THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL THEATRE IN LONDON.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5209, 1 December 1877, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL THEATRE IN LONDON.

( Theatre.) Thousands of country people are now passing through London on their way to the Continent. Fifteen theatres are open to them here. In none can a play of Shakspere be seen. Let them when abroad, however, visit the Stadtheater of any German town, and tho chances are greatly in favor of their finding some work of Shakspere satisfactorily rendered by foreigners, who have taught us to appreciate his genius, but have not yet taught us to insist upon the due representation of his plays. The contrast is shameful to us. The shame might, we think, be removed. There is, however, much to be doue before that result could be attained. The art of acting has not advanced in proportion to the requirements of the time for it. Hitherto the art has, in England, been as a rule self-acquired by those who practise it, and learnt only by imitation of predecessors and many years’ experience in the representation of a great variety of parts. The training of the famous actors of the last generation almost always consisted of long drudgery in minor roles played in country theatres —a rough but effective education. Its fault was that, bound by tradition, they studied, not nature, but a conventional representation of nature. And inasmuch as the spectators were accustomed to the conventional rendering, they accepted, and perhaps even preferred it. Nevertheless, when some actor of genius occasionally broke the fetters of conventionalism, and held the mirror up to Nature herself, they fully recognised the more perfect reflection. A marked change has since taken place. The possibility of long training in progressive parts has been diminished by the abolition of numbers ot the small theatres which once existed in country towns, by the evil of what has, with amusing impropriety, been termed the “ star system,” by about a decade ot burlesque, and especially by the nerniciouseffect of “long runs,” which are, from their cheapness, as tempting to managers as they are detrimental to the quality of the actors. On the other hand, the doctrine of conventionalism in acting has all but disappeared. Actors may now imitate Nature herself, and not counterfeits. But before they can usefully avail themselves of this license they need special qualifications. If they are to represent personages of varied grades in society, moved by all the varying passions of civilised humanity, and to do this in a natural manner, they must first be brought m rapport with society by means of general education, and then must learu from technical training how to exhibit those traits which general education has taught them to observe. Even the importance of the subject scarcely justifies an inquiry as to where the majority of our actors and actresses received their general education, nor dare we even ask in what school did they study the rudiments of their art. Enough to say that the result of their educatiou and training is not satisfactory, and the fault may be ascribed to the system and not to themselve-. A few amongst them are by their abilities, industry, and experience qual lied for their vocation. But they have been beset with difficulties which may be said to have checked and prevented them attaining more than slight ephemeral fame. Most of them may be traced to the natural and absorbing desire of managers to make their theatres pay, as it were, too ready money, and that in the largest possible quantity. The managerial argument with the ghost of his treasury is probably this : —“ If one good actor will ‘ draw ’ audiences, why incur the expense of two ? While one play fills the house, why should I be at the cost and pains of putting another on the stage ? Since scenery and ‘supers’ at so much per yard and head are cheaper than actors, and seem to satisfy spectators, let canvas and figures save me cash,” The consequences of this economy may be uncertain as regards the pockets of managers, but are only too certain with respect to the interests of the dramatic art. Leading actors •of merit unsupported by an efficient company, and inferior actors deprived of opportunities for practice and trial, must be content with disheartening mediocrity of reputation. Intelligent players, by perpetual and unbroken repetition of the same role, feel themselves stiffening into automata of limited capacity. And' the public, rightly declining to accept such unrecognisable editions of our finest plays as they are sometimes insolenriy commanded to approve and forbidden to condemn, must either forego the theatre or languidly endure the performance of commonplace or even pernicious works, which, being within the comprehension of managers and the capacity of companies, may be more easily tolerated, and which, if unable to interest, elevate, and instruct, perhaps may chance to amuse. It is not right that art, actors, and society should be sacrificed to a short-sighted and injurious private po icy. Keform is needed, and we think some means of reform may be found in a suggestion repeated at the Guildhall banquet to the actors by one whose career upon the stage has given him an especial claim to respect. Suggesting that State aid should be rendered to a theatre principally devoted to the performance of the works of Shakspere, ho merely not only expressed an idea long ago conceived in the minds of those who are anxious for the advancement of the dramatic art, but also raised, perhaps somewhat unconsciously, the groat social question wo have endeavored to bring forward. That a subvention to a national theatre would operate as a 2)ublic benefit is a proposition which deserves to be considered. But it presents various aspects, and need not be regarded from the manager’s standpoint only, however good. To ns it appears under a light somewhat different from that in which it shows itself to Mr. Phelps. Let ns say, onco and for all, that the financial part of the question seems of plight importance compared with the principle involved. Were the desirability of the State assisting the stage established, the comparatively insignificant sum needed for a subvention would surely not bo withheld when the equivalent to be purchased thereby is borne in mind. That equivalent is no less than control with all its advantages. In return for its assistance the State would acquire a right to preside over the management of au exemplary theatre, not as a purblind, impotent censor morum, but as a vigilant, active head of affairs.