"Dramatic criticism seems to bear but little relation to the things it professes to criticise... it appears to be absolutely unconnected with sound art or with public opinion." Thus a somewhat petulant writer ina recent number of the " Nineteenth Century," with regard to the criti-oisins which appeared in the papers on the morning following the production of a new play at one of the leading London theatre: In London, however, dramatic criticism deals almost entirely with the play and not with the players, whereas a critique of amateur theatricals should necessarily confine itself to a very great extent to the merits or shortcomings of the various actors; though by what standard amateurs should be judged and how far their performances are to be taken seriously are questions which, if they invite discussion, are not perhaps susceptible of any satis: factory solution.
As w rule the theatrical performances of amateurs are merely described in the papers and not criticised. The reason of this is obvious. In small communities especially, where, as often happens, the critic knows personally the majority of the people taking part in any performance, his position is undoubtedly a dificult one. However much he may desire to be strictly impartial, he may unconsciously allow personal considerations to influence kis judgment. One of the foremost dramstic' critics of the present day is strongly of opinion that critics are much more likely to form an unbiasaed judgment of an actur's art, if they are not personally acquainted with him; in an article written some years agoon "The Ethics of Dramatic Criticism," he maintained that although he might be quite unaffected by personal like or dislike, yet the mere familiarity with an actor's looks, tones and manners in private life, un-ettled his estimate of that actor as an artist, and that nothing he could do produced 'a perfect illusion. Ibis, wfter all, only natural to write more or less indulyently of a friend's acting, especially when the deutity of the writer is no secret. The fact at any rate remains that critiques of amateur theatricals almost invariably err on the side of leniency, and it is very doubtful whether this is quite fair to the performers. More than one promising actor has been spoiled by too lavish enconiium at the outset of his or her dramatic career. Encouragement is all very well and, indeed, it is very necessary, but praise that savours of puff is not very remote from incult. Presuppose that the critic is honest, intelligent and unprejudiced, it is quite conceivable that conscientious amateurs would sooner have their faults pointed our than find themselves credited with powers they know they do not possess, or eulogised fora performance which they are well aware was Very far from good.
Te has been said that amateurs should not be criticised, because they try a} great expense of time and trouble to contribute to the entertainment of others, Is it not however, possible that there are other motives which take the amateur on to the boards? As often as not, the ordinary individual acts primarily to amuse himself the extent to which he may or may not amuse others is, except so far as his per-oval vanity is concerned, a secondary consideration. In many the dramatic instinct is strong and, whatever their profession, they feel impelled to act. It is not that "euch and such charitable institution must be supported, cannot we get up some theatricals on behalf of it?" but, we want act avd must get up some theatricals." No doubt they are genuinely gratified to know that they have contributed to their friends' amusement, but they have also enjoyed the intense gratification that acting affords to all devotees of the art. In the case of such enthusiasts a little salutary criticism can do no harm. Besides, public performances, to witness which money is demanded at the door (whether the money gues into the pockets of the actors or not), are assuredly liable to criticism, and the thoughtful, genuine, unbiassed criticism (and to criticise is not necessarily to condemn) is certainly falcer to the amateur actor; while for many reasons, not only is such criticism defensible, but it is looked for and appreciated not least by the actors themselves, as anyone who has had much to do with amateur theatricals can testify.
What the opinion of many professional critics is of amateur theatricals, may be gathered from the two following quotations. Phe late G. H. Lewes, perhaps the most falcated and prominent of dramatic critics of the sixties, wrote "A general misconception is that special training is not necessary to make enactor..... Actimg does not come by nature, nor is italy argument that Private Theatricals (a very pleasant amusement—for the performers) often reveal " certain amount of histrionic aptitude in people who have never been trained. In the first place, the notour is always a copy of some actor he has seen. In the next place, amateur acting bears the same relation to the art of the stage as drawing-room singing bears to the opera," The dramatic critic of '"Trath," in a recent issue of that paper, says with reference to a performance given by 4 leading amateur company in London: "I had the opportunity of watching the ama-tour at play. It is a curious animal and for some moments seems quite intelligent but it soon shows that its actions are merely copied from those of professionals—do not correspond to anything within. The trail of amateurism was over the whole performance." It will be observed that the chief cause of complaint against the amateur is his lack of originality. How may this be remedied? Only by reproducing nature ani not art. Thatis ty say, the amateur must avoid servile imitation of professionals and learn to reproduce character by closely observing his fellow-men in ordinary life. The actor must be typical; if he is tu express whit an individual man may be supposed to feel under certain conditions, his expressions and gestures must, in order to throw every member of an audience into a state of sympathy, be selected, and must belong to recognised symbols of our commun nature.
'A great difficulty with all actors is to appear natural, and this can only be accomplished by a reproduction of those details which," as Lewes says in his admirable essay on '*Naturalness in Acting," characterise the nature of the thing represented." In trying fo appear easy on the stage, many make the mistake of being free and ea-y. It is hard, too, not to appear self-conscious, and it is only the best actors that never seem to be aware of the presence of an audience and appear to be absorbed in the world of which they represent a part. Another great fault is exaggeration in the endeavour to be etfective; but s recapitulation of all the faults of amateurs—and even the best professiovals are by no means free from them—is hardly within the scope of the present article. However, if amateur actors are not actually as bad as certain critics would have us believe, is it unreasonable to suggest that more careful and exhaustive criticism on the one hand, and more conscientious efforts in the direetion of self-training by observation and attention to detail on the other, may not only make for improvement in amateur acting, but also lead to better appreciation of the duties owed to audiences and the public in general, not less by critics than by performers?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.