Dramatic Criticism in Australia.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLV, Issue 19, 9 November 1910, Page 16

Dramatic Criticism in Australia.

SOME CANDID VIEWS.

(By

J.B.R.

in “The Booklover.”)

We have lately heard much of artists in dramatic and musical spheres who have openly resented the criticism they have received from the Press. Most peoplee, no doubt, smiled and murmured something to the effect that this public resentment is done for advertisement. It is a moot point whether the advertisement is altogether good. It seems unwise to take up arms against a newspaper-man. He always has the whip-hand, and is bound to have the last word. Actors, as a rule, have the good sense to shrug their shoulders at unjust criticism, and, although it hurts at times, they know that one man’s opinion cannot influence the entire general public. Yet if the complaints that have been and are being raised against unfairness on the part of dramatic critics in Australia, could all be voiced at the same time —there would sound one mighty shout capable of reaching to the furthest side of this planet! I use the expression “dramatic critics in Australia.” It is an exaggeration—• there are none. There is not one representative of the Press, whose criticisms have appeared in the past few years, of whom one can truthfully say: “Here is u man who knows his business!” The average critic here knows as much about acting and the construction of plays as a heathen Chinee. I can and will quote instances showing how utterly incompetent are some of the so-called “dramatic critics” on the Australian newspapers.

I was talking with one of these gentlemen a day or two after the production of a Shakespearean play by a well-known actor. The pressman was telling me what he had thought of the performance. He totally disagreed with the principal actor’s reading of the leading character. His interpretation, my informant said, merelv served to take every tradition connected with the play and tear it to pieces. He gave me examples of what he made me understand were outrageous faults in the acting of the part, and ended up by remarking: “Of course I didn’t say that in my notice!” Now, what can be the value of a critique which is admittedly not an expression of the writer’s ideas? There is one paper in Australia, one that is read all over the continent, in which it appears that the sole desire of the dramatic critic thereof is to catch hold, as it were, of some physical defect in the player, something at any rate quite outside the sphere of his work, and hold it up to ridicule. How much better it would be if this paper omitted its alleged “Dramatic Column,” or else confined itself to a criticism of the acting of plays instead of impertinent and vulgar personalities. I remember another production of a Shakespearean play. Actors were in great demand, because, strange as it may seem they were then hard to get. Two of the principal comedy roles had to be

filled by quite third-rate men. Neither of them could speak the King’s English, neither of them even pretended to worry over the lack of a “g” or an “h” in the words they spoke. Togetner they effectually ruined the production, besides hindering the work of the other members of the company. The alleged dramatic critics, however, with very few exceptions, hailed them as the finest exponents of their respective parts! Imagine a fellowactor receiving a splendid criticism in the same notice of the play! How utterly valueless it becomes in face of the glowing remarks about the two comedy men! Incidentally, I might say that these two men seemed to have had an interesting career—one was a tobacconist, and the other a haberdasher. I suppose it would not do for a critic to make a-n observation which is qualified in any way. One thing so apparent in their work here is the boldness with which they make the most outrageous mis-statements. Nor have they the slightest consideration for the difficulties under which an actor or actress has, at times, to play. I have known an actress make her first appearance under a great strain, acting to a large audience when suffering from a bad attack of laryngitis. That she was playing under the most painful circumstances was patent to the least observant ; yet one critic said of her that her voice waa pleasing “although of a sorethroaty order.” Surely a kinder thing would have been to make some small reference to the affection that handicapped the lady, instead of putting it in the way mentioned. The theatres in Australia, as a general rttle, are much too large to act in comfortably; but no critic seems to recognise the strain upon the players, especially visiting artists, who are used to playing ■in more up-to-date and civilised playhouses. I have heard actors and actresses accused of their failure to “grip” an audience when the huge size of the theatre makes it almost an impossibility. The majority of critics in Australia give one the impression that they have been thinking of something else during the performance of the play they criticise. Their critiques are unfinished, uneven, irrevelant, and, in most eases, unfair. They are constantly “giving themselves away” by making statements which show that either they have not followed the play with any degree of attention, or that they have not sufficient intelligence to grasp what is being shown them. I fancy that dramatic criticism is a branch of journalism which receives very little consideration in the colonies, at any rate the poor stuff which is published under that head gives one the idea. It is difficult to know just how far the opinions of the Press influence the man in the street; but, if the art of aciirg is to rise to any standard at all in Australia, it is about time the country produced a man capable of writing a criticism of what he sees which is honest, unprejudiced and intelligent. It really seems as though the glamour of notoriety attracts the average dramatic critic, making him write a great deal of barren verbiage, which he may think original, but which is, in reality, grotesque and inappropriate.