The Little Review, October 1914 (Vol. 1, No. 7)Various
General
The Little Review, October 1914 (Vol. 1, No. 7)
Various
Literature, Modern -- 20th century -- Periodicals
Perhaps after this warning one ought not become agitated or angry with
any of the productions of those showmen who are frankly in the business
for the sake of revenue. However, when the "super"-showman, who is said
by the press-agent to possess unconquerable ideals, does something that
is supposed to be the uttermost of stage production--and fails--well,
then one can't help becoming irritated. In a production of _Joseph and
His Brethren_ which I saw recently there is evidence that he is aware of
the presence of new ideas in the theatre. But nowhere is it perfect
enough or fearlessly new enough to be satisfying. What new ideas are
used are swamped under, in their imperfection, by the mass of "excellent
mediocrity" that Mr. Soule speaks of. In every act is present that
hideous compromise--rank mixture of the old theatrical devices with a
cautious lifting of some daring modernists' best ideas. But the pictures
received applause. Most came for the scene that jarred most. It was a
moon-light garden scene. The backdrop and sense of distance were
perfect, but stuck prominently in the foreground, on either side of the
stage, were huge clusters of pink blossoms. The applause for that was
great--just as Soule predicted.
Mixing ideals--so-called--with the business of attracting the crowd for
what it brings to the box-office may produce a super-showman and make of
him a millionaire, but it does not advance the cause of the theatre. Not
only is the production to be quarreled with, but the drama itself is of
mongrel character. Everywhere is evident that catering to the ordinary
theatrical taste:--entire speeches from the bible alongside those of
modern idiom and thought together with re-arrangements and useless
additions to the already satisfying detail of the scriptures.
After a "smashing" finale with the gorgeously garmented multitude waving
dusty palms in a private house I decided to dismiss the entire show as
fruitless, so far as the "new note" was concerned. However, one critic
writes that the German and Russian moderns were suggested in some scenes
and that the chief female character might have been costumed by Bakst
himself! That arouses one to the danger of the thing. Is this the final
word in the theatre and what we are to expect as the best this season?
_Marion Thayer MacMillan, Cincinnati_:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account