PUBLIC AS THEATRE GUESTS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1716, 18 January 1905, Page 73 (Supplement)

PUBLIC AS THEATRE GUESTS

(From O'ur Special Correspondent.) LONDON, November 25.

When “The Flute of Pan” was produced at the Shaftesbury Theatre a fortnight ago Miss Olga Nethersole, as I related in a previous letter, wae “booed” by a section of the gallery firstnighters. To test the feeling of the public with regard to the new play, the authoress (John Oliver Hobbes) and the “Daily Express” between them devised a most ingenious experiment. The whole of the seats in the Shaftesbury, Theatre were placed at the disposal of readers of the “Express” and the “St* James’s Gazette,” who had only to euf; out a coupon from their paper, fill iii their name and address and the number of seats required, and send it off to the offices of the newspapers concerned. The result was truly astonishing. Th« announcement was made on Friday, evening, and Saturday’s posts brought over 30,000 letters applying for seats. There was no delivery on Sunday, but Monday found the “Express’s” special staff of clerks wrestling’ with another 35,000 letters. With wonderful modesty the average applicant asked for only three free seats ; but in the aggregate that meant that 235,000 seats were applied for. As the Shaftesbury only seats about 1100 people, only one in every two hundred or so of applications could possibly be complied with. On wliat system the free passes were allocated was not disclosed, but an audience was secured which proved itself overwhelmingly in favour of the play which the unmannerly first-nighters had condemned. Voting-papers were distributed at Wednesday’s performance asking the question: “Is the ‘Flute of Pan,’ in your opinion, a play which should have been condemned?” Thirtytwo of the audience replied “yes,” but the other 1200 voted an emphatic ‘no.” And so Mrs Oraigie and Miss Nethersole are happy, the “Flute of Pan” and the “Daily Express” have both been excellently advertised, and all is well. But for Miss Nethersole to assert that those 235,000 applications “prove that the spirit of fair play still lives in the English nation” seems to me quite hesi ie the mark. The rush for free seats proves nothing except what we know already, and have always known —the desire of mankind to obtain something for nothing. And as for the verdict, one does not expect an audience of invited guests to be too critical.