THE MODERN THEATRE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3234, 2 June 1911, Page 2

THE MODERN THEATRE.

AN OUTSPOKEN ARTICLE. MR LAURENCE IRVING’S IDEAS. Mr Laurence Irving contributes a very outspoken article to the ‘Fortnightly Review’ on ‘The Plight of the Serious Drama.’ The English public, he says, is a sorry master for tlie actor to have to serve. Those provincial theatres which have not yet been turned into music halls are mostly kept solvent by tlieif pantomimes and tlie visits of musical comedy companies. As in London musical comedies bold tlie records for longest runs, so in the provinces do they hold the records for, box office receipts. Tlie result is not infrequently a succession of musical comedies, with now and then an occasional interloper, such as ‘The Scarlet Pimpernel’ or ‘The Only Way.’ In this preference for pantomime and musical comedy is to be discovered' the line which demarcates the present-day English public from any that has existed before. The taste for. drama and the taste for acting, Mr Irving adds, must go hand-in-hand. He is in favor of the repertory system —“concentrating in every town a body of actors presenting plays of .merit, using tlie latter word in its widest sense.” Tlie theatre also requires stability, but he is not in favor of the National Theatre scheme. It might have a. vogue, but no good can be done by the patronage of the rich. .1 believe, Mr Irving continues, that a pervading .cynicism and' flippancy are the two greatest enemies of serious art to-day. All the public demands of our actors is good tailoring. a, superfine drawing room, manner, an imperturbable assurance, and . the faculty of uttering smart sayings with a complete lack of conviction. I hate smart sayings, cynicism, and flippancy. While I do not think that in order to be serious it is necessary to be dull, I know that it is necessary to cultivate all one’s powers with the most strenuous and unremitting earnestness. (Serious drama musthave serious men to interpret it ; grave men with a power of reverential concentration upon what they have undertaken. There is no doubt' that in the succession of powerful personalities such as Garrick, the Kembles, Mrs Siddons, Kean, Plielps, Maeready, Ellen Terry, -and Henry Irving the drama, has hitherto had its mightiest columns. Just so the serious drama can only maintain its weight in the future upon mighty, serious. histrionic shoulders. The pliabli and' the time-serving will not suffice Moreover, it is hopeless to look to them for a lead in escaping from the present unfortunate state of -the theatre' in England. It is not in them, to act as leaders; they have not the necessary qualities of devotion and self-sacrifice. They are quite content with giving the public what they want. After we.have taken into, account all the factors which contribute to make the plight of the theatre as serious as

it undoubtedly is, we are always forced back to the one truth that stands out clear and undeniable. The standard of dramatic taste must be raised in tlie- public if we are to have anything at all worthy the name of drama. At present exactly the opposite is happening. The music, halls and picture palaces are creating a huge public who are insufferably, bored by the slight mental effort involved in following the plot of a well-constructed play. Indeed, this disinclination to exercise the fability of concentration is obvious on every side. It does not only exist in regard to the theatre. One cannot pick up a halfpenny paper without seeing proof of it. People refuse to bother about the details connected with events. All they ask for is a. series of short, “scrappy,” superficial, sentences. The nation' that loses its jjower of concentration is lost., England has not yet lost hers ; only the tendency is apparent. It is not too late to influence the public and to check the growth of superficiality.