Allan Wilkie Replies to Criticism.

Radio Record, Volume II, Issue 33, 1 March 1929, Page 2

Allan Wilkie Replies to Criticism.

[IN his address from 2YA, Mr. Allan Wilkie referred to certain criticisms that had appeared in "The Dominion." The critic of that paper replied through last week’s issue of the "Radio Record"-but now Mr. Wilkie has something more to say.

HOULD actors be heard or seen off the stage? is the query with which Mr. Plimmer commences his reply to the little lecturette I broadcast on Sunday evening. Why not? I should certainly be delighted to hear Mr. Plimmer discourse on the subject of journalism. Who is better qualified to discuss his profession that the man who has made a life-long study of his particular job?

Really, Mr. Plimmer (I regret I do not know you well enough to return the compliment and address you by your Christian name), what has the fact that the rather spiteful tittle tattle of a well-known’s vocalist’s autobiggraphy (written by her secretary), which has caused a mild storm in a tea-cup, to do with this particular case? The lady in question is not an actor (ress), nor did my address consist of gossipping personalities. And while on this subject of an actor being heard or seen may I say that I have gleaned far more useful information and instruction regarding the art of acting and the stage in general from such books as Colley Cibbies’s "Apology" and -Macready’s Diary, to name but two, than I have from the articles of professional dramatic critics, always excepting such men as Hazlitt, George Henry Lewes, Charles Lamb, etc.

Mr. Plimmer’s reply, however, is full of inaccurate inferences and misstatements, e.g., "Perhaps it was unfortunate for Mr. Wilkie that he could not stick to Shakespeare." May I ask what other subject my address touched upon? Again, "He went out of his way to endeavour to convince listeners-in that I, as critic of "The Dominion’ for over twenty-one years, had only a superficial knowledge of Shakespeare." I did nothing of the sort. This is a gross perversion of my statement. In fact, a few lines further down Mr. Plimmer quotes my words verbatim, "The statement as a whole is based on a superficial knowledge of the determining factors in Shakespearean productions." Which is a very different thing from alleging that Mr. Plimmer possesses a superficial knowledge of Shakespeare.

4’VEN such Shakespearean authorities as Professor Bradley, Raleigh and Dowden and Quiller Couch are the last people I should consult as to the merit of the individual plays as popular

entertainments. I would much prefer to rely upon my practical, experience as a Shakespearean producer covering as long a period as Mr. Plimmer’s record as a dramatic critic. A short passage is torn from the context and the pith of my argument is omitted. This quotation is labelled as my "crown of folly’ and the critic concludes with "Could a statement be more stupid?gIs it possible to over-stress the incemparable intellectual virtues of Shakespeare?" No, it is not, but it is possible for the dramatic critic to over-elaborate the theme, so that to the plain man in the street the criticism reads like a continuation of his school studies. Should he want to know the source of .the play and discourse on Shakespearean philosophy, misdoubte, together with a synopsis of the story, he can obtain all this information .from a shilling text book. I will maintain that the space allotted to the critic could be better employed in a detailed analysis of the acting instead of a sprinkling of adulatory and condemnatory adjectives regarding the principal characters and the remainder dismissed as "also rans."

Finally, may I suggest the reason why certain critics dislike actors to be seen or heard is because they fear it will shake their carefully built up assumption of infallibility on the principle of "I am Sir Oracle, let no dog bark." The actor’s world may be a small one, but it aas thy advantage of being considerably wider than that of the average critic, whose horizon is bounded by the limits of his home town.