The Truth About Us Moderns

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 50, 21 May 1927, Page 21 (Supplement)

The Truth About Us Moderns

Noel Coward Writes of Cocktails and the Girl With Bloomers

NO DIFFERENCE TO-DAY '\JOELi COWARD, brilliant young icritcr of many plays and sketches, and actor of considerable ability, has just returned to London from America. In the following article he discussed “The Moderns ” for the American ”Theatre Magazine." The word “modern” is to me, what a red flag is to a bull. I bracket it with “personality,” “type,” and other such hackneyed words. But the subject must be discussed if only in self-defence for I, according to my critics, am not only modern in my ideas, but slightly decadent also. If there were modern ideas to be conceived, life would be much easier for authors and dramatists. The truth of the matter is that there is no thought which has not not been thought a million before. There is no theme, no plot, no story which has not been told—no dream which has not been dreamed already. Why ? The answer is magnificently simple. It is because the world of man is an old, old world and the only people who ever had a chance of expressing a really modern idea were Adam and Eve. It is equally true that the decadence of 1926 is no worse than the decadence of a century ago, only it is given more publicity. We are no longer afraid to drag the naked truth out into the daylight with all its scars and all its blemishes, to be examined and discussed. We have grown big enough to understand that life, real life, must be submitted to the closest scrutiny if we are to learn how to deal with it. MODERNS IN EVERY AGE Every age has its moderns and I suppose they have always come in for a good deal of adverse criticism from the preceding generation. The Eton cropped, jazz-loving, chainsmoking, cocktail-drinking girl of today is no more shocking, really, than her dear mamma was when she first rode a bicycle in those terrible bloomers of hers. I shudder to think that such things were once extremely fashionable and “modern.” The difference between the presentday moderns is that we are not governed by our parents, and they were. The bright young things of 1926 have managed to break away from the moulding of fifty years ago. We do not want to be taught how to deal with life by our elders, not because we are pig-headed, but simply because life, now, is not what it was then. The present-day girl does not need to be told how to avoid the pitfalls of life, because she has been given a chance of finding it out for herself. She plays games with men, she works with men, she went to war side by side with men so she ought to know better than her maiden aunts what men are, ttr can be. She has seen old men, young men, good men, bad men, happy men, tired men and dead men, poor darling, and she seems to like us well enough.

The modern girl (if I must call her that) does not regard us all as hetigers waiting to prey upon her virtue. She trusts the men she meets as thoroughly good pals until, perhaps, one of them develops into a lover.

As for the modern young man, he sees the modern young woman as a potential dancing partner or as a pla> - mate, whereas the conventions of the last generation made men and women regard each other with suspicion since they could have only one possible interest in each other. They were taught to dissemble, men as well as women—it was considered “bad form” to be outspoken and sincere. Our poor grandfathers did not know w r hat sort of women they Were getting until they had got her for life. The minds of their fair ladies were as cleverly concealed as their legs. PICKING WINNERS Man has never had such a splendid chance of picking a winner as he has to-day. The girls he takes out to dance, the girls he works with, all show their hearts as unblushingly as they show the dimples in their knees. My characters in “The Vortex,” shocked a good many people because they were very outspoken. But what of the characters in “East Lynne?” They were no better, morally, yet nothing must has been said about them. “The Vortex” simply brought to light evils which have always existed. If we are going to compare the morals of ancient and modern times, I will say unhesitatingly that we are far more moral though less respectable than the Victorians. Not that the Victorians can claim any credit for that. Queen Victoria made respectability fashionable, and people have alw'ays been slaves of fashion. Thank Heaven, we no longer cultivate the art of self-deception. We haven’t time to listen to the reach-me-down bosh of a past age. It is difficult to judge one’s own sex, so we will say nothing of modern men, but the girls of to-day strike me as being better than ever they were before. They all justify their existence in some way or another. They have ambitions outside marriage—“man” is not their only career. I am quite sure that the next generation will be the better for the good friendship which exists between men and women to-day. "We play together so happily, we work together so successfully, and sometimes, just now and again, we indulge in a little lighthearted love-making without the slightest compromise! Kisses are not considered a prelude to marriage in the world to which I belong. The girl of to-day does not sit at home reserving her lips for the nice man who will, one day, come alonfj and ask for her hand in marriage before asking for a kiss. She knows, being a wise little thing, that she may as well wait for ever. There are no “nice” men.

As Cora Ann Milton, the Ringer’s wife, Eileen Sparks, gives a vivid performance at the Royal, says a Melbourne critic. This, the chief feminine role in Edgar Wallace’s mystery melodrama, gives opportunities for both humorous and emotional acting. Miss Sparks takes all of them, and is particularly effective in dramatic situations. Miss Sparks was last here with the Moscovitch Company. * * * For nearly two hours, without an interval, Sybil Thorndike dominated the stage at the Strand Theatre, London, in “Medea,” of Euripides. As a feat of memory and endurance her performance was remarkable. It was more remarkable still as a display of emotional acting, in which she showed anger and anguish and hatred and misery. The old Greek play was produced splendidly by Lewis T. Casson, who in addition played the part of the Messenger, who describes the terrible death of the King and his daughter with vivid intensity. Lawrence Anderson, Lawrence Hanray, Lilian Moubrey, and Charles Laughton were all good, and much praise was due to the chorus for their sense of verse and purity of voice. _ -