A THEATRE OF VISION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 231, 30 September 1930, Page 6

A THEATRE OF VISION.

The question has often ibeen argued whether •there is an art of the theatre and if so whether it is distinct from the other arts. The truth perhaps is that in the theatre there are to be found a number of arts which combine to form a harmonious whole. The English theatre unfortunately is to-day so dominated by commercialism that the real artist is rarely allowed a chance to express himself, or herself. Yet despite this England can -boast having given birth, to one of the greatest geniuses in the theatre, Sir Edward Gordon Craig, who is a son of the late Dame Ellen Terry. He, however, is unable to secure engagements in his own country and has to seek them en the Continent. It is not that his talent is unrecognised, as will 'be seen from the following comments by English journals: "Never has there ■been any such genius as Gordon Craig's devoted to the theatre" (the "Guardian"), and "It ie grotesque that h-te talent should not be employed in this country" (the "London Mercury"). The trouble is that Gordon Craig is to the Englishman's way of thinking "unpractical." His ideas are accordingly dismissed as impassible. He himself has written: "There is always a very natural desire in man (born of a sound caution) to keep things on a practical basis, and. when we discuss economic or hygienic questions it is as well to be as practical as possible. But where the question takes us outside that radius and when we enter into discussion of those things which emanate from the spirit, such ais the arts or philosophy, we might do well to consider them in as ideal a manner as they deserve; we can later on return to earth and attempt their symbolisation." This is what Sir Gordon Craig does. He considers the theatre in what is to him an ideal manner, but never forgets to return, to earth to provide remedies for the faults of the present-day theatre. "No matter how much one may insist that his ideal is impossible," writes Mr. Floyd Dell, of Chicago, "that is no excuse for putting aside lii.s immediate proposals. These arc not impossible, they are severely practical — they are only terribly comprehensive He gives us a fresh appreciation of .the possible." What is this ideal of Gordon Craig' To him there its an art of the theatre quite dis-inct from the other arts. To quote his own words: "The art of the theatre is neither acting nor the play; it is not scene or dance, but it consists of all the elements of which these things are composed —action, which is the very spirit of acting; -words, which are the body of Die play; line and colour, which are the very heart of the scene; rhythm, which is the very essence of dance. Action, words, line, colour, rhythm! One is no more important than the other, no more than one colour is more important to a painter than another, or one note more important than another to a musician. In one respect, perhaps, action is the most valuable part. Action bears the same relation to the art of the theatre as drawing dose to painting and melody does to music." One of the main points in Sir Gordon's case for his ideal theatre is that the play as we know it 'belongs to the realms of literature and not to the theatre. He claims that a piece for the theatre must needs be "incomplete anywhere except on the boards of a theatre. It -must needs be unsatisfying, artless, when read or merely heard, because it is incomplete without its action, its colour, its line and its rhythm in movement and in scene." "If you were," he says to the playgoer, "for once to see an actual piece of theatrical art you would never again tolerate what is to-day being thrust upon you in place of theatrical art. The reason why you are not given a work of art on the stage is not because the public does not want it, not because there arc not excellent craf'jsinen in the theatre who could prepare it for you, but 'because the theatre lacks the artist —the artist of the theatre, mind you, not the painter, poet, musician. . . . When the stage director interprets the plays of the dramatist by means of his actors, Jns scene painters and his other craftsmen, then he is a craftsman —a master craftsman; when he will have mastered the uses of actions, words, line, colour and rhythm, then he may become an artist. Then we shall no longer need the assistance of the playwright—for our art will then bz self-reliant. ... I am now going to tell you out of what material an artist of the future will create his masterpieces. Out of action,' scene and voice. Is it not very simple? And when I say 'action' I mean both gesture and dancing, the prose and poetry of action. When I say 'scene' I mean all which ccfoies before the eye, such as the lighting, costume, as well as the scenery. When I say 'voice , I mean the spoken word or the word, which is sung, in contradistinction to the word which is read, for the word written to be spoken and the word written to be read are two entirely different things." It may not be very simple, but it sets one wishing that somebody would give Sir Edward Gordon Craig a free hand to pet up his own theatre in England. —W.M.L.