MR. JAMES K. HACKETT'S OPPORTUNITY

A Chance for Him to be of Genuine Service to Our Stage

James L. Ford

EXPERIENCE and wealth—the two planets most favorable to opportunity—have come into conjunction in the horoscope of Mr. Hackett, widely known as a virile and picturesque actor, and quite recently the inheritor of a large fortune. Mr. Hackett is at present absorbed in the study of the role of Othello. He has weighed every word of the part and considered every scene in its relation to the other scenes and players. All that remains for him to learn is whether or not the public will care to see the play.

A great many persons—for the most part academic or ill-informed critics of the stage, or both—consider that the interpretation of a Shakespearian role, Hamlet, for instance, is the Ultima Thule of dramatic art. But, after all, the actor who plays Hamlet is too often merely playing Booth, who played Charles Kean, who played the elder Kean, who is known to have altered his own fine performance in order to play Garrick. There is not a scene or character in the play that does not come down to us so encrusted with tradition and with actors' tricks that the original has long since been lost sight of. Were a player to essay a really original impersonation the critics would probably abuse his Hamlet roundly .

It is a very difficult feat to play a part that has no traditions clustering about its head, no dust in the folds of its garments. That is what is meant by "creating a part," and the time in America is now ripe for many such creations as well as for plays representing life in its most recent phases, and I, for one, would prefer to see Mr. Hackett devote his experience, his talents and his newly-acquired fortune to the production of such plays than to the revival of Shakespearian dramas.

HALE a century ago the English stage had reached just such a crisis as ours has reached to-day and it was then that Tom Robertson decided to write plays that dealt with the actual life of that day and dealt with it simply and truthfully. Fortunately for the British theatre Robertson at last gained a hearing for his work.

Just now no one knows how many American Tom Robertsons there are, knocking vainly at our managerial doors and demanding a production for the children of their brains. Certainly our stage is in dire need of someone to write of life as it really is to-day.

That many have been quite conscious of these conditions is evidenced by the various attempts that have been made in recent years to give a new impetus to the American drama. Unfortunately those engaged in these attempts have lacked the requisite knowledge and experience although in more than one instance they have been prodigal with money. Mr. Hackett may, if he will, enter the arena better equipped than many of his predecessors, and he will be able, moreover, to profit by the mistakes that they have made. Inheriting from his father the best traditions of the stage, and having enjoyed the double advantage of a scholastic education and practical experience, and possessing a popularity as an actor that will ensure him a certain following, Mr. Hackett has within his grasp an opportunity for genuine achievement such as is seldom offered to any man.

Within the past quarter of a century more than one distinctive school of "entertaining" drama has been successfully launched on our stage. Among these may be mentioned those of Harrigan and Hart, Charles Hoyt, and Weber and Fields. Not one of these began with the building of a playhouse. Each one had its own following firmly established when it claimed the attention of the public with a theatre of its own. Mr. Hackett will surely know enough not to begin his enterprise by building or even by leasing a theatre. He will wait until he has created a following for a special kind of play, and then he will have no difficulty in obtaining a permanent home for it in New York at a moderate cost. What he should do now is to study the present trend of the drama abroad and try to discover American plays that will reflect modern thought and conditions just as the most recent of the European dramatists have reflected those of their respective nations.

It is scarcely believable that in estimating the value of these plays Mr. Hackett will mistake discussion for drama, an error to which academic minds are over prone. He will bear in mind that not even the loftiest utterances of the copy-book have any value on the stage unless they are presented in true dramatic form, and he will also know that the world has moved on since stage children were stolen by gypsies and comedians hid under tables in order to escape the wrath of their pursuers.

NOW the march of theatrical progress has always been headed by the humbler classes. Indeed, the poor people are the only ones in New York who seem to do any thinking. It is impossible to present Shakespearian dramas at high prices on Broadway, but, when the-late Mr. Donnelly was managing the Murray Hill Theatre at cheap prices, he regarded Shakespeare as his most popular author and devoted one-tenth of his time to his plays. A really modern playhouse should be one of low prices, though it will be very hard to convince any experienced actor or manager of this fact. It should have a gallery cheap enough to compete with the moving picture shows and one dollar should be the highest price for its best orchestra seats. In no other fashion can a meritorious and intensely modern play obtain a fair hearing, or a really significant movement for the betterment of the drama gain a real impetus.

There are many signs in the theatrical heavens that the present moment is more than favorable to such an enterprise. To begin with, our public has for many years shown a greater interest in the play than in the star. It is no longer possible for an actress like Maggie Mitchell to trundle herself around the country year after year with her version of "Fanchon." Were the Florences alive to-day they would have to have a new "Mighty Dollar" every season, and Mr. John T. Raymond would find himself a loser were he to try to present "Colonel Sellers" to sophisticated American audiences for more than ten consecutive years.

We hear less of "personality" and "temperament" now than we did a dozen years ago, and as for those actors who insist upon presenting themselves in a monologue instead of a real drama, I have noted that they devote most of their season to "resting," or to explaining to the public that it is impossible to find plays that will worthily exploit their talents. This is quite true. It is more difficult than ever to find a one-part play that will entertain the public longer than a week. Monologues have had their day!

THAT our public is ripe for modern satirical plays is indicated by the success already enjoyed here by Bernard Shaw, and yet our managers are just as much afraid of a modern satirical comedy as they were before the production of "Candida" and "You Never Can Tell." Heaven knows there is enough in our modern American life to keep a dozen satirists busy, and yet the average manager lives in great fear of a noyelty lest "somebody might not like it." The entire object of satire is to go against popular superstition and feeling, and not with it. There are countless American themes at hand waiting for a satirical dramatic pen. So far but few of them have been so much as attempted by our dramatists. This is the moment psychologique for satirists.

Another evil that Mr. Hackett has an opportunity to correct is the custom of engaging good-looking feminine amateurs, instead of experienced actresses, for their important parts. If the managers themselves knew how much money they lost by saving a few dollars on the salary of an actress, and "covering" themselves by pointing to the good looks of the amateur, they would have a greater respect for acting as an art than they now have. They would realize that the ability to act was a necessary part of the equipment of an actress.

The opportunity that lies before Mr. Hackett is enormous, and he has only to make known the fact that he is in the market for something beside a "costume" play, to have any number of manuscripts laid at his feet. If, with his great stage knowledge and experience, he should fail—as other more ignorant men have failed—to select the good ones, then let him go back to his sword plays and their velvet costumes, and their inevitable one-twothree, cut-and-thrust!