Modern Taste in Thaatre-Going,

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXIX, Issue XII, 20 September 1902, Page 717

Modern Taste in ThaatreGoing,

In a leading article inspired by the Brough farewell in Sydney the ’•'Daily Teiegraph,” of ' that city, devotes somewhat over a column to the subject of the theatrical outlook in these colonies. It would have been pleasant to quote did space permit, for the article contains an excellent panegyric of the Broughs, but this being impossible, it is instructive to note that the dominant note struck by the writer is the change in publie taste from pure drama and high comedy to musical farce and variety entertainments, and it is positively staggering to find that so responsible and representative an organ as the Sydney “DailyTelegraph” accepts the decadence, if not Contentedly, yet with cheerful resignation, and without one word of sorrow or condemnation. Surely, it is not wise to view a position really somewhat serious with such careless equanimity, for assuredly the choice of amusements is a seriuqs matter. As certainly - as you can tell a man’s character by the company he keeps, you can assess his mental and intellectual vigour by the books he reads and the entertainments he patronises most freely. And here is the faet that serious plays, and highclass eomedy are not wanted in the colonies at present, and that we force fine artists, such as the Broughs, Titheradge, Boueicault, Anson and others, to seek for fresh fields and pastures new, and yet are prodigal enough with our money to enable variety managers to engage a strong man at £250 a week and trick dancers at about half that sum. Musical eomedy—so-called—involving huge expenditure on extravagant dresses, and the splendid staging to which we have become accustomed, pays handsome dividends on the capital invested, while any play which makes the smallest call on our attention —intellect is too strong a word—■ spells bankruptcy, or something ap-

proaching thereto. If you dare to complain of this you are promptly set down with the remark, “We go to the theatre to be amused.” To quote the immortal Mrs Gamp, “Who deniges of it, Betsy?” But is it good or healthful that we should derive more amusement from the voluminous lingerie and freely displayed eharms of allegedly dressed ballet, girls than we do from the characters of Pinero, Chambers, Grundy, and Henry Arthur Jones? Is it. a thing to be proud of that we will fill the theatre to applaud and guffaw over the inane gags and stale jokes of the musical farce which never vary outside half a dozen or so pet subjects (drunkenness, conjugal infidelity, underclothes, torn trousers and mothers-in-law being amongst the priinest favourites), and leave empty benches when the brilliant dialogue of high comedy takes its place? Surely it is an evil thing and to be deplored that the cheap sentiment, tawdry appeals to crude emotions, and thinly disguised indecencies of “The Sign of the Cross” should attract vehement approval; while it does not. pay to stage such true and beautiful pictures of human nature as are to be found in. say. “The Village Priest,” “The Sowing of the Wind,” "The Idler.” “A Pair of Spectacles,” and half a score more. But sueli is the ease, and this being so. the outlook which the “Telegraph” accepts with such mildly - cheerful resignation seems to this writer dark indeed. What Robert Brough, with his fine companies, has failed to do in the last ten years is not. likely to be done by anyone else. We have, had the chance of choosing good from evil in things theatrical. and we have, figuratively speaking - , deliberately chosen the evil. There is no real harm in the one eternal musical comedy which marsquermles under a score of titles with the same, old characters, the same jokes, and the same situations, redressed, retwisted anil rearranged. It never achieves the dignity of vice, only, as was wittilysaid of something - else, "it’s worse than wicked—it’s vulgar": and it is not altogether pleasant, to realise that as a community wo greatly prefer vulgarity to thought, culture or refinement. We have, of course, still left the modern farce, in two or three acts instead of one. It depends almost entirely on the number of doors which can be crowded on to the stage and the com plications to be derived from mixing up ladies’ and gentlemen’s bedrooms, etc., etc. It is usually innocent and inoffensive, and briskly played supplies amusement. But it cannot be said to compensate for such plays of its own class as "Dandy Dick. IT.e Amazons,” “The Schoolmistress,” and others of a typo which for us is apparently about to become, as extinct as the Dodo. It is. of course, useless io continue this lugubrious complaint; it is wiser to take it smiling after the fashion of our Sydney contemporary. "But, oh. the pity of it, Iago! The pity of