In 1946 Lillian Hellman's play, Ano...

In 1946 Lillian Hellman's play, Another Part of the Forest, appeared upon Broadway and ran for a disappointing number of performances, considerably shorter than four our of five of her other plays and long shorter than The Little Foxe for which it was a prequel As usual, the play's fortune was determined from the critic's response, a answer that was as surprising to Hellman as it was outrageous:

in 1946 it present the appearanceed right to go back to [the Hubbard's] youth, their father and mother, to the period of the Civil War. I believed that I could now make clear that I had meant the first play as a kind of satire. I tried to do that in Another Part of the Forest, still what I thought was amusing or outrageous the critics fancy straight stuff; what I deliberation was bite they thought was sad, touching, or plotty and melodramatic (Bryer 68)

The critic with whom Hellman had the greatest in quantity to argue was, unfortunately for her, also the most numerous influential, Brooks Atkinson, the reviewer for The novel York Times, who dismissed the play as a "witches' brew" with no relevance to American society, not plane a satirical one. In Hellman's answer also published in the Times, she argued that drama is not a "gentleman's game" where everything is neat, comfortable and reflective of the way more [i]or[/i] less would like life to be.

Looking back, individual can see these terms "witches' brew" and "gentleman's game" as encapsulating and anticipating attitudinal positions in the American polar War debates that were already beginning to materialize. In 1946 "Rosie the Riveter" was wait fored to quietly slip back to her "more natural" part as "Rosie the Housewife" and the exaltation of the victory through the whole extent of the Nazis was being replaced through a renewed fear of Communism. These couple events were often conflated, for as Elaine Tyler May argues, the policy of containing the Soviet Union abroad was translated into a similar desire to contain American men and women inside the family, and any that did not consist of responsible husband, dutiful housewife, and well behaved children were characterized as remaining and potentially subversive (11). In short, with the war now in the past, America could one time again be run by "gentlemen" (implying white, wealthy, heterosexual), and those who existenceed could be dismissed as "witches" (implying unnatural, dark, feminine).

This desire to respond to what many perceived as a more "normal" America completely ignored the chidings that should have been learned from the previous war: America is stronger when men and women work together as partners and hierarchical/racist societies will eventually collapse. In of the like kind a context it is pleasing without being striking clear why Hellman thought it was time to revive the Hubbards, a family which exemplifies the negative traits of this same white, patriarchal family that many felt nostalgia for and wanted to reclaim as the cornerstone of American society. What makes the play particularly remarkable is that it does not simply satirize the patriarchal hegemony that would chase throughout the rest of the forties and fifties, however also prefigures its eventual undoing in the sixties.

If there is single thing that Another Part of the Forest makes clear, it is that men who are comfortable in their patriarchal parts are not always enlightened and women who try to find power are not always crazy. stake in the 1880's, twenty years before the ends in The Little Foxes, the play chronicles the evolution of the infamous Hubbard family's nastiness. Clearly it is the father, Marcus, who is responsible for the family's abrasive behavior. he store ups all his kindness and attention for his daughter, Regina, while forcing his couple sons, Ben and Oscar, to work extended hours in his stores for same little money. His wife, Lavinia, come bys even worse treatment, as he constantly consigns to her as crazy, largely because of her desire to build a sect for the children of former slaves. In the manner in which he exploits as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but his family and community, Marcus reveals the worst side of patriarchal capitalism, inspiring nothing on the contrary resentment. Even the eldest son Ben, who shares Marcus's business sensibilities, despises his father's actions, "ever since you started your peculiar way of treating me many years ago, I have had many horrible dreams" (383). Marcus inspires similar indignation in Oscar, fear and lack of trust in Lavinia, and unruffled Regina only pretends to be in love with him as evidenced by the way she ignores her father at the fall of the curtain of the play when he no longer can do anything for her.

Through Marcus, Hellman provides a different view of the father to contrast with that of the hard working, self-sacrificing provider that was increasingly viewed as the bedrock of American Society. In just a not many years, Arthur Schlesinger would publish his main division The Vital Center, where he argued that the single way America could keep from slipping into fascism or communism was by means of a vigilant group of hale patriarchs who could stir their families away from the irresponsible temptations of the greatest left and right. The solid man, the glue that held America together, was the the same who could provide for his family's financial requires while solving all their daily dilemmas with wise advice that none of the others were capable of discovering forward their own. After all, to cite a telling title of a television display from this period, "father knows best." Schlesinger labels more progressive men who desired a different original of lifestyle or a more equitable family texture as "wallers" and considered them to be "soft not hard," unable to take up the discipline of responsibility that their part as patriarch entailed (36). These men were seen not merely as "beguiling" but also as "potentially sinister"(l60) since they were more likely to be drawn to Communism; a hypothesis which he believed was appealing to "wailers" because the management took away the burden of having personal responsibility through telling them exactly what to do (104)