New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1918-07-28

be fulfilled simply by paying in
creased taxes, we hear not merely
the voice of one man, but the voice
of England.
Of the three main branches OF
creative literature, the novel, poe
try and the drama, the, last named
IS the only one that has really suf-
fered by the war. Despite the fact
That there are more good English
writing dramatists living to-day than
at any time during the last three
centuries, the English and Ameri-
can stage has on the whole lost
rather than gained by the war.
There is a reason for this. Even in
times of peace the general attitude
of the Anglo-Saxon theatregoing
public has made it difficult to main
tain good high class drama and i'm
possible to have anything like a
national drama. For the average
person supposes the only function
Of the theatre is to amuse and en-.
terrain him, or, failing that, at any
rate to "rest" him. Thus, in times
OF war the question naturally
crises, "Where can we go to find re-
lief, to find distraction, or to find
rest from the all-pervading trap-
edy!" What is the theatre for if
not for that? Then there is the SOL
der on leave, either from the front
or from the training camp, and the
supposition is that he must be
amused like a child-it does not
occur to most of us that he might
find rest for his soul by new ideas:
no, what he requires is inanity.
Checking Brains
With Coats and Hats
Since Anglo-Saxons have for
many years been in the habit Of
checking their brains with their
coats as they enter the auditorium.
they logically suppose such a habit
ought to prevail in an even more
universal fashion in war time. And
while everything is being done to
keep the recruits straight morally
IN the camps, and the soldiers free
from vice at the front, it does not
seem to occur to the caterers to
public theatrical taste that the ex
hlbitlons of allurement skilfully
provided for the soldiers on leave
can be anything but cheeringly help
full. In London it was neither
clergyman nor dramatic critic who
condemned the standard of con-
temporary Shows" but a military
officer, General Smith Dorrien.
Who declared that the ''revues" and
musical comedies" were just the
things soldiers ought not to see.
William Archer, who said there was
much more imbecility than vice in
the matter" gave in the autumn Of
1916 select list of plays then run
ming at the London theatres: High
links" "Pell Nell" "This and
That" "A Little Bit of Fluff"
"Woman and Wine," aye Gods!"
Some, " "The Bing Boys are Here"
"Look Who's Here" "Razzle Daz-
zle,' 'The Girl from Ciro's." He
can hardly be blamed for charac-
terizing these as mainly idiotic. In
August, 1917, the London "Athe-
n@um' commented on the dramatic
season as follows: "Triviality re-
mains its characteristic note, with
overtones of the lighter pornog-
raphy." ''The London Times" in
1917, speaking of the year Just
closed, said, at would almost seem
as if the war had had a stultifying
effect on the playwright's magma
ton"
1t is true that Pinero, Jones,
Shaw, Yeats, Galsworthy, Barker,
Bennett, Maseield, have written no
play inspired by the war that can
possibly be counted notable |
achievement. 1t is also true that
the large number Of war propa-
ganda plays produced in London
and in New York are innocent of
art. The one exception to the gem
eral depression is fortunately the
greatest living British dramatist.
Sir James Barrie. And the curious
thing is that his first two attempts
were so bad that many of us thought
his genius had been temporarily
eclipsed by the war. His short play.
Der Tag" first published in "The
New York Times" was simply neg
ligible. 1t seemed incredible that
Barrie could be flat, but fiat he as
suredly was. Then he wrote a
revue" for Gaby Deslys that caused
"The Athenaum" almost fainting