THE THEATRE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16493, 7 March 1914, Page 8

THE THEATRE.

NEWS, NOTES AND COMMENT. THE REPERTORY THEATRE. (By CRITICUS.) With tho exception of the managers engaged, and some of them even agree, it is generally admitted that commercialism in the theatre is bad for dramatic art. And the unsuccessful commercialism is even worse. The whole question is bound up in that well-worn and misused phrase, “ What the Public Wants,” which is claimed by tho commercial theatrical manager as his slogan and the inspiration of all his works. The Repertory Theatres fail, he says, because they do not give tho public wliat it wants; modern, dramatists cannot draw large audiences because they do not supply whatthe public wants; the literary drama is hopeless because it is ahead of the drama the public wants. If the manager is correct in what he says then the proof of “What the Public Wants” is a fat-looking balance-sheet, and with this admitted it is rather surprising to find these controllers of the commercial theatre making many failures each season. They do not hit public taste more than once in five attempts on tho average, often the proportion is worse than that, and all tins goes to show .that the manager does not always give the public wliat it wants, hut what he thinks it ought to want, or, in other words, what he .likes. Managers, in addition,' lack the venturesome spirit which is necessary for progress in dramatic productions, and for this reason there are f.ashions in plays. There comes a time in the dramatic, season when everything is failing: the managers cannot hit the public taste. One man is driven into a corner, and, accepting something new and topical, he wins unexpectedly, though without surprise because the same thing has happened before. His production catches public fancy, and at once all the other managers flock in to put on dramas of the same type. This is the explanation of a fashion of “business” plays, followed by one of “crook” plays and one of White Slavery nlavs. In Now York this is glaringly true, but the same thing in a smaller degree occurs in London and in Paris. Dramatists that have become the idols of tho box-office keeper® keep to tho tracks they have worn with previous successes, and all the while they urge that the financial failure of the modern works is a fresh argument whilo thov should pot strike out anew in fresh fields. This is why the commercial theatre is shv of new dramatists. Instead of being noised abroad as an advertising medium, the pitiful-story of a new dramatist’s ineffectual efforts to obtain a consideration for his work should he hidden deep down under the shame of the managers. Happily in recent years the Repertory Theatre has leapt into prominence and has pro- . vidod an avenue for the. new moil, but it is claimed by the commercial manager that the presentation of literary plays is doomed to financial failure and that tho Repertory Theatre, to which this self-sacrifice is obligingly left, must also plumb the depths of commercial error. The balance-sheets of the Repertory Theatres in 1913 would tend to support that idea, but the failure i« duo solely to the competition of the more wealthy commercial theatre. Tho Repertory Theatre' has not always found failures. The late Stanley Houghton, who wrote “The Younger Generation ” and “ Hindis Wakes.” was discovered and encouraged by Miss Horniman’s Repertory Theatre in Manchester. “ Hindlo Wakes ” ran for 109 nights in London and “ The Younger Generation ” was similarly, favoured, but then the commercial manager stepped in and, as Houghton had been proved, ho took up his plays, so that this proved dramatist was lost to the Repertory Theatre which had introduced him to the world. After having proved that the boxoffice test is a fatuous mistake, the Repertory Theatres are now suffering from success: they are sowing and the commercial theatre is reaping. That is why the financial position of tho Repertory Theatre in Britain is discouraging at present. Mr Arnold Bennett, who wrote “ Milestones ” and “The Great Adventure’.’ was encouraged and introduced by the , Repertory Theatre, so also was Mr. Harold Chapin and these men when they became successful were snapped up by the theatre of commerce. It is the same with the players. These Repertory Theatres gathered to themselves actors of undoubted ability, not as stars, but as interpreters of'character, the standard of the acting was high, hut the commercial theatre came along,' bidding with higher salaries. leaving the poorer venture to find fresh players and train them. All this does not prove that the Repertory Theatre is a highly profitable thing financially, hut it does show that its difficulties are duo to the fact that it pleases tho public rather than thfit it displeases. At the same time it’is interesting to be able to turn to Germany, and see what is being done there for repertory work.. In Berlin the chief factor spurring the people to. the. establishment of repertory was the high prices charged for admission to really good productions, and tho result is that' now, by paying about a shilling and joining a theatre society, anyone may go to the theatre at regular intervals during the season, seeing the best plays, produced by the best players, for prices ranging from. 2s down to 6d. Already two theatres are. controlled by these organised, audiences, for that is really what they 'are, and a. third is being built' to accommodate 3000. All this work is accomplished .by three societies, the Free Folk-Stage, the New Free Folk-Stage and the Schiller Theatre, which wore brought into existence because the Free Stage, an organisation similar to the iteperfory Theatre of Britain in its work, was too costly for the proletariat. The Free Stage encouraged Gerhart Hauptmann in the production of his social dramas, particularly his “ Before Dawn,” winch had been refused by tho commercial theatres, and later the New Free Folk-Stage put on ‘ The ’Weavers” when it had been censored. These societies were built tip by small subscriptions, and now . the New Free Folk-Stage is building'a playhouse costing £125,000. It has collected £‘25,000 by means of borrowing one penny from each member at each performance. For each shilling lent the member receives a stamp, and each ten stamps entitles him to a card, on which 5 per cent interest is paid. Voluntary loans of larger amounts are paid for at at the same rate. The Schiller Theatre is a common stock company, hut the shareholders aro pledged to take no more than a 5 per cent dividend. The organisation of its aißdouces grew up from its system, of subscription, by which the auditor bought scats for six or twelve performances and thus exercised some influence on the repertory. Tlie society, controls two theatres, one of which was built w.ith the assistance of the city government of Charlottonburg, and will ultimately revert to the municipality; Both theatres run on repertory lines and both make small profits, although tlie standard of the acting and of the productions is high and the prices small, reduced by 10 and 20 per cent, according to the number of performances the auditor subscribes for. In this way the Germans liavo thoroughly established their repertory system, and secured to themselves the"production of literary dramas which the commercial theatre will' not handle.