INIERNATIONAL THEATRE EXHIBITION, VICTORIA. AND- ALBERT MUSEUM.
T CONFESS to having done. no more work. towards the International Exhibition; which has now been triumphantly brought over from Amsterdam to the Victoria and Albert Museum,, than was comprised in attending one or two meetings, in acting as ged-fly to one or two people, and in passing on Mr. Nigel Playfair's, Mr. Gordon Craig's and Mrs. Lovat Fraser's letters to readers of the Spectator some few months ago. Yet it was not without pride as well as pleasure that I surveyed the character and extent of this, the first Exhibition of its kind in this country.
Let us- consider its general. characteristics first, for it is a sample- by which we can make a just estimate of the " Modern Movement." The. Exhibition pro- fessedly deals with the modern stage, and, to my mind, it is a very hopeful sign that hardly anywhere have the designers harked back to the past. There- is but one reproduction of- an-.Elizabethan, theatre, though there is much work which is suggested by excellent. Tudor con- ventions ; there is no copy of a Greek theatre, though the Greek spirit has purged and refined the imaginations of many of the artists. We are not to expect •that between eight and nine hundred exhibits shall all be faultless. They must show us a -scale ranging from Beauty and Genius on one side to something near Ugliness and Stupidity on the other. Now, although in the arts it is fortunately not the case that the pace of the herd is that of its slowest member, yet there is still no doubt that if we want to estimate the vitality of a movement we may learn a great deal by studying its failures. For example, at the begin- ning of the Elizabethan movement the bad plays were bad because they were too melodramatic, too full of blood and thunder, but when that .great epoch was drawing to its close, though very good plays were still being,written, the bad plays already had the marks of decay upon them. They were bad not because they were too wild, but because they were too tame ; they had no feet of their own to stand on and so—helpless—leant all their weight on the past. On which side is error to be found here ? Most of the ugly costume designs and the bad settings in the present Exhibition have-the faults that we find in a young move- ment. We shall find several things here that are wild and ridiculous, but practically nothing that is jejune. Another test by which we may learn about the health of a move- ment is by noticing the degree of attention which it pays to the practical side of its activities. If it possesses vitality and to spare it will, as a rule, have an appetite for problems of cheapness and convenience and minor technical ingenuities, and here again the present Exhibition is exceedingly cheering.
Take, for example, Mr. Woodman Thompson's three exhibits in the delightful room full of lighted Peep‘Show models. His three models (Nos. 317,.318, 319) consist of an arrangement of arches and windows. Though no doubt suggested by the late Mr. Lovat Fraser's now classical set for the -Beggar's-Opera, Mr. Woodman Thompson has yet several ingenious and useful modifications. In the catalogue we learn that in the original production at the Carnegie:Institute, for -which these models were designed, Romeo and Juliet was given as it is written, that is, with nearly twenty-four changes of scene and all scene shifts were made in the dark. In the ,same room Mr. Norman Macdermott's two settings for _King Lear (Nos. 303, 304) are most ingenious. Mr. Macdermott is a sort of free disciple of Mr. Gordon Craig's, and these two very simple settings, each consisting of an arrangement of a single curtain, some steps and a chair, are excellent in their interpretative suggestiveness. Mr. Ashworth's setting -for Stephen Phillips's Herod (No. 322), with an ingenious use ok-a staircase, is also to be commended, but perhaps, -to the playwright, one of the most attractive •designs in the Peep-Show Room is that of Miss Florence True (No. 253). It shows an arrange- ment of curtains for a forest scene, which effects an admirable working compromise between the formal and the naturalistic stage. For with a play that is even partially realistic, at present, and with all but special audiences, we must have a certain amount of naturalism in the scenery. These curtains will be &godsend to the playwright who wants an outdoor • scene but has hitherto been afraid. Very gay and amusing 'are •-two scenelets for light opera by Mr. Denton Thompson (274, 275). They are in striking contrast to Mr. Job Cook's Mountain Pass (264), where a sort of •Wagneresque naturalism is carried to the utmost limits of ingenuity with deplorable result. M. Adolphe Appia, a very great theatrical designer whose work is too. little known in this country, shows in Room .2 some beautiful drawings for Parsifal, Rheingold -and The Valkyries (182 to 199). Frequenters of Covent Garden who remember what' the " flowery mead " usually looks like in Parsifal—bright ginger colour and full of evil daisies as big as plates—will rejoice in M. Appia's dignified setting. The-whole collection of Wagner settings is like morning-grey after a nightmare. in the same room are Mr. Edward Gordon-Craig's very interesting designs. Most important of them are some' peep-shows (243a) which he calls " Three Inventions." They are most curious -essays in perspective. They consist of several arrange- =ments of flat surfaces seen at an angle, one having added to these perfectly unornamented planes an elaborate , arrangement of two grilles with a brilliantly-lit space :behind-them.. 11r. Craigishows also some curious costume designs drawn so as to give the effect of heavy woodcuts or even here and there of silhouettes. " The Black Girl' (236) and " Group of Eight Men " (240) show •the value of the simplification of form. They are not, I trust, intended as working drawings for the costumier. But that Mr. Gordon Craig can produce fine detail 'with the best is seen in No. 232, which a hurried visitor is likely tc pass over, but which, with its exquisite, restrained touches of colour and its fantastic inventiveness, will repay an attentive scrutiny.
Particularly interesting is the French section. Anv of us who are not familiar with the Paris stage have probably not realized how delightfully the modern movement has touched France. Admirable in their simplicity are M. Berlin's 652 and 653, while of the quality of Messrs. Marc- Henri's and Laverdet's 634, 641, 644 for The Fun of the Fayre, The Babes in the Wood and Cinderella London audiences have had an opportunity of judging. No. 641, the design for " Toyland ' in The Babes in the Wood, though charming, was still better in the actuality at the New Oxford Theatre.
The stage of America is chiefly represented by photo- graphs, notably of Mr. Lee Simcruson's design for Mr.
Bernard Shaw's Back to Methuselah (775), which was produced in that country. These photographs are very charming, but, alas ! in seeking for a good general effect most of the detail is lost, and from these studies in shadow and high light it is impossible to learn much. It is a pity that we are not given a drawing or two by -which to correct these too impressionist representations. The same diffi- culty will confront the student of Mr. Clean Throckmorton's ship-board-setting for Mr. Eugene O'Neill's:The Hairy Ape (815 to 820). I am, by the way, giving numbers as they appear in the catalogue, though here and there I fancy that document has gone a little astray ; 796, for instance, is really the model of an idol by Mr. Norman Bel Geddes, a very interesting and striking simplification in plane surfaces of a seated cross-legged figure. It is described in the catalogue, however, as a photograph =of a model.
Again, it is hard to 'believe that Mr. .Henry Vandehelde's 851 •is really a photograph of Cologne Cathedral. Of the marionettes and of some interesting hints -at elaborately interpretative scenery I hope to give an account next week. TARN.
(To be continued.)
Previous page
