The Living Theatre

Start Free Trial

Criticism: Paradise Now

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

SOURCE: Harley, James. “The Art of Political Engagement: Governmental Responses to Paradise Now in Europe and America.” Theatre Studies 43 (1998): 38–50.

[In the following essay, Harley compares the tactics used in France and in the United States to “limit the political outreach” of The Living Theatre's production of Paradise Now.]

The summer of 1968 found the Living Theatre in Avignon, France, nearing the end of a four year self-imposed exile from America during which the company had developed a small repertoire of alternative dramatic pieces and a reputation for challenging the status quo. Since the company's 1959 production of Jack Gelber's The Connection, and continuing through the 1968 European tour, its challenges increasingly strayed from the artistic arena and began to step more frequently into the political realm.1

Such a shift in emphasis entails certain consequences. The consciously political artwork must be considered within a larger dynamic, for it claims the status of a political entity, not unlike an actual politician announcing publicly his or her intent to challenge. Thus, the artwork enters into the political community, acknowledging its extended ramifications beyond the theatre walls and engages the system, as is the object of politics. Accordingly, by entering the political dialogue the artwork forfeits its asylum and necessarily opens itself to response from both the government and the remainder of the political community which it seeks to affect.

Since Paradise Now, the Living Theatre's most consciously political production, toured much of the western world, it offers a rare opportunity to comparatively analyze within the artistic sphere this dynamic interplay between government and political activism across national boundaries. Indeed, this particular instance of political engagement produced a number of interesting consequences, meeting with a variety of responses in the countries in which it played. Despite this variety, however, close examination of the evidence yields a significant and general disparity in governmental reaction to the production between the United States and Europe. Whereas European authorities tended to suppress the production using an overt diplomatic approach, those in the United States first adopted covert methods of suppression, before employing what can be considered “police” tactics for that purpose. A number of factors contributed to the disparate policies which manifested themselves across the Atlantic. That which is of greatest importance, however, is the temporal relationship between two major political disturbances of 1968—the riot at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the May uprising in Paris—and the playing of Paradise Now in their respective nations.


Already in the early 1960's the Living Theatre began to experience the consequences of its developing political focus. Its unconventional artistic methods had already drawn the attention of New York authorities as far back as the McCarthy era in the 1950's, when any deviancy invited closer scrutiny, particularly where persons of foreign descent were involved. However, it was not until its unconventional form of theatre became wedded to strong social critique and political non-conformity, in productions such as Brecht's Jungle of Cities (1960) and Kenneth Brown's The Brig (1963), that those authorities began to act against the group, a pattern that would be repeated over the next decade. In this instance the founders of the company, Julian Beck and Judith Malina, were arrested and their theatre on Fourteenth Street in New York City closed down, ostensibly on charges of tax evasion, although they claimed non-profit status and were in fact licensed as an educational institution.2 Nonetheless, the two were convicted, at which time they made the decision to leave the United States in order to seek an atmosphere more...

(This entire section contains 5373 words.)

See This Study Guide Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this study guide. You'll also get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

conducive to experimentation, sailing for Europe in 1964.

During the next four years the Living Theatre developed and toured a three show repertoire. The first was a collective creation entitled Mysteries and Smaller Pieces (1964), which criticized the “plastic” society of the bourgeois and suggested anarchy as a preferable system. The second was another collective creation, entitled Frankenstein (1965), which was modeled on Mary Shelley's novel but which also reflected the influence of Fritz Lang's film Metropolis. In this production the company espoused the need for a new system of values in the world by focusing on the fact that the monster's persecution was the result only of its “passionate curiosity.” Finally, the company presented Brecht's adaptation of Sophocles' Antigone (1967), a comment on conscientious resistance.3

What is important in these works is that while they contain strong political implications, they do not call for direct political action; rather, they remain guiding commentaries on the nature of social organization. Accordingly, theatrical form retains centrality as the focus of the production. The development of the company's political character, however, would become more urgent in 1968, when a series of tumultuous events would push it over the threshold, transforming the group's status from commentator to advocate, and from artist to political activist, culminating in the collective creation Paradise Now.

Although with Paradise Now the Living Theatre shifted its primary focus from the artistic to the political front, it must be noted that in so doing it did not abandon its artistic goals, for in many ways they paralleled one another. On both fronts, the company sought revolution, believing, like Antonio Gramsci, that a political revolution must go hand in hand with a cultural one.4 Thus, both the form and the content of the production—its artistic and political dimensions respectively—were similarly structured.

The company's goal of reforming theatrical conventions corresponds to its political goal of reforming the existing societal structure, for it viewed both as oppressive barriers to alternative values. In both cases, this reform was to occur through a two step process. In the theatre, the company first sought to break down the barrier between actor and spectator, and to then create a new language for the stage, reflecting the Artaudian notion that conventional language served to enslave the theatre to its conventional forms. Politically, the group wished to similarly break down the barrier between the rulers and the ruled, or, those who passively accept and those who participate in government. Again, such a break would require a re-evaluation and alteration of language itself in order to escape the existing linguistically ingrained power structure. Indeed, Herbert Marcuse, one of a number of “New Left” social theorists who influenced the Living Theatre's ideology, seemingly applied Artaud directly to his own theory of revolution:

The new sensibility and the new consciousness which are to project and guide such reconstruction demand a new language to define and communicate the new values, language in the wider sense which includes words, images, gestures, and tones … the rupture with the continuum of domination must also be a rupture with the vocabulary of domination.5

It should be noted that while Artaud influenced the company's theory greatly, its intensified political focus and its call for social reform certainly reflects Brechtian influence as well, for indeed the major goal of Paradise Now was to pave the way for direct political action. This is clearly evident not only in the form and content of the production, but also in its laddered structure.

Theoretically, each of the eight “rungs” represented a revolution in itself, which, when achieved through practical action, would lead to the next, ascending vertically until the final and permanent “beautiful non-violent anarchistic revolution” was achieved.6 Individually, the rungs attacked particular social values of the majority and their supporting political systems, which were thought to have created the dominant counter-revolutionary ego/power structure. In the process, courses of action to negate these systems were suggested.

As noted previously, a number of significant events occurred in 1967-1968 which provided the impetus for the Living Theatre's transformation into a primarily political entity. Among them were the Arab-Israeli conflict, the invasion of (now former) Czechoslovakia by Soviet forces, the continuing war in Vietnam, the student revolts in Germany and Italy, and the assassinations of both Martin Luther King, Jr. (with accompanying riots), and Robert Kennedy two months later. More important to governmental reception of Paradise Now, however, were the events surrounding the May uprising in Paris and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.


The events in Paris in May and June of 1968 are especially important in regard to Paradise Now for many reasons. First, the Living Theatre was present there at the time, participating directly in the uprising to the extent that they helped to “occupy” the Odeon Theatre with other protesters, transforming it into an open forum for social and political discussion.7 Second, it was this upheaval which served as the immediate inspiration for the development of the production itself. Finally, the political maneuvering implemented to resolve the crisis had a profound effect on the reception of the show in July. Because these events parallel later developments in the United States which relate to this analysis, and because they determine the course of action taken by government officials in regard to Paradise Now, it is important to briefly chronicle the disturbance.

In March of 1967, general elections were held in France resulting in significant gains for a number of leftist parties, and leaving President DeGaulle's supporters (Gaullists) with only a one seat majority in the National Assembly. The following February, two of the newly fortified leftist groups, Francois Mitterand's Federation of the Democratic and Socialist Left and Waldeck Rochet's French Communist Party, issued a joint Declaration of Action. This Declaration clarified both the common aims and the general differences between the groups in order to present a more united and effective opposition to the Gaullists based on a better understanding of one another. Prime Minister Georges Pompidou immediately condemned the Declaration on French television, labeling it, “a program of anarchy opening on to dictatorship,” spurring indignation among the leftist ranks and the student radicals who aligned themselves with the opposition.

On May 2, a group of student radicals known collectively as the Enragés occupied classrooms at the University of Paris's Nanterre campus, in protest of overcrowded conditions at the school and a centralized curriculum which they felt suppressed non-conformist teachings. During the following days similar protests occurred, culminating in a massive demonstration on May 5 in the Latin Quarter. The police, attempting to disperse the crowd of more than 10,000 students, fired tear gas at the protesters, and the demonstration quickly became violent. This event, like that in Chicago to follow, served to polarize the city, drawing a distinct line between those who supported and those who condemned the actions of the police.

Two days later a citywide student strike was called to protest the handling of the situation, and when violence again erupted, leading to barricades in the streets in true “French Revolutionary style,”8 the students were joined by two of the nation's largest trade union federations. Over the next few days the strikes spread, crippling municipal operations, particularly in the transportation sector, thus limiting the ability of the non-strikers to function.

Initially, President DeGaulle sought to address the grievances of the strikers through a national referendum, but was forced to postpone the action, stating that, “the present situation materially prevents” its being carried out. Thus having set the stage for resolution, DeGaulle waited, very likely sensing that a failure on the part of the strikers to react to this proposition would irritate the general public, who were growing tired of the disorder. When the strikes continued unabated, DeGaulle played his hand, announcing that he was dissolving the National Assembly and calling for new elections in June, no doubt anticipating a reactionary swing in the wake of the unrest. This maneuver proved successful, the June elections resulting in a sweeping victory for the Gaullists, who captured nearly seventy-five percent of the seats. Thus, the legitimacy of the radicals' demands was severely weakened, as they were once again placed in the solid minority.9

The relationship between these events and the governmental handling of Paradise Now is integral. The restoration of the conservative majority in the June elections served to preempt the possible threat of large scale disorderly conduct associated with inflammatory or radical assemblages, since any hope of their gaining popular support had been effectively extinguished. In a sense, the window of opportunity for the Living Theatre to achieve “Paradise” in France through either revolution or legitimate political means had passed by the time the production premiered at the Avignon Festival in late July of 1968. Although events surrounding its premiere validated the political status of the production, it was not, at the time of its showing in Avignon, a political threat to existing authority. In fact, the overwhelming rejection of the disruptive methods of the radical element which preceded the festival served to set the left back not one but two steps, for it created a residual suspicion, sending those borderline cases who may have been sympathetic to the movement to the opposite side. Thus, with Paradise Now the Living Theatre, as far as hope for practical results was concerned, started below the ground floor.

The violence, disorder, and disunity associated with the strikes are factors often pointed to when analyzing the ultimate failure of the May uprising. Indeed the Los Angeles Times reported on June 25 that, “every barricade, every car burned gave tens of thousands of votes to the Gaullist party.”10 Although the Living Theatre espoused a non-violent approach to political change, it was firmly associated with new left politics, and thus with its predominant public image. This perception would remain a factor in the reception of the show at its premiere, where again, reasserting their dominance, the general public would call for order and diplomacy would prevail.

At the time of the Avignon Festival, the city was engaged in a minor political struggle. Deputy Mayor Henri Duffaut was under pressure to resign from a number of groups who had become increasingly vocal over the course of his six year tenure. According to Pierre Biner, the opposition candidate Jean-Pierre Roux used the Living Theatre's controversial status as a political weapon against Duffaut, asking, “Who receives and nurtures those bums, those Freudians the Living Theatre whose immorality is an offense to our youth and our workers?”11 The implicit answer being, of course, Duffaut. This attempt, like DeGaulle's in June, appealed to the same conservative majority, who were still in a reactionary mode, and proved as successful. Attention was focused on the company, whose association with disruptive radical politics prompted public complaints concerning Duffaut's handling of the cherished festival. When the daily paper of Avignon, Le Meridional, escalated the criticism following the second night of Paradise Now (the company had led the audience chanting into the streets well after midnight), Duffaut, fearing defeat at the hands of that vocal majority, realized that he had to seize the issue himself.

On July 26 Duffaut sought and obtained a court order which called for the immediate withdrawal of Paradise Now from the festival on the grounds that it was disturbing to the peace of the “City of Popes.” In a meeting with Beck and Malina on the following day, Duffaut offered to allow the company to perform Mysteries and Smaller Pieces in place of Paradise Now, but they refused, seeing it as a maneuver to suppress their political message. This offer, in the context of the mayoral campaign, does indeed suggest the suppression of a particular voice. Equally, however, the move validated the work as a political entity, since Duffaut did not seek to remove the company from his jurisdiction, only its politics. He simply did not want to be associated with the encouragement of the radical viewpoint.

Duffaut's move was facilitated by the timing of the production. Occurring after the elections, the show posed no real threat to stability. Had there still existed a state of crisis, or in its absence had the leftists still retained their pre-crisis status in the Assembly and the reactionary wave not been triggered, such an action as banning Paradise Now would have been far more inflammatory than it was. However, the wave had been triggered, the crisis resolved, and the political balance completely shifted, thus providing the censorship of the production with the stamp of public approval.

Furthermore, when the company proposed a free performance of Antigone in the streets, festival administrator Jean Vilar refused, citing that no revenue was to be gained through such a “happening.” Having engaged the political system and having been soundly defeated, the company had no recourse but to make a final political stab as it withdrew from the festival, alluding to both Duffaut and Vilar in its formal press statement explaining the action:

Because the patron of the Festival, the Mayor of Avignon, in collaboration with the Administration of the Festival, has forbidden all free performances in the streets of Avignon, although all tickets for the Festival have already been sold; and because they, the patrons of the Festival, state categorically that they do not believe that the people are entitled to the theatre unless they can pay for it.12

While the primary focus of this examination lies in the comparison of governmental handling of Paradise Now between the United States and France, it is interesting that, in general, other European governments tended to follow the French model, dealing with the production diplomatically through legal channels. Responding to the new political orientation of the company, these nations sought to engage Paradise Now diplomatically, enacting prohibitive measures against it, where previous tours, not containing this political statement, had been heralded with excellent reviews.13 For example, during the Italian tour of 1969, the company was expelled from the country for nudity during a performance of the show, though it is reported that the only nudists were members of the audience. The company had toured Italy off and on for eight years without a political agenda, and without incident. Likewise the performance was banned in the city of Geneva, but only after the company had moved on of its own accord, a timing probably designed to circumvent the possibility of protests.14

This method of dealing with the production differs markedly from that adopted in the United States, where governmental structure and ideology ironically dictated a darker course of action. As in France, this reception was linked to the timing of the production, in its relationship to yet another political disturbance.


Although the major factor determining the reception of Paradise Now in the United States was the timing of the production, even before the company came to America a policy of prevention had gone into effect. Initially operating in a manner similar to the European approach, U.S. authorities sought to preempt the possibility of disturbances through legal channels by denying the European members of the company entry visas. The Immigration Service determined that these members failed to meet the requirements of Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stated that they must be “persons of distinguished merit or ability or that the services to be performed are of an exceptional nature.” In reply to the company's petitions, which were augmented by those of the New York State Council on the Arts, the Immigration Service concluded that, “… the beneficiaries' proposed employment at a salary of $202 per week does not establish that they are of distinguished merit …,” thus stating implicitly that a person's merit is equivalent to her salary. The issue was eventually resolved when the company managed to find a patron within the city government.15

Having failed to prevent the company's entrance into the country, United States authorities were left in a difficult situation. Since the American ideology of free expression discourages (though does not prohibit) the outright banning of written or performed material, the most viable method of suppressing its effectiveness is to adopt a policy of “containment.” In the wake of the Chicago demonstrations and in the air of general unrest, this goal was emphasized in regard to Paradise Now.

In many ways the events in Chicago in August of 1968 paralleled those in Paris in May. A large scale protest against American involvement in Vietnam, organized by the Youth International Party (Yippies) under the leadership of Abbie Hoffman and the National Committee to End the War in Vietnam under David Dellinger and Ronnie Davis, had been called in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in order to capitalize on the national publicity surrounding that event. The form of the protest was a march on the convention site. Maintaining readiness, units of the Chicago Police Department and the Illinois National Guard were on hand to prevent the marchers from converging on the site and disrupting the convention itself. By most reports the march, in which more than three thousand people participated, was fairly orderly until the police and guardsmen fired tear gas into the crowd, initiating a volley of bottles, rocks, and other objects, to which the police responded with more gas, mace, and batons.16

What provided this event with its extreme impact was the presence of thousands of members of the news media who were stationed to cover the convention. As pictures of the violent action were broadcast nationwide, what public had remained apathetic to the war so far away were shocked out of their indifference. Thus, Chicago achieved what all previous demonstrations had failed to do: it brought the war onto American soil, reaching beyond the academic environment and into the American home through the medium of television. This incident, like that in the Latin Quarter of Paris four months earlier, served to polarize a nation, again drawing a line of distinction between those who supported and those who condemned the handling of the situation.

It is at this point, however, that the two situations diverge, producing consequences for the Living Theatre that were significantly different in the United States than they had been in France. A certain case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the company landed in America on September 9, a mere ten days after the Chicago incident. Whereas the performance of Paradise Now at Avignon followed elections which had resolved the May crisis, the American premiere occurred in such temporal proximity to the Chicago incident that there had not yet been any real resolution. Rather, the conflict in Vietnam which had led to the incident was escalating, and the presidential election, which was increasingly viewed as an integral factor in ending that conflict, was two months away. Thus, tensions remained high in the United States, with little hope of relief in the immediate future. In effect, that window of revolutionary opportunity which in Paris had passed by was now left wide open for the Living Theatre in America.

Unlike the flexible French system, where the governmental structure itself provides for such emergency actions as calling for new elections, the American system offers no such diplomatic option, relying rather on firm control to restore order in times of crisis. It is not surprising then, in the state of general unrest following the Chicago convention, that peace-keeping authorities should make their presence known to an even greater degree. Fearing that any disturbance could quickly escalate into violent mob action, as it had in both Paris and Chicago, authorities elected to monitor radical activities closely. Thus, the Living Theatre, with a now firmly established reputation for inciting controversy, presented itself as an open target the moment it took the stage in the United States.

Accordingly, a well documented air of tension surrounded the opening of Paradise Now in New Haven, Connecticut, at the Yale School of Drama on September 26. What was significantly different about this opening night and those preceding it in Europe was the presence of a sizable police force outside the theatre, complete with paddy wagons and mace.17 According to Renfreu Neff, who chronicled the tour, this police involvement was to characterize every performance of that production in the United States. Judith Malina also noted this presence in her diary, remarking that it seemed that a quarter of the audience were plainclothes policemen, and that rumors were circulating which claimed CIA infiltration in the staff of the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the site of the company's next performances. Additionally, she claims to have been stopped on the street at one point by a New York police officer, who reportedly stated, “You're Living Theatre. We know you, and we're one step ahead of you.”18 Granting the potential bias of such claims, the presence of actual uniformed officers at the theatre indicates that the production was indeed being monitored “officially.”

The events following the opening night performance further distinguish the American governmental response to Paradise Now from the European. At the conclusion of the show the company and members of the audience, many scantily clad or altogether nude, streamed into the streets of New Haven, where their cries of “The theatre is in the street!” were answered with shouts of “You are under arrest” and heavy doses of mace. Several members of the company and at least one audience member were then escorted into the waiting paddy wagons, while onlookers sarcastically broke into “America the Beautiful.” According to the New York Times, New Haven chief of police James Ahern commented, “As far as we're concerned, art stops at the door of the theatre, then we apply community standards.” From that point on, company members were threatened with deportation should they again take to the street themselves.

What distinguishes this incident from those in Europe is the method used to apply the “community standards”19 cited by Ahern. Whereas European governments tended to censor the show by banning it after receiving valid citizen complaints, the New Haven authorities, unable to ban it due to ideological considerations, took immediate police action against the actors themselves in order to contain the effect of the production (that effect being to inspire practical action beyond the theatre walls). Additionally, they undertook this course not after receiving complaints about the show from the citizenry, but apparently on their own initiative, based ostensibly on a predetermined notion of community support.

While the police presence on the American tour tended to coincide most noticeably with the performance of Paradise Now, as opposed to the other three productions on the bill, it should be noted that this does not necessarily imply a desire to completely suppress the political content of that show. In that it prohibited immediate societal transformation through practical action this presence certainly impeded the political aim of the company. But, in the still volatile state of affairs in the United States the major goal of the government was in preventing large scale violent disturbances, regardless of their stimuli.

This is not to say that there was no political motivation involved, for indeed Paradise Now was clearly singled out as a subversive entity. Its socialist bent ran counter to American democratic ideals at a time when American soldiers abroad were fighting to defend them. Therefore, when a challenge to those ideals arose within the United States in the form of this production, it may have dictated suppression in the interest of consistency. Furthermore, the attempt to deny the company entrance into the country occurred prior to the explosive incident in Chicago, and suggests that already the Living Theatre was considered persona non grata, an evaluation that probably extended as far back as its initial politically motivated conflicts with authorities in New York before the European “exile.”

In the final analysis, the American policy of preemption and containment proved as successful on the practical level as the French policy of diplomatic intervention. By utilizing firm behavioral control and close monitoring of the production, American authorities effectively limited the ability of the company to engage the political system as it had in France, thus preventing the need to actually deal with the political content of its message. Ironically, in justifying the containment of Paradise Now based on its artistic non-conformity (i.e. nudity in the streets), the New Haven police were actually able to diffuse its political content within the framework of free expression, by enforcing its proscribed limitations. Thus, they too validated one goal of the production, the blurring of the line between art and politics.

In summary, it is clear that governmental response to Paradise Now in both the United States and France effectively limited the production's political outreach, whether consciously or not. In each case, the method of response was distinct, and was determined by the relationship of the production to the political atmosphere of the respective nations. At the time, this atmosphere was determined primarily by events surrounding two major incidents. In France, this consisted of the May uprising and the subsequent defeat of the left in the resulting elections, and in the United States, the Chicago riot and the subsequent increase in internal security. In the first case stability had been restored by the time Paradise Now reached the stage, thus dictating a calm and diplomatic approach to handling the production based on the expressed will of the citizenry. In the second, no resolution had occurred by opening night, thus, the still volatile state of affairs and the lack of governmental options available to respond to such a situation dictated a policy of measured control in regard to the production, which was perceived as a possible threat to order. This determination was apparently made not by the citizenry, but by government officials acting of their own accord.

In both cases the response to the production remained within the limits allowed by both law and ideology, thus, in a tenuous sense, they were both diplomatic approaches. However, whereas the French response issued from interaction between representatives and their constituency in an overt manner, the American response issued from covert channels, thereby shading it with darker implications. In both instances, the response served to legitimize the political character of the production, especially when considered in relation to responses to the previous creations of the Living Theatre.

It should be noted that factors beyond the immediate local situations could certainly have contributed to the differing responses of the respective governments, particularly those factors which may have shaped their general philosophies of governance. For example, the geopolitical environment and history of Europe certainly necessitate a greater understanding of political methods and diplomacy on the part of government officials than in the United States—a relatively isolated nation in terms of geographics, and relatively inexperienced in terms of diplomacy.

Finally, one must consider whether the artistic mode itself is a viable method of engaging the political system. Adorno raised this question, concluding in the negative, “That art is able to intervene politically can justly be doubted,” and furthermore, “Where it does so intervene, the kind of impact that results is peripheral, or worse, detrimental to the quality of art.”20 Richard Schechner expressed the positive flip-side of this coin in relation to the political and artistic revolutions of the late 1960's, stating that the political failures were inevitable, but that the integration of the two left at least a residual deposit on the creative shore.21 After failing in its attempt to create revolution through the engagement of the system in Europe, the Living Theatre realized the futility of its goal, though it did not abandon it. Rather, it continued to fuse art with life through political action. At last, though it was never able to adequately engage the system on equal terms in America, there it certainly achieved at least one goal of any revolution, that of martyrdom.


  1. Oscar G. Brockett. Perspectives on Contemporary Theatre. (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1971) 143.

  2. Neff Renfreu, The Living Theatre/USA. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970) 7-8.

  3. Pierre Biner, The Living Theatre. (New York: Horizon, 1972) 114-115.

  4. Gramsci cited the relationship between the Enlightenment and the French Revolution as an example. See Eugene Van Ervin, Radical Peoples' Theatre. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988) 18.

  5. Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969)

  6. Neff, 206.

  7. Van Ervin, 17-18.

  8. Hirsch, 139.

  9. Walter Rosenburger and Herbert Tobin, eds. Keesing's Contemporary Archives, vol. XVI (London: Keesing's Limited, 1968) 22811-22900, and William Langer An Encyclopedia of World History. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1970)

  10. Marcuse, 68.

  11. Biner, 214-215.

  12. “Avignon Statement” of the Living Theatre Company, July 28, 1968. The Drama Review 43 (Spring, 1969), 45.

  13. Neff, 89.

  14. Ibid, 34.

  15. Theatre 2., no. 1. (1969): 5-11.

  16. New York Times. 29 August 1968, p. 1.

  17. Neff, 35.

  18. Judith Malina, The Enormous Despair. (New York: Random House, 1962) 26.

  19. New York Times. 28 September 1968. p. 27.

  20. Teodor Adorno, Aesthetic Theory. trans. by C. Lenhardt (Boston: Routledge, 1983) 343.

  21. Richard Schechner, The End of Humanism. (New York: PAJ Publishing, 1982) 21.


Criticism: The Apple


Criticism: The Archaeology Of Sleep