Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-03-19
MIR. Tree as Shylock in "The
Merchant of Venice"

preston of dulness. And In al; modesty
IL may be claimed that iV is better to
draw multitudes by doing Shakespeare
In the way the public prefers than to
keep the theatre empty by only present
Ing him adequately" as these counsels
OF imperfection would have us do.
Our detractors miss two basic points
There Is no proof that Shakespeare did
not run new play as long as it he'd the
town-everythng points to the contrary.
And If Shakespeare adequate" appealed
to the public more than Shakespeare
splendid, We who produce him would find
1t to our immense advantage >and profit
so to do.
take 1t that the proper function OF
putting Shakespeare upon the stage is
not only to provide an evenings amuse-
ment at the theatre. but also to give a
stimulus to the further study of our great
poets works. II performances. therefore,
make but fieeting impression during
the moments that they are in action, and
are forgotten as soon as the playhouse is
quilted, the stimulus for diving deeper
into other plays than those that we have
Witnessed must inevitably be wanting
For my own part. admit that the long
run has its disadvantages it tends
tnnless fought against) to automatic act
Ing and to >lesscnng of enthusiasm,
passion and imagination on the part OF
the actor; but what system is perfect7
1t is regrettablc fact that in all the af
fairs OF life, whenever we strive for an
abstract condition Of things. we are ant
10 come into collision with the concrete
wall which is built of human limitations
-as many an dcalist's battered head will
TESTIFY IN making choice. one can only
elect that system which has the smallest
NUMBER oil drawbacks to its account.
The argument that the liabilities In.
vowed nowadays in producing. Shake.
speareah play on the modern system are
so heavy that few managers care TO face
them, and that, therefore unless chanre
in such system take place. Shakesneare
VIII be banished from the. stage alto.
sether-s in my opinPn a fa;lacious one.
-aSain apologize fA intruding the re-
SUITS OF my own experience. but I feel
bound to state-if only for the purpose
or encouraging others to put Shakespeare
on the stage as bountifuliy as they can
anord that no single ono of NV Shake.
spearean productions has been unattended
by a substantial pecuniary reward
ne !aSt u! the attacks upon tho mod.
err method Of mounting Shakespeare
WIN when propose 10 deal is the ar
c"sat'oh tnat under the present system
n.en.c eihpei'iShment is not simple and
inexpensive or subordinate 10 the dra
matte interest. To this saw that worth
lily TO represent Shakespeare tbc scon;,
should be as beautiful an,
costly AS the subject Of the drama beinl
performed seems to demand: tR,t !,
SHOULD not he subordinate to. but rather
harmonious with, the dramatic interest
Just ms every other element of art in
,rou"ccu INTO the representation shoulc
peWhe'her those arts be OF acting
sculpture, music or what not
The man who in his dramatic gnniu,
mas made the nearest approach 10 Shake
Speare is probably Wagner. Did WAGNER
regard Ms work as independent of the
aus winch MS time gave him to complete
me liiision or the spectator? No: he
ivalied himself OF all the effects with
Which modern art could help him, no
!9uol sayins TO himself. as Moliere said.
.Je prends mon bien on lie lie trouye,
MI THESE he enslaved In the service OF
he theatre. Wagncr's works are primar.,
~ dramas heightened by the aid Of mn
SIC oil scenery."of atmosphere. OF cos.
u'nes all gorgeous or simple as tho sit,Ia-
ion REQUIRES. STRIPPED OF these aids
would Wagner haze the deep effect on
,uu.ehces suci as VIC have witnessed at
3ayreuth? No Every man should avail
himself OF the aids which his generation
ITords him. 1t Is only the weaklinc WIN
larks back echoically to the methods OF
: bygone generation.