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.
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!"
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.
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
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
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.
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.