

with a young face, and a high voice. One expects him to win

his office, but has no faith in him afterward." Criticism of the

rest of the company, with the exception of Edwin Holt as

Boss Buntz, would indicate a general mediocrity of stage

talent.

What emerges from the reviews is a picture of an idealistic

but somewhat inexperienced young playright rather brashly

invading the territory of a strong city boss hardened by years

of power. Attacked by reviewers, he very naturally rational-

ized his position and assumed that he had been put down by

order of the boss. In all probability, Cox was unconcerned. In

the one major autobiographical statement of his career,⁸ Cox

spoke realistically of his political beliefs and attitudes: "This

is the age of the boss," he said, and "I am the boss of Cincin-

nati." He recognized, however, that a successful political

leader was open to attack, and admitted that he had sustained

many such attacks. But he said resolutely, "I am hardened

to attacks.... I am living my life as I believe I should live

it. My enemies cannot affect me." The threat of Hopwood's

play is not likely to have disturbed such a man.

The later history of The Powers That Be bears out the

contention that it was the play, not the portrait of Cox, that

 

7 Cincinnati Times-Star, March 7, 1907.

8 Interview in the New York World, reprinted in Cincinnati-Courier, May 15,

1911.

• 6
 

MELODRAMA IN OHIO        151

the reviewers attacked. Within three days the play was re-

written and re-staged under the direction of George Foster

Platt, and the revised version was noted and commended by

several of the local papers. The Commercial Tribune, for

example, took pains to point out that "a good-sized audience

last night applauded the revised version vigorously."⁹ Never-

theless, although The Powers That Be continued for a time

on tour, it never reached New York. Two years later Hop-

wood tried one more serious play, This Woman and This Man,

on the theme of divorce, then turned for the rest of his career

to comedy and farce, one measure of his success being the

fact that at one time he had four plays running simultaneously

on Broadway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 March 8, 1907.

• 7