The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-10-23
The World of
the Theatre
BY HAROLD EDGAR
Workers Theatre Night

! A1etog A9hAANIby az JllG SlGy SOllGkt
Auditorium, the newly formed Thea
tire Club Of the Workers Laboratory
Theatre presented program of short
scenes representing the activities OF
various organizations which are
either part of the Workers Theatre
Movement or sympathetic to it. A
large audience attended.
What was most striking at this
event was the fact that among the
specifically workers groups the least
professional gave the best prepared
and most spirited performances. Fol
example, the collective recitation Of
the Bronx Workers Drama Group, a
truly proletarian manifestation, with
out professionalism either in it's COM
| position or its intention, was perhaps
the most finished and best organized
number on the program. This reci-
tation in Yiddish, built around the
slogan, mo work: no rent" was done
with simple energy, clarity, direct
ness that made 1t representative
within modest limits Of sincere revo-
lutionary sentiment, with hardly any
hangovers of shabby theatricansm.
The Theatre of Action Chitherto
known as the Agit-Prop Theatre)
gave excerpts from World Fair"
bits Of satirical buffoonery that, tech
nically speaking, seemed to derive
from the Chauve-Souris, American
vaudeville and "Of Thee I Sing" AS
method of getting over political
watchwords in colorful, entertaining
| fashion, these take-offs on fascist
bologna and it's defense by Academic
big-wigs are very useful. But any,
thing in the vaudeville form demands
thorough coordination as well as
gusto to carry conviction. The lyrics
in these pieces Sunday night sounded
quite witty, but not all Of them could
be distinctly heard. The number SUI
fered from insufficient preparation or
faulty rehearsal methods; it lacked
the precision and sureness of attack
that are absolutely indispensable for
complete effectiveness in this form.
Here professional touch-though
not professional performers is es-
sential, and If the excerpts given
failed in this respect the blame can
not be laid to the actors but to =
technically uncertain Use of them.
Bob Lewis Of the Group Theatre
gave the ITO be or not to be" solilo-
guy from Hamlet in terms of a rev.
olutionary agitator haranguing a
crowd. This is quite an imaginative
effort of theatrical Interpretation and
should be very suggestive to actors
and directors in all branches of the
Workers Theatre. Lewis based his
attitudes and poses on drawings from
the New Masses-some Of them rep
resenting an agitator in moments of
sincere passion, others representing
him as caricaturing his class foes
and these poses are lternatedw it'll
moments in which the speaker makes
his own comments. The relation Of
the partSt-he poses and the straight
commensurate not altogether unified
so that the number remains incom-
the impression, for all its merit and
excellent showmanship, of studio
exercise. Lewis, at the request
Of the audience, added setiric i'm
presentations of the dancers Mary
Wigman and Shan-kar. They are
entertaining tidbits in more con-
ventional manner.
The New Dance Group gave two
dances. The writer of this column
heard some sharp criticisms from the
comrades around him in the audi
ence. OF course, the workers Dance"
was rather ordinary in design-re-
sembling many romantic peasant
dances seen at concert recitals-and
the Charity Dance" was not very
exciting as a thing in itself, as well
as being ideologically unclear, so that
at the end the dancer representing
the workers seems 10 be begging for
charity instead of demanding her
due. Nevertheless, there was fresh
ness about the people In this group,
an unspoiled and unarty sturdiness
that are distinctly sympathetic, and
one sensed too desire to work, to
learn, to become technically more
expert, that gives promise for the
future. What this group seems to
lack at the moment are dance ideas
appropriate to their audience.
The Theatre Collective gave the
dop-house scene from Claire and
Paul Sifton's 1881" This was the
most ambitious part Of the program
The scene is decidedly effective, but
it seemed badly prepared Sunday
night. 1t was far too deliberate in
tempo, the religionist's speech was
much too obviously pointed-it had
an almost recitation class quality
and altogether it lacked freedom,
flow and unity. This scene was better
played at the first Theatre Collective
performance last spring, and there
fore no one could think Of calling the
Collective severely to account for its
deficient production on this accession.
Yet, we believe there is something
to be learned here. 1t is simply this:
that the more highly organized forms
Of theatre-long plays, ballets, ETC.
to be interesting artistically and so
valuable as propaganda, need the
most careful, the most highly devel-
oped, the most skilled preparation
possible. The wholly unframed work
ers from the Bronx did admirably
with their recitation, the Theatre of
Action managed, despite handicaps,
to put over their humorous turns, but
the Theatre Collective, with better
actors, could not do justice to their
since they had not rehearsed
under the proper auspices.
The Theatre Collective would do well
to consider, in making their seasonal
plans, that one production thorough
" prepared is worth three hasty pro-