New-York tribune., 1919-12-21
INT NEWS AND STAGE DOOR CHAT
Arthur Hopkins Regards
The Repertory Theater ]
AS American Possibil;s

There was a time in our cruder and
more naive youth when we thought that
the mere power of money was sufficient
to make the dream of repertory thea
ter come true. The spectacular fiasco
Of the New Theater, while it has put a
blight on the repertory theater idea for
almost a decade, has amply paid for
itself by the truth we have distilled out
of it-that a repertory theater is no
more to be acquired by the simple
process of purchase than any other
really desirable thing in life.
But the hope of repcrtory theater
is recurrent dream that. after lying
quiescent for long while, strs again.
This time we are warier of the we'll
meant efforts of precieuse art groups.
We know now that the theater is natu-
rally immune from pauperizatlon 1t IS
the expression of the will Of many, as
perhaps no other form of art is, and its
survival is entirely contingent upon its
democracy. If there is any vitality in
the idea of a repertory theater it is
plain that it must grow out of our
common popular thcater, and that it
must prove its vigor by being CONNER
cially sustaining.
The signs of such repertory scheme
ere astir in our theater-and they read
! plainly in the work of Arthur Hopkins
! Under a commercial scheme Hopkins
has slowly and unobtrusively built ur
an organization and slender repertory
Of plays that represent the best stand
ards of the art theater. If plays like
| Tolstoy's "Redemption" and Sem Be
nelli's "The Jest" can prove their power
in the open market under the competi.
tive system, there would seem to be
ample proof that there is regula,
public for sincere and beautiful plays
The repertory scheme is necessary only
to fix this form in a permanent organ
ization. And this development is only
the next step.
1t has been difficult 20 know whether
it has been accident or design that has
given these productions the air OF
growing naturally into a repertory
That extraordinary little man Hop
kins, with his genius for a masklike
mperturbability, is adept in keeping
his own counsel. No one is more
economical Of speech. A plain ques-
tion might, at most, bring no more
than a cautious admission that quite
possibly the momentum of these plays
might lead up to a repertory theater
But what the interviewer did not take
|
worn and muddling discussion about
the repertory theater.
The repertory thcater shat Hopkins
has in mind is one organized as finely
as the Art Theater, of Moscow, and
| the Deutsches Theater, of Berlin. II
would be devoted to classical and mod
ern plays but the modern plays would
not necessarily be new ones. The roper
tory theater, says Hopkins, should be
/ the library of great plays rather than
: the publishing house. Occasionally it
might issue new publication, but
II no new plays were written there
are still enough great plays untried
here that might keep an American
repertory theater employed for years.
The same company might be used for
classical and modern plays-since the
great modern interpretations of the
classics are in the modern naturalstic
spirit that does not admit of two tech
niques of acting. The company would
be large and its value would depend
on its permanence. 1t would include
celebrated actors. Their personalities
might inspire certain productions, but
they would not be stars in our Ameri-
can sense that the production is made
around them. They would not be ex-
plotted in the advertising. The appear
ance OF Moist. the great Italian actor of
Reinhardt's Deutsches Theater, brings
great crowds, just as the presence Of
Caruso does at the opera-but his name
is nowhere featured above that OF any
other actor. Neither does Hopkins be-
lieve that the delicate balance of such
an organization could be maintained if
visiting stars were injected into the
company. The effect of the acting
should be symphonic, rather than one
of vlrtucsity.
Such an organization would have to
be the complete creation Of one man. 1t