Theatre Morals

The following is a reproduction of an article examining the morality of the theatre in the Edwardian era. Following the article are some comments from the webmaster.

Playgoers Morals

The cause of cleanliness in our places of amusement is finding champions in the representatives of both Press and Pulpit. The former have condemned a theatrical production that has gained much notoriety by the fact, and the latter claim that their protest was the means of bringing to an end an objectionable performance at a leading London hall.

Such solicitude should be very comforting to the playgoer. But does he desire it? Are not the entertainments at theatre and music hall but a reflex of what the public wants? Seldom have I heard a protest from pit, gallery, or stalls against suggestiveness, but rather an expression of approval. I recall that on one of my earliest visits to a West-end music hall the audience was extremely apathetic. Some very excellent things were both said and done on the stage, but all of them went without a hand. It was not until one performer made a particularly coarse jest that the house woke up and the hall resounded with applause.

One need not necessarily be a prude to find objectionable features in a variety entertainment. In more than one revue recently running the stage has been turned into a bathing beach in the season rather than a public platform, and I have frequently heard it asserted that in selecting a comic song for private use there is the greatest difficulty to discover one that does not contain an unsavoury verse. It is incorrect to say that caterers for amusement deliberately pander to vitiated tastes, but when the demand is so plainly indicated the desire for dividends is hard to resist. Artistes, too, note the applause that a suggestive line or action can command, and turn on the "blue" business accordingly.

Opinions differ completely on the question of morality. Brown will hold up his hands in horror at a certain act or utterance, while Jones will be equally scandalised that Brown should have found anything to condemn. There are people who shudder at a "wicked word," but laugh with undisguised glee at an indecent joke. The Churchman will retire to the smoking-room after dinner just as readily as the most worldly minded, and appreciate in the clouds of smoke the jokes that will not stand the light of the ladies' presence. This is simply mistaking politeness for purity. Few realise that indecency in thought is just as much an infractiom of the Seventh Commandment as indecency in deed.

The remedy scarcely lies in banning a certain type of play or in prohibitimg isolated turns. While the piece dealing seriously with sex problems is banished from the boards the comedy making light of the same subject goes merrily to the chink of the coin in the box-office. It is with the playgoer himself that the responsibility rests. He ought to enter theatre or hall determined to protest against anything that is calculated to speed the progress of the vice of impurity.

The playhouse is too precious a possession to be dedicated to the prurient minded alone, and those who wish to preserve it should endeavour by every means possible to keep it free from reproach.

POLONIUS.

First published in "The Playgoer and Society Illustrated", Volume 9, Number 51. October 1913

The author first makes mention in this article of the cause of morality being championed by both Press and Pulpit. The church had of course long been involved in the issue of theatrical censorship, and for a long period of history had caused theatre in England to be banned completely. Although the church had since lost much of its power in this respect, it was now joined by a second and more potent force, that of the press and the journalist.

The author then goes on to question whether these defenders of public morality are truly required or welcomed by the theatregoing public - "Seldom have I heard a protest from pit, gallery, or stalls against suggestiveness". This is a fair point. After all, if theatregoers found the subject of a play to be be offensive then they would protest with their purses and not pay to go see it. In actual fact, then as sometimes occurs now, the efforts of moral campaigners to keep impurity away from the public gaze often had the opposite effect. Take for example the case of "The Sapho Affair".

If theatre in Edwardian England was somewhat prudish by modern standards, in America it was even more so. When Olga Nethersole staged a production of Clyde Fitch's play 'Sapho' in New York in 1900 she was arrested on charges of publicly indecency. The scene in the play which led to this charge was one which saw the heroine of the piece carried off up a flight of stairs (presumably towards the bedroom) by a man who was not her husband. Mild by modern standards, immoral at the time by English standards, but in the USA which was still in the grip of the Comstock Laws* it was quite shocking. The charges were defeated however, and when the play reopened the notoriety it had gained only ensured it played to full houses and was ultimately seen by a far greater audience than might otherwise have been the case.

In England the final word in theatrical censorship lay with the Lord Chamberlain, and no play could be performed at all until its script had received the approval of the Chamberlain's office. A difficulty here of course, was that there could be a world of difference between a given form of words in writing and in performance. Take for example Ada Reeve's performance of her best known peice, "She Was a Clergyman’s Daughter". A seemingly innocent song about a clergyman's daughter which she would perform in a demure costume of a flounced dress and bonnet, which became risque only by her use of perfectly timed knowing winks and gestures to the audience.

* A set of legistlative measures instigated by the self-appointed guardian of public morals Anthony Comstock spearheading a nationwide campaign against immorality (and in particular pornography and contraception).