"LOVE ON THE DOLE"

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23204, 31 May 1937, Page 7

"LOVE ON THE DOLE"

I'o I'ME editor Sir, —It is refreshing to have a dramatic critic who is determined to play the severe monitor to local amateur drama clubs instead of indulging in the iulsome, insipid flattery that some seem to think necessary. At the same time one may go to extremes in economy of praise, and I would like to suggest tnat the critique of "Love on the Dole " might, in fairness, have been more generous. Let me grant that in many of the comments on matters of detail one sees an exercise of judgment. 1 for one agree that the success of the evening was due in unusual measure to the producer. The praise given to the portrayal of "Harry" would be echoed by all, 1 imagine. But Miss Phyllis Maden's "very lair night's work" sounds rather like an examiner's attempt to allot marks to an essay too hastily read. I think most who saw the play felt that Miss Maden actually was Sally Hardcastle of Hanky Park, which is a far different matter from doing a " very fair night's work." The occasional inaudibility of some of the actors was regrettable, as your critic says, but the least audible gave such a fine comedy characterisation that her failing was largely compensated. Mr Westwood's presentation of Mr Hardcastle seemed to many of us to be not only vigorous but masterly, intense above usual professional standards. Again, the very fact that your critic did not have occasion to note any hitch or prompting or any of the fatal self-consciousness that is so common with amateurs is an evidence of excellent work. Perhaps this just shows the really high standards attained in these days. What some of the audience most regret, however, is the critic's lack of appreciation of the spirit of the production. It was, we are told, "hardly a striking success in the realm of real theatre." That sounds very superior, but if I understand what it means it shows an inclination to look for precisely the sort of production and acting that would have spoiled the realism The "average merit" which your critic mentions helped in giving the realistic atmosphere, and if Mrs Griffiths (as Mrs Hardcastle) had had the "big moments" for which your critic looked, she would have, ruined her part as an utterly crushed woman. The restraint of the actors—except the comedians—was one of the most ad--mirable features. And as for yie comedians, they were true to life. I think this element of comedy strengthened the play. It was no " tickling the ears of the groundlings " —unless Shakespeare's technique of contrasting tragedy and comedy has all to be damned as. such. I trust you will allow this letter, which represents the views of more than one, to appear as giving a different view from -that of your critic, whose frankness nevertheless. I for one appreciate.—l am, etc.. May 29. John A. Brailsfoid.

TO IHE EDITOR Sir,—As one of the audience that witnessed the performance of "Love on the Dole," presented by the Arts and Drama Class of the W.E.A., at the Concert Chamber in the Town Hall on Thursday night, may I be permitted to comment on the somewhat lofty criticism implied in the report of the performance by your dramatic critic. There is such a thing as damning with faint praise. This is not the ground on which I differ from your critic. It is rather that the suggestion is given that the motive of the play—that is, the picture of the tragedy of unemployment—failed to impress the audience. Your critique reads:— "The play last night, although the players hardly managed to achieve a striking success in the realm of strict theatre, was an intelligent and effective piece of work." Just exactly what is meant by that rather ambiguous sentence may, or again may not, be explained by what follows:—" The message of the author was conveyed in unmistakable terms, and there was hardly a character that failed to make some sort of an impression." Just what I am expected to understand from the foregoing sentences I am at a loss to know.

Let us analyse Ihese statements. (1; ••The play was an intelligent and effective piece of work," (2) "The message of the author was conveyed in unmistakable terms." Now set them up against the contradictory passages. (1) "The players hardly managed to achieve a striking success in the realm of strict theatre," (2) "There was hardly a character that failed to make some sort of impression." Now. when I go to the butcher's shop and ask for ham I expect to get ham and not streaky bacon, and when 1 take up my paper I at least expect its contents to be intelligible. I do not expect to be left in a fog of mental conjecture. Criticism, if it is meant to be of value, should point directly to what the writer considers weakness or distortion in the presentation, and if it is meant to be constructive or helpful should suggest remedies. The critique of " Love on the Dole" does neither. It merely succeeds in being ambiguous and that helps no one. As a student of the drama (not necessarily a great theatre-goer) I was very much impressed with the interpretation of the play. It was, I consider, a true picture of life as lived in (he underworld of economic society. The team work was splendid throughout. There was no distortion either in the quality of the acting or in the relations between the various characters. This latter fault is the one most commonly apparonl in amateur nerformances. That there were minor blemishes in the production one is prepared to admit, but the merit of the performance lay chiefly in the team work, which, for the amateur stage, is the best I have witnessed in this country to date. As so much depended on that essential qualification for he successful presentation of a drama of this nature one can pass over as merely fatuous the statement that " average merit distinguished the performance rather than the contrast of verv good and very bad."—l am. etc.. Student

I "Student" docs not show wherein the ambiguity of which he complains is to be found—Ed. 0.D.T.l