THE THEATRE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16558, 23 May 1914, Page 8

THE THEATRE.

NEWS, NOTES AND COMMENT,

STANDARDS OF MODERN DIALOGUE.

(By CRITICUS.)

The iengunge systematically used upon the contemporary stage constituted a scandal, and indignation wrs generally burning on the subject, but was gagged. An attempt, however, might as well bo made to gag a volcano and sooner or later even dramatic n'ities would be shamed into doing their duty.

Thus a summary of a letter to the Loudon Press by Mr Sydney Grundy, an experienced and successful British playwright, has been received in the dominion over the cables. The statement may be a' correct condensation of Mr Grundy's views, and may faithfully record his protest against tho dialogue used in all branches of dramatic constructional achievement, but on the other hand tho writer may have limited his attack to some well-defined, sphere, such as the modern society comedy or tho musical comedy. If it is a general attack, it goes to the root of tho whole question of playniaking, and raises at once the question of realism on the stage, and the literary drama. The cable is a notorious garbler of facts, and it must bo admitted that any discussion of the point raised by Mr Grundy has to bo qualified by the caution that the full text of his letter is still unknown. It has been claimed by many writers on tho drama within the past few years that the phys produced have dcourted from the high literary tone established a few years ngo bv n ret- of brilliant authors, and it would seem that in many respects that critics have acquiesced, nay, have urged the use of a less refined speech by proclaiming that in many ploys, written by some, proved writers of polished dialogue, and meritorious conversation, the demands of realism have been sacrificed to literary brilliancy. Many have been scathingly designated mere discussions, and excursions in epigram. Realism in the drama, whore a piny denis with contemporary _ life, has to admit conversation that is current in the daily life of the people. Tho introduction of English of poor grammatical quality, and of coarse texture, may after all be merely tho uso. of idiomatic accuracy. If the society people' of the British Isles are using n “ conversation that is a scandal, 'hen the drama, in reproducing it in ’ialogue, is publishing broadcast so hat its bad characteristics may bo mown, and condemned; Of course, ,veil with this idea admitted, the critic is nob pardoned for any. failure to condemn openly and strongly anything that offends against the canons of good baste before a' mixed audience. Private conversation between friends may have liberties that public discussions may not bo permitted to enjoy, and this license to censor, as it were, places the dramatist' in the position "where the dialogue he has supplied to - the theatre may be criticised. But .in tho drama that sets eut to describe contemporary life this license- can be used only to delete indecency, . flagrant coarseness and hurtful brutality. Tho license itself must he governed strictly, and must never be permitted to distort the drawing of any character'. Mr Henry Arthur Jones has said that the drama is a conversational art. The dialogue, after all, is the heart of the play's machinery, and without it much of the effectiveness of stage work would be lost. It has to be admitted with Mr Brander Matthews that “ only literature is permanent,” but Mr Jones, in a lecture delivered in America some eight years ago, also demonstrated that tlie most enduring achievements in tho drama must be wrought •in the conventional language of poetry. The greatest examples of drama are poetic drama, and the highest schools of drama are and must ever be schools of poetic drama.” That would suggest an unqualified support of Mr Grundy’s implied contention. But Mr •Tones has added these important words: “ Any living school of drama must, bo organically bound up with the daily 'ives of the people.” In a word, lie hrows upon the people the responsibility for the quality of the dialogue in ;he theatre.

Up to the end of 1912 Mr William Archer was content to describe the dialogue of tho British drama, as “ tolerably well written.” This noted British critic then wrote:—

Thirty years ago the idea that it was per-1 sible to combine naturalness with vivacity ■ and vigour had scarcely dawned upon the playwright’s mind. He passed and repassed from siilted pathos to strained and verbal j wit (often more punning). . . . Criticism! has pot given sufficient weight to the fact that ' English dramatic writing laboured for | oenturics—snd still labours to some degree— | under a historic misfortune. It has never | wholly recovered from the euphuism—to use j the word in its widest senso—of the late l sixteenth century. The influenco of John j Lyly and his tribe is still traceable, despite j a hundred metamorphoses, in some of the ! plays of to-day and in many of the plays ; of "yesterday. Prom ' the very beginnings of j English comedy it was accepted as almost self-evident that "wit”—a factitious, superorogatoTy sparkle—was indispensable to all dialogue of a non-tragic order. . . . Lan- ■ guage must be thick-strewn with _• verbal quibbles, similes, figures and flourishes of : every description, else it was unworthy to bo i spoken on the stage. We all know how freely Shakespeare yiolded to this convention and so helped to establish it. .... I should not be surprised if the historian of ■ the .future were to find in tho plays of Mr j Henry Arthur Jones the first marked-symp-toms of a reaction—of a tendency to reject extrinsic and fanciful ornament in dialogue and to rely for its effect upon its vivid j appropriateness to character and situation. Mr Archer has insisted that dialogue can never be dramatic literature if it flagrantly departs from Nature. He is on the side of those who give the playwright tho power to bring speech within tho limits of suitability for public use, but hardly anything more. Mr Grundy, in his denunciation of contemporary dialogue, may be crying out against a laxity in tho use of this very power, and if so he will find a wide sphere of activity in tho musical comedy and vaudeville. Tho development of the propagandist play in its dealings with subjects that in earlier days have been, rightly or wrongly, held to be improper for discussion, may have inspired the attack, but these things in the drama, are after all merely a reflection of the growing tendency in the world to s talk more freely. That again may be a subject for condemnation by the critic, but the shaft must pass through the theatre and hit the actual life of tho nation behind it. Highly polished literary efforts in conversation cannot show the whole range of life to-day, and for this reason dialogue cannot be “ literary,” as it was a few years ago. It would appear, then, that unless tho attack is levelled against the inclusion of flagrant improprieties, which could not be tolerated in any public meeting of the two sexes in the present time, Mr Grundy has misdirected his attack: It should have been levelled against tho contemporary people, not tho contemporary stage. Mr G. B. Shaw did not fear to carry out this principle of making his charactors speak the language of real life, and he has been made the subject of attack by people who detest him. Pinero, Wilde and that reviver of old .plots, Somerset Maugham, dealt in the epigram, and for tliat reason always seem artificial. But even Pinero has approached more closely to life in his later plays, while John Millington Synge has been accused of coarseness because there wero pin in realities in some of his plays. If a slum is to be presented the characters cannot be mado to talk polished English if the scoue is to remain natural. Tho idea of refining the drama to the. treatment of the life of the cultured has been

exploded long ago, and tho education of tho masses is bringing on to tho stage greater virility, and an awakening to tho fact that the modern drama, cannot hone to do anything while it is a mere tinkling of pretty sounds. People who can listen to dialogue which relates triangular adventures in sox problom plavs, and who can tolerate sordidness simply because it is dressed in silks, should not foar the direct dialogue, which, after nil, is nearer the truth and is not ashamed of tho fact.