Filthy Plays

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 532, 8 December 1928, Page 22

Filthy Plays

Obscenity Prevails on the New York Stage ENGLISH CRITICS OPINION I have now been in America long enough for me to form an opinion, superficial, no doubt, hut still an opinion, on the American theatre, -writes St. John Ervine, in the London “Observer.” America has hundreds of little theatres, and there is an immense amount of activity among amateur societies, but the touring system here is in an even worse condition than the touring system in England. A group of American dramatists invited me to lunch with them soon after my arrival in New York. One of them, complaining of the disgusting plays which are popular at present in Broadway, remarked to his comrades, “The theatre is dead on the road, and if we don’t do something about these dirty plays in New York it’ll soon be dead here, too!” No one disputed his assertion that “touring” in the United States is not a flourishing business. All sorts of causes have had this result; the popularity of the movies, the poor quality of the touring companies, the cheap motor-car, the heterogeneity of the population, and, undoubtedly, the nastiness of many of the plays. An author told me that there is an institution in New York called “The Social Register.” Visitors to New York telephone to “The Social Register” to inquire whether there are any plays to which they may take thgjr families without fear that they will be outraged by foul speech from the stage. An epidemic of offensive language prevails in the New York theatre this season. The complaint, apparently, began a season or two ago when a war-play, “What Price Glory?” was produced. Trench talk of a very faithful sort was freely uttered in that play and, so far as I can judge without having heard it, was dramatically justifiable. Unfortunately it set a fashion, and managers, who are as sheeplike in New York as they are in London, ran round the town beseeching authors to write “strong” plays. A flood of “strong” plays is now swamping the American stage. In a play of newspaper life, “The Front Page,” the characters, most of whom are reporters, use language that is hair-raising. Richard Bennett, a very able actor, takes the leading part in a piece called “Jarnegan,” made out of a novel of that name by Mr. Jim Tully. It is an “exposure” of cinema life in Hollywood, and Mr. Bennett uses words in it which made me, a hardened sinner, feel exceedingly uncomfortable. Obscenity and obstetrics and low-down gutter speech and acts are all lavishly mingled in this piece, which is drawing large crowds of people with the minds of tittering office-boys to see it. In a terribly dull musical comedy, called “Chee! Chee!” the word “eunuch” provided all the humour. And how that word was worried to death! Even the tittering office-boys began to yawn long before the tedious piece arrived at its end. The craze for outspokenness has become a nuisance in New York, and language in the theatre is losing all identity with literature because the authors are eager to be as faithful to the gutter as the law will allow them to be. What, I hope, will be the climax to all this stuff was provided by a lady, who is both an author and an actress, Mae West. Miss West wrote a piece called “Sex.” She was acting in “Di’mond Lil" when I arrived in New York. About a month later, a play of hers, “The Pleasure Man,” was produced at the Biltmore. I know nothing of these plays beyond what I have read or heard of them, and Miss West’s name was unknown to me until I saw an account of her arrest in the newspapers. But apparently she is very notorious in New York. People who saw “The Pleasure Man” performed on the first night tell me that it was exceptionally dull and exceptionally dirty. At the end of the evening the police, who were present in numbers during the performance, arrested the entire company and took them in patrol-wagons to the “cooler.” Miss West, who was acting in "Di’mond Lil,” was also arrested.