the man who could turnMister Roberts into a successful play. For three months during the fall of 1947, they worked together, Heggen staying at the Connecticut home of Logan and his wife. They would start work at about five in the afternoon and work through the night until about six in the morning. According to Leggett, ‘‘Logan’s strength was conceptual, seeing Mister Roberts in scene and narrative, while Tom’s was in character and dialogue.’’ Together they came up with a number of incidents not in the novel, including Roberts’s bribery of the port director with whiskey taken from Pulver, which leads to the hilarious scene in which Roberts, Pulver, and Doc create fake Scotch out of Coca-Cola, iodine, and hair tonic. Logan also refined the crucial scene between the Captain and Roberts that Heggen had created in his original draft: Roberts agrees to show the Captain more respect in front of the men and to keep their meeting absolutely secret. Logan knew this would add more tension to the second act for both Roberts and the crew.

Another central point was the character of Roberts. Again, Logan was the instigator (at least according to his own account of their collaboration). He argued that Roberts should not be too perfect, that he had to possess a fatal flaw that could be cured at the end of the play. There was nothing like this in the novel, so it had to be created from scratch. Logan was following a rule of dramatic structure that one of his friends called Logan’s Law, but which Logan had in fact learned from playwright Maxwell Anderson. Logan’s Law stated that toward the end of any successful play, the protagonist must learn something about himself that changes his life for the better, as Logan relates in his autobiography Josh:

The audience must feel and see the leading man or woman become wiser, and the discovery must happen onstage in front of their eyes. And that doesn’t mean a happy ending. If the hero is to die, then he just must make the discovery before he dies.

It is this change for the better that raises the moral stature of the protagonist and so allows the audience to grow too, along with the character.

Logan and Heggen decided that Roberts’s flaw is his snobbery. He thinks that the men on a combat ship are superior to those on a cargo ship. So the play must emphasize and explain his desire to see combat, which is accomplished in the first two scenes. In the first scene, Roberts reports to Doc, in a passage that does not appear in the novel, that he saw a huge naval task force pass by the previous night. It is made very clear that he would give anything to be a part of that task force. Then in scene 2, Roberts confides to Doc his sense of inferiority about being on the AK-601: ‘‘We’ve got nothing to do with the war. Maybe that’s why we’re on this ship—because we’re not good enough to fight.’’ A moment later he says, ‘‘I’ve got to feel I’m good enough to be in this thing—to participate!’’ He sticks to his views even though Doc argues that physical heroism is overrated. Doc believes it is merely a reflex that three out of four men possess and would demonstrate if opportunity presented itself.

But at the end of the play, Roberts reveals in his letter to the men that he has discovered something he was not aware of before. Now that he is seeing real combat, he is full of admiration for the fighting men he is with, but he also realizes that the men who are involved in the more tedious tasks of war, ‘‘who sail from Tedium to Apathy and back again—with an occasional side trip to Monotony’’ have courage too. It takes courage and strength not to give into boredom, not to allow it to break the spirit. Roberts realizes that the men he sailed with on the ship they all called the ‘‘bucket’’ were every bit as brave as the men who have the opportunity to fill combat roles. It is not a matter of one set of men being better than the other. In this way, Roberts overcomes his snobbery. Logan called this letter Roberts’s ‘‘selfrealization letter,’’ and it was greatly expanded from the letter Roberts wrote to the men in the novel, which is presented only briefly and in a nondramatic way.

Logan also placed extra emphasis on the growth of Pulver from immature loafer to mature officer ready to defend his men. The novel ends with Pulver saying to the Captain, ‘‘I just threw your damn palm trees over the side.’’ In the play this is altered only slightly, but it becomes the penultimate, not the final line. Logan added to it, ‘‘Now what’s all this crap about no movie tonight?’’ which he hoped would show the audience that, as he put it, ‘‘Pulver had become Roberts, and therefore Roberts would live—and take care of us all.’’ Logan’s judgment proved accurate, because when Mister Roberts began its long run on Broadway, that line produced not only the biggest laugh but also a cheer from the audience. The message had come across.

Logan described the three months he worked on Mister Roberts with Heggen as the most exhilarating and hilarious time of his life, and Heggen also looked back on this period as the best of his life. However, their collaboration was not without its tensions. Heggen became uncomfortable with how much credit Logan—who co-wrote, directed, and co-produced the play—received for its success. Heggen also floundered when he tried to work on other projects. The creative energy that had produced the novel seemed to have dried up. At one point, Heggen believed he had become dependent on Logan’s creativity, and he insisted that they collaborate on another play. Logan was happy to agree to this idea, but the troubled Heggen died, apparently by his own hand, before any real work could begin on it.

Source: Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Mister Roberts, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005.

In Mister Roberts, issues of leadership and what makes a good leader are at the center of the play. The play is set on a U.S. Navy ship that has seen no action and is in the Pacific theater during World War II. Boredom and lack of hope run rampant throughout the ranks. The captain of the ship provides little positive leadership, while his lieutenant, Doug Roberts, compensates with some success for his captain’s inadequacies.

To be a leader in the situation presented in the play means to be in charge yet also to answer to and carry out orders from those above. A leader in this position should also have such qualities as compassion and understanding for the men he leads. The captain of the AK 601 does not have these qualities. It is often said that ‘‘war is hell.’’ This usually refers to the intensity of combat, but it can also refer to how boring inaction can be. The captain has isolated himself from his men and does not seem to care about their needs. He is more concerned with his potted palm than with the men who are serving on the ship.

The captain is really only worried about his own standing with his admiral and being promoted to full commander. He does not care much about how he gets this promotion, nor how shaky his current command really is. His potted palm is a metaphor for his leadership on the AK 601 and what he perceives is a symbol of his competence as a leader. The captain has a sign on the plant that identifies it as his property and orders his sailors to ‘‘keep away,’’ even though it is their work that helped him earn the award. In the description that sets the scene of the play in act 1, scene 1, Chief Johnson is described as spitting in the palm’s pot after making sure he is not seen. From the first, it is clear that the men do not respect the captain and show their disrespect in subtle and not so subtle ways. When Roberts decides once and for all to stand up to the captain, he tosses the palm overboard. After the captain replaces it with two new palm trees, Roberts’s replacement, Pulver, also tosses the palm trees overboard after learning Roberts has died.

One of the captain’s biggest failings as a leader comes in the way he treats his crew. He denies them liberty (a shore leave) for over a year. The only men allowed off the ship are officers conducting official business. The captain fails to see how this confinement negatively affects the men’s morale as well as their psyches. The men are literally cooped up like animals on the ship. The longer the men are not allowed any breaks, the more they act out. In act 1, scene 1, the crew goes a little crazy when, using a spyglass, they see female nurses on a nearby island. The captain has also canceled the men’s nightly movies for such minor transgressions as a sailor not wearing his shirt while working on deck, a pet peeve of the captain.

While the captain, through bad leadership, causes his crew to suffer, Roberts suffers even more. Roberts wants to be off the ship and in combat. He left medical school to fight in the war but is stuck in endless inactivity. To that end, Roberts has put in a request for transfer on a weekly basis before the action of the play begins. The captain repeatedly refuses to give his approval to it, meaning Roberts will not get it. If the captain would have compassion, Roberts would most certainly be gone. Roberts goes to great lengths in Mister Roberts to obtain his transfer and nearly goes crazy in the process. The captain believes that Roberts’s presence is essential to his own promotion because the admiral complimented Roberts’s abilities as a cargo officer.

The captain regularly seeks out Roberts to remind him that he is beneath him and that he, as captain, is in charge. At the beginning of act 1, scene 3, the captain is angry with Roberts when he will not respond immediately to the captain’s order to see him. Roberts is busy overseeing the transfer of a load to another ship. Roberts’s latest letter requesting a transfer upsets the captain because Roberts claimed there was ‘‘disharmony aboard this ship.’’ The captain goes on to humiliate Roberts in front of his men and puts them all on report.

Though Roberts has little hope for himself, he wants his men to have it. The crew does not respect the captain, but they respect Roberts, who is much more of a leader among them than the captain. While talking about another matter in act 1, scene 1, the ship’s doctor, referring to Pulver, tells Roberts, ‘‘He [Pulver] thinks you are approximately God.’’ This is so because Roberts continually puts himself out on the men’s behalf. In addition, in act 1, Roberts maneuvers to secure the men a liberty. After the liberty is announced in act 1, scene 4, the captain takes it away in act 1, scene 5. In the next scene, Roberts agrees to sacrifice his campaign to get transferred from the ship and promises to be more yielding to the captain in front of the men in order to secure their long-awaited shore liberty. He also agrees to allow the captain some credit for the leave. This selfless act will make for a happier crew, as Roberts acknowledges. However, because of the sacrifice he had to make to get the liberty for the men, Roberts’s hope for his own happiness is nearly gone. He fears he will be stuck on the ship for the duration of the war.

Throughout Mister Roberts, Roberts shows how generous and compassionate he is. At the beginning of act 1, scene 3, though the captain orders no fresh fruit to be given to other ships, Roberts gives some to the crew who have not seen such delicacies in months. Roberts gives the captain some credit for it. When the captain learns of Roberts’s generosity, he gives Roberts ten days in his room as punishment. However, because Roberts is too valuable, the captain does not enforce this order. Roberts also allows the men to take off their shirts because of the heat despite the captain’s standing order to the contrary. Roberts does not partake of the liberty and remains on the ship as the duty officer. When the men go a little wild on shore by drinking excessively, breaking into the home of the local French consul, crashing an American Army officer’s dance, and stealing a goat, Roberts deals with the consequences of their actions. Roberts is the liaison with the shore patrolmen, who bring the drunken men back to the ship. Roberts assures the patrolmen that the crew will be penalized for their actions. Though Roberts sacrifices for his men, he also has faults of his own, but not nearly as many as the captain.

While playwrights Heggen and Logan draw the captain with no redeeming qualities, they show Roberts’s imperfections as well. Unlike the captain, Roberts knows he is flawed. It is this sense of humanity and awareness of self that helps make Roberts an effective leader. He knows that being stuck on the ship for months at a time is nearly intolerable. One way that Roberts demonstrates his own flaws is by sometimes putting his needs first. His obsession with being transferred to a different ship means leaving the crew at the mercy of the captain. Though Roberts works on getting the men a liberty at the end of act 1, scene 1, by going ashore himself to talk to someone, the trip also serves Roberts’s own agenda. He is not trying to make the best of his situation in one sense: he is just trying to get out. Roberts sometimes takes his frustrations out on his men. When Dolan learns that the Navy needs experienced officers to transfer to ships, he types a letter for Roberts, not knowing about the private deal the captain and Roberts have made. Roberts will not sign it at the time and off stage puts Dolan on report for bothering him about it. Roberts later apologizes to Dolan and takes him off report, something the captain would never do.

Roberts finally gets his transfer because of his success as a leader among the ship’s men. The crew risks their own freedom by faking a letter for Roberts asking for a transfer and forging their captain’s approval. Just before Roberts leaves the ship, the crew makes him a crude medal shaped like a palm tree. His abilities as a leader pay off with his desired reward, though it also ends in his death as the ship he is transferred to is hit with a suicideplane attack. This ending prompts the question of who really wins in the tug of war between the captain and Roberts, between the ineffective leader and the effective one. While the captain retains command of his ship, the crew feel no differently about him after Roberts is gone. He remains a very poor leader. Having served under Roberts changes the men. Roberts’s leadership skills have ensured that his spirit lives on in them.

An undercurrent to the contrasting leadership skills of the captain and Roberts is social class. The captain is not educated. He worked in restaurants as a young man and came to the Navy after working in the merchant marine service. Roberts is educated, having spent time in medical school. The captain is threatened by Roberts’s social standing, while the men are indifferent towards it; they only care about whomever will take charge and be fair about it. Repeatedly throughout the text of Mister Roberts, the captain expresses anger about those who have looked down upon him and takes this anger out on Roberts and, indirectly, the crew. The captain often throws out the fact that Roberts is college educated when the captain is talking down to him. For example, in act 1, scene 6, the captain says, ‘‘I hate your guts. . . . You think you’re better than I am! You think you’re better because you’ve had everything handed to you!’’ It is in this scene that the captain denies the men’s liberty, but only gives it when he can make Roberts feel as bad he does. It might seem that Roberts is more developed as a character than the captain, but in fact it is that Roberts is more developed as a person and a leader than the captain will allow himself to be.

Source: A. Petruso, Critical Essay on Mister Roberts, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005.

Although it is improbable that the last war will go down in history as the most amusing event of the century, Joshua Logan and Thomas Heggen, authors of Mister Roberts, have certainly used it as a basis for one of the funniest plays ever seen on the American stage. Taking the frail and pleasant little string of stories by Heggen as a starting point, they have shaped the material with a canny professionalism that approaches magic, into a roaring, fullfleshed play which leaves the audience limp, exhausted with laughter and profoundly satisfied.

After the first five minutes of the performance, a wonderful glow of anticipation settles on the spectator—a glow that comes from the realization that for this one night at least, the people responsible for your entertainment can do no wrong. There is the intoxicating feeling that everybody connected with Mister Roberts is at the very peak of his creative tide. If one person can be singled out for praise, it must be Joshua Logan, who, aside from aiding in the writing, directed the work with shrewdness, vitality and humor. He has obtained shining performances from veteran actors who are better in this than they ever have been, and he has made a host of youthful newcomers play as though they had been on the stage steadily since 1900.

The scenes, whirling through Jo Mielziner’s ingenious and authentic representation of the Navy Cargo Ship, AK 601, are loud, lowdown, slapstick, wistful, bitter sentimental—it is all one to Logan. He handles each of them with the same sense of justice to its material, with boundless variety, with a strict observance of the proper limits of the character, and with a seemingly inexhaustible gusto.

Point of focus

Henry Fonda as Mister Roberts proves how bitterly the theater has suffered by losing its best actors to the films. He has a most difficult assignment: quiet in the midst of an almost continual riot, serious in a thunderstorm of comedy. He has to center and concentrate the attention of the audience upon himself or have the play lose itself in a series of disconnected gags. He does it by the use of a technique that is difficult to describe. He merely is absolutely real, and by that truthfulness he makes a simple grin, a weary lift of the shoulder, the flat and honest reading of an ordinary line, events of great dramatic importance upon the crowded and uproarious stage.

As the bed-loving Ensign Pulver, David Wayne, as nimble and artful an actor as we have around, paints a picture of a beautifully artless, naïve, heroworshiping boy that is wildly funny and, at the end—when it has to be—gently touching.

William Harrigan, the absurd and monstrous captain of the ship, the enemy of every man aboard, the foe of all brotherhood and love, conducts his cranky feud with the crew with rasping integrity, his narrow, brooding virulence a perfect foil for the chaotic humors of the young men under his command.

Robert Keith, soaked in fruit juice and medicinal alcohol, gives his best performance to date. He is the ship’s doctor—cynical, lounging, the invincible, irreverent civilian caught impermanently in the backwash of a war. A delicious affront to Annapolis and the American Medical Association, he adds the exact, necessary touch of shore-based acid to the seething dish.

The enlisted men of the crew make a mass effect upon the spectator. Individually, perhaps, they are slighted, but the total impression is one of vitality and comic reality. You would not know any one of them if you met him at a bar, but you feel perfectly certain that as a group they could sail any vessel (cargo) anywhere and that the Navy would approve. They chip paint, stare through binoculars at a nurses’ shower room, and wear their dungarees and dress whites as though they were all in the middle of their third hitch.

If there is a fault with Mister Roberts, it is one that it is not quite fair to bring up. The play is broader than it is deep, but the authors were not trying to be deep. It avoids tragedy firmly, even though (curious departure in a comedy) the hero dies in the end.

A war does not avoid tragedy, and a definitive play about war, even about such ludicrous rear areas as ‘‘Mister Roberts’’ covers, will somehow convey that fact. In a way, this criticism is a tribute, too. Mister Roberts is so good that it leads you to speculate, gently, on the breathless possibility of what it would have been like if it had been perfect.

Source: Irwin Shaw, ‘‘Theater: The Hilarious War,’’ in New Republic, Vol. 118, March 8, 1948, pp. 29–30.

Mr. Roberts (adapted by Thomas Heggen & Joshua Logan from Mr. Heggen’s novel; produced by Leland Hayward) was a smash hit (advance sale: $400,000) weeks before it arrived on Broadway. Cased out of town, it was rumored to be out of this world. Happily, it is one of the better things in it: a good show superlatively produced; a rowdy, romantic, sometimes rather touching, sometimes uproariously funny wartime chronicle.

Laid on a Pacific cargo ship late in the war and far from the fighting, Mr. Roberts pictures a shipload of men worn down by lack of change, lack of women, lack of war. It suggests that boredom can be as tough on the nerves as bombardment. The only war the crew of the AK 601 can fight is against their captain, who makes life tough for others because life was tough for him. The crew’s great hero is Lieut. (j.g.) Roberts, a quiet guy who, while sweating to get transferred to the real fight, keeps in trim scrapping with the skipper. But when the captain refuses the crew a desperately needed shore leave, Mr. Roberts, to get it for them, promises to toe the line. The amazed and disgusted crew thinks that Mr. Roberts has ratted, only to find out the truth and worship him the more.

As a story Mr. Roberts isn’t much—and isn’t meant to be. It’s as a human picture that it triumphs— a human picture in which frustration lives on delightful if not always convincing terms with farce. Tempers get sharper as everything else on the AK 601 gets duller. Denied the simpler masculine pleasures, guys cook up the most elaborate schoolboy pranks; the brinier the life, the earthier the lingo.

Feckless here & there as a show, Mr. Roberts is virtually flawless as a production. Co-Author Logan has directed it brilliantly; everything is timed just right; every character and gesture tells. As Mr. Roberts, Henry Fonda makes his first Broadway performance in eleven years a quietly memorable one. William Harrigan as the captain, David Wayne as a not-too-bright ensign, and above all Robert Keith as a worldly ship’s doctor, are in excellent form.

Source: Time, ‘‘New Plays in Manhattan,’’ in Time, Vol. 51, March 1, 1948, p. 63.