THE REPERTORY SOCIETY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22064, 21 September 1933, Page 6

THE REPERTORY SOCIETY

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —At various times of late criticism has been directed in the local press and elsewhere at the choice of plays exercised by the Selection Committee of the Dunedin Repertory Society and more especially in the case of “ 5.0.5.,” presented so ably last week. Outside of London it would perhaps be difficult to nanie any repertory society which would satisfy the ideals of your contributors —and I admit the soundness of the ideals. But our local society has to adapt itself to prevailing conditions, and these conditions demand the presentation of sound boxoffice attractions in the society’s earlier ventures. The statement was made that “ 5.0.5.” savoured of commercialism. Surely this does not imply that a repertory society should not produce plays of this character. I admit that one of the main factors in the formation of a repertory society is that the financial support of members may render possible the presentation of plays which could not be produced by professional companies without a risk of serious financial loss, but surely this is not the whole function of a repertory society. Is the society to rule out of consideration all plays that have been commercial successes, even such excellent dramas as “The Barretts of Wimpole Street ’’ or " The Pelican ” —to name but two out of many? What are other repertory societies doing? There are many examples to show that they recognise no limits in their choice for production. One effort of the Wellington Society was “See Naples and Die,” while the Auckland Society made good with “ The Dover Road.” Other plays of a like character have been successfully produced by both societies. And, if we go further afield and consider the productions of Sir Barry Jackson’s Birmingham Repertory Theatre, one of the leading repertory societies in the world, we find included in their recent presentations “The Runaways,” by Eden Phillpotts, “ Charmeuse,” by E. Temple Thurston (a charming light comedy of the calibre of,"I’ll Leave it to You”), and the surprising “ Once in a Lifetime that keen satire on American motion picture industry by Kaufman and Hart. (Even the fact that this play had been “picturised” did not deter the Birmingham Society from presenting it.) Neither is the Glasgow Repertory Society nor the Abbey Theatre free, from the charge of producing plays that have previously proved financially successful. The London societies are on a different footing from these others, and their resources, both financial and dramatic, make it possible for them to seek the highest ideals to which a Repertory Society may aspire. What do we find if we study their activities and productions during the last half dozen years? Their greatest success was the production of “Young Woodley,” by Van Druten, early in 1928, a play which is familiar to all Dunedin theatre-goers. And this play was written for a professional company, but was banned by the Lord Chamberlain, who withdrew his objections only when he saw the play performed by the Stage Society on a Sunday evening. It later had a most successful “ run ’’ at the Savoy. One shudders to imagine the mordant criticism which would have been evoked if any provincial society had essayed such a premiere. It is difficult to find any adequate definition of what may be generally accepted as a properly constituted repertory society, but I submit that the choice of plays exercised by any repertory society should be wider than that of the commercial theatre, and that the choice should in the main be determined by quality of theme, the skilful development of the plot, high-class dialogue, clever characterisation, and that, above all, the play should be within the capabilities of the available histrionic talent. I have to apologise for the length of this letter: I do not desire to enter into any controversy on the subject, but am writing simply as one who has had some experience in the past of the difficulties and troubles which beset most dramatic societies and who, as far as this particular activity is concerned, cannot admit that in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom. —I am, etc., Wm. Alexander. 90 Cannington road, Dunedin.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Your correspondent, “ Joining Up.” may have information which is not available to others, and may therefore lie justified in saying that “ Dear Brutus ” was not a commercial success. I would have thought that “ Not In Our Stars ” was the solitary failure during Sir Gerald du Manner's occupancy of Wyndham’s. “ S.O.S. ” was also produced by Sir Gerald, and enjoyed a good run. “ I Leave it to You ” was an early play by Noel Coward, which bears a fictitious commercial value because of the author’s later reputation. I do not agree with “Joining Up” that modernity is a sine qua non for repertory. When the Westminster schoolboys produced “Gammer Gurton’s Needle” they were surely dedicating themselves to repertory. Under normal conditions “ Dear Brutus ” would certainly have been played in the Dominion by a professional company. As for “5.0.5.” and “I Leave it to You,” I do not think there was anything so subtle in these plays that one’s education would have been incomplete without a study of them. A repertory play, to my thinking, may be a commercial success, and yet not redolent of , the commercial theatre. “Hamlet” has been a commercial success. Forbes-Robertson recouped his losses on “ The Light that Failed ” by playing it in America. Finally I think your correspondent is a little harsh in accusing us of harshness in criticism of the acting. Your critic may have found some faults, but personally I praised the acting, and am glad of this opportunity to add my meed of praise to the acting of Miss Lennox. In any case, I am not competent to appraise acting where so much depends on gesture and facial expression. In the matter of a play itself, and of theatrical tendencies generally, one mav cherish certain academic opinions which one is always glad to air.—l am, etc., C. R. Allen.