"LOVE ON THE DOLE"

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23205, 1 June 1937, Page 5

"LOVE ON THE DOLE"

ro THE EDITOR Sir, —I take it that the rather platitudinous mouthings of Mr Greenwood. which distinguish his play more than the “ message ” of which your correspondent “Student” speaks, are not in the actual subject of controversy in the letters you published this morning. The complaint appears to be. rather, that the critic refrained from iho fulsome flattery which amateur theatrical enterprises appear to expect, and so your correspondents are endeavouring to repair the deficiency. Yet, since, contrarily, they claim to approve honest criticism, perhaps I may be permitted to add an honest and unbiased word concerning Thursday's performance. This was. to my mind, unimpressive and distinctly below the best amateur standard in Dunedin. “Love on the Dole” has some clement of drama which the players singularly failed to enunciate, and a certain poignance which they were apparently incapable of expressing. To talk, as Mr John A. Brailsford does, of any “ masterly ” performance, “ above usual professional standards ” is ludicrous, unless the usual standard of the professional drama he has seen was very poor. To suggest, as he blandly does, that there was no “ hitch ” in the production is fatuous, when one recalls —to mention a single incident —the policeman who made his exit into the folds of a curtain and had a happy two minutes extricating himself! My own impression on Thursday night was that a public reading of a play is sometimes preferable to an attempt at production, when there are insufficient resources of talent connected with a society. In acting, staging, direction, the local performance of “ Love On the Dole ” was obviously impoverished. If your critic suggested this, he did it extremely kindly. It strikes me as the height of bad form for correspondents to rush into denunciation at the first breath of criticism of a play, and especially when one at least bf them is connected with the organisation resnonsible for putting it before the pub-lic.—-I arn, etc.. Felicity.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Will you kindly allow me to endorse what Mr Brailsford, in his lucid, fair letter, and “Student,” in his logical analysis, have said about your report of “ Love On The Dole ”? I do not wish to go over the same ground, but chiefly to discuss your reporter's term, “ a gallant attempt.” No one will deny Bernard Shaw’s right to speak on matters of the theatre. His long years as one of London’s chief dramatic critics, and his still longer years as one of the world’s chief playwrights entitle his opinions to respect. In an article on the actor Beerbohm Tree, he says: “The function of the actor is to make the audience imagine for the moment that real things are happeping to real people.” Judged by that test, which to me is the only vital one, the cast of “ Love On The Dole ” did not make a gallant attempt, but achieved a triumphant success. • All who spoke to me. and for the most part they were students of drama, seemed to have been swept away beyond the consideration of detail by the life that had been breathed into the creatures of the playwright's imagination. I should not use the term “average merit.” which has a flavour of general mediocrity, but the juster one of “excellent balance,” a tribute to the wholly admirable work of the producer. One competent person who had seen the play in England suggested that the comedy was a little over-weighted, and that point might be debated. I have enjoyed many plays given by our excellent Repertory Society, the Little Theatre, and the amateur dramatic organisations, but I have never been so much moved to the depths of my being by a play given by amateurs as by “ Love On the Dole." —I am, etc., Bushin. ’ TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l do not know how your dramatic critic rates himself, if, indeed, he rates himself at all, which would be surprising considering all the differences of opinion he has lately managed to excite, but what I do think is that he must be getting tired of being told he does not know what he is writing about. I sometimes wonder why he does not have something to say for himself. Of course, a critic should not, in my view, stand in need of any second opinion. I forget who it was who said it, but I recall reading once that a critic “is a tub that should stand on its own bottom,” and I think it can be said that your man (or it may be men) does just that pretty well. I saw “ Love on the Dole,” and I agree with the Daily Times that it was a great play which should have been witnessed by a great many more people, but I don’t care how many people saw it, any among them who was entirely disinterested must have admitted that it was only indifferently done. And having said that much, I do not hesitate to congratulate the Arts and Drama Class on a good piece of work. But if their study of the drama is what it should be they should not need to be told that their presentation of this somewhat difficult production was no better than the public was told it was. The job of the dramatic critic in Dunedin or in London is to tell, his readers about the play and how it was acted, and that is what was done on Thursday morning. I suggest that either the Repertory Society or the Little Theatre Society would have been very glad of such tolerance had either of them been responsible for a like interpretation. I think that your review of “ Love on the Dole ” displayed a nicely generous appreciation on the part of your critic of the fact that he was dealing with an organisation that could not be criticised with the same freedom and lack of “ beg-your-pardons ” that would (and should) characterise comments on performances given by firmly-established organisations with infinitely greater resources than the W.E.A. possesses as yet. I think that your correspondents have very little to grumble about. Experience. education, culture, natural taste, and critical perception are necessary for the task of reviewing even local amateur efforts, and, without throwing unnecessary bouquets, one might say that the delicate profession of dramatic criticism is not by any means disgraced by the Daily Times. When our amateurs find themselves being sacrified to the ignorant caprices of little boys, they will have room to growl, and there will be cause for complaint, 1 think, though your critic may disagree with me, when you incline to a less kindly treatment of the shy, timorous neophytes who expect plaudits for simply walking on the stage. I am afraid there are many of them among us, and I would suggest to Miss Bessie Thomson. Miss Madge Yates, and Mrs Ailsa Stephens that it would be in the interests of everybody concerned with amateur drama in Dunedin if they made it a first principle of acting that inclusion in a cast meant that players were “ for it” if they were not really good.--1 am, etc., Cassio.