MODERATION IN AMUSEMENTS

Everyone is aware that amusements – and especially some forms of amusement – have to be rigorously curtailed in time of war, and that those who cater for our enjoyment must prove that there is, as it were, another side to their personality, and one of immediate and practical service to the State. So fundamental a principle all of us recognise who have contributed in person or in property to national needs.

MR. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN had some interesting and useful things to say to the actors on Saturday at St. James’s Theatre. His object was to secure the co-operation of his audience in his scheme of National Service, and to enlist their active help in carrying out his mission. It is so easy to say that actors belong to a wholly unessential form of industry that we are glad to find that Mr. CHAMBERLAIN did not lend himself to so cheap a cynicism.

Actors, however, can stand this test as well as other classes of the community. As Sir GEORGE ALEXANDER said, “No class has obtained fewer exemptions on the ground of employment than those who earn their livelihood in the theatrical world.” A man who possesses an artistic temperament is not likely on general grounds to be well equipped for a military career; yet we know that a very large number of actors are at the present moment in service, and some of them have sealed their patriotism by death.

We are glad, therefore, that Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN plenarily acknowledged the justice of their position and claims. “I do consider,” he said, “that the amusement of the people is an essential part of national work, just as it is essential for us to eat and drink.” He added, however, the wise limitation that we must take amusement in moderation, in the same spirit in which we should try to obey Lord DEVONPORT and curtail our meat and drink.

As for the actresses, if they have not been able to undertake Government tasks, they have at all events succeeded in securing very large sums of money for our hospitals and our benevolent societies, and have worked strenuously and loyally for the public benefit.

We may grant, therefore, that the managers are right in keeping open their theatres, and that actors are not wholly a useless class. Indeed, we wonder what our soldiers home on leave would say if, in an excess of Puritanical spirit, we closed all doors of entertainment and gave men, to whom we owe so much, no chance of enjoying their hard-earned leisure. But moderation in amusements is a good text, especially when the need for a stern self-denial is staring us in the face.

There is one of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN’S recommendations which deserved very careful study. He asked his audience to consider whether considerable economy could not be practised in the apparatus of stage-setting. Theatrical productions, as an Old Playgoer points out in a letter which we publish this morning, have in recent years become more and more elaborate, and therefore involve a vast army of engineers, machinists, and carpenters behind the curtain to carry out the costly designs of the producers.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN very properly asked whether some of these numerous stage-hands could not be released for work “more directly conducive to the prosecution of the war.” “I would ask, therefore,” he went on, “whether we could come to some agreement by which we can return to the simpler forms of production, which, after all, were good enough for us until comparatively a few years ago.” There will be much sympathy with such a suggestion and not merely from those fanatics who object altogether to the theatrical art. For some little time past there has been an uneasy feeling among the general public, as well as among dramatic critics, that we are apt to overdo our stage decoration, and, indeed, smother the play under its adornment. The amount of money, too, expended on the lavish costumes of the lady members of a cast seems wholly indefensible.

The Telegraph’s coverage of the First World War up to this point can be found at: