UNPLEASANT PLAYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3755, 2 March 1926, Page 76

UNPLEASANT PLAYS.

MR GrUY BATES POST'S VIEW'S. The world-famous actor, Guy Bates Post, who M’ill make his first appearance in Dunedin on (Saturday, - has been interviewed by all the leading Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch papers on the subject of modern plays, for the noted actor lias very definite vie M’s on the matter, and has consistently refused to produce plays by certain authors. In the follou’ing article Mr Post gives his opiuion in plain, unvarnished language of certain types of modern advanced play;. “Tho mission of the theatre is, in my opinion,” says Mr Post, “to amuse and entertain the public, to stimulate the Imagination and intellect, and to vivify the beauty and the cleverness of language. Thut being so, there should be no place in tho modern theatre for the debased, the highly spiced, or the vulgar types of offerings that have been earning so much condemnation abroad lately. -“Writers of indecent plays have usually prostituted their talents for one of three reasons—to achieve a large bank balance in a short time; to attract the spotlight of notoriety; or to express some queer and uupleasant complex or 'kink’ in the mind of the author. None of these reasons can bo regarded as either laudable or worthy, and the distinctly doubtful ‘benefit* derived by the author is in inverso ratio to the incalculable hnrm caused by the plays. Tho average unpleasant play has not even the partially redeeming merit of inspiring great acting, and thereforo it cannot even masquerade as a piece of dramatic literature.

“The type of offering that is generally termed ‘the bedroom play’ is written expressly for tlie coarse-minded among tho theatre habitues, hut, unfortunately, others besides the gross-minded are attracted to the theatres M’here such plays are presented. These offerings are bad in every sense of the term, for “they have a demoralising intluence on both the coarse-minded patrons and on the more aesthetic meinliers of the audience. Such plays have not any right M’hatever to a place in the great coK lection of dramas and comedies that have helped to gain for the stage its honoured place in the scheme of things. Art needs inspiration, ideals, beauty, and guidance, end M'ho but the playwright can give tho dramatic art this stimulus? The loathsome has its place in the world, but because it exists is that any reason why undue prominence should be given it? A right understanding of life is of more importance than mere understanding of life; the mental attitude of too many of us is as slanting as the ToM’er of Pisa. The only real and lasting happiness comes from health of mind, health of body, health of heart, and health of soul—and the demoralising influences of indecent and unpleasant types of plays can cause incalculable harm to all four, by M’arping and blunting the faculties for appreciating goodness, beauty, honour, and truth. “Some of the most prominent critics in both England and America are doing their utmost to curb the pernicious vogue for filthy plays, and recent criticisms by A. HornbloM'er and other writers M’ith regard to the most muddy of the recent offerings abroad are reflections not only on the playwrights and the theatrical managers, but more especially on the morally weakened playgoers Mho make such offerings possible.

“We can fortunately point to many writers Mho have never prostituted their talents by going doM’n to the ditches for their inspirations, or by tinkering with objectionable themes. These are the playwrights who still cherish the illusion that nobility and beauty of mind may be cultivated through the arts. These writers, whose love of beauty helps them to embroider emblems and images that pass through the scenery of their dreams, aro tlie dramatists whose names will be remembered and revered in the theatrical hall of fame for all time.”