Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 17 April 1913, Page 34

Notes

An Easy-going 'Mahatma ' The ' Mahatma' who supplies, from a distant town in the North Island, the ' Tricks and Illusions ' for our fireside page,. has sent us his matter just as we go to press excellent time for our next week's issue. Will our contributor please note that matter for our domestic page must reach us not later than Thursday morning, lor insertion in the following week's issue of the paper. Appreciation Catholic journalists, like other people, are none the worse for an occasional word of encouragement; and the following letter from a brother journalist, the editor of a flourishing secular paper, is couched in such kindly terms that it would be ungracious on our part not to make acknowledgment. The letter, which bears date of Saturday last and is addressed personally to the editor, runs: This morning I have just read your letter in the Daily Times on the Bible-in-schools question. Every time I read your letters I feel exceedingly proud that your services are available to write in defence of the Catholic side; and on several occasions I felt I should write a word in acknowledgment from one individual at least. But this morning I think you have topped your previous efforts, and I will put off no longer dropping a note. Amongst a very wide circle I must state my admiration for the manner in which you uphold "our" side, and hope your pen will long be available in the able manner in which you use it at present.'' «The Monk and the Woman ' New Zealand Catholics have received ample warning—both through notifications in the N.Z. Tablet and from the published resolution of the Provisional Executive of the N.Z. Catholic Federation—as to the objectionable character of this specimen of ' bellowdrama ' ; and we have every reason to believe that they are doing their duty and staying away from the production. We have not looked up the North Island press notices of the play, but the reports in South Island papers indicate that it is encountering heavy weather in its passage south. The North Otago Times of April 11 is very severe on the production. * There was a good, though not crowded, house last night at the Opera House,' it says, 'to greet the initial performance of George Marlow's dramatic combination. The piece presented was ' The Monk and the Woman,' and we frankly confess that the drama was not to our liking. The author has, with great daring, explored a new field, and a field that it would have-been better to have left unexplored for dramatic purposes; for scenes and subjects are dealt with of a nature that do not furnish proper material for the playwright's skill. Moreover, they are presented in a manner that cannot be other than intensely displeasing to a large section of the public, while there is nothing about the piece calculated to have an elevating influence amongst even those who may not see ought particularly wrong in the adoption of- the theme. In parts it certainly possesses no small degree of literary merit, and the situations are on occasions undeniably strong, but these qualities do not compensate for the inherent faults of the piece or its flagrant improbabilities; As to the staging of the drama and the acting of its exponents a good deal of praise may be honestly bestowed, and our only regret is 'that so much talent should be expended upon so bad a work. It is, therefore, pleasing to receive the assurance that the play to be presented to-night will be of higher merit and the players relieved of the weighty task of making acceptable something it were better had never been created.' After referring in detail to the different characters, our contemporary concludes: There were at least two other male characters of some prominence, but in our mercy we abstain from comment there anent.'

The Oamaru Mail of the same date is equally outspoken. ' We are at a loss,’ it says, ‘to describe last night’s production, ‘The Monk and the Woman.’ It is not melodrama—though mellow enough in partsnor is it farce; it is an injudicious combination of these two—injudicious' because there is the desire to be mirthful where the author intended to impress. The writing itself is all well enough, in fact there are many glimpses of literary merit in the work discounted by surprising lapses into banality. The drama purports to be historical, dealing with "the French court, and ventures upon religious topics in such a manner as cannot but .be unpalatable to a numerous body in the community. There is little justification for the work, and, despite capable handling last night, it failed to convince; it gained no grip. . . The acting on the whole is good, several of the principals showing more than usual ability, and it is .a pity that they are asked to struggle against such odds as the drama presents.’ The Mail gave no report at all of the second night performance and in discussing the different members of the cast both the Oamaru papers completely ignored the existence of the ‘ funny ’ character, the impersonator of the gluttonous monk.

The Dunedin Evening Star, which deservedly ranks as an expert in the matter of theatrical criticism, has the following in the course of a conspicuously just and impartial estimate of the production: ' An objection presents itself at the very outset. The first act deals largely with life in a monastery. Such a scene is inherently difficult for a playwrightdifficult in that he can scarcely hope to get the religious atmosphere on a stage, difficult also because a mixed audience does not understand monastic routine, and specially difficult when, as in this case, a comic monk who paraphrases Captain Marryat's joke about "such a little one" shares with the devout principal the duty of disciplining Brother John for having looked at a woman. Even a non-Catholic must admit that there is a risk of offending the laws of good taste and fairness in parading on a stage the contentious subject of monkish celibacy, and the act of Divine adoration in private as distinguished' from public worship is not a proper topic for any drama. It jars on sensitive feelings. Our point is that there is really no need to drag on the sacred element at all. As much of the monastery life as is really necessary to the play could be shown without giving offence except on general grounds. The scene of Liane taking refuge there, and falling in love with Brother Paul, and the intrusion of the guard, and the wedding before the altarthese are excusable, even if of-doubtful propriety. The quarrellings of the monks, the devotional exercises, the high-pitched exclamations of horror at the mere mention of "woman," and the gibes about gluttony, could be very well dispensed with.' Even the much boomed earthquake scene seems to be something of a fiasco—at least as it was given on the Dunedin first night appearance. Our Dunedin evening contemporary thus makes merry over this part of the performance: The idea of the earthquake may be worth considering, but as carried out it was ridiculous. The audience heard the stage hands summoned to quarters, and got a glimpse of the operations in the rear, and the pillars broke from their tops instead of being shaken at the base. The climax to the play would have been no more absurd if instead of an earthquake the cor2)s dramatiqne had been simultaneously disabled by appendicitis.' * It is, of course, the duty of the press to be perfectly candid in their notices of theatrical entertainments, but it is a duty which is, as a rule, more honored in the breach than in the observance, and the journals we have quoted certainly deserve thanks and credit for their straight and honest speaking on this occasion.