Shakespeare Revivals.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 September 1922, Page 4

Shakespeare Revivals.

(Sydney Herald)

With the reappearance of Sljakesjieare on our (Sydney stage, and the reyiyal of “King John”, some slight reference seems due to file successful emergence from its troubles of that great home of Sbakespare in the motherland —the -Old Victoria Theatre in London. Quite recently this historic playbpuse, which has so long and gallantly kept the flag flying under the command of Miss Lilian Baylis was threatened with the closure by the London County Council if it did not conform to the required standards of safety and "health. The cost of effecting the necessary repairs was £30,000, and for the “Old Vie” to raise such a sum out of its ordinary revenue was impossible.- The theatre was paying its way, but it was doing little more, and when we remember that day after day for many years the masterpieces of the dramatic and operatic stage were produced there by excellent companies at a tariff ranging from fourpencc to a few shilling even that result was amazing. Fortunately not only for the “Old Vie” hut for its myriad lovers throughout Britain—and Greater Britain, too, for many must ho the citizens of the outermost parts of that great partnership who have drawn delight from its productions—the necessary sum has been subscribed by an anonymous donor, and the required alterations are to be at once effected. The “Old Vie” is saved, and it is a pleasant feature to learn that in the saving several thousand pounds were subscribed in small amounts by those members of the general public whose practical love for the famous playhouse was only limited by the incapacity of their purse. Even now something more is being asked of a sympathetic public. Ail endowment fund is sought to bo established so that there shall l>e a measure of independence of public support, and Shakespeare may thus be given a sure home in the centre of the Empire. To compare Miss May lis with Air Allan Wilkie is to attempt the impossible —their circumstances, are as different as their sex. But in their love for Shakespeare, in their determination, to stage his plays on sound and artistic lines and to the limit of their available resources, alike in their aspirations and tTw effectuation of those aspirations there is a similarity. Both have mnnnged to prove that Shakes;,care can he played consistently and .vet remain summonth- a “draw” to warrant its continuance. In doing so they have not md.v honoured their ideals, they ha-,-. brought honour upon themselves. - ore than half a centurv has thus elapsed since “King John” wa s last produced here Win this should'be so Jt uould be difficult t 0 say, for j' <t John is not nop qC . « reat ’ historical •Ira.ius, it is least as fill] of meat as the prove'riMa! egg. rt. s scones nm tl.o whole .-.■limit of iiinnnn emotion* the fierce sardonic humour uf the Bastard Fatil(onhmige mingles with the pathos of Arthur and the grief and frenzv of Constance; t.he dash of arms gives place to the subtleties of the doset and the council chamber; the power of Home. as imaged h.v the legate Randolph, is contrasted strongly with' the defiance and subsequent humiliation of “the Worst king that England ever knew.” 1 erhaps the pla.v is not so crowded W 1 til familiar quotations as many another .hut who is there, who does not kuqw and love the proud patriotism of the famous lines. j

This England never did, nor never shall,. Lie at the proud foot of a cou-

queror, But when it first did help to wound itself. And, again

C'onie tlie three corners of the world in arms, And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue If England to itself do rest hut trim.

It limy truly he said that despite the unhappy plight ol England dining his rpigu and the wretched record of the King himself, there is no era in our history on which we can look hack more proudly. For it gave us Magna Charta ; ami despite its lack of “popular ’ quotations, there is no drama in the Shakespearian list that can provide us with a nobler thrill than “King John.”