Newspaper Page Text
?age 10
THE MAROON TIGER
the theatre
JULIUS CAESAR
“All criticism is, at bottom, an effort on the part of
its practitioner to show off himself and his art at the
expense of the artist and the art which he criticizes.”
Criticism is designed to state facts—charmingly, grace
fully, if possible—but still facts. Of all the branches
of criticism, criticism of drama is intrivisically the least
sober and the least accurately balanced. Even the best
dramatic criticism is always just a little dramatic. It
indulges, a trifle, in acting. It can never he as imper
sonal as criticism of painting or sculpture or literature.
This is why the best criticism of the theatre must inevi
tably be personal criticism. The theatre itself is dis
tinctly personal.
“Nothing is more aesthetically and artificially dubious
and insecure than the appraisal of acting, for it is based
upon the quicksands of varying human emotionalism,
and of aural and visual prejudice.” The most that can
be said of the soundness of this or that laudatory criti
cism of an actor’s performance is that the performance
in point has met exactly—or very nearly—the particu
lar critic’s personal notion of how he, as a human being,
would have cried, laughed and otherwise conducted him
self were he an actor and were he in the actor’s role.
This is also true of negative criticism.
It is vital to remember that the actor presents always
a contrast with reality—with existing things. Not only
must his dress be suitable to the part which lie assumes,
but his bearing must not be in any way antagonistic to
the spirit of the time in which he play is fixed. The
voice must be modulated to the vogue of time. It is
upon this basis mainly—and as far as it is possible—
that I shall criticize the acting of the cast which per
formed the Shakespearean play, “Julius Caesar.”
It must be said definitely that the duty of the actor
is to respect his text; in whatever manner he delivers
it he must speak what the author has written, nothing
more, nothing less. I can find no excuses for persons
who violate this fact, especially where the performance
of Shakespeare is concerned. There are exceptions,
however. In some cases the manuscript is incorrectly
cut before it reaches the cast. And this brings us to
the play presented in Sale Hall Chapel, Monday, April
8th, 1935, by the men of Morehouse College, assisted
by two young women of Spelman College, and directed
by Miss Anne Cooke of the same college. This per
formance was preceded by two dress rehearsals on April
5th and 6th.
The first dress rehearsal on Friday would have se
verely pained Shakespeare. Lee Gregg had sworn to me
that he would steal the show—and he did. He removed
it right out from under the nose of Raphael Mclver, who
in spite of the comedy surrounding him, put into the role
Marc Anthony all of the subtle sarcasm of the character
plus that of the man himself. Unfortunately, Mr. Mc
lver still used in Julius Caesar the gestures—the pointing
forefinger and the sudden lunge of the body—which he
had used in the plays Mr. Pirn Passes By and Names in
Bronze. Are these gestures merely part of the man him
self or are they studied methods of enhancing his his
trionic ability? If the former is so, his performance
stands out bold and clear as a good piece of acting—-
if the latter is true, he was decidedly disadvantaged by
the gestures he used. It is important only in so far as
the motive behind any act is important.
Enough of the dress rehearsals—as they concern this
young man. On Monday, Mclver’s performance—due
in part to a certain carelessness and loss of tenseness be
cause of the small audience—was strengthened by a sure
ness, a vigor, and a praise in both voice and body con
trol.
To return to Lee Gregg—his sudden introduction of
comedy in the play was the result not only of a too-play-
ful audience but a costume which he wore on Monday
night the short green tunic of the two dress rehearsals
was exchanged for a slightly longer red one. With the
change of dress, Lucius (Lee Gregg) also effected a less
sing-song voice and a more subjected attitude towards
his mistress in scene four.
The comedy of Lucius was great to the audience but
not so to those members of the cast whose parts were
affected by it. The scene between Lucius and Portia was
never sympathetic. Portia—in that scene—was not able
to rise to any real heights of dramatic power. It is
difficult to appear moved by the stronger emotions while
a clown turns head over heels at one’s side. However,
this point was much improved on Monday night.
Rrutus committed the grave error of hashing over his
lines. After all, my dear, dear Brutus, it’s Shakespeare
who wrote the play! In spite of this, Mr. Ross achieved
an effect which—-to certain types of people—brightened
the production as a whole. He never failed to interpret
the lines he read, but he might as well have read them
in his class room. We must congratulate him on his
magnificent interpretation of Shakespeare’s lines.
Dillard Brown as Cassius revealed himself by no
means as a villian; however, he gave a glimpse of what
he was capable of doing in the scene with Brutus at
Phillippi. In this instant he relaxed a second and be
came truly indignant with “honorable” Brutus.
A real and an original piece of acting was done by
Charles Perkins as Soothsayer. His voice—its range and
control—was the main contribution of his to this merited
piece of acting.
The Plebians enjoyed their chorus in some places far
better than the audience. Their place in the play—espe
cially on Monday evening—was one of importance, as
far as giving real atmosphere to the play and revealing
the vacillating attitude of Shakespeare’s mob.
On Monday evening, the play as a whole was rather
good. The members of the cast co-operated in so far as
they were able. There were no long, despairing pauses.
The play ran comparatively smoothly, and the players
felt at ease. The thunder and lightning in Part II was
very effective. It could have been made even more so
had the flashes of lightning been timed with Brutus’ read
ing. It happened that during two of the darkest moments
Brutus read from bis scroll. He destroyed a bit of reality
which would have added decidedly to the play as an
almost finished production.
The stabbing of Caesar at the Capitol was executed
very well —Caesar himself showed body control in fall
ing.
To present a Shakespearean play is not an easy thing
—Anne Cooke, as director, might be complimented for
her courageous attempt.
—Clara Haywood.