ACTOR-CRITIC v. PROFESSIONAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6052, 9 November 1906, Page 5

ACTOR-CRITIC v. PROFESSIONAL.

MB BOURCHIEE’S NEW BOLE. Discussing the ■ conditions or dramatic criticism, tlio “Irish Times" September 22 says:—“The leader of the revolt against the present system is Mr Arthur Bourcbicr, . the actor-manager,- who baa not only convictions but the courage of them. ... In order to prove his 'point that technical knowledge would vastly improve the professional critic’s capacity and sense of proportion he has himself undertaken the function of dramatic critic to a weekly magazine, 'the ‘Tatleiv, We have before us Mr Bourchier’s first essay in dramatic criticism—a notice of 'A Winter's Tale’ at Her Majesty’s Theatre. We have also before ,ue a very brilliant specimen of the work of a professional critic—the notice of Mr Hall Caine’s new play, "The Bondman.’ which appeared in the Times’ of yesterday. The. two notices suggest some Interesting reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of professional criticism. .. Can. didly. Mr Bourchier’s notice of 'A Winter’s Tale’ is very poor stuff. It has no charm of style, and no trace of the scholarship except of such as is easily accessible in text-books on the subject. The remark that' ‘dialogue . written to bo spoken on the stage ns Shakespeare’s plays are, whether it be in prose or verse, has never been equalled by any other writer for the stage, neither in the art of brawny character has he ever been surpassed,’ is a fair specimen of the manner and matter of Mr Bourchier’sditerary effort. On the other hand, he gives us no such illuminating criticism of Shakespeare’s stagecraft as we might have expected from an actor, and-his appreciation of the skill and taste with which Mr Tree has produced the play is no more subtle or informing than we have received from any dozen of the professional critics. When wo come to criticisms of the acting Mr Bourchier is particularly disappointing. He takes refuge in ‘grateful.’ ‘excellent,’ ‘nervous force,’ ‘artistic restraint.’ and. all the other commonplaces of third-rate criticism, and fails to give us a particle of insight into the technical accomplishment of a single actor in the play, finally, wo get from Mr Bourchier no ,‘apercu’ of the play, no vivid and largo impression of the manner in which it appealed to him as a whole. In a word, he entirely confirms our conviction that as a critic of the drama the good professional actor must always ho vastly- inferior to the good professional critic—first, because he is not likely to be his equal in style or scholarship; second, because he is prepossessed with a single aspect of the performance; and last, and always, because he is without the_ long practice and experience that alone invest a man with the critical habit of mind. That, however, the professional critic has his limits is freely confessed by the dramatic critic of the'Timesl in hie notice of Mr Hall Caine’s ‘Bondman.’ This delightful writer, whose anonymity—like the King’s incognito when, his Majesty travels in private—is only, a polite convention. preludes a column and a half of the most charming hut damaging ridicule with the admission that he is 'afflicted with Caine blindness.’ Every fibre of bis intellect bristles against this author’s artistic outlook and output. He finds all Mr Hall Caine’s plays ‘of poor intellectual texture, crude in method, garish, and as noisv as a brass band.' His notice of the ‘Bondman’ is such as we might expect from this introduction. The accident of our possible bcartv concurrence with tin’s critic’s views cannot prevent us from asking ourselves the question whether -it is fair to Mr Hall Caine that’the fate of his plav, •as far as one great newspaper is concerned, should depend upon the verdict of a gentleman who is constitutionally incapable of appreciating whatever merits it may possess. It is a very nice question. . . It ik the first function of the dramatic critic to be honest, and the second to be entertaining—and the dramatic critic of the ‘Times.’ ‘consensu omnium.’ is both of these. But it is also on important function of the critic to study the needs of his clientele. He has to nut himself towards nnv play in what he conceives to ho the attitude of the readers of his newspaper. Thor want .to know whether they would like it or dislike it. and it is his duty to.inform them on that point to the best of bis abi'ity. We have no doubt that the critic of the 'Times’ kent this consideration steadily before him. and that, ae one Irish judge onco observed to another, ‘be was actuated by no motive of which he was conscious except a desire to .do liis duty.’”