The Theatre in Europe and the Americas

DR. C. C. GOLDRING: I am one of those who tried unsuccessfully to secure tickets for the "Merchant of Venice" at the Stratford Festival last August. Others had a similar experience. The man who was chiefly responsible for this scarcity of tickets for the "Merchant of Venice" during the last few weeks of August is our guest speaker today, Mr. Frederick Valk, who played the part of "Shylock" at Stratford.

Mr. Valk was born in Hamburg, Germany, and, as a young man, became an actor in the city of his birth. In fact, with the passing of time, he was the leading actor in several of the principal theatres in Germany, including the State Theatre in Berlin. In the early Thirties, Mr. Valk left Germany and played in Prague, Czechoslovakia, from 1932 to 1938. In 1939 he went to England and first appeared in The New Theatre in London.

Mr. Valk has played almost all the leading Shakespearean character parts. In addition, he has played the leading role in several modern plays. This audience is probably familiar with his work in Canada, at Stratford and at the Crest Theatre, where he played in "They Knew What They Wanted," and will play in "Othello." He has performed in many films, among them being "Thunder Rock", "Dead of Night", and "Magic Fire".

It is a pleasure for the Empire Club to have as its guest a man who is recognized as one of the foremost actors of the English stage and who has established himself in the hearts of Canadians as well. Dr. Valk will address us on the topic "Theatre in Europe and the Americas."

MR. VALK: Every speaker worthy of his salt begins his speech saying that he is honoured to be where he is. If I say that, I really mean it. I don't want to say that any speaker who says this is insincere, this is certainly not the case. It may be a phrase but it is certainly not politeness with me. I am greatly honoured to have been invited by Dr. Goldring to appear here at your luncheon, and face the Canadian men and women of whom I have become increasingly fond.

I came over here in May with my wife and my two little boys who have since returned to London (England) and we had really had one of the most happy times of our lives. Canada and the United States were nothing but an idea to me up to now. Everybody is told so much of the way of living, the mental ideas of a foreign country, that he is curious to find out how these ways really go. But from the first step on the boat, I may say, I was surrounded by friendliness, goodness, and had a real welcome, and while I was at Stratford, people did all they could to make me feel at home. Here in Toronto I have suffered from my bosses, of course, but apart from that I am frightfully happy to play at the Crest.

Now it is said that those who talk so much on the stage shouldn't talk too much in private. No Artist should talk at all, he should let his work speak for him. Above all, I think, that talking, making speeches, especially in an illustrious assembly like this, is an art in itself. It was considered so by Greeks and Romans who had wonderful symposiums on one theme, profound philosophic matter, Art, Architecture, Poetry and music. This way of speaking of making speeches to friends, people, or guests, has not been lost altogether, it is highly cherished in English speaking countries - less on the Continent. To be called upon to speak at the Empire Club, succeeding many very illustrious men who had the ability and the knowledge to talk about special things, was quite a task for me. I have never made speeches before. I took the jump and had a dress-rehearsal with a speech at the Women's Press Club of Canada, where I was frightened to death, but they were very gracious to me and said it was all right, I shouldn't be frightened. So I take it a little bit easier today and I hope you won't stone me.

What shall I talk about? Everybody should only talk about things which he understands, and I think one of the very few things that I know a little about is the theatre, and acting, the art of acting - if it can be called an art - and the organization of the theatre . . . You may not always agree with my opinion, but allow me to speak in the way I think and feel about things. Talking about the art of acting: here I always feel, this is a subject so complex and in a way so profound that it is not yet entirely understood not even by actors. If somebody says acting is a secondhand art, he is right in a way. Not completely right. We actors are speaking the words written for us by somebody else and we live on borrowed emotion which we assimilate within ourselves and then project. But what somebody else did write has to be brought to life. Putting on a false nose and a synthetic face will not convince people that you are Edward the Third, or adding stuffing and sticking many hairs onto your chin won't make you a Henry the Eighth. All that is impersonation or performing, which is not acting. Acting is something mysterious and indeed something very profound. It just happens that an actor, if he is an actor - though he be a short man, can possibly play, say Don Quixote, who was supposed to be very tall. The actor really grows, he changes from inside and somebody who has to play a fat man, though very thin himself, gives the illusion of fatness. It is a mysterious act of transformation. Acting, as I see it, is amalgamation with the idea of the part, mixing it with ingredients of the actors' own body and soul, growing into the part by a sort of trance and trying to project that. It is not pretending to be something, not performing but just being the part. One has to be Richard the Third, Henry the Eight, or whoever it is. And finally begins the technical process of projecting the part into the audience. Only a few words about that. You have a theatre, holding say, a thousand people and you must project your Richard or your Henry into that room. If you do a radio-show, standing before a microphone, you project over a distance of about 2 yards, in the theatre the projection is over about 40 to 50 yards. It is obvious that all this is a matter of speaking technique, breathing and concentration. An actor must be able to control firmly his technique of projection. He must have two, rather three eyes. The inner eyes and the outer eye. Two eyes to see the idea, to imbue, to amalgamate the idea of the part; and a third eye which is before him, having the task to control himself. This third eye is the actors' conductor, controlling his projection with everything that belongs to it: Voice, facial-and bodily expression and the underlying emotions. The third eye continuously watching his own actor, is the all-important control-point.

You see, it is quite a complex thing and I maintain that the Art of Acting has not yet been analyzed. Lots of things have been said, but mostly about performing, or some form of presentation, but there doesn't exist any scientific analysis of the Art of Acting and if I use the word ART I mean it with all its implications: Form and Life! Every acting part contains not only emotion, violence, or sweet music of the heart - a form belongs to it as well. Nothing vague must be sent into the audience, only complete and clearly defined parts.

That is all I can say about acting at this moment, though I could go on for weeks. But I must say a few words about the theatre.

You all know how it began. It started with the Greeks and its glory, power and poetry has never been surpassed. You may have heard Sophocles talking to you in Stratford, Ont.

The Greek theatre was of course a religious celebration, profound and mysterious, clad in stories sometimes as melodramatic as a thriller. But these legends, these stories went to the roots of things, and Art is at the roots of things. You may choose other names if you like, you can call it religion, love or god, but if any writer is going down to the roots, holding in his hands the flaming torch, fetched from that source, he must have lived in the vicinity of Shakespeare. An actor who is blessed with the possibility to play Shakespeare is a person very much to be envied. There were the Greeks and the medieval church-mystery plays on the market places, burlesques originated in their rather crude and wild shows, and then the feudal lords took an interest in shows, had their companies assembled under their protection, sent them out or had them play in their halls for the pleasure of their guests.

Here we have the bargaining of the subsidized theatre. The great Elizabethean Lords patronized mummers and playrights. Later the Continental Princes did build their huge and beautiful court theatres, paid for the entertainment of their guests, provided funds, so that the actors could rig up their shows, have their costumes and a little pittance for food. They were not regarded very highly these actors and musicians. They were considered to be something like stable boys or lackeys and were treated with contempt.

There is a fantastic story of the 18th century. A GrandDuke of the German Principality of Hesse-Cassel had in his Court-Orchestra a drummer with a salary twice as high as any of his colleagues. The drummer had no hair and the Duke from his box, directly above the orchestra pit, spat in regular intervals on the drummer's head during musical performances. And for that fact the drummer drew a double salary. Musicians and actors were kept like dogs.

Mozart has no grave. He was buried in a pauper's grave and nobody knows the spot. Many artists of world importance starved to death in Germany and all over the world. Shakespeare though, had enough sense, besides having the genius which he used to write his plays, to make a comfortable living.

Has this general plight altered very much? It apparently has altered, but not decisively. Let me first go on talking about the princes; you have at the moment in this town the "Comedie Francaise" which is nearly 300 years old and was from the beginning a subsidized theatre. Louis the Fourteenth made it possible for his privileged writer Moliere, who, by the way had not a very rosy life either, to play his plays in some royal hall which was put at his disposal, and from that the "ComMie Francaise" developed. Royal money paid the company, it was royal money that fitted out the plays and very little royal money paid the immortal Moliere. And as Louis the Fourteenth gave the example to all Europe; Germany, Austria and Russia developed the fashionable idea, that the great Duke, the Prince, the Emperor, the King must have his Court Theatre, magnificently endowed, beautifully built, to entertain his guests - the populace was excluded.

Though entirely on feudal lines, this was a most important and wonderful thing to happen. It was the same spirit that provided the facilities for Michelangelo, Leonardo and a 1000 others to create. It was the great age of the patron which was followed by the Kings and Princes of the 18th and 19th Century, when every little princeling and every little king and emperor had his opera-or playhouse. 1918 many crowns rolled down into the sea and the Court theatres were taken over by the state, which considered it as a sacred obligation to keep these theatres going-for the benefit of the people. The state recognizing the educational and cultural importance of the theatre, placed it in the same rank as church and university and supported it. Further it was obvious that the theatre was above all a place of entertainment. Ideas are best digested if they are presented in a palatable way. You can say something profound in various ways: with a beastly seriousness, or in a battering way, you can say it jokingly, or in a frivolous way, but if the idea comes through clearly, every form is justified. Your man in the street, hearing in the theatre things of life and death, of God and the devil, of the above and beneath is not always able to take all that wrapped up in too rarified a form. That is the value of entertainment (among other things) the easy presentation of things, which are not easy at all. Every sort of entertainment, if it is in bearable taste, has the right to be put on to the stage. People are frightened away from the theatre if it is grim and serious, tragic, thunderous and pompous all the time. The Greeks understood that very well and threw their farces into the arena for the sake of relief. The Theatre has to be not only University and church but a place as well to find entertaining joy, relief and relaxation.

We have now, all over the European Continent Theatres which are subsidized by the state, by civic communities or other corporations. It is logical and a sane policy that the theatre should get support through public means. And it needs only a fraction of the amount which is spent on things like Transport, Health Service, Museums, Universities and other public institutions. The Vienna State Opera, destroyed during the war has been rebuilt and princely endowed by state means-not a bad investment at all. You see, it is by no means a Bolshevistic idea to let the state take over in certain cases. If the theatre wants to sell something which is of a good quality, it must have its price. But there is a limit to what the public can pay, therefore support must come from outside. At least until the theatre can stand on its own legs. Max Reinhardt in Berlin was in a position to keep his theatres without any state subsidies, but he had to fight and to borrow money. And so had Stanislawsky with his Moscow Arts Theatre. There had to be funds to keep the theatre going until the public had taken it to its heart. No museum could exist on its own if you asked say $1., or $2., from the people for the privilege to see the skeleton of a dinosaur. The public wouldn't come and without state-support the museum would have to be closed. It's exactly the same thing with the theatre and it is to be hoped that no Dinosaur skeleton will ever appear in a Canadian Theatre.

But the Canadian theatre has to live and no state-aid is at the moment apparent. So the support has to come from the paying public. Canada is a young and wonderful country. Canada can look forward to an exciting future. It has immense riches, unheard-of possibilities. Because of its youth it had no time yet to build up a theatrical tradition - it had to look first to the development of its industries and its material basis. The Canadian theatre will come quite logically, you can't live on lumbering and industry alone, the muses have to come in. I am happy to have played at Stratford-it was a revelation and I am happy to have met Murray and Donald Davis, the directors of the "Crest" Theatre here in Toronto. Here are 2 young men to do it, to build up a theatre, a Canadian Theatre. They have established the "Crest" Theatre. They are presenting plays of choicest taste. They pay the greatest compliment to their Canadian countrymen, in giving them not the cheapest, but the best and I think that we have here the beginning of the Canadian theatre. They, more than anyone else need all the support they can get.

I am profoundly convinced that Canada's theatre has a future, because I see how the people take to it, with their minds, thank God, uncorroded by over-sophistication, with their spirit of mentally well-built children. Look at the faces of the people and you are bound to come to the conclusion that the Canadian theatre is a necessity. Time marches on – unfortunately - so may I end with this wish: As you all are prepared and open for the blessings of the theatre (I can't think of any state of any cultural stature, without the theatre) may you get it and may you get it from Toronto and I think you may get it from Murray and Donald Davis.