Shakespeare and the Modern Stage | Page 7

Theatre at Burlington House, of Richard II., in which Mr
Granville Barker played the King with great charm and judgment,
showed the fascination that a competent rendering of Shakespeare's text
exerts, even in the total absence of scenery, over a large audience of
suitable temper.]
Before anyone may commit himself to an affirmative reply, it is
needful for him to realise fully the precise demands which a system like
that of Phelps makes, when rightly interpreted, on the character, ability,
and energy of the actors and actresses. If scenery in Shakespearean
productions be relegated to its proper place in the background of the
stage, it is necessary that the acting, from top to bottom of the cast,
shall be more efficient and better harmonised than that which is
commonly associated with spectacular representations. The simple
method of producing Shakespeare focusses the interest of the audience
on the actor and actress; it gives them a dignity and importance which
are unknown to the complex method. Under the latter system, the
attention of the spectator is largely absorbed by the triumphs of the
scene-painter and machinist, of the costumier and the musicians. The
actor and actress often elude notice altogether.
Macready, whose theatrical career was anterior to the modern
spectacular period of Shakespearean representation, has left on record a
deliberate opinion of Charles Kean's elaborate methods at the Princess's
Theatre in their relation to drama and the histrionic art. Macready's
verdict has an universal application. "The production of the
Shakespearean plays at the Princess's Theatre," the great actor wrote to
Lady Pollock on the 1st of May 1859, rendered the spoken text "more
like a running commentary on the spectacles exhibited than the scenic
arrangements an illustration of the text." No criticism could define
more convincingly the humiliation to which the author's words are
exposed by spectacle, or, what is more pertinent to the immediate
argument, the evil which is worked by spectacle on the actor.

Acting can be, and commonly tends to be, the most mechanical of
physical exercises. The actor is often a mere automaton who repeats
night after night the same unimpressive trick of voice, eye, and gesture.
His defects of understanding may be comparatively unobtrusive in a
spectacular display, where he is liable to escape censure by escaping
observation, or at best to be regarded as a showman. Furthermore, the
long runs which scenic excess brings in its train accentuate the
mechanical actor's imperfections and diminish his opportunities of
remedying them. On the other hand, acting can rise in opposite
conditions into the noblest of the arts. The great actor relies for genuine
success on no mere gesticulatory mechanism. Imaginative insight,
passion, the gift of oratory, grace and dignity of movement and bearing,
perfect command of the voice in the whole gamut of its inflections are
the constituent qualities of true histrionic capacity.
In no drama are these qualities more necessary, or are ampler
opportunities offered for their use, than in the plays of Shakespeare.
Not only in the leading rôles of his masterpieces, but in the subordinate
parts throughout the range of his work, the highest abilities of the actor
or actress can find some scope for employment. It is therefore
indispensable that the standard of Shakespearean acting should always
be maintained at the highest level, if Shakespearean drama is to be fitly
rendered in the theatre. The worst of the evils, which are inherent in
scenic excess, with its accompaniment of long runs, is its tendency to
sanction the maintenance of the level of acting at something below the
highest. Phelps was keenly alive to this peril, and his best energies were
devoted to training his actors and actresses for all the rôles in the cast,
great and small. Actors and actresses of the first rank on occasion filled
minor parts, in order to heighten the efficiency of the presentation.
Actors and actresses who have the dignity of their profession at heart
might be expected to welcome the revival of a system which alone
guarantees their talent and the work of the dramatist due recognition,
even if it leave histrionic incompetence no hope of escape from the
scorn that befits it. It is on the aspiration and sentiment of the acting
profession that must largely depend the final answer to the question
whether Phelps's experiment can be made again with likelihood of
success.

VII
Foreign experience tells in favour of the contention that, if
Shakespeare's plays are to be honoured on the modern stage as they
deserve, they must be freed of the existing incubus of scenic machinery.
French acting has always won and deserved admiration. There is no
doubt that one cause of its permanently high repute is the absolute
divorce in the French theatre of drama from spectacle.
Molière stands to French literature in much the