New-York tribune., 1922-02-26


Kenneth Macsovar. Published by Boni
LiNcrlght So
"A ~R. MACGOWAN really has
N not written about "rhe
" Theatcr Of Tomorrow" at
~- all, but has merely, 80 to
say. bacdckcrizcd the labors OF the
modern astheticians like Gordon
Craig, Adolphc Appia, Max Reinhardt
and, in our country, Robert Edmond
Joneo-ln what We may loosely term
tho "serious' thcatcr: that Is, he has
recorded their successful experiments
with light and in color, tho use Of the
stage generally and with Scenery" In
other words, ho has sewn together
biographical dress consisting of the in
genious and brilliant devices of the
mechanicians and the electricians; the
marvellous work of The scene architects,
scene; and handsomely embroidered the
whole with quotations from and cx-
plnnations OF the theory and practice
of the modern artists IN the thcatcr.
But Mr.. Macgowan's dress, it seems
TO us, will not quito do. On examina-
tion we find it, for all It's progressive
ness, entirely too tight and rather mar
row. We mean that if the dramutist
who has been forgotten despite what
Mr.. Macgowan will say should be de-
sirous of taking tho same path along
which "The Theater of Tomorrow" Is
moving, he would have to climb under
the mono too ample folds of Mr.. Mac
gowan's dress or, should that prove to
be too uncomfortable, hang on to the
train Of the dress in q manner like TO
that Of the passenger who clings TO the
bumper Of crowded trolley because
there Is no room for him inside.
We will not rehcarse here who is Of
more importance, the dramatist or his
allied artists in the theater; we wish
merely to suggest that whether the
dramatist's conception calls for the use
Of actors with voices or without--mute
action, for example; B conception Is
necessary before the mcchanician can
arrange the stage to meet its require
ments and the other artists are able to
enhance it; that when all the present
shouting is done the audience will not
come to look at Mr.. Creigs design for
"Macbeth" without also being assured
that they viii hear Shakespeare's
poetry, and they will 60 to hear Shake
speare even if Mr.. Robert Mantell acts
"Macbeth" and the set is the design Of
local daubing factory. We do not argue
that the draratist can 90 without the
theater, but that The theater cannot do
without the drnmatist. A. any rate,
the theater that we know.
Briefly, what we mean is that people
will 60 to barren hall, which has the
crudest kind Of staee-enhanccd
poorly-so long as there is something to
hear or provided that there is action.
They go to the movies, vaudeville, the
SERIOUS" the;.ter, the opera, ballets,
concerts, maronette shows-but some
thing must happen while they are there.
1t is not enough that something has
happened, as, for example, that q
finished scene, superbly arranged, beau
tifully lighted, gorgeously colored; in
short, a nodded scene, can be beheld
which approaches the state almost of
art. All that the spectators would say,
we believe, would be to calculate
Marvellous" "Amazing!" "Interest-
ing!" Rather nice!" but they would
ci4 <Wo Nd bo1f
ing it.
Now, we realize that it is desirable
that Macbeth" should be given a back
ground by genius like Gordon Craig
rather than by mediocre dauber; that
Macbeth" is immeasurably enhanced
thereby, and that Craig With his intui-
tion, perception-in brief, his art
helps us to appreciate Shakespeare the
more; but if it comes to a toss-up, as
Mr.. Mcgowan indirectly proposes, be-
tween lingo Jones, who provided back
ground for Shakespeare, and the poet
himself, VIC are blindly for the poet.
10 be concrete-a3 reviewers arc so
often and ncedlessly urged to be let
o0 SohC olS MAJ representative OF the
discriminating among thcatergoers.
Mr.. George Jean Nathan is, we think.
the soundest theatrical critic Of the
drama in these states. He, unlike the
local critical fraternity OF back
scratchers. can be impressionistic in
his criticism without being, as they
usually are, ignorant and standardless.
Moreover, he loves the thcater passion
ately ely-consequently critically. Also,
we believe, he holds Gordon Craig to be
the first man Of the modern thcater.
Nov, all the preceding is put down
SIMPLY as prcfacing explanation to
the question, Would MIR. Nathan. a hu
man obviously interested in the arts
especially the doubtful one Of the the
ater-go to a thcatcr which offered
nothing to the auditor but an amazing
ly perceptivc setting to "Hamlet"-iust
An extraordinary setting, nothing
more? We may be wrong, but we
think the answer would be in the mega