THE STAGE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14919, 23 August 1910, Page 4

THE STAGE.

ITS USES AND ABUSES. LECTURE BY DR FINDLAY, ' (Fgon Ooa Own CopjirsPonDEiiT.) WELLINGTON, August 22. • Speaking before the member* of the Arts C'lub to-night on "Tho Stage: Its U£CB and Abuses," the Hon. Dr Findlay declared that the nature of the people's pleasures fixed the national moral level better than their business pursuits. During the past 100 years tho English stage had teen much decline, if here there, some recovery. The theatre had become more and more the resort of amusement in its lighter sense, and lass and lees tho resort of serious lh'ou"ht of study, instruction, -or genuine art. Could tlna tendency bo attacked ? This was chiefly tho qnesfion he wanted to discuss. The stage reflected the tastes and temper ot' its' day, and tho immediate reason for Miisf lay in 1 the fact that the theatres were' run 'on strictly commercial lines. So, long as the theatre .was a private commercial speculation the first consideration was the numbers the performance would draw. Tho -censor and the universal laws against indecency were the test answer to tin suggestion that " you . can without restraint trust the popular taste." He fully recognised that fit- least for this country, a motional theatre was still out of tho regions of practical questions. It could, however, with'all the resources of true art, elevate, instruct, and entertain its audiences. Then, the best of what should be produced would no longer be its money effect, but its moral cflcct—its influence for public good,, not its influence for private profit. Even where it was possible ..-it .might possibly prove no more attractive to tho people than the bent music now often seemed to be. Sometimes when'one clamoured for achinge of law and system what ono really needod was a.change of heart. The only practical means of improving the stage at present suggested in England was an improved cenorship and stricter regulations. This did riot pretend to insure"excellence or genuine artistic work; it merely aimed at excluding or, suppressing what was vicious, .. Not, only the theatres for tho performance of stage plays, but also tho plays to be. performed in them were required by statute to be licensed at Rome. Further, every- stage play must, before it could bo performed in England, bo licorised by the .Lord Chamberlain, who might veto or prohibit " where lie shall be of opinion that it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum, nr. .of the public peaco s too do." A stage play for all these purposes meant practically every kind of theatrical performance, except vaudeville. In addition- to.' this control there were general laws against indecency, under which tho police could prosecute the manager and performors oven when they had been licensed; but in point of practice the licensin gof a pTay gave it complete immunity from such a prosecution. JJr Findlay then proceeded to show how the system of the control of theatres and liccsnsing of plays had worked at Home. Every leading manager of Eng. lisli theatres favoured' tho maintenance of the 'oxisting control by the censor. The committee doclared the existing censorship with its power of veto before productions open to grave objection. Official oonsorship, which vcstc<l a problem _ play merely because it seriously criticised existing institutions or modes of life, was a, species of State intolerance, and legal repression of sincere liberty of thought; but for this, the committee would not recommend the abolition of tho oensor. In the case of plays Which did not offend against any law of indecency, libel, or blaspnemy, and yet which must be suppressed, there was a real-difficulty. What was to be done? Thero was a proposal in the case of veto of the right of reference to independent' arbitration, but tho committee rejected the proposal on tho ground that it involved the reference of a decision of a Minister of State to o-utsidc arbitration, With regard to the censor, the committee advised that the producers ol plays should, prior to their production, hayo the right to submit them, as now, to the censor for his imprimatur. Tho censor's license, it was reooramended, should no longer be essential uefore a play could bo performed. The legal means for controlling theatrical porformanr«s in Now Zealand and checking those of pernicious influence- were crudo to the degree of uselessness. There wa6 no censorship of any kind, and no statutory provision dealing ' with the supervision of theatrical plays or public performances. Beforo wo. could repress or stop a distinctly deleterious play we must'prove, if required, to the satisfaction of a common jury—and with the strictures demanded where tile offonco was a crime—the use on tuo stage of some profane, indecent-, or obscene languago; an offence made punishable not with a fine but with a year's imprisonment.'" The existing provisions in the legislation with respect to fne licensim of theatres and other places of public amusement added nothing to our ic control of improper performances. Theso provisions were for tho preservation of peace and not in any way for the purification of the stage.

Ho was not going to launch his frail bark upon tlio turgid waters of the. vecent controversy or discuss the propriety or wholesonieness of some of the plays produced in New Zealand. He did wish, however, to impress that where the law was gowcrless to abolish or prohibit impropriety on'the stage, pulpit and press denunciations, no matter how excellent their motive, tended mainly here, as in oilier lands, to aggravate the evil by giving ,it a powerful advertisement and creating an objectionable curiosity, which packed the theatre. .Theee observations were general, and had no special application; but surely in conceivable cases it would be deplorable that.necessary desflrVcd ami out6pokon public condemnation should, owing to the helplessness of the law; profit tho very thing rightly condemned. His present purpose was not to suggret what, if anything, should bo dono in New Zealand. Thoughtful public opinion-might deem it wisest to leave our law unchanged. National or municipal theatres had not yet come in New Zealand to' present either free, or at. charges within tno means of every citizen, tho noblest tragedies, the greatest dramas, and (lie cleverest and healthiest comedies; but that day might eomo even in New Zealand. Art. in one or other of its many shapes was tho most profitable friend of a.nation's leisure, hence tho diffusion of true art was no unworthy aim of the Government. But in the theatres, as in literature, there \va* a true art and a false 'art-,'' for art, like beauty, might be prostituted to foul ends.

Iu conclusion. Dr Findlny said lio hod no paiicnco with thai. .mpersensitivc delicacy- 'or funny punctilious prudery which as often as not betokened not n wholtsomo but a nasty mind, nov had lie anything but contempt for those who r.conted- impropriety somewhere in almost evory performance on a stage. But prudery was one tiling ami tacit toleration or approval of what every lovelhradied an a.n must admit to be a pernicious entertainment was quite another thing, arid if wedesired to discharge our duty as citizens wo must not hesitate for foar of ridicule to condemn influences oil the stage.. or elsfHie.ro harmful to the moral health of tho' community.