“DRAMA: NOT THE SCHOOLS”

Evening Star, Issue 21724, 19 May 1934, Page 11

“ DRAMA : NOT THE SCHOOLS”

? GREATEST EDUCAtIDNAL INFLUENCE OPINIONS OF PROFESSOR SHELLEY MR BERNARD SHAW EULOGISED “ I think that on the whole the greatest educational influence in the past generation has been the drama—the schools,” said Professor J. Shelley, of Canterbury University College, in the course of. an address on ‘ Modern British Drama,’ at the annual meeting of the Otago branch of-the New Zealand Educational Institute last night. Professor Shelley 'also passed some interesting comment on. the work and personality of Mr Bernard Shaw, who, he said, was only beginning to be known to New Zealand; Regarding drama and schools, the professor said that teachers were inclined to place an exaggerated value upon their services,- and it was somewhat chastening for them to hear that an American educationist .had found that persons educated in schools had an advantage of only 3 per cent, over those who were not educated at all. It was not the art schools which dominated applied art such as fashions. It was the big emporiums which did so. Similarly the drama, as seen on the stage and screen, dominated the mind. The drama had been a potent force from the beginning of the world. It was a means by which persons could objectify themselves, and see others as they saw themselves, which was 'more important than seeing themselves as others saw them. In terms of the play they could experiment with life. If one talked to people of political ideas they became irritable, and they would show no sympathy with tbo people behind political ideas, but if the most abstruse'“ blue books” were put on the stage people would consider Uieni. In fact, one of the functions of the drama was to humanise blue books. On the stage one could experim®nf ''dth the most outlandish ideas. Ihe difficulty with life was that one could not experiment with it, and people thus tended always to be conservative. Shaw had said that even the most extreme Radical was 99 per cent. Torv “ New Zealand,” Professor Shelley added, is only beginning to discover Shaw. You have been quite content (and I do not blame you) with Shakespeare; but the public does not hear of the nice things that Shaw has said about Shakespeare because they are not news. The things said by Shaw that one sees in the newspapers are what look like insults to everybody. Shaw is not like that. He is one of the most courteous people on the earth. “ When things that he had said appeared in cold black and white they meant something totally different from what they meant when they were uttered, he claimed. Sbaw had said some nice things about Shakespeare, but when ho made, perhaps, some quaint remark it

was broadcast to the world. Shaw knew a tremendous amount about Shakespeare, and had been a contributor to tlm publications of the Shakespeare Society in England. When he really talked and did not merely utter a string of jokes to a stray reporter he did not talk of what he knew nothing about. Professor Shelley went on to discuss the change in the form of the modern drama, and stressed the fact that the form did not dominate the creation. It was not easy to define drama, but that could have been done easily before Sbaw began writing for the stage. Shaw was essentially a puritan. He believed among other things, that if one had to choose between art and goodness one must choose goodness. He had also said, “If your religion breaks down on one day spend another day in getting another religion.” He was, indeed, a deeply religious, man. _ He was riot a jester.. If he said things in a funny way be need not be lacking in wisdom. Most great people had been jesters in a way.

Shaw s great service to the modern stage had been in getting rid of the very artificial and unreal figures of the nineteenth century stage. It was now possible to convey through the drama serious messages, largely because Shaw had cleared the decks of the sentimental mush which had previously passed for reality on the stage. : In ‘Arms and the Man ’ ho had definitely attempted to clear from the nineteenth century stage the fictitious humbugs who had passed for heroes and heroines. One of the fictitious characters of the middle of the nineteenth century, the lecturer added, had been Shakespeare. He had been an academic humbug, and had been largely made so by German commentators. He had been a superman on a pedestal. Shaw had exploded that humbug because ho had not looked upon Shakespeare in that way. Actually, Shakespeare had been a first-class human being. Had he not been so he could not have written his plays. It was “silly pretentious humbug” to erect idols of this kind in the mind, and it required an iconoclast to break them down at times. He regarded that as the greatest service that Shaw had given to the world. It had not been so much a creative work as a destroying of idols. The lecturer asked his audience to read Shaw from that point of view. Being a puritan, Shaw was afraid of showing sentiment, and if he tended -to do so he brought in something to laugh the sentiment out of court. Ho was suspicious of emotion. Professor Shelley went on to show how Ibsen, a Norwegian, whom he described as the greatest modern dramatist, had seen the drama as an institution for social criticism. With ‘ The Doll’s House ’ he had created a stir because it had seemed too radical and anti-social in its teaching. Now one saw nothing in it. He had been so badly treated because ho had dealt with a humbug of the nineteenth century which people had been extremely fond of lauding—the institution of marriage. It had at that time been an extremely artificial thing, a sort of drawing room affair detached from the realities of married life. Actually it was an extremely difficult institution because it had to servo so many purposes. Ibsen had shown how artificial the conditions of marriage were. It had not

been his business to find a solution. That had been a matter for the next age. Now in these days of easy divorce people were beginning to see that the bases upon which marriage had been founded in those days were as false as Ibsen had said. As he had developed the theme in subsequent plays the critics had described his work as “ the opening’of a filthy sewer.” Nevertheless, his example had started other people going. The Independent Theatre had been opened in London, and Shaw had written for it plays that were failures. In this connection the lecturer related how, when Shaw was taking the curtain after the presentation of one of his plays a man in the gallery had hissed. Sbaw had replied: “I agree with you my man, but what are two among so many? ” Galsworthy in his plays, he said, had dealt with institutions showing, for instance, how the law might destroy human life instead of protecting it. Professor Shelley traced the evolution of the drama np to the present day, stating that characters now were as a rule symbols of ideals. He also predicted a swing back to realism. He went on to deal with the essential differences between stage and screen productions, and expressed the opinion* that there was a great future for the films, which exercised a tremendous power over the public mind. In conclusion Professor Shelley read a lengthy extract from a modern play in order to illustrate recent tendencies.