THE STAGE

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 902, 23 August 1910, Page 2

THE STAGE

ITS USES AND ABUSES. LECTURE BY Dlt. FIXDLAY. Speaking before members of the Arts Club last uight, on "The Stage: Its Uses and Abuses,"• the Hon. Dr. Findlay declared that tho. nature of a people's pleasures fixed tho national moral level better than their business pursuits. He proceeded to show that national decadence often evinced itself earliest and most unmistakably in the games and entertainments at which a people spend their leisure time. The theatre was still, as it always had been, a reflex of the moral tone and tendency of its age. Of this what a striking example was afforded by both the Greek and lfoirian stafee. Thou, again, all would remember the moral defects, the indecencies, the caricature of ties treated as sacred both "by law and religion, which marked so offensively the dramatic literature of the age which preceded the Puritan domination of England. The stage reflected, indeed, tlia changing eras of > national character in point' oi reverence, dignity, intelligence, and purity, and hence its elevation or decline was a matter of vital national importance. During the past one hundred years the English stage had seen much decline—if here and there some recovery. This decline was marked by one continuous . feature, and that was the increasing sensuousness—using the word iu its literal and not necessarily its offensive sense. Even the plays of Shakespeare were, when possible, presented now with a spectacular magnificence which tended' to make them for their admirers rather spectacles of art than literary, works of 4rt. Hut it was in modern dramas atul lighter plays that this increasing appeal Vo the senses was chiefly seen. Accompanying this increased' catering for tiie senses, pr, perhaps, being part of it, there was now a stage increasingly occupied, by light comedy, comic operas, and broad farce. The t.heatre had become more and move the resort of amusement in its lighter sense, and less and less the resort of serious thought, of study, instruction, or genuine art.

Need for National Theatres. CouUl this tendency ho checked? This was chiefly . the .question he wanted lo discuss.' Tnii stage reflected the tashs and temper of its day, and the immediate reason for this lay in the fact that the theatres wer£ run on strictly commercial lines. tU) long as the theatre was a priyato commercial speculation the first consideration was the numbers, the performance would draw. The censor and Hie universal laws against indecency were the best answer' to the suggestion that "you can without' restraint trust popular taste." Be fully rtcognised that at least for this country a iialioiv.il theatre was still out ol' the regions of practical questions. T.t could, however, with all the. resources of true art, elevate, instruct, and .entertain its audiences. Then the host of what ishould be produced would no longer be its. money effect, but its moral effect—its influence i'or: public good, not its influence for private profit. Even were it ■ possible it might possibly provo no more attractive to. the people than the best music now often seemed fo be. - Sometimes when one clamoured for" a change of law and system what one really needed was-.a change of heart. The only practical means of improving tho stage at present suggested in England was an improved-censorship and stricter regulations. This did not pretend to insure excellence or genuine artistic work. It merely aimed at. excluding or suppressing what was vicious. Not only the theatres for the performance of stage plays, but also the plays to be performed in I hem were required by statute to-he licensed at Home. Further, every stage play must, before it could bp performed in England, lie licensed by tlie Lord Chamberlain, who, might..veto or-prohibit "where he shall be at opinion that .it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decortun, or of tile public peace so to do." ~-A _ for all these purposes meant practically every kind of-, theatrical performance except vaudeville. In addition to this control there were general laws.against .indecency under which the police could ' prosecute the manager and performers, even when they hiul been licensed, but in point o£ practice the licensing-of a play, gave it complete immunity from such a prosecution.

/ Experience in England. Dr. Findlay then proceeded to "show how the system of the control of theatres, and licensing of plays had worked at Home. He thought, the best materials for an answer were to be found in the report from the joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on stage pltfys and censorship, presented last year. With one or two exceptions,, all the dramatists of the. day asked for the abolition of the censor, or, tailing that, all anneal from his decisions. Playwrights of every school, men of letters, etc., agreed on this view. On the other hand there must be placed an almost equally formidable consensus of opinion in another direction. Every leading manager of English theatres favoured the maintenance of the existing control by Uie censor. The committee declared the existing censorship with its. power of veto before productions to be opeii to grave objection. Official censorship which vetoed a problem plajr merely becsuse : it seriously criticised existing institutions or modes of life, was a species of State intolerance, legal repression of sincere liberty of thought. But for 'this tho committee would not recommend the abolition of tile censor. In tho case of plays which /did not offend against any law of indecency, libel, or blasphemy, and yet they must bo suppressed, there was a real difficulty.. What was to be done? There u-as a proposal in case of veto of right of reference to an independent arbitration, but tho committee rejected the proposal on the ground that it involved tho reference of a decision of a Minister of State to an outside arbitrator. With regard to the censor, the committee advised that tho producers of plays should, prior • to their production, have the right to. submit them, as now, to tho censor for his imprimatur. The censor's license, it was recommended, should no longer be essential before a play could be performed. As regards prosecutions, the committee held that in the matter of proceedings in the case of licensed plays the performances were not to be liable to suspension pending tho decision of the case, and the author was not to be liable to penalties nor the license of the theatre liable to lie endorsed. It seemed to him that while the license should give some substantial immunity from prosecution' so far as, the written text was concerned, that immunity should not he extended, as it undoubtedly was in practice at present, to tho inanner of the performance. The comnlittee further favoured the Lord. Chamberlain's associating himself with a consultative committee, an expedient which he thought very desirable if: only these advisers were well chosen.. As the license of music-halls and vaudeville performances was renewable annually, the licensing authorities could exercise by warning an 'effective control. Tlio proposals with some minor modifications would, he believed, reach the statutebook and prove beneficial.

( Control In New Zealand Crudo, . The iegal means for controlling theatrical performances in New Zealand and checking .those of pernicious influence wero crudo to the degree of uselessness. Some of the provisions of the Police Offences Act hail to be relied on entirely. Or. Findlay proceeded to deal with tne details of the Act as it applies, aud pointed out the penalties prescribed. The provisions he lmil mentioned, with somo sections of the Crimes Act, less applicable still, were all the law in this country for the control and purification of the stage. There was not censorship of any kind, and 110 statutory provision dealing with t!io supervision of theatrical plays or public performances. Before we'could repress or stop a distinctly deleterious play we linisl: prove, if required, to the satisfaction of a common jury, aud with the strictures demanded where the oft'ence was a crime, the use 011 the stago of some profane, indccent, or obscene language—an oirenco made punishable, not with a line, but with a year's imprisonment. It was surely unneocssary to point out tlint this law did not touch plays which the English ceuMjr had promptly and rightly vetoed. It would allow, should tliev come to these shores, the most baneful *dramas. comedies, and farces to run riot with impunity. That

the crudity and ineffectiveness of our legislation in this respect had not been clearly exposed and brought home to us was because, with only one exception that he. could remembev long ago, an attempt had never been made to enforce it. He dul not say thai Uiero had been uny clamant need for more restrictive leal provision, but surely our nresent law was a poor means of guarding the purity and m of the I'tagi! against easily conceivable abuses.

Pulpit and Press Denunciations. The existing provisions in the legislation with respect to the licensing of theatres and other ' places of public amusement added nothing to our legal control of improper performances. These provisions were for the preservation of peace, and not in nny way tor the purification of the stage, lie v.'us not going to launch his frail bark upon the turgid waters of the recot controversy, or discuss the propriety or wiioiesoineness of some of the' ploys, produced in New Zealand. He' did wish, ..however, to impress thai. When, tltn lui> wtiii powerless to punish or prohibit impropriety-on the stage, pulpit and press 'denunciations, no matter how excellent their motive, tended muinly, here as m. other lands, to aggravate the evil by giving it a powerful advertisement, and creating ai] objectionable curiosity, which packed the theatre, lhese observations were general, and had no special application; but surely in conceivable "cases it would be deplorable that necessary, deserved, and outspoteri public condemiintloh should, owing •In the helplessness oi' I In; law, jirolit tliu ter.Y thing rightly condemned. His present purpose was not to suggest what, if unythiug,' should be done in New Zealand. Thoughtful public .opinion might ueein it wisest to leave our law unchanged, lest striving to ilo better it might mar what it consider* well. ■ ■ •

Ths Decline.of Discipline. Tin- traditional spirit of our people would never again brook ari ascetic domination. With us the'field of healthy individual freedom .was. in no kind- of. danger from austere .collectivo control. Domestic and religious discipline upon lite in this country'.had. declined, and not increased, and tailing or with these impaired, our social well-being must in some measure depend upon the wisduni and , efficiency of" a - social discipline mainly enforced by law, A. stricter regulation of tile stage might, "»« indeed should, have an indirect effect. Primarily it should aim at repressing tho vicious and degrading, but in doing this judiciously and firmly it could foster a better class 'of play. Ti\eatrt-goiiig was with many people a habit' and if the coarse and pernicious forms of entertainment were forbidden, they would go to tho better class of plays that are allowed, and thus a taste in a sense enforced would grow by what it fed on. A wise control of the stage might do more" than merely suppress evil. It inigl\t help the cultivation of : ;an appreciation of Hie goou.- Whatever elevated the purposes and. diversions to which th» people devoted their leisure deserved tho best support of the State.

■ What the State Might Do. National or municipal theatres had not yet come in New Zealand to present either free or at charges within' the means of every citizen the noblest • trage-, dies—the greatest dramas and the clever--' jest and 'healthiest comedies. But. tnat ; day might come, even in New Zealand, . for as the State repressed di;ink, gambling, immorality, brutalising eshibi-. tions, demoralising stage plays,-and other vicious occupations for leisure hours it should aim at fostering or supplying in. their place diversions and entertainments which would improve and elevate the people. Art in,one or other of its manyi shapes, was the most profitable friend.of a nation's leisure, hence the diffusionof true art was no. unworthy 'lira of government. But in the theatres, as in' literature/ there was a true art and a false art—for art, like beauty, might he prostituted t6 foul ends. In conclusion'; Dr. iTindlay said he had no patience with! that supersensitive, delicacy, or fussy.punctilious prudery which 'as'..often, as; not betokens not a wholesome, ■ tut a nasty, mind; nor had he anything- but contempt for those who scented- impro- : priory somewhere in almost, every 1 perrformance''oll a'stage. But prudery -was one "thing—and- 1 tacit--- toleration or approval of what every level-headed . Man must, admit to he a- pernicious entertainment was" quite • another ; thing,' and •if w-e .desired to .discharge our duty as citizens, we must not .hesitate, for fear of ridicule, to condemn inilueuces'on the stage or elsewhere,. harmful to the moral health of. the community. .