THE REPERTORY SOCIETY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 298, 30 September 1935, Page 6

THE REPERTORY SOCIETY.

Sir, —As one who greatly appreciated the Repertory Society’s performance on Wednesday, I should like to point out several faults which apparently escaped the notice of the producers at rehearsals.

In the first play, the detective’s orations to the audience belonged to the Victorian era, and detracted considerably from what was meant to be amusing.

A glaring fault in the second play was the unnecessary lovemaking. Surely the producers have sufficient vision to see the incongruity of such a scene. The passive acceptance of the situation by the maidens was not in accordance with their creed, and the Black Horseman and the girl gave the impression of desiring to make the most of it—at the expense of the play. This scene was out of perspective. Audiences are discriminating and quickly see where actors put themselves before art. Perhaps the producers need a refresher course in history.

The frequent use of "My God” in the first play was simply deplorable. It gave one a feeling of revulsion. Everyone knows that Godless people use the name of God with impunity and that it is a. common expression—very common—but who wants it blared across the footlights and echoed and re-echoed?

When one considers the greatest act in the history of the ages, and the agony of that immortal cry, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” one cannot conceive of public blasphemy being tolerated. The appalling ignorance of those who profess to love art is herein exemplified. The true artist has no need to resort to blasphemy or suggestiveness to create atmosphere.

Repertory has a great future before it. Its educational value cannot be over-estimated. Will its leaders rise to the occasion and respond to the growing demand for good clean work? Will- they raise the standard of speech and ethics and thus pave the way to a truer conception ofi life? Or will they pander to the minority, who, whether ■rich or poor, prefer the smirch of lewd suggestion and sordidness. (I am not criticising the plays presented on Wednesday evening, they were quite above the average).

Repertory is a power in the land and its members must recognise their responsibility. It is not merely a medium of self-expression to lovers of art. Its influence is far-reaching and is therefore of national importance. The greatness of our Empire is because the Lord God Almighty is our Shield and Defender, and our disregard or recognition of this fact is reflected in the ebb and flow of lean years—and years of plenty. The growing public dislike for hearing the name of God dishonoured is proof of a national awakening, which Repertory Societies would do well to note.

I had not finished this letter when I read the excellent letter by "A Visitor.” It is pleasing that another has commented upon these matters. In closing I should like to refer to an unrehearsed incident—the charming touch of humour which the orchestra provided when they so patently fell to pieces in their third number. They resembled miehievous schoolchildren as they went back to their places. Their amusement came across to the audience like rustling Jeaves in a merry wind. It, was delicious and more than recompensed for their failure. Those who were privileged to be present at the Orchestral Society concert last year know what fine work they are capable of doing and would welcome another performance. GABRIELLE M. HARMAN.

Sir, —You are to lie complimented on the “Guardian’s)’ very fair and kindly —perhaps too kindly-—report of Wednesday night’s presentation of four plays by the Repertory Society. When one realises how really small and unprogressive Ashburton is, how narrow is its outlook, how stunted its vision, how imperfect its perspective, how conservative aiid intolerant in views, how resentful of criticism, how arrogant and self-opinionated are many of its younger and inexperienced residents, who are a law to themselves and a nuisance to others —one does not wonder at the too kindly, uncritical nature oh your journal’s report. Your life would hardly he safe, Sir, if you told these self-satisfied, smug young people just how had their performances really are! It must he rather a difficult matter to comment on a local production in a not-too-critical and unbiased manner, and one realises this and commends you for handling it so tactfully and delicately. But, what our young friends of the Repertory Society need, and need l badly, is a thoughtful critique by someone of more than the average experience of the stage, such a critique to he frank, even brutally frank, in pointing out the obvious and repeated faults in deportment, stage presence, make-up, speech, etc. Many of the performing members (and, in this case, I prefer the word “performing” to “active”) have become so selfsatisfied, so self-opinionated, so perfect, that I cannot understand why they are still in Ashburton. They should he on the way to Hollywood or Elstree ! The pity is, of course, that they cannot see themselves as others sec them • many of them do not act, they merely perform. And the performance of one was not/ only ludicrous, it was grotesque. For example, the Turnkey m the fourth play on Wednesday should have been a simple, ignorant French peasant. And was lie? No, he was dressed and posed in such a way that many of the audience concluded he was acting the part of a dangerous lunatic. Obviously he overdid, and repeatedly overdid, a simple, easy part. And also, might I suggest that, if the society is going to again put on a play by a local “author,” that it will have, at least, the virtue of originality. A little less self-satisfaction, a good

deal less of the use of language and expressions that offend! its sub-scrib-ing members, and a willingness to accept criticism in the spirit it is given, is my advice to the young irresponsible pooplo who have given us an occasional —and only an occasional—really good repertory performance in the last three years.

LAUREL HARDY

Sir, —The Far North savours of Kerikeri and Tung Oil. Seeing “A Visitor” comes from a part of the country which is full of modern ideas, I am surprised that he apparently still lives in his mind in the Victorian era.

The plays put on by the Repertory Society were not faultless, but the players had not been playing their parts for six months and were not professional mummers. The first- play, “She was a Lady”—a bad choice; “The Black Horseman,” delightfully portrayed; “Villa, for Sale,” excellently put on; “The Substitute” marred by the players failing to speak up in the opening and so killing the interest. The players should remember the man who pays his shillings and sits up in the heights by the operating box is the person he has to make hear not the first six rows of the stalls and circle.

Your correspondent takes the Black Horseman to task for Kis manner of lovemaking. I hope “A Visitor” was not jealous of The Horseman, as I was. Does your correspondent think that the blood would not run warm in the veins of a Quaker maiden. Wo know it would in the Horseman; his very name suggests romance and swashbuckling. He was not the type to salute a maid with a peck on the cheek. Nor was that the type of kjss the maid 1 was longing to have implanted on her rosy lips. No, Sir, the players portrayed the character they were mumming as writ by the author. Your correspondent casts stones at the managers for not excising the term God. Characterising the use of such an expression as a flippant expletive is not everybody’s idea of wrong in this modern world. Probably the audience comprised members of all the numerous sects and religions in Ashburton and there aije many, Mr Editor, who hold quite different religious views from your correspondent. His criticism is unwarranted and though he is. entitled to his view, in my opinion the splendid performance was not marred as he complains and if he never hears anything more provocative than what he heard on the stage on Wednesday night lie should return to the Far North with nothing more on his mind, than to think about what Mussolini thinks of the Commandments.

“CALL BOY.” FISHING LICENSE FEES. ,Sir, —Kindly permit me, through your columns, to clear up some misunderstanding which appears to exist regarding the fees to be charged for Fishing licenses for the new season. The license fees are the same as for previous years, namely £1 for adults, and 5s for ladies and boys.

I have recently, been informed that some months ago, a statement was circulated amongst members of the society, that the Council proposed to increase the license fees for the new season. This is quite incorrect, and there were no grounds for any such statement.

The fees charged for both angling and game licenses throughout New Zealand are fixed by the Government, and tho Council of the Society has no power to either raise or lower them.

J. B. NICOLL, Secretary, Ashburton Acclimatisation Society