"GHOSTS ON CHRISTMAS EVE"

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21255, 29 August 1934, Page 6

"GHOSTS ON CHRISTMAS EVE"

to Tira »DiToa or tub it.h.sh. Sir,—ln fairness to the author of the play, "Ghosts on Christmas Eve," I hope you will publish this letter. This play is not a first-class one but its natural hue is not as dark as your drama critic and the Repertory Society painted it on Thursday night. One can quite readily understand your . critic writing that its "dialogue is monotonous and uninspired and no actor, amateur or professional, could hope to make anything" of it, if he paid attention to the production only and if he had never before seen the play produced. But if he had seen that same play produced by another group of students last Monday and on the «same inadequate stage at that, he would have been compelled to admit that it was possible for even amateurs to make something of it. In fact, it sparkled from curtain to curtain. The trouble with Thursday night's performance was that the play was , very poorly produced indeed. Instead of flowing from one situation to the next, it jumped, with very disconcertJng results. It was difficult to understand the omission of footlights in this play. If this was done as an experiment then it proved a ghastly failure; it it was an accidental omission, then it was inexcusable: in either case it . was an important factor, contributing t< \2lfu general "telessness of the play. in- tHi ?i OU f C f Mc ' 3 remar ks concernrst play P rese nted, "Ebb and vT a ? in a S ree ment. But I U L d h « e mm - « Possible, to answer ■ SLTOh?- ," ls this: What is the k m^irS he E lay ' " Ghos ts on Christ- |. stupid theme"? In my opinion your

critic's use of the word indicates that he does not know what a theme in drama is; hence he does not understand the scientific construction of a play, and therefore is not qualified to criticise a production, let alone to condemn the actual play. I should appreciate a reply as it might show that- it was only a slip on the part of the writer as was his comment on the despair of "the mother at the death of the daughter whom she loved passionately." A drama critic should not let his contempt for a play lead him into making such errors.—Yours, etc., ANOTHER. August 20, 1934. [The critic who commented on the Repertory Theatre's series of one-act plays produced last Thursday night writes: "In spite of 'Another' I must adhere firmly to my opinion of the dialogue of 'Ghosts on Christmas Eve,' nor can I believe that any group of actors, students, or otherwise, no matter how much they might make it 'sparkle,' could ever make its production by such a body as the Repertory Society worthy of praise. I have read the play and think it definitely below the standard of what should be given to student actors for a practice piece. I agree with 'Another' that the omission of footlights was a serious error, but I do not agree with his general condemnation of the producer. To explain the 'theme' of 'Ghosts on Christmas Eve' here would take up a great deal of space. Perhaps I may help "Another' to understand my meaning if J refer him to the definition of the word given in the Oxford English dictionary, which is, 'The subject of discourse, discussion, conversation, meditation, or composition.' To make it simpler still, I will ask him to read 'subject' for 'theme' wherever the latter word occurs. Perhaps he will agree with me that a play may very easily have a 'stupid' subject. 1 regret that I do not understand the application of the last clause of the last sentence but one of his letter."!