Life Story of Oscar Asche

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 880, 25 January 1930, Page 24

Life Story of Oscar Asche

FORTUNES MADE AND LOST BRILLIANT STAGE SUCCESSES “Oscar Asche —His Life —-By Him--elf,” makes interesting reading. It is the life story of one of the greatest producers of modern times ;nd a fascinating tale of success and 'ailure. To have written “Chu Chin Chow’ u a fortnight, to have produced it n a month, to have had the longest im of any play in any theatre in any ountry in any century, was a great ichievement. Undoubtedly it is that ichievement of which Oscar Asche is most proud. It is true that the £200,000 he made out of “Chu,” disappeared, £IOO,OOO and more on a farm in the Cotswolds, £50,000 in wooing the Waterloo Cup, and the rest in unfortunate theatrical ventures, but the achievement remains and no later misfortunes can dim its lustre. Asche is the greatest and the most successful producer of spectacular plays that the theatre has ever known. The evidence of this is “Chu Chin Chow,” “Cairo,” “The Maid of the Mountains," “The Southern Maid,” "Kismet,” the Asche revivals of “The Taming of the Shrew,” "Othello,” “As You Like It,” “The Virgin Goddess,” and “Attila,” though financial failures, were remarkable artistic successes. And, of course, Asche for several years produced for Tree, notably the famous “Richard II.,” “Ulysses,” and “Merry Wives.” Economical Magnificence His success as a producer was due to the closest knowledge of stagecraft, artistic genius, immense attention to detail and truth, and to his alliance with Harker Percy Anderson, and Simmons. For all Asche’s productions, Joseph Harker did the scenery, Anderson designed the costumes and Simmons made them. The three worked excellently together. The magnificence, of Asche’s productions has given the impression that they must have cost vast sums. On the contrary, they were among the cheapest costings ever known. “Kismet” cost only £3,530, and ran to record money. When the curtain went up on “Chu Chin Chow,” the all-in cost, including four weeks' rehearsals, preliminary expenses, advertising, scenery, costumes, properties, etc.,

was £5.256 17s 9d. It ran for 2.235 performances, nearly a year longer than the Great War. and over £3.000,00 was paid for seats at His Majesty’s to see it. It was an absolutely all-British production, which is probably why some of the critics never quite approved it. The story of “Chu Chin Chow” is romance. Asche and his wife, Lily

Brayton. were at Manchester. It was raining, as it so often does in Manchester. "What the (ievil is there to do?” groused Asche. “Why don’t vou write that pantomime you're always talking of ?” “I will.” A stenographer was sent for. and Asche dictated straight on to the machine. Between the Monday and the Friday, from 7 a m. to 5 p.m., with intervals for lunch and tea, the first half was done, not only the play, but the lyrics and the descriptions of costumes and scenery. A week later in Glasgow “Chu” was completed. There was no part for Lily Brayton in it, so the character of Zarat A 1 Kubub was written in for her. In London Asche met Freddie Norton at the 3reen Room Club and got him to set the play to music. Then to get it produced. George Dance turned it down, except as a provincial pantomime. Robert Evett, of Daly’s, refused it. “Waste of time and money, Oscar.” Finally a syndicate was formed, Beerbohm Tree and Lily Brayton. Each put up £3,000. Asche got 50 per cent, of the author’s royalties. Norton the other half. Asche was £4OO overdrawn at the bank, and asked his wife to lend him £SOO. She demanded security. He had none, and sold her half his share of the royalties for £500! “Cairo” was not the success that “Chu” was. It was the most elaborate production ever put on the London stage. It ran for nine months and showed a net profit of £12.000, a useful “financial failure.” “Cairo” was harassed from start to finish. When all was ready for production, music and posters printed, the Lord Chamberlain forbade the use of the' name “Mecca,” the original title, as, attached to a theatrical production, it would offend millions of Moslems. Even the production to him of Mecca cafes, Mecca coffee, Mecca cigarettes, even of “Mecca Ointment, a sure Cure for Piles,” failed to turn his mind. The Egyptian orgy aroused controversy, though not nearly so naked as the Russian ballet. Theatres’ Failings Surveyed There are many interesting chapters in this book. The author’s earlylife in Sydney; his experience with Benson and Tree; his non-theatrical ventures; his greyhounds; his Australian tours; the last full of unpleasant memories; the patent cooker; and finally a chapter, “What is Amiss with the Theatre?” It is a chapter full of wisdom and practical experience. The commercial manager, he says, has been a blot, and once he touched the theatre lost his commercial sense. They are like sheep. If a crook play is a success dozens of crook plays follow. If an historical play is a success, then a

dozen historical plays. As cannot read plays they buy foJSJ successes, and most of them*!? failures. Of the scores of Amerlef* plays of recent years produced* London, only five made real money "No. No, Nanette,” “Mercenary Marv' “Rose Marie.” “The Desert Song “ JL'j “The Show Boat.” Of straight’nW only “The Trial of Mary Dugan." Th two great successes in America tnl day are “Journey’s End” and “Bita in Hand.” both British. Younger Actors Slated The younger generation of actor, are pretty rotten, which does help. They have no training, aM are not, as they believe, natural actors. Acting is the art of conceal ing art. The cinema is on top of the theatre for the time being, because the ciuema is mediocre stuff, indeed in ferior stuff, very well served up. 'The talkies are a phase. They will laji only so long as the public fails to realise the absurdity of a tin voice coming out of a flat photograph