the drama in ireland

Irish Review (Dublin)

The Drama in IrelandAuthor(s): Bryan CooperSource: The Irish Review (Dublin), Vol. 3, No. 27 (May, 1913), pp. 140-143Published by: Irish Review (Dublin)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30063267 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 01:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Review (Dublin) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Irish Review(Dublin).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:13:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irishrevdub

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30063267?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE DRAMA IN IRELAND By BRYAN COOPER

T i-E starting of a Repertory Theatre in Dublin is a considerable event. Most thoughtful writers on the drama see in these institutions the best hope for a dramatic renaissance,

and therefore everyone who is interested in the theatre will hope for the success of the Dublin venture. Of course, in a sense, we have a theatre of the kind in Dublin already; but the Abbey, though the pioneer of this kind of work in the United Kingdom, limits itself almost entirely to peasant plays of Irish life, and hardly attempts the production of English or foreign plays. The small resources of the Abbey Company compelled them to refuse both /ohn Bull's Other Island and Eleanor's (Enterprise, and it can hardly be doubted that a wider repertoire would be welcomed. We may well, then, wish the Dublin Repertory Theatre success in its venture; but in doing so, we should also examine the conditions necessary to obtain success.

A repertory theatre, such as has been created with great success in Manchester and Glasgow, and such as is now being founded in Birmingham, exists primarily for the purpose of producing new plays that are not likely to be accepted by the ordinary commercial theatre, and of reviving plays whose interest has not died at the end of their normal run. It possesses its own company, and is subject to the control of a director, who should not act himself, but should be responsible for the whole production of each play. It cannot expect to pay its way at first; it takes time before the public realises that the plays are interesting and worth seeing, and before people begin to know the players and come to see them, even when they are ignorant of the play and its author. It is very essential, therefore, that at the beginning of the Repertory Theatre the expenses of production should be kept as low as possible, so that the enterprise may be kept going; producing new plays at intervals, until the public begin to take an interest in it and understand its merit.

Unfortunately in several respects the Dublin theatre has failed to fulfil these conditions. In the first place, there are two directors; and a repertory theatre under divided control is like an army com- manded by a council of war: it cannot possibly possess that singleness of aim which alone can lead to victory. The failure of Mr. Froh- man's experiment in repertory was partly due to the fact that he associated Mr. Dion Boucicault with Mr. Granville Barker as

14o



THE DRAMA IN IRELAND

producer. The directors, too, are the husbands of ladies who are acting in the company, and it is almost inevitable that they must be unconsciously influenced in their choice of plays by the knowledge that their wives will act in them. One of these ladies set an excellent example by undertaking a tiny part in For the Crown; but still, in principle, it is wrong for the director's wife to act.

Secondly, the play with which they began their season was badly chosen. It was wise to begin with a revival; and For the Crown is not a bad play, but it is a difficult play to produce and act. It is eighteen years old, and shows its age; the first act is almost ridiculous: the conversation of the officers with the ballad singer (who has apparently been going about the world with his eyes and ears shut) is so obviously intended to let the audience know the situation in the Balkans that all probability is sacrificed. There is really no characterisation in the play; everything is left to the actor. Constantine is merely the personification of virtue, Militza of love, Bazilide of evil, and any light and shade has to be inserted by the player. It is no discredit to Mr. Nesbitt and Miss MacDonnell to say that one lacks the wonderful voice of Forbes Robertson, and the other the elusive personality of Mrs. Patrick Campbell. Miss Young has peculiarly appealing personality, and so did better; besides, Bazilide is the most effective part in the play. Michael Brancomir, though somewhat of a second-hand Macbeth, is more of a real man than Constantine, and Mr. Stewart played him' well; but he died in the third act. The difficulties of managing the stage crowd (always hard with amateur supers) were not entirely overcome, although everybody did their best. My main quarrel with the choice of For the Crolwn is, that it is obviously an expensive play to produce. Special scenery was required, and a considerable outlay incurred in the hire of costumes. This expenditure will again be called for when the Theatre produces (as I believe it intends doing) The Devil's Disciple. Now, an infant repertory theatre cannot afford these things; it should be prepared to run without making a profit for six months, and in order to do this, it must keep expenses down. There are plenty of plays that could be produced with the ordinary scenery belonging to the theatre, and which only require modern dress. The Master Builder, You Never Can Tell, The Silver Box, The Voysey Inheritance, Chains, and The Importance of Being Earnest, are names that occur to one at once. At a small cost one could add to them What Every Woman Knows, and Strife. This is a repertory with which any theatre might command success ; and if it failed to do so, would certainly have deserved it.

'4I



THE IRISH REVIEW

II.

" Deirdre," by AE., was well presented at the Abbey Theatre on Friday evening, April 18th. The scenery was unobtrusive, the dresses were excellent, and the stage management was simple and effective throughout. All the actors did well; though Mr. Stewart was not too well suited by the part of Naisi. He is obviously a capable actor, but his style is too robust, and he scarcely seemed to realise the poetry of his party. Miss Young's Deirdre was beautiful; perhaps her mind is a little too subtle for the simplicity of Deirdre in the first act, but in the second and third acts she was perfect. Her voice gave full effect to her beautiful words, and she brought out the pity as well as the horror of the tragedy. Miss Desmond's Lavarcam was excellent; without ever jarring on one, she made her presence felt throughout. Mr. Nesbitt was a good Fergus, and all the other actors were competent. But what I really want to write about is the play itself.

AE. is no playwright. I doubt whether he claims to be one; and if he did, this tragedy (his only work for the theatre) would defeat his claim. He almost audaciously violates every rule by which the well-made play is tinkered up. The first act is amazingly naive: he just says what he has to say and has done with it. The all- important incident of the

ge'asa on Fergus, never to refuse a feast

offered by one of the Red Branch which prevents himT from accom- panying the sons of Usnach to Emain, is only indiicated by two lines in the second act, and as many more in the third. His ignorance of the stage is shown by the risks he runs. The scene where the voice of the cursing Druid is heard, and the enchantment falls on Naisi and his brothers, is one of the most danzerous ever written. The smallest blunder in its presentation and the audience would be dissolved in laughter. It did not laugh at the Abbey, but the triumph was a triumph of audacity.

No, AE. is not a playwright; but he is a poet, which is a greater thing, and his play succeeded because of its poetry. Every word, every turn of speech in it is beautiful, and shows that the poet is one of those to whom the world of the Red Branch Knights is as real as the world around us to-day. Above all, he is a man of very noble mind, and every character in the tragedy is touched with his nobility. None are unworthy, none act from mean motives; all live high honourable lives, and are beroes in thought as well as in deeds. Even Concobar, whom Yeats and Svnge present as a degenerate monster, is not without dignity. He betrays the sons of Usnach to death, nol from lust, but because they had broken the laws of Uladh,

142



DRAMA IN IRELAND

and if law-breakers were not punished, there would be no peace in the land. It is no small thing to spend two hours among high noble thoughts without the intrusion of pettiness or selfishness. And though the play is a tragedy, though in it we realise to the full the beauty of sorrow, yet YE. has woven into it a strand of hope, a foretelling of the great deeds of Cuchullain. That name is one that should stir the blood of every Irishman, as Sir Philip Sydney's was stirred up by the ballad of Chevy Chase. As you hear of the dawning promise of the boy, you remember that though Deirdre and the sons of Usnach may die, though Emain may burn; though " The goodly fellowship of famous Knights " of the Red Branch may be scattered abroad and turn their swords against one another, yet still there is hope in the world, all nobility and all chivalry is not dead, brave men will still do brave deeds, and the end of the age of heroes is not yet come.

143



the drama in ireland

Documents