’GIVE AND TAKE’

Evening Star, Issue 19273, 11 June 1926, Page 4

’GIVE AND TAKE’

LABOR ADD CAPITAL COMCAUSED Strange, is it not, that the Stage is and has been for a generation almost completely ignoring its great past in the selecting of plays for performance. Some of the old dramas, now a dim memory, dusty on the shelves, no doubt deserved to he dropped. What was good in them has been rewritten and refitted in hotter form. The disappearance of other pieces, mostly of midway dates, is not so easily explainable. Purely such as ‘ If I Were King, ‘Dandy Dick,’ ‘Jim ; the Penman ‘MrsWiggs of the Cabbage Patch. ‘The Prisoner of Zenda,’ and ‘The Village Priest ’ —to name those that come first to the memory—are worth preserving and sufficiently up to date. Fashion in playwriting, presumably following the dictates of managers, who, of course, think they are taking orders from the public, seems determined to sacrifice everything for newness. As soon ns a play has survived its infancy it must be slain to make way lor other stage babies. Thus there is a feverish casting about for fresh themes, mad hunting for now situations, a feckless polishing up of old jokes. Now we nave, in ‘ Give and Take,’ a heroic attempt to turn into comedy tho vital social question of the day, tho relations of Capital to Industry. As presented last night at His Majesty’s Theatre by the company that the "Williamson managership has organised in conjunction with Mr E. J. Carroll, ‘Give and Take’ produces plenty of irrepressible laughter and some regrets. One can hardly concede that this very serious theme is adequately treated when the aim and tho result" are to tune the audience to merriment. In the early passages or this drama and for some way through the action discusses with sobriety the rival schemes of Capital and Industrial Democracy, and the comedy introduced, founded on the derision with which a Californian fruit-canning proprietor treats his men’s proposals to turn the concern into co-operative lines, seems perfectly lawful Borne amusement, which for tho moment passes as not belonging to the real comedy side, but rather impertinent farce, is derived from the clownishness of the foreman Kruger when he makes the appeal on behalf of the cannery hands. The idea presents itself that Kruger’s foreign-like struttings and antics will subside, and that he will sober up into a Labor martyr. The ending of the first act confirms that notion, ft has a genuine touch of pathos, John Bauer, the bullying old proprietor, is prepared to dare his men and fight them over their proposal; hut he weakens when he finds his trusted foreman on their side, and breaks down when learning that his own son, Jack Bauer, is the real author of the projected revolution, having sucked in half-digested theories about equality during his term at college and infected therewith the whole staff. Up to that point ‘ Give and Take’ is legitimate and powerful, with a nice admixture of laughter. Early in the next act the audience ia led "to expect a further diversion ol the play to the comic side. It is suggestive that Bauer, when finding himself in deep water financially alter signing the agreement that has been forced upon him, cracks a joke about Jonah having been well down in the mouth and then coming out all right. A little later cm, as the argument grows thinner and the fooling increases, one perceives (or thinks he does) that the author is indulging m satire all round, and that Kruger s clowning was all through on the intended line. Tho next _ section of tho drama seems to indicate the triumph of Capital, for the co-operators get _ into a 1 rightful mess over the business.' Then the action degenerates into low comedy pure and simple—a screaming farce. Towards the end Industrialism appears to he on top. But it is only by luck that it gets there. It really failed when trapped into a contract with a lunatic, and it is like a restoration of the apparently-drowned to come to liie again owing to the circumstance that tho supposed lunatic (who has been in an asylum) is declared Banc. Nominally the denouement is a win lor the men on a fluke. It is a weak ending to a plav that opens strongly. But nil tho same it is laughable right through _-verv much so in places. Moreover, it is interesting in that the happenings from scene to scene cannot be foretold. Another point of merit, atoning largely for the confused construction, is that this piece gives opportunity for excellent acting by Mr Harry Green, who is famous as a delineator of Jewish parts. John Bauer is not a Jew of the Jews. There is nothing distinctively Jewish about him, therefore the part does not show off Mr Green’s acting in the peculiar line in which he is said to excel. But his acting is very acceptable as acting. It is clever—particularly so in its swift changes and in fJie discretion with which each successive point is made. Mr Green has an abundance of mental materia! to work on, in addition to what the author has provided, and need not spin out a joke or over-elaborate an exhortation, since he has the wit to drive each home with one blow of the hammer. From the very start of the performance Mr Green established himself in the good graces of the audience, and all present were very pleased to make his acquaintance. 'The company gives him very good support!—mostly. Regular theatregoers welcomed Miss Vera Spaull as a. proved actress, and much appreciated the proportionateness of her impersonation as Marion Kruger, the typist, the one well-balanced character of the play. The chief merit of this lady’s performance was the way she kept Marion in her proper relationship to the others, and, incidentally, it may be added that Miss Spaull speaks most distinctly, with a nice voice—a groat solace to those of an audience who are growing old and perhaps a little deaf. Mr Hal Percy played tho thankless part of Jack Bauer on .straight lines, and is to be commended for refraining from the preachy attitude in such passages as leave him an option. Mr Edward do Tisne sustained the difficult role of the foreman according to original ideas, and. if Ms farcework came a little prematurely, that was the only mistake. He came through his exacting task at the finish—of having to fool about and do nothing—as well as any actor could. Mr Edwin Lester’s portrayal of Daniel Drum may stand for that of an American banker. It is not the way of Dunedin hankers to cadge cigars and visit shaky clients and enter with the hat on, hut these manners mav be prevalent in America. Mr George Hewlett, an old favorite here, played in hurricane fashion the part of the restored lunatic, and Mr Henry Broome walked on as the policeman. The plav is to he repented to-night. Those who go will get a hearty laugh at the acting, and enjoy the music provided by the orchestra-