Entry from Journal
January 23, 1940
But one must make sure to write from a firm core even though, in my opinion, an attempt to reach as broad an audience as possible should always be taken into consideration. I thought once that it would be enough to play in a small cellar, but I soon saw that those who would come to the cellar were not the ones in need of what I could say.
Wow, wow, wow. This is great, and it reminds me of something I read recently, and damn it I can’t remember what. There’s a quote from Orson Welles:
“If there’s no pleasure for me in it, I feel no obligation to a work of art. I cherish certain paintings, books, and films for the pleasure of their company. When I get no pleasure from an author, I feel no duty to consult him. My interests are pretty wide; and I do keep trying to stretch them wider. But no strain.”
That’s not it, though.
Still can’t think of it, 23.36 hours later.
Here’s a question for Red, if she’s not back to drowning in Lake Bogart: Do actors have this quandary too? If few people like a performance, can that indicate that the performance is better than if loads of people like it? When you aim to act well, might you also think, “But I don’t want to alienate the audience”? Does good acting inherently, even by definition, appeal to a large audience?
A good friend of mine said to me once, (a huge supporter of my acting) “You’re not like a writer – you’re an ACTRESS, for God’s sake – you can’t act alone in a cabin!!”
I’ve been in plays that play in cellars. Some were good, some were terrible. Most of that happened in my early 20s, when I was starting out. Now I would have much less tolerance for that. Especially because those jobs in cellars rarely pay. I won’t work for free anymore.