The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-06

|
 outline of some two or three plays and productions are rendered by some Of tho best of performances. Hefe is q sample of the adverse criticism made on individual actorss Tt Is difficult to conceive how an actress of MISS Bates's standing can take part in so disagreeaele a production. one mus. always remember that he is at the snow in order to reconcile himself to sitting through the play"
 Testimeny ef Actors.
 A second reason for Christians not patronizin8 the theatre is based upon the testimony of actors. All the Intel iectual and esthetic advantages which the theatre is supposed to afford, are more than offset by the immoral con- nominations which 1t communicates, and to which some of the most proui- nent actors bear emphatic testimony.
 Macready left this testimony: None of my children shall ever, with my con- sent, or on my pretence. enter thea Ire. or have any visiting connection with the actors or actresses"
 Edwin Booth made the statement to the effect that he never allowed his wife and daughter to witness any play, the character of which he had not as- certained beforehand.
 Edward A. Sothern. an English ac-
 
 not entering the church once said, in a newspaper article over his own name, that the entertainments in theatres were so indiscriminate, even in Eng lands most reputable play houses, that he had known some of their best per- formers who found 1t necessary to first attend and see a performance before they would allow their wives and daughters to go. Why was this nec- essary7 Why. because they knew there was very little cleanness in those places; and who better than they should know7
 Similar statements have been made by Dumas. Mary Anderson tMrs. de Nawarrol, Mendelssohn. Stanley, Fanny Kemble. Mrs. stddons, Madame Jam auschek and others. How can the church countenanee an institution that Is so boldly condemned by those that have been 50 vitaily connected with 1t?
 Testimony of Friends. We turn for a moment to hear what some of It's friends have to say on the subject.
 Mir. William Winter, q dramatic critic. maintains that Christian ethics would be inappropriate on the stage. A. M. Palmer. successful and expe- rienced theatre manager, says. in a magazine article, that the chier | themes of the theatre arc now, as they I ever have been, the passions of men ambition and jealousy, leading to hate; lust, leading to adultery and to death; 1 anger, leading to madness and murder, 1 Clement Scott, noted theatrical crit- ic of the London press. was once ask . 1 ed to express his views as to the eff l feet of the stage on a pure-mInded I girl. that might enter the profession | to make a livelihood. He makes a | QfAfAmAU9 pvh tah hSHlR = exaggeration. He says: ~one out of a hundred may be safe" This means I that nlnety-nine girls out of every hundred that pursue dramatic art'' as a livelihood do 1t ct the sacrifice of purity and womanhood. Mir. Scott goes on to say that everything Is against her, and that if she endeavors to keep her purity, she Is almost cer- tain to fail in her career. Let us not l forget that we are listening to the l friends of the stage and considering 1 what they have to say about the etn- ics of the profession. Tn face of such bold rebu1ke. what must be our atti-
 tude to the play house2
 Reformation Resisted. There are not a few conscientious
 thinkers that say that the church ought
 to try to reform the stage, but such 1 men do not receive much encourage- | ment from such attempts in the past
 Edwin Booth declared that he would
 have moral theatre in New York, but
 we are told that he failed to establish
 1t on paying basis Henry Irving
 started out to do the same thing in London and he met with similar defeat. Hannah More wrote moral plays. but
 were they not rejected because they
 would not pay.
 agree with those who say that the 1 tneatre seems to be here to stay. go further and say that I believe # will stay here bad. entertain no hope of ever seeing the institution reform 1 ed. To my mind the art itself is ques- tionable, if not bad. The life of the actor IS the life of a hypocrfte. His profession is a profession Of pretense he pretends to be what he Is not. The more successfully he can do this the greater his success in his profession No one can do this without doing det- riment to his personality. When the actor sinks bis personality into anoth- CT character. he weakens himself per- sonally This is more or less true re- gardless or the character, and where the character is bad. the act is doubly ruinous. Let pure girl sink her pure
 mind into an impure character ko be l lived before her audience, and who cannot tell what will be the logical and inevitable effect upon the performer? wish I could read to this audience a long article by Henry Clay Trumbul on this subject. for I believe could there | by make you ali see that the point ta- ken has good ground upon which to stand.
 UnehFfstian Principle. Another thing that condemns the stage Is the unchristian principle upon which the business is conducted Near I ly. if not all theaters are operated to- day for pecuniary purposes. The man. ager is in the business because iI means dollars and cents to him. If the theatre ever fails to pay financially, 1t will pass out of existence
 The mere fact that the theatre is l operated for pecuniary purposes does does not. of itself brand the business as unchristian. The wrong lies in the fact that he must conduct the bust. ness upon ,unchristian principles to make it pay. He Is forced to put i'm moral plays upon the stage. or he will sbe forced to close the doors. The com mercial world Is coming to recognize, l more and more. that all hnainesR to hA