Future of the Theatre

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19803, 19 May 1934, Page 12

Future of the Theatre

REVIEW BY AN EMINENT CRITIC

Mr. St. John Ervine is an eminent 3 ! critic and a great lover of the theatre; ; i he is no lover of the cinema. In- . deed, when he condescends to speak about the films, as he occasionally does » lie is inclined to become a little too theatrical. He can see no good I j whatever in them. He refuses to con- ' ; sider them as being in the field of : “art,” though he does not go quite so i far to assert that they never will be j there. When, recently, he addressed an ' audience at University College, London, on “The Alleged Art of the Cinema,” he declared that it was infantile, vul- ! gar, and everything that was unpleasant and frightful. It made no appeal jto man as a thinking creature, and from a spiritual and intellectual stand- | point was “beneath contempt.” He I could not possibly have used stronger | words. Theatre of Real Flesh. | There is little doubt, we think, that j the modern picture theatre has serious- j ly affected what is known as the “legi- , tomato” theatre, and that the suppor- ! ters of the latter are concerned for its ! future; but, whilst we can understand ! and appreciate the fight which Mr. St. j John Ervine is putting up for the j theatre of real flesh and blood, invec- | tive alone will not get him very far. There is only one reason for the success | of the films, and that is because they ! are commanding the support of the public. The theatre, before all things j else, is a place of entertainment; and if 1 Mr. Bernard Shaw and a few others I regard it as a suitable vehicle for pro- I paganda we must not delude ourselves I ~into the belief that the people pay for ! the privilege of “thinking.” Mr. Shaw ! would have no audience if he did not ' entertain it as well as fly his kites. And j so, if the legitimate theatre is to live, j it must find a way of competing with I the films as a field of entertainment, I even though “art’ may suffer in the process. In Time With Art. I But what is art? It is a wideI embracing word. Commonly we find : that the connoisseurs dismiss as unworthy of serious notice, if not as I “beneath contempt,” anything claiming to be a work which breaks away from the accepted standards of the day. Whistler, whose works to-day command almost fabulous prices, had that experience. Many of the critics have denounced the art of Augustus John, to come to more recent times; and there are some who have not yet made up

t ; their mind whether Epstein is a grea , j sculptor or not. New ideas, new stand - | dards in this or that art, confe into thi : changing world as time goes on, am 5 i the Ruskins are always at hand to ex > i asperate the Whistlers. The art of th l j theatre has to be considered from th ■ j same standpoint. The taste of the pub | lie, who are the judges, changes, an< 1 i the theatre must change with it, o ■ i perish. Especially must this be the casi j when an invention like the cinemato j graph—and now the “talking” picturi I —brings into the field a powerful com j petitor. One great advantage of filmI land is that it can command an audi ! ence that extends all round the world | and for that reason it can afford t( | engage at very high salaries th< ; world’s best actors and actresses. It k | something to us to be able to see these ; finished artists—even if to hear them i: ! not always quite to pleasant. And i: ! the mechanical reproduction of theh ; voices leaves much to be desired, anc j the moving figure on the screen doe.* I not afford the same satisfaction as rea j life on the stage, it must at least be ! admitted that the art of screen produc* j toon has reached a very high level i Some of the stage settings are magni- | ficent, as. for instance, in the producI ti°n of “Queen Christina”—a film which, by the way, hardly bears out j Mr. St. John Ervine’s complaint that the “endings are always happy” in the I pictures. J What of the Audience. I That there will ever be an audience j for the legitimate drama we firmly believe. To believe otherwise would : be to pay a poor compliment to the | educated and thinking section of the j community; and we do not think the i London critic need have any fear on j that point. The only question is ! whether in the field of more general ! entertainment the theatre will be able ' to hold its own in competition with the j films. It is by no means certain that jit will not. In “White Horse Inn” ! Sydney has recently been witnessing a • most unusual entertainment, presented |on a lavish scale—a scale which com- ! pares not unfavourably with many of | the best picture shows. Nearly two | hundred persons take part in it, and the Tyrolean dances and the ballets presented by Miss Ruby Morriss are full of artistry. Musically, too, it is a very delightful entertainment. To put on such a show as this, with the appearance of so many performers, costs an enormous sum of money, and it is pleasing to see that the public are showing their appreciation.