AMATEURS ON THE STAGE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3730, 29 June 1883, Page 4

AMATEURS ON THE STAGE.

From "The Theatre " avo tako the following , pointed remarks regarding the craze of nmatours to take part in dramatic performances:— Tho modern matinee is the uuwholesomo outcome of tho ci'azo that has befallen society since Mrs Langtry made a temporary success as an actrosa. Every impecunious person thinks himself or herself capable of making a fortue on the stage

when the ordinary chances of life are played out or obliterated. Scarcely a week passes but the public are summoned to see feeble and immature efforts of vain women, who have at least some excuse for their excessive ambition, and • vainer men, -who are so steeped in egotism that reason appears to have temporarily deserted them. Such persons are from first to last worthless. They may suit the dramatic coach or trainer"; they may pleaso the fussy ladies who patronise tho singe and manufacture benefits ;bo convenient to the hangers-on of amiable incompetencj'—but, as a test of talent, they arc childish and absurd. Genius is not a purchasable commodity, but genius alone of an extraordinary kind would warrant tho overflow of these budding Juilets, theso feeble Rorneos, these wearisome Julias, and these suckling Claudes, who have tested the patience of friends and naturally provoked the severity of all who have made a study of tho stage. Acting cannot be learned in a day or a week —it cannot be mastered by a course of lessons from any master without they are supplemented by hard work and incessant practice. It will certainly be a bad day for the stage when—for want o£ a better word —aoeateurishness is allowed to get a footing on the legitimate stage. There is far too much of it floating vaguely about just now—far too much of it encouraged and petted, and unquestionably there is ay much attention paid to flabby feebleness as there is to sound, hearty, and robust work. Amateurs arc no doubt all very well in their way. They are harmless enough in their own circles, and they only borrow a reflected light from the egotism that is inseparable from the dramatic calling. Indirectly amateurs encourage a love for the theatre; there are no more constant playgoers in existence than your self-satisfied amateurs. That amateurs should like to go upon tho stage is no doubt natural enough, but if they do so, why not submit to the trying odeal of a regular public performance, instead of being forced to an unwholesome growth by the forcing house or conservatory process of a matinee packed with effusive friends, who are obviously insincere. These people fool the amateur, or thu amateur turned actor, to the top of his bent. They tell him he can play anything, do anything, rival any actor or actress who ever lived, until, until at last the poor victim is led to believe that it is true. The stalls of our metropolitan theatres swarm with detached outposts of mutual admiration societies. Suddenly comes the day when the bubble bursts. An actor or actress tries some part for which they are ludicrously incompetent. The truth is told, and they receive the least pity from those who have fluttered them in the 'most slavish manner. The stage is open to anyone, rich as well as poor, but the possession of a testimonal of competency, signed by society, does not relievo the actor from the necessity of hard and determined applieatioii.