CLERICS AND PRESS CRITICS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1956, 13 January 1914, Page 7

CLERICS AND PRESS CRITICS.

TWO STANDARDS OP PRO< TRUSTY, BISHOP'S DEPUTIES AT THE THEATRE. A ronftirttal'in conflict of opinion bp..!) arisen between ciivi;il critics mi.l !v si i .< n; :a:vos of tin Bishop of K«nsiii K toit iib to the- r<\il 1 iinwivr of She I'Vcnc}. fa:re, "Who's tiii' liady?" ut tlm (ijirriiic Thentjc. Wlifir tlm jdsiy (saya 1J» "Daily j-inil ) iviis produced J fir 1,1 ir i'fj'.'il lim'!tho dra malic critics of the Limtlori press, in tjicir •wiitiwirntii, used tlio following ivonlrj:—Naughty, sale.fions, rirdiy, snl;'.Vj laslolosF, depraved, corfbp, oxotiv', impudent, unblushing wicked, sh.hkoklive, aiirfacioiid, miplcafirinl.. wl!l)KC()!l(>Mll.V t\VO |{<;l|l|r<lllcll CDHTIOetod with the Church of Kn;.;laml nvm spwali* tSepuipci by tlic Hisliftp of Kensilicon to report on the farco. Our- of tnom said: "Thero is nothing vulvar, physind, or iinimul about it. I snail sisls my ivifti to jfo to see it." Tim .j:l,rr nwl, "1 rco nil ro.wm why tlm Church should interfere." Tho inovdaMo Protest. This extraordinary diversify of opinionbetween Oro clerics mid Iho press critics evoked iiyO following letter from a -imv respondent to the editor of th-«-"Daily "Sir,—Tim affair- of the new French: fare/; at tho Garriclt Theatre iisms to mo te raise a question which require!) discussion. The dramatic critics, including your own, ujmn whose judgment no are a.oc-iistoiised to rely, found its atmci!> pliero olfensivo and its tendency nnwholesome, and assailed il with a shower of opprobrious epithets, mu-'U As "salacious" "aiiltry,". and. 'Vsxoti?." Thosu writers who uphold Ilia institution of tjio censorship a|tpoal to il for protontion; who oppose tho imitiiulimi make tho licensing of this piece an ,oc-. ca-sion in tnnnt 'tlic censor. But r IW)rn timt tb omissark?9 specially deputed by the Risliop of Kensington to set! and report on tins play found f'rdm tho point of view of the Clm:vh that there, was no necessity to interfere. They recognised that there were "sna* [jostive points" i» it, b«t it was really fmi-iiy, nnd as thc'-woriieii. fcf.il.' v,'!/o an. supposed to ire; i4ridfOS6cd," Were iio't ton fcantily clad ami as there- was no pliysi« cal vulgarity in-the-exhibition)' nothing to o-bjf.it to S

Tiie gpcctnc.lo of tlio.se two clerical"inquisitors rubbing their haiwls with enjoyment nf a piny wisicli brought.' tlii» blush of shame to tiro cheeks of the most hardened dramatic critics mike? one think. Arc there •two standards o\ public propriety. cite wonders, a la« standard ami a clerical ? The other flay ,«v had tile bishop .declaring that thero MS only one standard and that tfmi'ix were oiUier morally right or morally Wrong. But here, wo have the bishoiijs commissioners . giving vicariously Iti3 episcopal benediction in a public exliihition which they themselves recoKniso tes "suggestive points" about it, and wWe'.i ill tho judgment of tlio dramatic critics recks of impropriety, It is Beyond in* Comprehension."

Dfamatto Critic Dofomla Hlmcsif,

How, in tho face of the approval o£ the clerical critics, did tho dramatio critic who "did" the farce for the "Daily Mail" justify his condemnation! 1 He wrote

"Sit,-—The Bishop of Kensington s delegates, who visited the (jarriek Theatre, proiwuneo tlw pla.V to bo » farce from beginning to Mid. t I'ins is uicoutestablv tniQ, l>ut hnnhy ;.i <uscflverv. And then they proMKi to give awnv the case for tho defence by admitting that 'there are suggestive points'in it," which is precisely w.iy tho critics, acting in what they believe tu 'be the best'interests of the uramn, fell foul of it. I'h. v did not aiicgo that it was either 'vulgar, physical, or animal,' a pleonastic collocation wlncli itself suggests somo new jgaine. "To say that this verv French trench, farce is reminiscent ol the boisterous all-British humour of 'Our Boys' ami 'Charley's Aunt' is frankly to conlcss that one has forgotten both tieso pieces. The en'-ies, who arc- men oi tho world and; neither squeamish ,nar prudish, objected to iias the Lady . becttu.se of its cumulative suggestion. And as tho whole art of the tlicatro is to suggest, it is of paramount im-. lxirUmco that lira things suggested should not be what is known as 'siigcostive.' "Hut what do we'find hsro?- I'or a ivawor the excessively iorvvard (to-ieuo maTses lore to an austere oh. magistrate, who, after a prolonged s.rugg o. finds that ho is not so strong*m)ma'u as he thought. Thi re is possibly nothing wrong in this, though it is not in the best taste. But live situation jit which the amorous (>aud?t and i'elUdlililso Gobette blow out their cainlKW is on Iv saved by the fall ol ijto curtafn. "When the prirl takes'off lier e.ress at the Ministry of Justice for no avowo:!* reason, she does not Xook less decent, than many of the pictures m ««»«*»: tiseraeni section d a, ladies new spapei but she is in. the high liftht ot J- io theatre. Moreover, lu>r «it.. tho Minister's secretary appears to can'able of only one oxi>lall»iK>n. more outrageous is tiie scene in -wn 01. the magistrate's wife pvos w ndress, imagining that she w about to he come' unfaithfjil'to lwr husband out of fidelity to bis interests. "To combine tlw succos do srandaio witli episcopal flpprovni is, liidwd, almost too good a *>He. 0 eou. 0.113 pities lu-nv be wrong and tljo u\<» gates, right. To the pure al. tlm;«s. aro pure: but so then are thev to ivhojmving eyes see nov and cais Ik.it not." '