The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-11-14
A Bad Review of a Good
Revolutionary Play

/ portray only Jews, Negro actors
only Negroes, etc. The revolutionary
| workers theatre CmphaUcally re-
| jects this theory both on artistic
| and political grounds. For Jewish
audiences the range Of the class
struggle is not confined to the jew
/ ish neiqnborhcod and it is the prime
duty Of Jevd-h workers theatre TO
present to its audiences revolution
| airy plays Of the world struggle as
we'll as the struggle in the needle
| industries. AS to the artistic feast
bility of such wide range, anybody
not obsessed by preconceived the
ory' such as Comrade Edgar's, viii
testify TO the remarkable success Of
the ATtef in giving an authentic,
| faithful and artistically dignified
portrayal OF that "hard-boiled, OPEN
read type Of American"-"pa le-faced"
! though these Artefites may bel CAS-
matter of elementary histrionics.
the makeup box contains a great
variety Of facial compilations. And as
a matter Of elementary observation,
the Jewish workers are no more pre-
doninantly pale-faced than the bo-
nus marchers were predominantly
rudy and robustD
Proceeding with his code for the
revolutionary workers theatre, Com
rade Edgar states with finahty that
ito make the actors Of workers
theatre proficient in the Broadway
manner is impossible, except with
actors of Broadway experience, and
| it is undesirable in any case" Lead
ers Of the revolutionary workers the
| atre the world over hold to the very
opposite: that proletarian actors Of
workers theatres can and should be-
come proficient in the art of acting
| lin the Broadway manner, If you
please, Comrade EDGAR. This idea Of
a revolutionary actors needing only
! to be sincere and to fit the type in
order to be effective, is sheer rub
Dish. In its initial stages the revo-
| lutionary theatre suffered a good
deal from lack Of training Of its
actors, and some theorists" tried to
make q virtue of this shortening
by propounding the theory" that the
| proleJarian theatre could learn
nothing and should learn nothing
from the bourgeois theatre. Happily
this theory" has been thoroughly
dlscredited and is being rapidly dis
| carded eyerywhere-except in the
theatrical section Of the Daily Work
err presided over by Comrade Edgar.
His injunction against proficiency in
acting is based on a woeful under
estimation Of the proletarian actors
and their capacity for learning the
are of acting
The Artef is a case in point. These
Jewish workers have attained the
qualities Of simplicity and matur-
ity," which Comrade Edgar grudg-
ingly grants them, precisely as a re-
suit of training and study, precisely
by following the basic methods of
professional acting. And If their
previous productions have had San
inner simplicity and conviction" it
is in no small part due to the very
able and quite professional" diree-
ton Of their gifted and artistically
sensitive teacher and director, Beno
| Schneider To liken the fine direc-
ton of "The Third Parade" to Sec
ond Ave. Theatre, as does Comrade
Edgar, is to know nothing of Second
Ave. and as little about the art OF
! the theatre.
1t is, indeed, very regrettable thai
the splendid production of the Artef
"a fine revolutionary play, forcefully
and beautifully presented - received
such unfair and incompetent treat
ment at the hands Of Conrade Ed
gar. Such views of the revolutionary
theatre in the Daily Worker will
hardly contribute to the growth Of
the workers theatre movement or to
it's correct political and artistic
orientation.
Harold Edgsr's answer to Nathan
ieI Buchwald will appear In torsog
rows issue.