HISTORY OF AMERICAN THEATRE SURVEYED

Oliver M. Sayler has sailed triumphantly through the dangerous sea of contemporary criticism in his latest book, "Our American Theatre". His motive in writing this chronicle "has been to sketch in the highlights of this period and to make our American Theatre live through intimate studies of the men and women who have been responsible for its record". Carefully and with much patience, he must have collected the amazing data in the book. And with equally amazing skill, he has presented his story. For the most part one is not conscious of the facts and theories, but is swept along by the enthusiastic Mr. Sayler--praising here, condemning there, now slyly poking fun, now seriously propounding theories and giving predictions. He has written, too, with the minimum of prejudice, which for a person so vitally interested in the theatre; is remarkable. He has done more than write a mere chronicle of the theatre. He has done something far more valuable--he has exploded for all times the prejudice, handed down to us from the last century along with hair sofas and other monstrosities, that the theatre is a contemptible profession. He shows it as an art which calls on all of its sister arts to contribute the best they have, and, after receiving these gifts, moulds them into a composite whole--the art of the theatre!

Mr. Sayler tells us that the American theatre is just awakening. We have passed the initiative period, and although achievement is for the most part potential, we have unlimited possibilities. A future for us to take, when we care to reach out. What are the signs by which we may know this movement? He finds us looking out to world horizons. Foreign plays and foreign actors come to our stages. Good, not because they are foreign, but because they have something new and interesting to offer. He finds our producers trying new means and methods in production. Theories of the theatre are beginning to be discussed. Plays are published. In the field of stage-design, he finds the most advance. They are the leaders in the new era, forced to mark time while the others catch up. And most significant of all "The theatre is in everyone's eye, at everyone's ear, on everyone's tongue--the most ubiquitous and provocative of the arts."

For actual accomplishment, he looks to the experimental theatres; in the professional world, in the "little theatres", and in the colleges. The best known of this first group is the Theatre Guild of New York, striving to become ultimately an art theatre, but as yet only "the highest common denominator of the theatre that can "get by". And it seems an encouraging augury. For here is a youth who has no exaggerated illusions concerning his own importance and who can be safely entrusted with a castle. The sanity which marks the Theatre Guild, he finds lacking among many of the little theatres. They have not gone the way of their founders, yet they have accomplished something. "Not an art theatre, but a theatre in which men and women can satisfy their suppressed desires to walk and talk upon the stage." But it has vitality. It is "the raw material of renaissance".

In ratio to their possibilities, he finds that the colleges have accomplished very little. Not that the leaders such as Professor Baker here at Harvard and Thomas Wood Stevens at Carnegie Institute of Technology, are to blame. They have given their all to the work. It is a certain "Puritan disdain" which causes the universities to "dawdle". Harvard has a man who is not an impractical dreamer, but one who has achieved more in his field than anyone else. And if we look for proof? Witness the playwrights, producers, actors, scene-designers, and critics who have come out of Cambridge, or consider the Harvard Prize play, "most tangible mark of the respect in which Broadway holds Baker". Carnegie has given Stevens adequate equipment. Harvard denies Baker. "The next Baker" Mr. Sayler wisely remarks, "may rise at New Haven, Chicago, Morningside Heights".

Mr. Sayler does not disdainfully pass by the Revue, Variety, and Dance. To him it plays an important part in this development. He finds, in his chapter on "The theatre of 'Let's Pretend'", that we have unlimited resources in this field. He draws, in his fancy, an American 'Chauve Souris', equal to if not surpassing its Russian prototype.

So Mr. Sayler sanely evaluates our theatre. His is not the unctious praise of the jingoistic orator. He sees and fearlessly points out our faults--and we have many. But his fault-finding is not discouragement. He lets us look at the future, perhaps a little too glorious, but yet a future towards which we are surely advancing. We shall learn by our mistakes, and grow, till we become "the refuge, clearing-house, testing ground for the theatre of the world!"