COMMUNITY DRAMA.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18652, 22 August 1930, Page 12

COMMUNITY DRAMA.

CONCLUDING NIGHT OP FESTIVAL. rne esouth Canterbury Drama League’s annual festival of community drama concluded last night before a large and appreciative audience. From all points of view, the festival has been a signal success. Taking a line through other years, it can be said at once that the standard of production has considerably improved, and while several of the plays were deservedly commended by the judge, the general excellence of the work of all the players was one of the . outstanding features of the festival.

Last night four one-act plays were staged, and the standard set the previous nights was well maintained.

The Pleasant Point W.E.A. “B” team presented “A Corner in Dreams” by Vera I. Arlett. The scene is Travenna’s office. Travenna, who has been wounded in the war, sets up a business to supply ideas of speeches, plots for books, characters, etc., to people who have no ideas on such subjects themselves. He is, however, essentially a poet, and as such, endeavours to raise love making from a humdrum affair of modern times to a poetic level. This was a play by no means easy to produce; nevertheless, the players, in the main, caught the spirit of the theme, although a good deal of the effect was lost by the tendency to drag. The role of poet was fairly well done, but there was a lack of finish in the spoken work of the poet, particularly in the reading of his own poetical creations. The typists were perhaps true to type, while the Lady Daphne spoke her lines well, and the businessman without poetic ideals, was just that. Stanley Houghton’s “The Master of the House” was the play chosen by the Timaru W.E.A. Its setting is in the parlour of the house occupied by the Ovens family. Mrs Ovens has made an appointment with a solicitor for the purpose of altering Mr Ovens’s will. His son, Fred, is to be disinherited, but fate decrees otherwise. Neither Mrs Ovens nor Fred proves to be Master of the House. This play was more or less pointless because of the weak conclusion; since only those who knew the play would have discerned the meaning of the title. In the moments of dramatic intensity the final contest for mastership of the house, between the living and the dead, Fred Owens missed the point, but otherwise he played his part well. The second wife of Mr made a very assertive and selfish defender of her sick husband, and did well in the hectic scenes, while the solicitor, though somewhat unconvincing, “put over” his lines in good style. A charming fantasy, “The Patchwork Quilt,” by Rachel Lyman Field, was presented by the Timaru High School Old Girls’ Dramatic Club. Old Mrs Willis is wandering aimlessly about her room in a dazed way, when her daughter Anne and her husband come in to try to get the deed of the farm belonging to old Mrs Willis so that they can sell it. Unfortunately for them, the old lady’s memory is failing and she cannot remember where the paper is. She is lost without her own table, her carved chairs, and her precious patchwork quilt. For a short period the quilt is restored to Mrs Willis, and as she sits in the firelight, fingering the little squares she begins to remember things, and pictures of the past arise before her. The history of the deed and its relationship to the patchwork quilt is just unfolded to her, when she is once more deprived of her treasure. The film of daze and bewilderment comes over her and everything is “grey” again. The little play makes heavy demands on the players as well as the facilities for lighting effects. Without spot lighting “dream pictures” cannot be effectively portrayed. In this the play lost some of its point. Nevertheless these young players made a most creditable showing. Old Mrs Willis was the part in characterisation, but the spoken word did not come well over the footlights. Joe and Anne did fairly well, but they seemed not sufficiently impressed by the gravity of the position created by the loss of the deed, and were perhaps a little too soft in their demands on the old lady. It was a difficult task for such youthful players to portray the story in fantasy, but under the circumstances, Molly and William were fairly successful in the dream picture of the wedding, while Molly (seven years later) did well in a small part. The younger players spoke their lines clearly, but the play was allowed to drag, particularly in the early stages. The mountings were good and the dresses appropriate.

The Wallingford Players (Temuka) gave Sir James Barrie’s play, “Half An Hour.” It opens in a sitting room in the Garson’s mansion, with a quarrel between Mr Garson and Lady Lilian, his young wife. She decides to leave her husband and go to join a friend, Hugh Paton, who is leaving for Egypt. Scene 2 in Paton’e house shows how Mrs Garson’s plan is frustrated and the third scene, how she is reconciled to her husband. Although coming on at the closing hours of the festival, this play was one of the best presented. It was well mounted and dressed. All the players did wonderfully well. Lady Lilian was perhaps the outstanding player and her work was universally good, particularly in the last scene. Mr Garson was a little uncertain in the part of the financier, but in some of the incidents he was particularly good. The doctor was cleverly portrayed, and some of his work, notably in the moments of climax, reached a high standard. Hugh Paton was a trifle uncertain in his work, but the minor parts, particularly the role of Susie, were well sustained. The play went at a nice pace and was well received.

THE JUDGE’S COMMENTS. The judge, Miss Kiore King, of Christchurch, prior to giving her decision as to which in her judgment were the leading performances during the season, complimented the League upon their wonderful enthusiasm. “I think,” she said, “it is unique in New Zealand to have a season extending over four nights and to produce 16 plays, in a population like this, which is after all not very big, and rather scattered. I have been delighted, and it should be an encouragement to everybody to have presented such an iifteresting programme, and such a variety of good types of plays. Several of the players show promise. I am not saying a great deal about the individual performers. One wants to get away from the personal work of repertory business. The play is the thing rather than the individual. I try to judge each play as a whole, rather than take out one particular person. One has to take the team work of the whole cast, and see how they get on and judge their ability to put the play across. One has to consider whether they grasp the technicalities and spirit of the' play and their general impression of the cast. The chief fault appeared to be a tendency to dragging. If the play does not drag the dialogue does not drag. It must have a certain amount of punch, and a great many plays fail in this respect. A second’s space ef tjme or a pause or the sinking of a tone by one person brings the others down to that level. A-tin, in the case of a quarrel'scene each one must have a tone above the other. An indecisive.

movement, masking—by the way, not mashing as reported by one paper—all affect the production of a play. Several plays were spoilt by people being too quiet, and in not throwing their voices out. This should be studied. I don’t say they should go in for voice production, although this a very good thing, but they should try to see how they speak and endeavour to get good vowel sounds. One should aim at getting the purity of English as much as possible. There were only a few performers who showed a real sense of tbe characters they represented. It is necessary that one should forget oneself. There was a feeling of selfconsciousness among some of the players, who appeared to be conscious of standing on the stage and saying their lines. You want to forget your se

fif, leaving yourself out altogether. .’his is perhaps what we may call temperament, and that is a thing one can’t acquire; but temperament is ability to feel and to make the audience feel. It is not necessary to go and commit a murder to play a murder’s part, but you must imagine and feel as that murderer feels. Talking about selfconsciousness, one girl should have been kissed, but there appeared a great fear that the audience would laugh, but they do that at professionals. It is not Mary Smith being kissed by Mr Jones, a man about town. We are getting used to it on the stage. It is a part of the play. It is necessary to brazen it out. It soon comes natural to you.” Miss King said she desired to compliment all the teams upon the costumes and the staging effects, and also upon the expeditious way in which they changed the scenes, considering the number of plays put on. Every play looked effective. Some of the scenes were a trifle over done, and when putting on a number of plays in an evening it was necessary to cut down all scenes not necessary. The scenes in “Followers” were right in character, but there was just too long a wait. The play could have done with a lot more off the stage. Miss King expressed her appreciation of the very efficient orchestra and the delightful music played. Coming to the announcement of her decision as to the best teams during the performance, Miss King said she had selected five, and these were “How He Lied to Her Husband,” “Last Man In,” “The Old Lady Shows Her Medals,” “Trifles,” and “Half an Hour.” Each play was on the whole up to standard, but taking them from the technical point of view and the general test of a presentation, where one failed another would succeed. One play would perhaps fail in stage production points, and yet have very good acting, while another would have very good staging, but the- acting in certain particulars would not be quite up to standard. The most efficient presentation was “How He Lied to Her Husband.” This was the performance of the Catholic Dramatic Club.

Dr Unwin presented the winners with the shield, which marks the second year in succession that this Club has won it. He congratulated the Club upon its success.