SHAKESPEARE AND RUIN

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14822, 13 November 1913, Page 8

SHAKESPEARE AND RUIN

The question whether Shakespeare "spells" success or failure is raised again by Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree's statement, reported by cable, that he has been saved from ruin more than onco by Shakespeare. Tho saying that "Shakespeare spells ruin" originated in 1873 with a London actor-manager named Chatterton, and what prompted him to say it was the failure of a costly production of "Antony and Cleopatra." As manager of Drury Lane Theatre, Chatterton occupied a prominent position in the profession, and the pronouncement attracted a great deal of attention. It has since become current coin, and, as a distinguished American critic says, the persistent iteration of it "has-been instrumental "in disseminating error and impeding "good enterprise."' It would be easy to cite cases supporting this view of Shakespeare's interest for the public, but it is just as easy to quote cases on the other side. Edwin Booth, most of whose repertoire was Shakespearean, left a fortune of 600,000 dollars, after losing an immense sum in New York management and meeting other heavy expenses. Samuel.Phelps made Shakespeare pay at Sadler's Wells year after year with a modest expenditure on mounting. If he cared to do so, Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson need play nothing but "Hamlet." Mr F. R. Benson has been playing Shakespeare in the English provinces for years, and incidentally turning out dozens of good actors to recruil the London stage. Mr Oscar Asche has dropped thousands of pounds in laudable attempts to encourage poetic drama by living writers, but ho has probably not had ono Shakespearian failure. Sir Herbert Tree has held a Shakespearean Festival in London every year, with one exception, since 1905, and at one time Shakespeare was continuously on the boards of His Majesty's for over twelve months. These are only a few of many instances in which Shakespeare has spelt financial success. "Well acted and at the right " time and place," Shakespeare, declares the critic we have quoted, "never "spells ruin." "The reason why " managers decry and oppose—as many " of them do—the presentation of " Shakes-care, is not obscure," says this authority, who writes at the end of a long life devoted to tho drama. " As a rule, less profit can bo gained " in a given time by presenting Sbakes- " peare's plays than by presenting some " modern plays, especially such modern " plays as require only one or two " simple sots of scenery and only six " or eight or ten actors to represent " them. None of Shakespeare's plays " can be presented in fewer than four " acts, each containing several tcenes. "A fairly largo company is essential, " and considerable scenery and rnauy " drosses are required." Some proI ducers, however, have done harm to the cause of Shakespearean "culture by overloading his plays with expensive mountI ing. This not only obscures tbe action and poetry bf the piece, hut it- sets . a' I standard' of 'expense "which may deter i actor-managers with more ambition

than money from producing Shakespeare. Mr Oscar Asche's stage-pictures in "The Merry Wives of Windsor" were very beautiful, but the v_° of tons of salt to produce the illusion of snow might make the public unfairly critical of another producer whose finances could not run to such realism. Sir Herbert Tree is, curiously enough, in spite of his financial debt to Shakespeare, the worst English offender in this respect. But the work of men like Mr William Poel, who insist that the play, not its trappings, is the thing, is having some effect, and it may be that in this movement for simplicity lies the best hope of tho more frequent staging of the plays.